case study law firm

Law Firm Case Studies

From the courtroom to the boardroom, Cummins & White, LLP consistently wins cases.

Our team of experienced and talented lawyers share a breadth of knowledge and expertise that make us well-suited for most any kind of case, and our firm’s continued dedication to legal education means that we never stop learning how to tackle the evolving challenges of a constantly changing legal world.

Still, showing you how successful Cummins & White, LLP has been over the past six decades is a lot more effective than telling you. Our case studies — within the fields of Commercial Litigation, Commercial Transactions, Criminal Defense, Healthcare, and Insurance — help illustrate our diverse abilities and depth of creative solutions.

Commercial Litigation

Commercial Litigation encompasses a wide range of business-related disputes, including issues within the fields of Real Estate, Contracts, Business Liability, Employment, Class Action lawsuits, and much more. In our long history, Cummins & White, LLP has found inventive solutions both for businesses and for those adversely affected by them. As these case studies show, no case is the same, and neither are the strategies we’ve used to win for our clients.

Commercial Transactions

The intricacies of Commercial Transactions can make selling and acquiring assets, obtaining financing, or protecting one’s business into a complicated process. We help our clients obtain the results they need while ensuring the future of their businesses and investments. As our case studies show, we can help businesses big and small accomplish their goals.

Healthcare Legal

Healthcare is an industry that is constantly changing, and Cummins & White, LLP has the ability to navigate this evolving field with a balanced approach for all stakeholders. As these case studies show, we’ve tackled everything within the Healthcare Industry, from wrongful termination and breach of contract to defending the licenses of medical professionals and much more.

Insurance Legal

From defending our clients against fraudulent insurance claims to reclaiming property subrogations, Cummins & White, LLP has successfully defended and lead our clients through all aspects of Insurance Law. As our case studies show, our team’s extensive experience and applicable legal knowledge has consistently led us to success.

Cummins & White

2424 Southeast Bristol Street #300 Newport Beach CA 92660

Phone: (949) 852-1800 Fax: (949) 852-8510

Subscribe to Email Newsletter

Stay in touch.

© 2024 Cummins & White LLP. Privacy Policy Orange County Web Design by Website Muscle

• Practice Areas
• Our Lawyers
• Case Studies
• Make A Payment
• (949) 852-1800

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts
• Currently reading: Business of law: case studies
• US law firms prioritise jobs and safety in AI rollout
• AI adds bespoke features to ready-made tools
• Law firms adapt to cover expanding legal risk
• Practitioners: ten types of legal pioneer
• Intrapreneurs: the insiders on a mission to change law firms
• Practice of law: case studies

Business of law: case studies

• Business of law: case studies on x (opens in a new window)
• Business of law: case studies on facebook (opens in a new window)
• Business of law: case studies on linkedin (opens in a new window)
• Business of law: case studies on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The six sets of case studies featured here showcase how law firms are innovating as businesses in North America. They highlight law firms that are changing how they manage their people and how they are reinventing services and delivery models.

All the case studies were researched, compiled and ranked by RSGI. “Winner” indicates that the organisation won an FT Innovative Lawyers North America award for 2024.

Read the other FT Innovative Lawyers North America ‘Best practice case studies’, which showcase the standout innovations made for and by people working in the legal sector:

Practice of law In-house

People and skills

Goodwin: Winner Originality: 8; Leadership: 9; Impact: 8; Total: 25 Last year, the firm set up a nine-week training scheme for first-year associates before they started on client work. It covered legal knowledge, professional skills, customer relationships, and technology. Participants were introduced to complex legal scenarios they are likely to face later in their careers, in order to build on their experience of the simple, repetitive work traditionally given to newly qualified lawyers. The second cohort began its training in October 2024, this time with added emphasis on how lawyers can use insights gleaned from data.

Orrick O: 7; L: 9; I: 8; Total: 24 The firm is training its staff and clients in generative AI. Working with technology providers, it has helped to design interactive training labs aimed at clients in more than 35 companies. Training on “prompt engineering” has been offered to all lawyers and other staff at the firm, to help improve the quality of instructions and questions they use in chatbots and related tools. Use of the firm’s internal chatbot went from 350 individual users in the month of February to nearly 1,000 in September.

Highly commended

K&L Gates O: 7; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 23 Approximately 400 lawyers at the firm participated in a “prompt engineering” course aimed at enhancing the adoption of AI tools in their legal work. The course included workshops, simulation exercises, and other training conducted by outside experts.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders O: 6; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 22 The firm launched a nine-month intensive programme in 2023 to help build partners’ skills in executive leadership, client development, and generative AI, which it says has led to a measurable increase in billable work.

DLA Piper O: 7; L: 8; I: 6; Total: 21 The firm worked with the US International Trade Commission agency to set up a mock hearing scheme, in order to train lawyers in the regulator’s particular procedures.

Morrison Foerster O: 7; L: 7; I: 7; Total: 21 This year, the firm gave more than 300 parents and caregivers on its staff access to a 12-week course, with time taken covered by billable hours targets. It teaches strategies to help balance work and family life.

Foley Hoag O: 7; L: 7; I: 6; Total: 20 The firm launched a compulsory programme in January to teach business development skills to associates in seven areas, to help them improve client relationship building early in their careers.

Husch Blackwell O: 8; L: 7; I: 5; Total: 20 A new four-month training programme provides the firm’s lawyers with skills that would be required if they were to move to corporate counsel roles.

Kirkland & Ellis O: 7; L: 7; I: 6; Total: 20 The firm combined training about discrete practice areas into a single, mandatory, two-year curriculum in order to broaden young associates’ understanding of the legal market.

Digitising legal practice

Davis Wright Tremaine: Winner Originality: 8; Leadership: 8; Impact: 8; Total: 24 DWT Prose, a program driven by artificial intelligence, was set up to help young lawyers write more effectively and persuasively. The tool analyses the written style of associates’ briefs, declarations, and other documents to suggest edits. These are based on the firm’s style guide and advice from partners recognised as the best writers. Hundreds of associates use the tool daily.

Baker McKenzie O: 8; L: 7; I: 7; Total: 22 The firm has developed a notification system powered by generative AI to help clients respond to cyber attacks and to quickly identify and summarise reporting obligations by jurisdiction so they can take speedy action.

Frost Brown Todd O: 6; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 22 The firm created a system to analyse external databases containing historic lawsuit depositions and testimonies. It automatically searches for inconsistencies and trends in expert witnesses’ past statements, which can be used by lawyers deposing them.

