In the News

The legal profession is going through a period of disruption that is leading some firms to think creatively by bringing in non-lawyer executives and consultants to run their day-to-day operations. The vision of seasoned business executives can help many firms take it to the next level, while allowing lawyers to focus on what matters the most: practicing the law and getting significant results for their clients. In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 30, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and Founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Sara O’Reilly, Chief Executive Officer at HMB Legal, discuss what it’s like running a law firm as a non-lawyer, why firm’s need to professionalize their business operations, and why diversity is imperative to the long-term success of the legal industry.

The SolarWinds attack reminded everyone that the U.S. government, major corporations, and small businesses can all fall victim to sophisticated supply chain attacks. What went wrong and how can we limit the impact of the next attack? In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 29, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Shawn Davis, the firm’s Director of Digital Forensics and leader of the firm’s tech investigations team, discuss the SolarWinds hack, vendor cybersecurity, geopolitical fall-out of cyberattacks, and what everyday companies can do to up their information security game.

From Lebron James to Barack Obama, confidence plays an important role in success. But there is a fine line between taking calculated risks based on your skills and ignoring the high-chance of failure that comes with every venture. That is why people must appreciate their level of confidence to better approach business decisions, negations, and the hiring process. In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 28, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Don Moore, overconfidence and organizations professor at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business” discuss overconfidence, how confidence plays a role in negotiations, and how to change the recruitment process to better, and more fairly, measure future success.

The law school recruitment process is broken. Law schools don’t do enough to prepare law students for their dream jobs, and they continue to push Big Law as the safe choice. However, this is misguided, and law students need to take off their blinders once and for all. In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 27, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Kelsey McCann, the firm’s Chief of Staff and recruiting director, Big Law’s Big Lie, and how law students can do a better job of getting their dream summer associate position.

