For Episode 5, we were lucky enough to snag an interview with Ken Grady to discuss the application of lean thinking to the practice of law.
Ken has unique insight about the legal industry because he has worked just about every position possible in the legal field. He is currently a law professor at Michigan State’s Legal RnD program and held prior positions in corporate legal departments and law firms.
Ken explains that the main goal of lean thinking is to eliminate waste from business processes and that legal work is rife with waste. He also points out that eliminating waste from the practice of law might just free up time for lawyers to do other work, including the pursuit of access to justice initiatives.
For those interested, Ken mentioned a couple books on Lean:
Lean Thinking by James Womack
Karen Martin on Process Mapping
Legal Founder Segment: Gavin McGrane of PacerPro
In this episode, we also talk to Gavin McGrane the founder of PacerPro–great app that makes it a whole lot easier for attorneys and law firms to stay on top of federal court dockets and pleadings.
Theme Music: Home Base (Instrumental Version) by TA2MI
Photo above, Dennis Hamilton.
Chad Main: I’m Chad Main, and this is Technically Legal. A podcast about the intersection of technology and the practice of law. Each week we’ll talk to a mover and shaker from the legal and technology fields, we’ll learn a little bit about them, what they’ve been up to, and hopefully get a couple of real world tips that lawyers can use to integrate technology into their legal practices. In this episode we talked to Ken Grady. Lawyer, law professor, legal futurist, and baker of bread.
Ken Grady: I just decided one day that I would try baking bread, because it sounded like a cool thing to do, and fun little crafty thing. And I started and learned how to do it through trial and error, and then never had the time to really follow up on it. So, I’d bake some bread and I would, and I did, and I didn’t.
But more recently, meaning in the past month or two, I said, “You know, I’m gonna get back to doing that because I now have some home time to do it,” so that’s how I resurrected it. I got three kids, one of my daughters is kind of into the homesteading lifestyle, and so we’re sharing tips and doing different things that way.
Ken’s Held Just About Every Position Possible in Legal
Chad Main: I was excited to get Ken on the podcast for a few reasons. But first and foremost, is that he’s a prolific writer, and for my money, has one of the best blogs out there on legal integration. It’s called the Algorithmic Society. You can check that out on Medium.
Beyond Ken’s gift of prose, I also wanted to get him on the podcast because he’s basically held every position there is to hold within the legal industry. He’s worked in house, he’s worked at big law, and now he’s even a law professor at Michigan State University.
Ken Grady: Yeah. My description is, when you hear my background, your first inclination is to say this guy can’t hold a job. It’s been about 38 years now total, in the legal industry. And I started as a paralegal when I came out of college, and have rolled through a lot of different dimensions. So, I’ve been in large firms, the very large firms. I’ve been in medium firms, I’ve been in small firms, I’ve been an associate, I’ve been a partner.
Outside of private practice, which was the first chunk of my career, moved into large corporations. So, I was an attorney in a new law department for a Fortune 500. I have been a general counsel of a few Fortune 1000 corporations.
I’ve had, in addition to the legal role, I’ve had senior executive roles in those corporations and for a while, which is key, I stepped out of law and was an operations executive in the Fortune 500 corporations. So, I ran one of their largest manufacturing be distribution facilities for a while.
Then coming back to law, as I said, I was in house for a while. I was a general counsel and then I moved into consulting for a bit, for one of the large law firms. I was CEO of their consulting subsidiary.
I was a lean law evangelist for the firm, so I was sort of a thought leader for the firm and its clients for a while, and in recent years, I’ve been involved with academia as an adjunct professor, and then as part of this program for Michigan State University College of Law, called Legal R & D, which is much, we’re more robust than simply classes, but I’ve had the academic side.
I’ve seen the industry from a lot of perspectives, not just on the provider side but also on the buyer side, and not just as an in house buyer but actually as an operations executive buying legal services. And I think that’s part of what gives me this really broad perspective on the industry. You know, I can see the tug and pull from different perspectives and what the challenges are, so that’s been an interesting way to look at the industry as we go through these changes.