Hogan Lovells O: 7; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 22 The firm has incorporated generative AI into its InfoGov tool, which was initially launched in North America in 2022. InfoGov manages information for global businesses and removes data that is no longer required according to regulatory and compliance standards. This reduces their exposure to cyber attacks and privacy violations.

White & Case O: 6; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 21 The firm created a management platform for its debt finance practice to organise and schedule the administrative tasks required at the end of a transaction, such as security filings. Commended individual: Elizabeth Kirk

BakerHostetler O: 6; L: 7; I: 7; Total: 20 The firm assisted a leading US carmaker with a high volume of consumer warranty litigation. It is using generative AI to extract data such as car model, make and vehicle identification number from emails, and speed up recommendations on how to proceed with the complaints.

Thompson Hine O: 7; L: 6; I: 7; Total: 20 The firm used third-party tech systems to cut the time needed to form, manage, and close employee stock ownership plans, as the market for this type of legal work expands.

McInnes Cooper O: 6; L: 8; I: 5; Total: 19 The Canadian firm launched its MC+ division this year in order to offer strategic advice on topics that include digital transformation, training, and human resources.

Morgan Lewis O: 7; L: 6; I: 6; Total: 19 The firm launched a tool in 2023 that largely replaces the manual checking of ediscovery search terms for errors, in order to help speed up the process of negotiating and agreeing deals with counterparties.

Norton Rose Fulbright O: 7; L: 6; I: 6; Total: 19 This year, the firm launched a global platform for cross-border litigation to help it use consistent processes and communicate better between teams in different jurisdictions.

Digital legal products

King & Spalding: Winner Originality: 8; Leadership: 9; Impact: 9; Total: 26 The firm used artificial intelligence systems to enhance cyber security risk assessments for its clients. By analysing clients’ data security policies, federal and state regulations, and internal procedures, the lawyers were able to create a model that better identifies potential risks. This approach leverages the latest AI technology to improve manual review processes. Last year, the firm’s privacy and cyber security group conducted 200 of these risk assessments. Commended individual: Robert Hudock

Seyfarth Shaw O: 8; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 24 The firm and its tech subsidiary developed a questionnaire-based management system for staff at brand owner clients who are working on trademarks but have little formal legal expertise. Users enter information to generate a report on the trademark clearance process across different jurisdictions, and the software flags issues that need deeper analysis by the in-house legal team and the law firm.

Gunderson Dettmer O: 8; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 23 The firm created a portal that gives start-ups with limited budgets access to case records, its own chatbot, and a service that generates state-specific contracts. The portal has been used more than 16,000 times since its launch in early 2023.

Ogletree Deakins O: 7; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 22 Last year, the firm launched a platform — now accessed by 6,000 users at big businesses — that provides updates on labour regulations, with summaries of state-specific legislation.

Reed Smith O: 7; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 22 The firm commercialised its own internal systems for checking on client conflicts into a product that enables real estate investor Brookfield Properties to conduct its own due diligence.

Kirkland & Ellis O: 5; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 21 The firm standardised its “non-reliance letters”, which limit liability for due diligence in transactions, and created a tool that has generated more than 1,000 such clauses for hundreds of counterparties.

McInnes Cooper O: 6; L: 7; I: 6; Total: 19 A tool to review and summarise evidence uploaded in the employee injury compensation process was created to improve accuracy and speed of decisions.

Hogan Lovells O: 4; L: 6; I: 8; Total: 18 A report based on responses from 1,500 senior business leaders and general counsel aims to help organisations assess their readiness for risks posed by technological advances.

Latham & Watkins: Winner Originality: 8; Leadership: 9; Impact: 8; Total: 25 The firm has created a database that consolidates the agreed terms of completed deals in the leveraged loan and capital markets. Previously, deal terms were tracked using separate spreadsheets and depended on the recollections of lawyers. Now, lawyers involved in these transactions can easily aggregate and filter terms to obtain a comprehensive overview of the market and quickly search for relevant information. This database has improved the certainty and quality of the advice provided to clients. Commended individual: Joshua Tinkelman

Irell & Manella O: 7; L: 9; I: 8; Total: 24 The firm used data from the US Patent and Trademark Office to compile comprehensive copies of every US patent. As a result, it has developed a system that lets lawyers ask questions about the data and respond quickly to claims made in patent litigation trials, or conduct due diligence on extensive patent portfolios. The platform is hosted on computers within the firm’s firewall. It is used for most of its patent-related matters. Commended individual: Thomas Barr

Akin O: 6; L: 8; I: 8; Total: 22 The firm created a tool that analyses traffic to its website from companies, allowing it to identify trends and improve how it offers targeted legal services to clients.

McDermott Will & Emery O: 6; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 21 Analysis of data on more than 750 mid-market private equity health and life sciences deals produced searchable information on the market that helps inform negotiations.

Ropes & Gray O: 6; L: 8; I: 6; Total: 20 The firm developed a public website that tracks the rules that judges set for using artificial intelligence in their courts, and which can be used by lawyers across the US.

Reed Smith O: 7; L: 7; I: 5; Total: 19 The firm gained new customers for a tool launched in 2022 that helps clients manage and record their personal data, ensuring compliance with privacy regulations and preparedness for potential litigation.

AI strategy

White & Case: Winner Originality: 9; Leadership: 10; Impact: 7; Total: 26 The firm developed its own private large language model, hosted on its own virtual cloud. The information is ringfenced within W&C’s network preventing and mixing in of client data. The system is trained on US legal codes and regulations and has been used for the initial review of non-disclosure agreements for private equity clients, achieving a similar accuracy level as a junior associate.

Dechert O: 8; L: 9; I: 8; Total: 25 The firm chose to develop its own AI tools and was among the first to launch a proprietary generative AI chatbot. The innovation team independently determines its projects without going through a committee, focusing directly on developing services that meet the firm’s needs. As a result, there has been significant adoption of this technology, with at least half the staff using generative AI in some capacity.

Crowell & Moring O: 7; L: 8; I: 7; Total: 22 The firm introduced compulsory training on responsible use of the firm’s proprietary generative AI platform, CrowellAI. So far, about 45 per cent of the firm has been trained to use the tool. The platform’s search systems are designed to support any lawyers unfamiliar with making “prompt” requests in chatbots.

Reed Smith O: 7; L: 8; I: 7; Total: 22 The firm served as an early “alpha” tester for Harvey, the legal generative AI service, which was recently introduced to lawyers for client work. The initiative is part of a broader effort to enhance business systems, based on work with its legal tech subsidiary, Gravity Stack.