The U.S. legal industry does a lot of things well. At its best, it allows people access to justice through a fair and open process. It also allows individuals to take on the largest corporations, uncover and correct injustices, and challenge those in positions of power in ways that would be unthinkable in many countries. The legal industry, however, has baked-in disadvantages. Lawyers have been trained to think backwards in solving new problems. What is the law governing a new IoT device? Let’s see how courts looked at somewhat analogous situations 20 years ago. Though this way of thinking creates a type of grounding that is important to make the law stable, it comes with blinders. This is the problem facing legal recruitment. Thirty years ago, law students at top schools were ceremoniously ushered into the world of Big Law. On-campus interviewing was the norm for “top” firms. If you wanted another job—which meant government work, public interest or academia—you had to hustle. Law school recruitment offices made it clear that Big Law jobs were easy to get and were the safest choice. The argument was simple: Big Law is stable; you will make tons of money; you will get the best training; and your options to do something later in your career will be preserved. All of that may have been true at the time. Countless students who went to law school to fight for the little guy or make a difference in the world found their ways to large firms that were created to serve the interests of the elite. The trade-off wasn’t horrible and the amount of money offered was real. Things started to change in the late 1990s. Lawyers focused on profits-per-partner and realized that if they had a good book of business, they could simply move to firms willing to pay more. Almost overnight, the days of law as a profession—instead of as a business—were doomed. Fast forward to today and the legal market has fundamentally changed. Large law firms generally don’t expect associates to stay longer than a few years. As such, young associates are viewed as temporary workers who are expected to bill a large number of hours. Legal training took a back seat, as a new framework emerged. Just like partners realized they could make more money by abandoning feelings of loyalty, firms abandoned the idea that they owed anything long term to those they hired. The impact came into focus during the pandemic. Many firms cynically viewed the pandemic as an opportunity to cut fat, modernize, and increase profitability. Summer associate programs got slashed, incoming associate offers were pulled or delayed, and support staff were fired. Law firms are businesses, and they are allowed to run their business in any (legal) way they want to. The idea that large law firms are focused first and foremost on profits should surprise no one. The problem is that the messaging by law schools, law firms and recruiters has not caught up to reality. Law students are still being fed the same lines from three decades ago: “Go to big law; it’s stable. You’ll get the best training. You’ll have so many options once you save enough money to actually follow your dreams.” That’s simply not true. The legal field is filled with career paths that are rarely, if ever, discussed in law school. As someone who has interviewed over 500 law students and lawyers during the past three years, I am constantly amazed that I have to explain that, by definition, half of all litigation is done by plaintiffs attorneys. Although many plaintiffs firms act like big law firms (hierarchical, stuffy, siloed), many do not. Plaintiffs firms’ business models are significantly more innovative because they must always look toward the future and embrace risk. Many people think that innovation means having a volleyball court in the office. While that’s true at our firm, it misses the point. Plaintiffs firms do not make their money by billing the largest number of hours. Instead, they make their money by winning cases. Though this may seem to be a trite point, it is not. It changes everything. The best plaintiffs firms understand the value that comes from the ingenuity of its employees. That means that training young attorneys and giving them outsized responsibilities are paramount. Those that learn and grow are no mere interchangeable cogs that are kept at the mercy of their bosses. By getting real experience, they have a much better ability to switch to other firms—yes, including defense firms. The same cannot be said for those that internalized the messaging of their law school, law firms and legal recruiters. Every week I get applications from candidates at Vault 100 firms and they all share similar stories—they graduated at the top of their class from a T14, put in their time at a prestigious firm, and are ready to cash in their chips for the dream job they were promised. Unfortunately, these candidates are often met with rejection. The reason? They all share painfully similar resumes. The candidates list the following four responsibilities: (1) drafted memos; (2) managed large-scale document review; (3) trained incoming associates; and (4) second-chaired a deposition. (In reality, second chairing a deposition means handing relevant paperwork to the partner conducting the deposition.) It’s important to note I am not looking to diminish the careers of these candidates. Rather, I am highlighting that every firm has different definitions of “substantive work,” which impacts the lateral moves candidates can make. This may be true, many argue, but it ignores the fact that big firms pay more and law school isn’t cheap. The problem with that argument is that it too isn’t fully based in fact. Plaintiffs firms offer different compensation models and some simply match or outdo Big Law salaries. The point is not that law students should be blindly heading to the plaintiffs bar; it is certainly not meant for everyone. Rather, law students should shed their blinders once and for all. There are so many opportunities and the decision between one legal career and another is as important as deciding whether one wants to open a restaurant or build bridges. The days of having one clear, safe choice are over, and they have been for some time. The legal industry just doesn’t know it yet. 2/3/21 edition of the National Law Journal© 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or [email protected]

The Capitol Insurrection shook our nation as then-President Trump incited a violent mob to go after one of our sacred institutions. While Trump’s divisive rhetoric was the main cause of the attack, a deep-partisan divide in our nation and the lack of real moral leadership in the GOP added fuel to the fire. In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 25, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and Founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Dr. Lara Brown, associate professor and director of the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University, discuss the deep-rooted partisan divide in Washington that led to the rise of Trump, what led to the Capitol Insurrection, and the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

Legal issues surrounding Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne and her husband, well-known plaintiff’s attorney Thomas Girardi, have captivated both fans of the show and the legal profession alike. This intersection reminds listeners that real-world legal issues can have profound impacts on reality television, lawyers, and how both are viewed in the press, the entertainment industry, and among colleagues. In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 24, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and Founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Kate Casey, the host of Reality Life with Kate Casey Podcast, discuss the ongoing allegations against Tom and Erika, the couple’s power dynamic, Tom’s fall from grace as a leading plaintiff’s lawyer, and how to handle a crisis in the entertainment industry.

President Trump is reportedly set to issue a wide swath of pardons that may include close confidants and family members. There are also talks of Trump issuing a pardon for himself to stave off possible federal investigations. Trump’s probable use of the pardon power is likely to push the boundaries of Constitutional norms and may wind up empowering future presidents to go even further.