Differences Between Practicing Law In-House vs. Outside Law Firm
Chad Main: Based on the fact that Ken has held basically every job there is to hold within the legal industry, I was interested to get his take on the differences between practicing law between the corporate legal department and working at a law firm.
Ken Grady: I think that there are several.
First, when you’re in house, you really feel the immediacy of the business, the immediacy of the clients, and the business drivers for whatever matter you’re working on. So, it’s a very, very close connection to what the client, the true client, the business itself wants to accomplish and is trying to do.
When you’re in a law firm, despite your best efforts, you don’t have that in your face immediacy. You don’t spend your day going in and out of meetings with business people, talking about business issues, strategizing, doing different business related things. You’re in and out by phone, by video conference, or maybe even in person, targeting a legal issue.
And so you don’t have the immersion that gets talked about a lot in business, and that means that you just don’t have the intimacy with how the business works. What drives it, what runs it, what people are looking for. And that, that’s probably the biggest difference that you see between the two worlds.
As a general counsel, I would sit in my office and I’m not going to be closing the door or telling clients I can’t meet with them of refusing phone calls, or doing anything of that nature. I am a service provider within the business, and so you have a regular stream of people stopping by to ask questions, you have ad hoc meetings that occur, you are there at their disposal, to assist them in accomplishing their purpose. And so your days have a rhythm tied to whatever that may be.
And you can see how easy it is, especially today, to be in a law firm, and whether you should do this or not, to sort of cut yourself off from the world. You don’t have to take a call, nobody knows if you’re sitting in your office or not. You don’t get pulled into a meeting with the CEO, because that’s not how it works. So, those worlds have really moved apart over the time I’ve been involved in the profession.
What Can Lawyers Do to Learn More About Their Clients’ Businesses?
Chad Main: So my take on what Ken is saying, is that lawyers at law firms can afford to be a little more insular if they wanna be. However, if you have an in house counsel position, you have to be readily available to answer questions from the clients, and not only answer those questions, understand the business angle from which those questions are arising.
Ken’s point about understanding the business angle of legal problems is an interesting one, because every once in a while, you’ll come across a survey of in house counsel and one of their biggest gripes about law firm lawyers is that they don’t take the time to understand the client’s business.
So I asked Ken, what could lawyers do to learn more about their client’s business? And he suggested taking a page out of a consultant’s book.
Ken Grady: We have to think about consultants when you ask that question, because consultants are very involved in their client’s businesses. You know, consultants get out of the office.
They don’t stay in the office, they’re known for being out of the office and they do go to clients, and they do go to the premises, and they do get to know them. They spend an enormous amount of time getting to know understand the industry of their primary clients, who the players are, how the businesses work, and so I think it’s a little bit of a, you know we can’t do this when the reality is you can, and you should, and it’s a business model choice as opposed to a can’t be done choice.
Good consultants are known within their industry for having expertise within an industry, higher than the practitioner, you know, the operational folks. Because that is what they sell.
Lawyers don’t look at it that way and haven’t looked at it that way, and have sort of copped out of really getting to know things. And clients today complain about it because it’s, used to be I would be sitting there as a general counsel.
So, I worked at a lot of retail companies and wholesale companies, and saw that you could come in and treat a problem in the retail industry the same way you could in the manufacturing industry because you’re looking at the legal problem, just wasn’t true. And it was frustrating because things that could be suggested or done, or whatever didn’t apply from one industry to another and yet the consultants knew your industry and would be very specific with what you could do in the industry.
So, you can as a lawyer decide that you are going to be knowledgeable about and the go to person in an industry. That just have not been the choice of the lawyers in the large law firms.
Chad Main: How much do you think that’s attributable to the way lawyers bill?
Ken Grady: Oh, many of these deals come back to the way that lawyers bill. I am on record as not a fan of the billable hour, and it’s pernicious and it creeps through in many ways and one of them is that they won’t spend the time because it’s not billable time, when they won’t learn because it’s not billable time, and that’s a choice.