Seyfarth Shaw O: 7; L: 8; I: 7; Total: 22 In March, the firm launched its AI portal, which provides staff with access to various tools for tasks such as document analysis, an internal chatbot, and training in the technology.

Latham & Watkins O: 6; L: 6; I: 8; Total: 20 A specialist team at the firm has continued to develop new services — such as Latham Compare, a tool that reviews documents, and LathamAssist, a customised tool based on OpenAI’s ChatGPT technology that has received more than 600,000 prompts, or information requests.

Husch Blackwell O: 5; L: 7; I: 7; Total: 19 An AI practice group launched in February includes lawyers from different practice areas and data scientists who develop tools and tailor third-party products to the firm’s needs.

New services to manage risk

DLA Piper: Winner Originality: 10; Leadership: 9; Impact: 7; Total: 26 The firm launched a proactive service to test whether clients’ activities powered by generative artificial intelligence are safe and trustworthy. Lawyers at the firm act as a “legal red team” — in effect, seeking out weaknesses in clients’ systems by simulating unintended or malicious threats. Their aim is to advise on the best guardrails to ensure any AI-generated output is legally compliant. The team also piloted a compliance tool that examines staff messaging to guard against potential breaches of anti-bribery or other regulations.

Debevoise & Plimpton O: 8; L: 9; I: 8; Total: 25 To improve its services, the firm’s data strategy and security group split into separate partner-led squads, with a different team on call each week to respond to urgent client requests, such as cyber defence or briefings on new AI developments. This left other lawyers with time to conduct related research, and work on less time-sensitive matters. The reorganisation allows the firm to offer deeper research and more expertise in anticipating risks for clients involved in AI-related technologies, such as deepfakes, text-to-video generators, and chatbots.

Seyfarth Shaw O: 8; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 23 A “cultural flashpoints task force” started last year with a brief to intervene in workplace conflicts, help clients provide practical solutions to disputes, and reduce litigation and reputational risk.

Husch Blackwell O: 7; L: 7; I: 8; Total: 22 To help 12 large companies deal with long-running litigation over claims for asbestos exposure, the firm revamped its class action practice to improve its data analytics, allowing faster triaging of new cases on a fixed-fee basis.

Orrick O: 7; L: 6; I: 8; Total: 21 The firm organised a forum, webinars and other resources to support companies’ chief information security officers, who face increased attempts by regulators to find them individually liable for cyber attacks and data breaches.

Seyfarth Shaw O: 6; L: 7; I: 6; Total: 19 The firm developed a bot to automate part of the process for clients creating employee affirmative action plans, which promote equal opportunities for under-represented groups.

Promoted Content

Explore the series.

Follow the topics in this article

• Law Add to myFT
• Legal services Add to myFT
• Artificial intelligence Add to myFT
• Orrick Add to myFT
• Latham & Watkins LLP Add to myFT

Comments have not been enabled for this article.

Username or email  * Required

Password  * Required

Remember me --> Sign In

Forgotten password?

[email protected]

+44 (0)20 8834 4579

Law Firm Insights

Welcome to the Law Firms page! Here, you can find extra information about various law firms, as well as case studies and interviews with current solicitors and trainees.

• Deciding on Law
• How to Become a Lawyer
• Areas of Law
• Solicitor vs Barrister
• What is a Solicitor
• Becoming a Barrister
• Legal Executive
• What Is A Legal Secretary?
• How to Become a Judge
• Legal Apprenticeships
• Studying Law at University
• Law at Oxbridge
• Studying Law Abroad
• Personal Statement
• Law Research Techniques & Resources
• Commercial Awareness
• Law Work Experience

Vacation Schemes

• Law Courses
• Non-Law Students
• PGDL (Conversion)
• Bar Training Guide

Training Contracts

• Law Firm Applications

Pupillage: a Guide for Aspiring Barristers

• Magic Circle Law Firms
• What Are The Top American Law Firms In London?
• Allen & Overy: Internship Insight
• Clifford Chance: Top Tips
• Clifford Chance Interview
• Linklaters: Top Tips
• Freshfields: Top Tips
• Bird & Bird: Diversity
• Bird & Bird: Case Study
• Dentons: Apprenticeships
• Gibson Dunn: Trainee Case Study
• Herbert Smith: Trainees
• Hogan Lovells Training Contract Insights
• Penningtons: 1st Year Trainee Diary
• Penningtons: 2nd Year Trainee Diary
• Simmons & Simmons
• Networking Guide
• Diversity In Law

Baker McKenzie

Baker McKenzie is the second-largest law firm in the world by number of employees and also revenue.

You can take a look at their training contract application calendar here:

Bird & Bird

Bird & Bird are a top law firm with over 1200 legal advisors globally and specialising in business sectors with technological components.

You can read about their amazing Bursary Programme, encouraging more diversity in the legal sphere.

Alternatively, we have a case study from a participant in their Bursary and Pioneer Programmes.

Dentons is actually the world’s largest law firm by number of lawyers, working in commercial law.

They’ve recently launched an innovative apprenticeship scheme for aspiring solicitors.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Freshfields is a multinational law firm that was founded in over 250 years ago! They are one of the 5 members of the Magic Circle.

A trainee from Freshfields gave us an overview of her training contract and what advice she’d share.

We also conducted an interview with a member of the Freshfields graduate recruitment team about training contracts.

Here, Freshfields gave their top advice for applying for training contracts.

Gibson Dunn

Gibson Dunn is a global law firm that’s based predominately in America, and is renowned for its litigation practise.

A trainee from Gibson Dunn, but based in London, spoke to us about his vacation scheme and his experiences working for an American law firm in the UK.

Herbert Smith Freehills

Herbert Smith Freehills is an international law firm formed from the merging of UK-based Herbert Smith with Australian-based Freehills.

We caught up with two trainees from Herbert Smith Freehills, who discussed training contracts and their lives as trainee solicitors.

We also spoke to a representative at Herbert Smith Freehills who offered us some advice about what they look for in their candidates.

Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells is a multinational firm with headquarters both in London and Washington D.C.

It specialises in “government regulatory, litigation and arbitration, corporate, finance, and intellectual property”.

Read the top insights from four trainees currently at Hogan Lovells with our guide Hogan Lovells: Trainee Insights !