Law students can have a big impact on the climate crisis when they push back on Big Law’s ties to the fossil fuel industry. In Episode 22, we meet with Camila Bustos, a third year at Yale Law School and a founder of Law Students for Climate Accountability, to discuss what it is like to take on Big Law and the climate crisis. Non-Compliant Host Jay Edelson, the Founder and CEO of a prominent plaintiff’s firm, and Camila also discuss why students should stand up when reforms are needed and other job options for law students besides Big Law.

The pandemic is leaving its mark on how plaintiff’s attorneys practice law from online depositions to virtual court hearings. It has also exposed an ongoing issue with law firm summer associate recruitment that has left many without experience handling complex issues or creating novel theories of law. In Episode 21, we meet with Eric Cramer, Chairman of plaintiff’s firm Berger Montague and President of Public Justice, to discuss how the pandemic impacted law firm operations, why firms need to change how they recruit summer associates, and how law students can find their dream job in the plaintiff’s bar.

President Trump is bringing legal challenges that seek to cast doubt on the results of the election. While this strategy is unlikely to prevail, it could undermine President-Elect Biden's push to unify the country. In Episode 20, we meet with Anthony Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law, to discuss Trump's legal actions, what role a conservative Supreme Court may play, and how Biden could overcome challenges to close gaps between both parties. Non-Compliant Host Jay Edelson, the Founder and CEO of a prominent plaintiff's firm, and Anthony will answer listener questions and also discuss the election results in Georgia and the upcoming Senate run-offs.

The outcome of the 2020 Election is beginning to take shape, but many of us still have questions about the results, where polling went wrong, how massive turnout still led to a very divided electorate, and what it means for our country as President Donald Trump openly undermines election results. In Episode 19 we meet with Julia Azari, a political science professor at Marquette University, contributor at FiveThirtyEight, and blogger at Mischiefs of Faction, to break down the election results and where our country goes from here. Non-Compliant Host Jay Edelson, the Founder and CEO of a prominted plaintiff's firm, and Julia will answer listener questions and help provide clarity as votes are still being counted in key states for Joe Biden.

President Donald Trump is a self-proclaimed master negotiator who is famously behind the Art of the Deal. Trump, however, has bungled many international and domestic negotiations that have severely harmed U.S. interests. With the election looming, the president’s negotiation style often fits that of a strong-arm dictator rather than that of the leader of the free world. In Episode 18 we meet with Maurice Schweitzer, an emotions and negotiations professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and author of Friend & Foe, to break down how Trump fails during high stakes talks. Non-Compliant Host Jay Edelson, the Founder and CEO of a prominent plaintiff’s firm, and Maurice also discuss how to successfully navigate high-pressure situations and why you must be both a friend and foe with adversaries during negotiations.

Jay Edelson is the founder and CEO of Edelson PC, a 30-lawyer plaintiffs firm focusing on class and mass actions, public client investigations and prosecutions. Here, Edelson spoke with Law360 about how his Chicago-based firm has evolved since it launched 13 years ago, what distinguishes it from other plaintiffs firms and how its approach to retaining talent changed during the coronavirus pandemic.

So far, Jay Edelson, the founder of 30-lawyer plaintiffs firm Edelson P.C., has been doing his level best to adjust to practicing in the pandemic. The firm is in growth mode, managed a successful summer associate program and is focusing on class actions against big banks and insurers arising from the COVID-19 crisis.

In Episode 17 we meet with John Beisiner, the leader of Skadden’s Mass Torts, Insurance and Consumer Litigation Group. Over the past 35 years, John has defended major U.S. and international corporations in more than 600 class actions filed in federal courts and in 40 state courts at both the trial and appellate levels.

There is no denying that COVID-19 will permanently redefine the legal field. We've seen firms reduce their workforce, cancel summer associate programs, and implement hiring freezes. But what does all of this mean for the future? In Episode 16, guest host Ben Richman asks Jay questions submitted by our listeners-- everything from why BigLaw is struggling, to how to stand out during the recruitment process, to how to find your passion.