It doesn’t have to be that way, but making that choice, you now have to live with the consequences. And the consequences is, you’re not as valuable to your client. You don’t possess knowledge or skills that are useful to your client, and you shouldn’t complain then when your client looks elsewhere for help.
Legal Founder Segment: Gavin McGrane of Pacer Pro
Chad Main: We’ll get back to our interview with Ken in just a minute. But now, it’s time for our segment where we take a couple minutes and sit down with the founder of a legal tech company. Today, we’re gonna talk to Gavin McGrane, a friend of mine and the Founder of PacerPro, a product that I cannot recommend enough, and is one that we use here at Percipient to keep track of our client’s federal litigation. It’s a product that I wish I would have had back in my days as a litigator, too. Basically, it’s a much easier way of taking a look at Pacer dockets, Pacer case info, and associated information. So, Gavin, thanks for being here today. Tell us a little bit about PacerPro.
Gavin McGrane: So, the short story is, PacerPro is an overlay to the Pacer system. Our focus has been historically on better case and document management. To date, we’ve jumped into the world of experience management. We’re doing some really interesting things. Taking your litigation files which include both your documents but also the case metadata, joining it to client matter numbers and starting to feed into law firm IT systems, not including things like iManage, Net Documents, and other experience platforms.
Chad Main: And what motivated you to create PacerPro?
Gavin McGrane: Again, the short answer was, I was involved in lots of litigation and working for my father’s firm here in San Francisco. We had to improve our ability to kind of manage our cases and he was pretty determined to look at ways technology could help kind of level the playing fields. And one place we felt we were getting particularly hit was better management over the pleading files. Because everybody knows state court records are a mess. Everything has to be scanned OCR, and that’s just not a whole lot of fun. But the federal court system where we were doing a lot of litigation is already online, digital, but trying to collect that information and put it into your own systems in an intelligible way was quite time consuming.
I realized that no matter the size of the firms, everybody was kind of interfacing with Pacer the same way. You would get your emails, you’d download the documents, you’d put them into your DMS and you’d distribute them to the case teams and I figured there was a way to automate that process. I figured that there was a way to automate that process. We’d be able to build up a pretty robust set of documents, do some real interesting things down the road.
Chad Main: Who’s PacerPro for?
Gavin McGrane: PacerPro is basically for everybody in your law firm that deals with litigation. Primary users of what we call our PDF To Go service are the litigation teams. That means your attorneys, your partners, your junior partners, your associates, senior associates, your co-counsel, your paralegals, your secretaries. But the documents themselves also touch other departments. Your records department, your calendering department, etc.
So, we facilitate that. As we just into the world of experience, you know kind of where your law firms been, the types of cases they’ve handled, the judges they’ve been in front of, the parties they’ve been up against, you start talking about your business development teams, your knowledge management teams. So, Pacer information is really something that is consumed by multiple different departments in different ways, and PacerPro’s facilitating the flow of that information to those different groups in the ways that you did.
Chad Main: Well, Gavin I appreciate your time today, and where can people find you?
Gavin McGrane: www.pacerpro.com.
Ken’s Involvement With Michigan State University’s Legal R & D Program
Chad Main: Okay, let’s get back to our interview with Ken Grady. As noted earlier, Ken’s now a law professor at Michigan State University’s legal R & D program. That’s a program that was started a few years ago to study innovations in legal practice.
Ken Grady: Yeah, I’ve been there now, been over three years I guess, and what happened was three, four years ago, a professor named Dan Katz, who’s now at Chicago-Kent, started something called Reinvent Law with some others at Michigan State. And Dan was trying to kickstart in his part of the world, the idea that law was changing. We needed to become more data driven, we needed to become more attuned to not just efficiency, but really just a different way of looking at law and at legal services.