Penningtons Manches

Penningtons Manches is a UK law firm who specialise in “dispute resolution, corporate and commercial, real estate, private client and family”.

Two trainee solicitors talk us through a typical day as part of their training contracts.

Read first-year-trainee Eva’s account here:

Or take a look at KC’s second-year diary here:

Simmons & Simmons

Simmons & Simmons is a global practise with 21 offices across the world.

Three trainees from Simmons & Simmons gave us brief insights into what it’s like working for such a huge law firm.

A fourth seat trainee also gave us an insight into training contract applications.

Finally, you can find two vacation scheme case studies for Simmons & Simmons.

Taylor Vinters

Taylor Vinters is an international law firm with offices in London, Cambridge and Singapore.

Their HR Manager revealed the crucial advice on obtaining a training contract.

She also shared her top tips with us.

Take a look at Taylor Vinter’s Life as a trainee at Taylor Vinters video:

Law Firm Opportunities

Law Firm Directory

Explore key stats, training opportunities and more with our detailed law firm listings.

Stay ahead of the game and keep track of upcoming training contract deadlines.

Keep track of the latest deadlines & get your foot in the door of a top law firm.

Law Firm Open Days

Don't miss an opportunity to meet law firms & register for upcoming open days.

What Are The Magic Circle Law Firms?

You may also like.

• A Court Of Appeal Judge’s Landmark ChatGPT Judgment
• ECHR's Climate Case: Can The Court Redefine The Fight For Our Planet?
• Which Countries Have The Strictest Environmental Laws?
• Commercial Awareness Round-Up: 5 Key Topics You Should Know About

Loading More Content

Results & News

Firm Results and Announcements

Reasonable Value After Pebley - by Douglas Petkoff

Straus Meyers LLP is very proud and honored to announce Senior Trial Associate Douglas J. Petkoff’s article: “Reasonable Value After Pebley” was selected for publication in the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel’s (ASCDC) Verdict Magazine, 2020 Volume 2. The article provides a wealth of information as to medical special damages and calculation.

“Reasonable Value” After Pebley

By Douglas J. Petkoff, Esq.

Nearly two years ago, in the case Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5t 1266, the sixth division of the Second Appellate District upended, to the chagrin of personal injury defendants, and to the joy of personal injury plaintiffs, what the former had too optimistically believed was settled law on economic damages in personal injury cases.  That law had come down from the California Supreme Court in its decision in the seminal case Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 566.  Under Howell, the measure of economic damages was held to be the lesser of 1) the dollar amount actually incurred, rather than billed, for a patient’s treatment, or 2) the reasonable value of that treatment.  Howell’s most vigorous offspring perhaps was Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308.  The court in Corenbaum ruled, building on the logic of Howell, that not only are medical bills not the measure of damages in personal injury cases; such bills are, in fact, inadmissible, since they are irrelevant to determining those damages.

 It was widely felt that Howell and Corenbaum had dealt a serious blow to the ability of personal injury plaintiffs to prove damages in an amount sufficient to satisfy the needs, or the desires, of such plaintiffs and of their attorneys.  (See, e.g., “Supreme Court Puts Plaintiffs Through The Hamilton Meats Grinder”, Gary Simms and Michael Danko, Plaintiff , https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/supreme-court-puts-plaintiffs-through-the-hamilton-meats-grinder.)  In recent years, in order to avoid the harsh impact of Howell and Corenbaum , plaintiff personal injury attorneys have adverted more frequently to the use of medical providers who are outside the plaintiff’s provider network.    With the Pebley decision, this strategy seems to have been vindicated.  How did plaintiff personal injury claimants manage to carve out an apparent safe zone in which they could expect some protection from the regime of Howell ?  And how safe, really, is that safe zone?

  “Reasonable Value” And The “Wide-Ranging Inquiry”

 The answer to the first question starts with the observation that Pebley decided that plaintiffs who treat outside their medical provider network are, for damages purposes, equivalent to being an uninsured plaintiff, even if the plaintiff had insurance which he might have otherwise utilized.  The consequences of being reckoned an uninsured plaintiff means, according to Pebley, that a plaintiff’s damages are evalulated under Howell’s “reasonable value” prong, rather than its “paid or incurred” prong.  The advantage of this standard for personal injury plaintiffs is that the full amount of treatment bills, barred under Howell and Corenbaum , may now be offered as evidence of damages, if such bills are offered in conjunction with other evidence such as expert billing testimony.

 In its decision holding that the measure for damages for plaintiffs who are uninsured or who are the equivalent of uninsured is to be established by recourse to the “reasonable value” prong of the Howell holding, Pebley followed the case Bermudez v. Ciolek (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1311.  In analyzing the applicability of the Howell rule to an uninsured plaintiff, the Bermudez court astutely noted that

 [T]he holding in Howell ultimately depended upon the "paid or incurred" prong of the test, not the "reasonable value" prong (Citations) . . . ¶ Howell offered no bright line rule on how to determine "reasonable value" when uninsured plaintiffs have incurred (but not paid) medical bills .  Bermudez , 1329. 

 Because Howell left “reasonable value” undefined, Bermudez also declined to provide any clear parameters.  Instead, in the course of analyzing Howell and some of its successor cases, it announced, in the form of a rule, what is essentially a recommendation that parties engage in a broad investigation into reasonable value in lien cases: “the measure of damages for uninsured plaintiffs who have not paid their medical bills will usually turn on a wide-ranging inquiry into the reasonable value of medical services provided . . .”  Bermudez, 1330-1331.

  Pebley adopted and fully endorsed this “wide-ranging inquiry” process as a rule for determining reasonable value for “uninsured” plaintiffs.  ( Pebley, 1278, 1280.)  Whereas the “paid or incurred” prong of the Howell damages holding is simple, straightforward, and results in a dollar figure to which all parties can, and usually must, reasonably stipulate, the “reasonable value” prong of Howell, utilizing Bermudez’ “wide-ranging inquiry” process, is unclear as a methodology, and yields no predictable results.  As the court in Bermudez perhaps wryly put it, “The ramifications of Howell on the proper measure of damages in a case brought by an uninsured plaintiff (who has not paid his bill) are less clear [than the measure for insured plaintiffs].”  Bermudez, 1329.