Edelson PC, a leading national plaintiff’s law firm, is pleased to announce that Arthur Turner, Jr. has joined the firm as Of Counsel in Chicago. Turner will primarily work alongside the firm’s Litigation team. From December 2010 through early July of this year, Turner served as the State Representative for Illinois’ 9^th House District on the west side of Chicago. As a legislator, he worked tirelessly on behalf of Illinois citizens to increase economic development, protect their personal privacy and provide access to quality health care. Turner joined the House’s leadership team in 2013 as Assistant Majority Leader and became Deputy Majority Leader in 2017. He served as the Chairperson of the Judiciary – Criminal Law Committee and as a member of various other committees including Small Business Empowerment and Workforce Development, Consumer Protection, and Cybersecurity, Data Analytics & IT. Turner was also previously Of Counsel at Miller, Canfield, Paddock, and Stone, P.L.C.

In Episode 15 we meet with Rob Carr, the President and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA). From the nation’s largest retailers to independent businesses, IRMA serves as the voice of Illinois retailing, providing full-time advocacy services and representation in front of State, Cook County, and City of Chicago policy makers.

 

While some might believe that Jay, the Founder and CEO of a prominent plaintiff’s firm, and Rob are mortal enemies, they dive into a spirited discussion about the legislative process, consumer protection, and privacy laws. Spoiler alert— Jay and Rob disagree on a lot, but they also believe there is room for collaboration.

In Episode 13 of Non-Compliant, we had the first part of our conversation with Processor Nancy Rapoport. During the episode, we discussed how COVID-19 will permanently redefine how lawyers work and their need for a physical workspace, fee arrangements, and how cases are billed. In part two of our conversation with Professor Rapoport, we focus on the impact of COVID-19 on law firm staffing, the hiring and recruitment process, and diversity initiatives.

COVID-19 will permanently redefine the legal field. From how lawyers work and their need for a physical workspace, to fee arrangements, and the types of cases filed. Over the last few months, we’ve seen significant changes in BigLaw—firms have reduced their workforce, implemented hiring freezes, and shortened/ canceled their summer programs. Professor Nancy Rapoport joins us this week to discuss the evolving legal landscape and navigating a path forward. Join us next week for part two of our discussion with the Professor.

Our country is at a tipping point after the recent murder of George Floyd. Black Lives Matter is not just having a moment - we’re at the beginning of an important movement that has spurred not only calls for reforming our police and justice systems, but a fundamental shift in American culture.

In this episode, we’re honored to welcome Tony Ramunucci, founding partner at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC and one of the lawyers representing the Floyd family. Tony tells Mr. Floyd’s story and talks about how his family is coping, the “Code of Silence” among police officers and the culture of impunity, and what’s been happening across the country as a result of Mr. Floyd’s death. He also discusses aspects of the criminal case and whether civil cases are going to be filed. Listen in to hear this informative discussion.

We would like to take a moment to share our thoughts about the murder of George Floyd, the resulting peaceful protests, and the violence and chaos that seems to be egged on by the President and others who want America to be less stable, less just, and less kind.

We realize that people are quickly transitioning to using new technologies to keep in contact with co-workers and family. Therefore, this issue will provide guides focusing on usage, privacy, and troubleshooting for a number of popular platforms.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are now working remotely and connecting with friends and family online. Unfortunately, we’re also seeing new cyberthreats and scams emerge. Check out our inaugural privacy newsletter for tips from our experts on how to stay safe online.

In Episode 6, we speak with Illinois State Representative Ann Williams. We all know that the political climate is toxic and broken. The federal government simply isn’t working for regular Americans. While some of us give up, Representative Williams sees unique opportunities at the state level. Williams takes us through some of the hardest fought political fights over privacy and explains how to battle back against Big Tech and the endless resources they have to shut down even an honest discussion. We don’t like to throw around the word “visionary” loosely, but Williams shows how important it is for politicians to be thinking years ahead, whether it comes to privacy, the environment, or protecting women’s reproductive rights in a potentially post-Roe world. If anyone thinks politicians are only concerned about themselves, this episode will change your mind.