And so he was an early mover with Reinvent Law, which was the genesis of what we have today, and so there were conferences, they added classes in various areas like legal analytics, and after a couple of years, he got an opportunity at Chicago-Kent, so he moved on. And a guy named Dan Linna took over directing the program.
And in the meantime, I had come on board as an adjunct, and I was teaching three of four different course areas within the program, so I taught a course called Delivering Legal Services, which is a survey course of things like project management, process improvement design thinking, metrics, analytics, etc. I teach a course called Entrepreneurial Lawyering, which teaches lawyers how to be entrepreneurs. In today’s world, you have to find a practice area or to find what you’re going to do. How do you build that, how do you develop it, how do you become your brand, we’ll say. I teach a course, or have co-taught a course with Dan on litigation and on the use of new tools within litigation. Decision tree analysis and other more data driven ways of looking at litigation.
And I teach a course called Artificial Intelligence In Law, which is the clash between artificial intelligence and the laws that we have today to deal with a whole range of issues, from intellectual property to torts, to contracts, to you name it. So, how does our legal system adjust to this new thing called artificial intelligence? What types of regulation or not regulation laws should apply to those situations. So that’s the curriculum part.
And the second part of the program, Legal R & D, is research and development. Legal R & D. And there, we’re trying to look in a more systematic way in how we practice law and how we can change the practice of law to meet the needs of the 21st century. Law is an incredibly inefficient area, and so we’re researching and applying different techniques to improve that.
And then the third one, we’ll call sort of a community outreach approach. How do we better integrate the needs of the community with what lawyers can provide today to meet those needs? So another way of putting it is, the access to justice. And those three pieces tied together through conferences, through curriculums, through research, through different ad hoc programs to change the experience law students have and to refocus a bit what the university, what the law college does in the area to make it a better provider for the 21st century.
Lean Thinking and Law
Chad Main: The stated goal for MSU’s Legal R & D program is the improvement of both the delivery of legal services and the access to those services. As mentioned earlier, Ken is a firm believer that one of the first places you can start to improve legal services is to take a look at the processes involved.
A lot of Ken’s belief that process improvement will go a long way to improving the delivery of legal services is based on his experience in his prior life as in house counsel for a manufacturing company. It was at that company that Ken was first exposed to lean thinking.
What is lean thinking? It ain’t got nothing to do with cutting carbs out of your diet.
If you fire up the Google and take a look at Wikipedia, you’ll find a pretty succinct definition of lean thinking. Wikipedia describes lean thinking as a methodology that aims to provide a new way to think about how to organize human activities to deliver more benefits to society and valued individuals while eliminating waste. So who thought up this lean thinking idea? None other than: Toyota
Ken Grady: Lean thinking is the genericized term that comes out of what Toyota had been doing since the 1940s, which was called the Toyota production system. And the basic tenents of the Toyota production system were to move away from the Henry Ford model of assembly to a very low waste, low resource approach to doing things, which Toyota had to do after World War II because it didn’t have money, and it didn’t have resources.And so that became this thing called lean thinking.
When I went into manufacturing in the mid-nineties, this company was about two years into this idea. I spent the first couple of years there as a lawyer learning it, not as directly. Everybody in the company had to do it, but some had to do it more than others.
And then I was promoted to run one of their largest facilities. So now I had to really get serious. So they shipped me off to Japan, where I had some training, worked with the consultants who used to be engineers at Toyota, inventing this stuff. Came back and spent a couple of years immersed in this lean thinking, and basically when we talk about lean thinking, what we are talking about are these two notions.
The first is very systematic, methodical ways to take waste out of the ways that we do things, the processes that we use, and waste is anything that doesn’t add value to the service or product the customer is purchasing.
Chad Main: It’s not waste in the traditional sense of …
Ken Grady: Yeah, I mean the nuance, the nuance is simply if I look at some step in a process and say, “It does not increase the value of the output of the process, it just adds nothing,” then my goal would be to remove that, because it is costing some energy, time, money, resource to do it, but it’s not adding anything, so it’s waste. So that’s sort of the simple, straight forward idea. Now there’s a tremendous amount that goes into that, but that’s the core.