 Because of the amorphousness of the “reasonable value” prong, plaintiffs who are uninsured or deemed by Pebley to be effectively uninsured due to their choice to treat outside their insurance have welcomed the Pebley ruling as an opportunity to provide maximum, favorable evidence of their damages.  As noted above, whereas under Howell and Corenbaum, billing evidence of damages offered by insured plaintiffs is automatically excluded as irrelevant, under Pebley, such bills constitute part of a “wide-ranging inqury.”  Thus under Pebley, the full bill, banished to the realm of irrelevance under Howell and Corenbaum, is back, even though in theory the bill is not dispositve of the “reasonable value” of treatment.  In fact, according to both Bermudez (1336-1338) and Pebley (1278), such evidence alone is, by law, insufficient for the purpose of proving reasonable value.  Pebley inferred from this legal conclusion, without providing further elaboration as to the reason, that a determination of “reasonable value” requires, inter alia, expert testimony.  (Id.)  Ever since, it has been the usual practice in lien cases for each party to retain “billing experts” to opine as to the reasonable value of plaintiff’s damages.

  Reasonable Value and “Market Value”

 But there has been little guidance from the courts, as yet, as to what methodology or even basic logic should be used by experts in order to establish what “reasonable value” is.  Some experts have seized on the following statement from Bermudez in order to opine that “reasonable value” is equivalent to “market value”:

 En route to its holding, Howell observed, "The rule that medical expenses, to be recoverable, must be both incurred and reasonable [citations] applies equally to those with and without medical insurance." (Citations.) And Howell endorsed "a rule, applicable to recovery of tort damages generally, that the value of property or services is ordinarily its 'exchange value,' that is, its market value or the amount for which it could usually be exchanged ." (Citations.)  Bermudez, 1329.

 There are numerous problems of both a practical and legal nature with attempting to use this theory as a basis for determining reasonable value in lien cases.  The first problem is determining which “market” one is referring to.  Some plaintiffs, believing themselves guided by the following statements in Bermudez, argue that the “lien market” is distinct from the insurance or cash paying market; and thus, that the proper indication of market value in the lien context is simply the bill:

 Howell noted "pricing of medical services is highly complex and depends, to a significant extent, on the identity of the payer. In effect, there appears to be not one market for medical services but several, with the price of services depending on the category of payer . . . ." (Citations.) . . . ¶Howell offered no bright line rule on how to determine "reasonable value" when uninsured plaintiffs have incurred (but not paid) medical bills. Ciolek is correct that the concept of market or exchange value was endorsed by Howell as the proper way to think about the "reasonable value" of medical services.   Bermudez, 1329, 1330.

 Obviously however, interpreting “market value” to mean “whatever the bill says” would resurrect the very evil which Howell attempted to do away with: an award of damages for medical care in excess of the reasonable value of such care:

 [A]s a consequence of the discrepancy in recent decades between the amount patients are typically billed by health care providers and the lower amounts usually paid in satisfaction of the charges (whether by a health insurer or otherwise), controversy has arisen as to how to measure the reasonable costs of medical care in a variety of factual scenarios. Citing the collateral source rule, some plaintiffs suggested they should be entitled to recover the reasonable costs of medical care, even if that dollar value exceeded the amount actually paid in exchange for the medical services.

 Our Supreme Court rejected this contention: "[A]n injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private insurance may recover as economic damages no more than the amounts paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurer for the medical services received or still owing at the time of trial." (Citations.) In other words, "a plaintiff may recover as economic damages no more than the reasonable value of the medical services received and is not entitled to recover the reasonable value if his or her actual loss was less." (Citations; see also Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1325-1326 (Corenbaum) ["Damages for past medical expenses are limited to the lesser of (1) the amount paid or incurred for past medical expenses and (2) the reasonable value of the services"].)  Bermudez, 1328-1329.

 It is altogether unlikely that Howell intended that the evil it vanquished under its first prong should nevertheless be tolerated and encouraged to flourish under its second prong.

 Moreover, as Bermudez makes clear, interpreting “market value” to mean “whatever the bill says” is altogether untenable as a matter of law if the bill alone is the evidence: “a plaintiff who relies solely on evidence of unpaid medical charges will not meet his burden of proving the reasonable value of medical damages with substantial evidence.”  Bermudez, 1335.

  Is There A “Lien Market”?

 Although Howell endorsed “market or exchange value” as the way to think about “reasonable value,” Howell simultaneously recognized the difficulty created by its holding: “how a market value other than that produced by negotiation between the insurer and the provider could be identified is unclear”.  Howell, 562.  “Unclear” is a succinct summary of the problems with determining reasonable value by reference to market value in a lien context.  The difficulty in determining “market value” outside of negotiations is due in part to the nature of markets.  A market consists of buyers and sellers freely negotiating the value of a product or service.  A generally agreed upon price between sellers and buyers can therefore be reasonably considered to be the reasonable value of that product in a particular marketplace.  In lien cases, however, the process by which treaters are paid for their lien bills bears very little resemblance to a market.  In lien cases, the treater sets a price, and then another person—the defendant--who is not the person who has agreed to be treated--settles because of the threat of trial, or pays a judgment determined by jury assumed [in the case of settlement, without any direct evidence other than the settlement itself] to constitute the “reasonable value” of the services.  If it’s arguable, albeit a large stretch, that the amount of a settlement might be considered to be established by a species of “negotiation” between a defendant who, albeit unwillingly, “requested” the services from the treater on behalf of the plaintiff, by virtue of defendant’s tort and therefore, that such settlements are evidence of the “reasonable value” of plaintiff’s treatment, it’s nevertheless clear that the amount of any judgment was certainly not established in a negotiation.  The amount of a judgment is established by a legal order.  Thus, payments for charges in lien cases cannot fairly, or least not readily, be charcterized as being an example of a “market or exchange value.” If not, they cannot constitute a “reasonable value” under Howell or Bermudez .

 Thus, Howell and Bermudez have created a conundrum for determining “reasonable value” in lien cases: they have endorsed the idea of determining “reasonable value” by recommending that this value be determined by reference to a “market exchange value” in lien cases where no market exists.

  Problems With “Lien Market” Data

 It’s not only that the idea of a “lien marketplace” fails on the level of theory.  Even if there were such a thing as a “lien marketplace”, one would still have to overcome the initial hurdle of having access to payment and charge data in that marketplace.  No such data exists .  Unlike charges, and sometimes payments, made in the insurance and Medicare context, payments received for lien cases are not reported or aggregated anywhere.  An expert attempting to testify as to the customary value in general of treatment provided in lien cases would therefore have to do so without access to any data, since there are no existing databases containing the aggregate of payments in lien cases to which an expert might refer.  Since there is no data about lien payments, there is no basis upon which to offer an opinion about customary payments which might shed light on the reasonable value of a payment in a particular instance.  Thus, on a practical level, there is no means available for an expert to provide an opinion about the reasonable value of services in a hypothetical “lien marketplace”, if the expert’s methodology and inquiry is limited to data from that “marketplace.”