Mass torts are big business. From suits about defective hip implants, to claims that Big Pharma has injured or killed thousands of people, to litigation over the concussions suffered by football players, mass personal injury suits take up a significant portion of the federal and state dockets. And they often lead to tremendous results, with multi-billion-dollar settlements and industry-wide reforms. But law professor and author Elizabeth Chamblee Burch argues that all is not calm beneath the surface. In her electrifying new book, Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multi-District Litigation (https://www.elizabethchambleeburch.com/), Burch takes on the plaintiff’s bar over claims of self-dealing and hardball tactics. And she names names. In this episode of Non-Compliant, Burch demonstrates that she is not afraid of a robust conversation with Jay, who has spent two decades fighting corporate America, including through the multi-district litigation procedures. Heck, Jay is lead counsel in the NCAA concussion cases, litigating issues Burch writes about extensively. While Jay is happy to both concede that the plaintiff’s bar is far from perfect, he also pushes back at some of Burch’s underlying theories. This all makes for a fun and substantive conversation around a topic that is extremely under-reported.

In Episode 4 we meet with Filmmaker Assia Boundoui and human rights attorney Christina Abraham to discuss the award-winning documentary "The Feeling of Being Watched". (http://www.feelingofbeingwatched.com/). After spending the beginning of her career as a journalist for BBC, VICE, and CNN, Assia discusses her transition to filmmaker and her first project—looking into the FBI surveillance of her own Bridgeview, Illinois community. Assia takes us through her investigation, including uncovering tens of thousands of FBI documents proving that her Arab-American community was the subject of one of the largest counterterrorism investigations, code-named “Operation Vulgar Betrayal”, conducted on U.S. soil before 9/11. She then leads us on her journey to end the government’s secrecy over their four decade investigation and discusses the impact that constant surveillance – something Big Tech is racing to make happen -- has on individuals.  Is Judge Richard Posner correct when he argued that “privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you?”  Or does being constantly monitored take away some quintessential truth about the American experience?

When it comes to litigation, law schools generally funnel students into larger, defense-oriented firms. These firms offer steady paychecks — all the better to pay your monthly debt bill, my dear — and a tried and true path. But there is another side to the “v” and it often involves better opportunities and more rewarding work. Joe and Elie chat with Edelson PC about the tech-oriented plaintiff and class action firm’s work from protecting biometric privacy rights to addressing sexual misconduct in youth sports with partner Chris Dore and associates Aaron Lawson and Sydney Janzen.

Latest creative endeavors from renowned Chicago plaintiffs’ law firm offer unique insights on the law, and just about everything else, too.

In our first ever episode, we have law professor Brian Fitzpatrick on the show. Brian's never voted for a Democrat in his life. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (not known to be particularly liberally). And he won an award from the Federalist Society. So why did he write a book called “The Conservative Case for Class Actions?” We dive deep into a spirited discussion over whether class actions are good for the country. (Spoiler alert, even Jay thinks that many are not.) Whether you agree or disagree, you will hear a radically new view of the politics behind the class action device and which pieces are working and which ones aren’t. For more about Professor Fitzpatrick, visit his website www.briantfitzpatrick.com.

A Q&A with Ari Scharg of Edelson PC  In February, the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 filed the first ever lawsuit brought by Illinois unions against several opioid manufacturers, distributors, and prescribers. The Illinois Unions want to hold drug companies accountable for the crisis impacting their communities and families in a very real way, “more than anything else, a win would mean creating a safer environment for Carpenters, Operating Engineers and others in the construction industry.”

Big banks. Big tech firms. Big Pharma. The big business that is the NCAA. Plaintiff’s attorney Jay Edelson wages battle against many of the nation’s most fortified institutions. Not only does he refuse to back down to anyone, regardless of their stature or deep pockets, he welcomes the challenge.

Moderated by Hon. Toni Preckwinkle, featuring Hon. Patrick Kennedy, Jay Edelson, and Dr. Steven Aks

Jay Edelson is now one of best-known lawyers in the field, in part because of his aggressive pursuit of giant tech firms and their uses of consumer data.

The FCC and our judicial system have provided a comprehensive process to update the TCPA and keep it current with ever changing technology. Any changes at the congressional level should be done carefully and in a nuanced fashion to avoid opening sought-after loopholes that have unintended consequences.