 If nevertheless some sort of data showing charges and payments in lien cases could be obtained; and, if an expert were to use such data to “reverse-engineer” reasonable value by aggregating a substantial number of representative payments in lien cases within a particular geographical area which ended in settlement or judgment; and, if the expert were then to utilize a mean or median payment as evidence of the “reasonable value” of those treatments for that area; his opinion might, in theory, shed some light on the “reasonable value” of treatment for that geographical area.  However, how well it did so would depend on the type of available data.  For instance, he would almost certainly run into the problem that neither judgments nor settlements made in lien cases typically break down economic damages into component parts so that each treatment’s value is clearly indicated.  [E.g.: “Settlement/judgment is for $1,000,000, of which $700,000 dollars represents noneconomic damages; $1,500 is the value of the cost of x-rays; $600 is the value of preop; $1,200.00 is the value of anasthesia; $1,400 is for the physician assistant’s work during the discectomy; etc.”]  Additionally problematic in the case of settlements is that they most often neglect even to distinguish between noneconomic and economic damages.  The failure to break down settlements and judgments by treatment, and settlements by category of damages, leads to the impossibility of determining which portion of any negotiated settlement or judgment applies to one particular treatment rather than another, or to economic or noneconomic damages.  This lack of clarity about what the judgment or settlement amount represents means that any determination of “reasonable value” for particular charges in particular cases would be extremely indefinite.

  “Market-Value” By Proxy

 In response to the problem of the complete lack of public, reliable data upon which to base any opinion about reasonable value in lien cases, some experts have been known to theorize that the data from the insurance and Medicare market can and should be used as a proxy source and applied--perhaps with modifications to address issues such as the delay in payment which lien treaters are generally obliged to endure--as an essentially wholesale representative of “reasonable value” in the lien “marketplace.”  Since the use of such methods generally results in figures far below the amount charged by lien treaters, these methods are generally favored by defendants, and disfavored by plaintiffs.

 Since such methods do not rely on any access to data from actual lien cases [since, as noted, no such data exists] regarding what actually happens to liens [are they paid?  How often?  How much?]; and in consequence, they do not directly comply with the “market or exchange value” standard which, according to Bermudez, constitutes an effective measure of “reasonable value” in lien cases [where, as noted, the idea of “marketplace” is, at the least, highly problematic], one would imagine that courts would reject the attempt to indirectly determine reasonable value in lien cases by using insurance and cash payment cases as a proxy.  Nevertheless, some courts have upheld the use of such methods as being helpful to the trier of fact in determining reasonable value.  (See, e.g., Stokes v. Muschinske (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 45.)

  A Third Way: How Treaters Treat In Particular Cases

 Because of the problems with determining reasonable value based on an aggregation of market transactions, whether hypothetically direct [for lien cases], or indirect [using non-lien cases as a proxy], there is a need for a method that will better demonstrate the reasonable value of treatment in lien cases.  One alternative possibility is to attempt to find how treaters in particular cases are actually re-imbursed for their treatments.  This methodology poses some difficulties, but offers some promise as well.  It also appears to be supported by Pebley itself.

 Treaters have the actual records showing how much they actually receive for their treatments in lien cases.  Even though these payments are not received as part of a free market transaction, they would nevertheless tend to shed light on the question of whether bills alone are indicative of, or are instead unsupportive of, the “reasonable value” of treatment.  This is so because disparities between charge and payment, or the lack thereof, would, in reason, substantially either undermine or support claims that the charge constitutes a “reasonable value” for the treatment.  Such an approach was perhaps indirectly suggested in Pebley when the court observed: “On cross-examination, Dr. Alexander testified there is an expectation that a private pay party with a large bill will pay the bill.  Pebley has not paid his bill, but Dr. Alexander expects it will be paid. He conceded he does not always get paid 100% of his bills, but stated he does not routinely discount them .”  Pebley, 1279.  In other words, if Dr. Alexander did, in fact, “routinely discount” his bills, that fact, and the amount of discounts generally, might be relevant to determining, under the “wide-ranging inquiry” standard, the reasonable value of Dr. Alexander’s treatment, since his bill couldn’t reasonably be said to constitute the reasonable value when it doesn’t represent the amount he generally receives for treatment, or bear a significant relationship to the amount he receives for treatment.  Inquiry into the actual payments received by treaters, therefore, might provide information which a reviewing court might consider relevant on the question of “reasonable value.”

 Further support for the idea that such a method is within the scope of Pebley’s interpretation of the “wide-ranging inquiry” rule for determining reasonable value is found in Pebley’s approval of the use of the treater’s actual experience in treating and billing patients :

 It is apparent from the record that both surgeons “were qualified to provide expert opinions concerning the reasonable value of the medical costs at issue. [Their] opinion testimony was based in part on the medical costs incurred by [Pebley] and in part on other factors considered by the experts , including their own experiences treating patients. This was not purely speculative evidence without any basis in the real world . . .”  Pebley, 1280.

 Note that in this context, the court in Pebley makes no reference of any kind to market value or aggregated market exchange rates for the purpose of determining “reasonable value”, despite the fact that it has purportedly adopted the rule and logic of Bermudez .  It appears that, despite its limited lip service to the “marketplace” for a means of determining reasonable value ( Pebley, 1275), the Pebley court was in fact looking at the particular history of transactions of treaters in the case as evidence of “reasonable value.”  To call this particular history a “marketplace” would be a highly idiosyncratic use of that word, to say the least.  In fact, the Pebley ruling provided that such essentially non-market evidence as a single treating doctor’s personal testimony regarding what he typically gets paid should be used to help determine reasonable value.  This approach is consistent with Pebley’s professed agnosticism on the usefulness and necessity of “market value” for determining reasonable value:

 As defendants point out, both surgeons emphasized the reasonable cost of the medical services rather than their reasonable value, market value or exchange rate value. The applicable jury instructions, however, refer to "cost" instead of any type of "value." The trial court instructed the jury with CACI No. 3903A, which states: "To recover damages for past medical expenses, David Pebley must prove the reasonable cost of reasonably necessary medical care that he has received." (Italics added.) It further states: "To recover damages for future medical expenses, David Pebley must prove the reasonable cost of reasonably necessary medical care that he is reasonably certain to need in the future." fn. 3 (Italics added.) Thus, as far as the jury was concerned, it was Pebley's burden to prove the "reasonable cost" of past and future medical expenses. The surgeons' testimony was consistent with CACI No. 3903A and, in the absence of an objection to the instruction, it was appropriate for them to testify regarding the reasonable cost of reasonably necessary medical care that Pebley has received and is expected to receive in the future.   Pebley, 1279.

 Thus, so far as Pebley is concerned, and in contrast to Bermudez, the necessity of “market value” to determining reasonable value is still undecided.

  Pebley’s decision to permit treater and expert evidence regarding amounts of payment typically received in a particular case by a particular treater to determine reasonable value seems well-suited to shedding light on the original problem that motivated Howell in the first place: the injustice done to defendants by the failure to take account of the discrepancy—sometimes enormous--between billed amounts, and amounts actually paid by plaintiffs and/or received by providers in satisfaction of those bills, in determining a plaintiff’s actual economic damages under the law.

  Discovery Of Particular Payments

 Defendants wishing to combat damages claims by showing how treaters in particular cases are actually reimbursed need to obtain evidence that shows or tends to show that the treater does not, in fact, usually receive the full amount of the bill from his patients.  The source of such evidence will most likely be the treater, or whoever handles bills for the treater.  Such evidence should be sought during the discovery process through well-tailored document subpoenas and PMK subpoenas of treaters, and document production requests from any treaters who are also retained as experts by the plaintiff.

 Anything that would tend to show that the treater does not, in fact, usually get paid the value of his bill, would tend in reason to show that the bill does not represent the reasonable value of treatment.  Evidence of this kind would typically include both itemized and aggregated payment amounts received for particular services; and both itemized and aggregated charges for particular services.  From each treater, this evidence should be obtained from lien cases, cash patients, and insurance patients, so that lien cases may be viewed in comparison to other types of cases.  The type of case or patient must be clearly identified in the documents obtained, or at least a clear distinction between lien and non-lien cases must be made, so that comparisons with lien cases to other cases are possible.

 Since the revelation of such information may make it impossible for a treater to claim that he usually gets paid the full amount of his bill, or that he expects to be fully paid, subpoenas and document requests of this kind can be expected to elicit strong opposition.  Defendants may have to endure numerous motions to quash and requests for protective orders from plaintiffs and treaters, and will have to rouse themselves to file numerous motions to compel, in order to obtain this information.  Since the alternative is to allow self-serving trial testimony from treaters, like that of Dr. Alexander in Pebley, who claim that they expect that their patients will pay their bills in full, and that they do not routinely discount their bills, to go unrebutted, filing and defending against such discovery motions is the price that defendants will have to pay until perhaps the Supreme Court crafts a formula for determining damages under its second Howell prong which is as mathematically elegant as its method for determining damages under the first Howell prong.

Home Insights Blog 15 Tips for Writing Impactful Law Firm Case Studies

15 Tips for Writing Impactful Law Firm Case Studies

Case studies aren’t always easy to create though – they take time and many people struggle with crafting a compelling case study. Thus, we’ve compiled 15 tips to help lawyers write winning case studies. 

What is a Case Study?

Simply put, a case study is a self-contained story about how a real client overcame their problem with the help of your law firm. A well-written case study reads like a journey with a beginning, middle, and end. The highlight is the protagonist (the client) achieving their goals and overcoming their challenges. 

An impactful law firm case study accomplishes a few main goals: 

• They build trust through social proof.
• They tell a complete story – showcasing the original problem, the strategy devised to solve the problem, and the journey to success.
• They demonstrate to future clients that you know how to achieve targeted results.
• They are effective marketing across several platforms and channels, including search and SEO, email, and your website. 

A case study is not an in-depth white paper, a document that gives away your “secret sauce”, or an advertisement. Case studies are not press releases or vehicles to talk about your own services. At the heart of the case study is the client journey (not your own).

Why Are Case Studies Important?

One of the most important aspects of building relationships with your audience is being able to prove your value proposition with action. People don’t want to take a gamble that the lawyer they’re signing on with is actually going to get the job done well. Nowadays, consumers are used to reading online reviews, watching vlogs, or going to online directories before making a purchase. The same is true of those looking to purchase services too. Potential clients want to be assured that they’ll be in good hands and the easiest way to prove you can handle their case is by showcasing similar cases you’ve successfully handled in the past.

15 Tips for Your Best Law Firm Case Studies

Without further ado, here are 15 simple tips to make your case studies a powerful asset in soliciting new business.

1. Get Permission from Your Client First

You’d be surprised how often businesses leap to publicize their client successes without asking them first. Don’t do this! It’s a quick way to lose trust. Make sure to get your client’s specific permission before you start writing and run the case study by them before publishing. It’s courteous to allow them to make any edits they’d like as well before publishing.

2. Be Realistic About the Goals for Your Case Study

Don’t be disheartened if a case study doesn’t perform as strongly as your best content. They’re not supposed to. Law firm case studies are designed for audiences that are already strongly considering your services, which is a smaller but more qualified audience.

3. Identify a Compelling or Unique Narrative for Your Case Study. Tell a Story

People enjoy reading a story. Just as any good story has a beginning, middle, and end, so too do the best case studies. Follow the classic narrative arc , a literary term for the path a story follows (i.e. rising action, climax, and resolution).

4. Identify Your Law Firm as the Supporting Character (not the protagonist) in the Case Study Story

You want your reader to visualize themselves as the protagonist of the case study . For this reason, your law firm should always be positioned as a helping hand that assisted the real hero of the story – your client – in overcoming their obstacle. Be direct in showcasing how you helped them overcome their struggle and alleviate their pain point.

5. Write About a Case Your Ideal Client Can Relate to

The main goal is for your target client to relate to and identify with the problems encountered by your case study’s protagonist. What is your ideal client’s most commonly experienced obstacle? If you have multiple audience personas, identify case(s) that each persona can relate to and go from there.

6. Follow the Proper Format

Follow the format of Situation, Solution, and Results. Situation is where you break down your client’s background and the problem they’re facing. Make sure to characterize the client in line with your audience personas and make their pain points clear. The Solution is where you come in. Give a step-by-step overview of your solution to their problem. And Results is where you break down the resolution. Make the emotional payoff and success clear in this stage.