A Q&A with Jay Edelson of Edelson PC Hacking incidents at law firms have led to major data breach events in recent months. Even as all law firms store and handle sensitive client data, many of the smaller organizations tend to lack robust cybersecurity policies and procedures.

"In Spokeo v. Robins, in which we represented the plaintiff, Spokeo Inc. made the unprecedented argument to the U.S. Supreme Court that to establish "injury in fact" standing in statutory cases, the plaintiff must allege "real-world" or "palpable" harm beyond the statutory violation. Not only did Spokeo's argument fail to secure five votes, it didn't garner any. . . ."

"The issues for the general election campaign have, to a great extent, already been framed. And Donald Trump, being the world-class marketer he is, has successfully forced a debate about whether the U.S. needs to build a wall across the 1,954 miles of our southern border to secure our great nation. . . ."

"Silicon Valley purports to hate the legal system. To hear the tech world tell it, lawyers are leeches and regulations are mostly outdated. Lawsuits stifle innovation and waste money that startups could better spend developing products and recruiting more users, thereby making the world a better place. . . ."

"Theranos, the health technology company once valued at $9 billion, is making its investors’ blood run cold... While the rise and fall of Theranos has been dramatic, it is far from a rare case. . . ."

Silicon Valley hates privacy laws. And it's no surprise why. Companies like Facebook, Google and Instagram succeed by collecting and monetizing consumer data . . .

When a public interest group wants to create new legal precedent, its first step is to find a client with sympathetic facts. But the public may not realize that the government employs this legal tactic as well. . . .

For the past decade I've spent my professional life fighting tech giants over consumer privacy issues. I've been called Silicon Valley's "most feared and loathed" attorney, "tech's baby-faced boogeyman" and — my personal favorite — a "leech tarted up as a freedom fighter." Given that, I never thought I would be standing with Apple in a high-stakes privacy battle. . . .

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly rejected Campbell-Ewald Co.’s attempt to settle out plaintiff Jose Gomez’s individual claim to, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words, “avoid a potential adverse decision, one that would expose it to damages a thousand-fold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept.” . . .

Last month the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section of Legal Education Standards Review Committee recommended that the organization reverse its policy forbidding law students from being paid to participate in for-credit externships. That’s good news both for law students and our profession as a whole. . . .

Currently, all of the big firms tend to compete for the same few thousand candidates: second-years at top-tier law schools with strong grades and enough social skills to survive the interview process. But once you step outside of this echelon of the law school hierarchy, the reality is grim. . . .

Today, we address another area in which lawyers and law firms have struggled to advance: measurability. Specifically, we’re talking about measuring the probability of success or failure (however those terms are defined) to assist in rendering legal advice to clients. . . .

Prior to the Thanksgiving holiday, we discussed the not-so-novel proposition that the U.S. legal education system requires a healthy dose of reform... In today’s post, we take principles from CIC and apply them to legal scholarship. . . .

Talk has been swirling for a while about the need to overhaul the legal education system. JD candidates crossing the stage in recent years have exited with a hefty tab and a degree that guarantees few job opportunities. And despite almost a decade of excess supply, some are claiming that law schools are running out of cash. . . .

The legal industry has been painfully slow to embrace change. While all around us industries re-invent themselves to reflect the times, our complexion is largely the same as it was 15 years ago . . .

Jay Edelson is the founder and managing partner of Edelson LLC, a national consumer class action firm. Edelson LLC focuses on consumer technology, privacy, and banking litigation, and has secured settlements valued at over $1 billion in the last five years. . . .

 

Today’s typical summer associate program is a creature of the decades-old traditional law practice. Not unlike other aspects of that tradition, while it was born out of well meaning principles (most significantly: “attract the best and the brightest”), it has now lost its way. . . .

"Dealing with consumer class actions is one of the more significant challenges facing companies today. Innovation moves light years faster than changes in the law. . ."

Law firms are notoriously bad at training newly-minted attorneys and developing them into meaningful contributors.The problem begins with structure. . . .