7. Simplify Your Case Study

Rely on succinct sentences and short paragraphs, and cut anything inessential. Your case study should speed readers along and be easy to read. The ideal length of a case study should be 500-1500 words. Don’t bore the reader with excessive details.

8. Avoid Legal Jargon

Similar to the point above, your case study should be easy to read and follow. While it’s important to speak about the legal case, avoid using intense legal jargon that the average person won’t understand. If you do use any legal terms, make sure to break their definition down explicitly.

Utilize content formatting elements such as headings, images, bulleted lists, and bold and italicized text. These formatting elements will make your case study easier to read and provide SEO value for the page.

10. Include Quotes and Testimonials from the Client About Results 

Quoting your clients in their own words will make the case study even more relatable.

11. Test Varying Formats to Appeal to Different Types of Learners

Your case studies don’t necessarily need to be written. Test out different formats. Podcast, video , or infographic for example.

Related: The Law Firm Guide to Podcasting eBook

12. Make Them Easy to Find on Your Website

Your case studies should be easy to find right from your homepage. Make them accessible in the drop-down menu, for example. We also suggest linking your case studies right from your practice area pages.

13. Optimize for SEO

Optimize your case study for search. Include relevant keywords in the copy, title, meta description, and URL. This will help your case studies be indexed by Google while also showing off your expertise which is an important part of Google’s algorithm. 

14. Include a Call-to-Action

The goal of your case study should be clearly thought out. Consider what action you’ll want users to take. Remember: those reading your case study are probably warm leads. Make sure to always include a relevant CTA at the end of your case study.

15. Promote Your Case Study

Your case study shouldn’t just sit on your website never to be thought about again. Promote your case study on social media , email, or even in your newsletter.

For one thing, if you’re not currently creating case studies, it’s time to start! They can offer value above and beyond what many content forms can, and can reach your audience at any point in their decision-making process. If you already create case studies for your law firm, use these 15 tips as a checklist for each one you create. If you do, you’ll be sure to create more interesting and engaging case studies that help bring in new clients. 

Do you need help writing an impactful case study? We’ve got the largest cadre of legal writers and journalists in the industry, helping to take your idea and write the content as if you had the time to write it yourself. Let our experienced content professionals help you tell your story. Contact us today for a consultation .

Are you ready to get started generating new, qualified leads?

Contact us to get started and let us help you energize your digital marketing and business development efforts.

The easiest way to bill and efficiently grow your firm.

• Trust Accounting
• Lean Insights Advanced Reporting
• Reports & Compensation Tracking
• QuickBooks for Law Firms
• Matter Management
• Time & Expense Tracking

LeanLaw’s cloud-based software helps your firm run efficiently, with solutions that fit you and your clients’ needs.

• Hourly Billing
• Contingency Matters
• Small Law Firms
• Mid-size Law Firms
• Modern & Distributed Law Firms
• Firm Administrators
• Billing & Accounting Staff
• Partners & Attorneys
• LeanLaw Pros
• Case Studies

Trusted LeanLaw resources and ideas on running a more efficient, profitable law firm.

• Demo Center
• APIs & Documentation
• Integrations

Helping modern law firms be more efficient, collaborative and profitable through smarter financial operations.

• Why LeanLaw
• Client Experience

Transformed! 5 Jaw-Dropping Case Studies in Law Firm Efficiency

The Power of the Three P’s: Processes, People, and Product

Gary Allen highlighted a foundational framework for improving efficiency: processes, people, and product. By mapping workflows, utilizing tools like Microsoft 365, and customizing software for legal applications, firms can streamline operations. But efficiency doesn’t stop at technology. Accountability, effective communication, and a strong product-market fit—achieved through customer listening and design thinking—are equally vital.

Gary’s advice? Start by identifying bottlenecks in your workflows and involve your team in creating solutions. The results can dramatically boost both productivity and financial performance.

Resilience Through Diversification

When Lisa’s law firm rebranded from a construction defect-focused firm to a full-service business litigation firm, the transformation demanded adaptability. The shift, complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic, required the firm to diversify its client base and move from large-sum payments from a few clients to smaller payments from many.

The lesson? Diversification can be a lifeline during times of uncertainty. Whether through rebranding or pivoting your market focus, building resilience into your firm’s structure pays dividends.

Strategic Cost Management

Cost management doesn’t have to mean cutting corners. Lisa shared her success in renegotiating outsourced service contracts and reducing unnecessary expenditures, such as lowering copier usage and optimizing staff workflows. These changes saved her firm significant costs over five years.

Takeaway: Evaluate the utilization rates of your current resources. By balancing cost-saving measures with strategic investments in technology and people, firms can achieve long-term sustainability.

Technology as a Game-Changer

Both Gary and Lisa emphasized the role of technology in driving efficiency. From electronic filing systems to tools like DocuSign and I-Salt for HR and payroll, technology streamlines processes, reduces errors, and improves communication. Lisa also highlighted the use of Bill Blast for managing e-billing, which enhanced transparency and organization across the firm’s financial operations.

Actionable Tip: Identify areas where technology can replace manual processes. Start small, with high-impact areas like billing or client communication, and build from there.

AI and Talent Management: The Future of Efficiency

Lisa’s firm has embraced AI to achieve quick wins in areas like client billing and collections. But efficiency isn’t just about tools; it’s also about talent. Asking insightful questions during interviews and aligning hires with your firm’s culture ensures long-term success.

Gary’s advice? Focus on high-impact areas first and prioritize talent management. Investing in the right people and tools creates a foundation for sustained growth.

Final Thoughts

Efficiency is more than just a buzzword; it’s a strategic imperative. By focusing on processes, people, and product, embracing diversification, and leveraging technology, law firms can navigate challenges and achieve remarkable transformations. Whether you’re streamlining operations, cutting costs, or rethinking your firm’s approach to talent, these strategies provide a roadmap to success.

Ready to transform your law firm? Start small, think big, and watch the results speak for themselves.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Linkedin
• Share by Mail

Related Resources

The enemy in your email the new generation of ai-driven cyber attacks, masterclass webinar: how lean align simplifies trust accounting.

See invoices paid 70% faster with LeanLaw’s streamlined accounting workflows. Boost collections and increase your cash flow. LeanLaw is the alternative to law practice management software.

QuickBooks Online Premium App Partner

888.882.3017

• Time and Expense Tracking
• By use case
• By firm type
• Modern & Distributed Firms
• By Use Case
• By Firm Type
• LeanLaw Legal Accounting Experts

Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use | Service Level Agreement © 2024 LeanLaw. All Rights Reserved