Chad Main: So, there’s a cool concept in lean thinking, and that’s the concept of respect for humanity. This idea is tied to the goal of eliminating waste. And the thinking behind respect for humanity is this: that it’s disrespectful to ask a person to do a job that adds no value for the client. The thinking being is by asking a person to do something that adds no value to the task at hand, is disrespecting their time, effort, and talents.
Ken Grady: The second piece that gets lost today because most of the people who talk about lean today are third or fourth generation, somewhat trained, maybe some experience, but really didn’t learn it from those who invented it, is respect for humanity.
And respect for humanity is this sort of related notion that says, “If I ask you, Chad, to do something and that something has no value to our customer, then I am disrespecting you because I am asking you to spend part of your life doing something that has no value.” And too, you should have, because you are the person who is doing whatever this is, you should have close immediate input into whether it should be done or not, or how it should be done, because you are the most knowledgeable person about the process involved. So we wanna respect you, your time, your talent, your skills.
We translated this in law of this notion of practicing up to your license. So, not asking a lawyer to do things that really don’t need the skills of a lawyer. They may need the skilled of a project manager because we wanna a lawyer to practice at the top of their license.
So, there’s these twin notions. Get rid of waste, respect the people who are in the process. And then we have a number of ways, methodologies, and other things we can do to get there, but when you take that concept and now you go look at how we deliver legal services, what immediately strikes you, especially if you’re a true lean practitioner and you’ve been immersed in it like I was.What immediately strikes you is that a huge portion of what lawyers do is simply waste. It is not value added for the client.
And that means the system has all sorts of, it’s like your body, when your body’s out of sync, you have all sorts of other problems. Well, when the legal system is out of sync, we have poor quality, we have inefficiency, we have to rework, we have mistakes. We have all over production. We have all sorts of ailments that go on within the legal industry, and now add to the fact that we use the billable hours. So the client pays for all those ailments, even though they add nothing to and usually detract from what the client wants, and we have a system that is exorbitantly expensive for what it produces.
And so, the idea of lean thinking which you’ll hear run through a lot of what I do is, we’re and this is made up metrics, but we’re spending a billion dollars to get a hundred million dollars worth of actual value. And that is, that’s something that’s unsustainable, and in fact today, that’s exactly what we’re seeing.
It’s so unsustainable, clients are cutting back. We’re having all sorts of change in the profession, so the idea is to change that, to reinvent that, so that value matches what we need to get the waste out of the profession, and in turn use the freeing up of those resources to focus on areas where we’re not doing anything. Access to justice, people who aren’t getting legal services who need legal services.
Where to Start Learning About Lean Thinking
Chad Main: You know, lawyers listening to this, where can they start to learn about lean thinking? Where could they start, books, resources, things of that nature?
Ken Grady: So this is the irony, there are certainly a lot of materials out there on lean. Law is kind of skimpy for a few reasons. The first is, that while lean itself, and Toyota thinking has been around since the 1940s, it started in manufacturing, it built in manufacturing, there’s a huge amount of literature, studying it in manufacturing. And it wasn’t until the 1990s that it started to, in any significant way, leak from manufacturing into other industries, and service being the alternative.
And so, there are some things that are written about it for service industries, but to be honest, it’s not a lot. And so when you get to law, which really didn’t start picking up on this until roughly 2005, you’re now into articles that are available on the internet and in various publications, but not really a systematic treatment of how lean and then another number of these disciplines work together.
So here I’m gonna throw, what they call the unabashed pitch in. I’m working on a book that does all that, and hopefully will explain how to do this. In the meantime, I always suggest that people go back to sort of the common place, which is a book called Lean Thinking by James Womack, that came out in the 1980s. It’s sort of the seminal book that says, “Okay, this is how we’ve done things, draw a line. This is how we can be doing things.” And while it’s not related to law, it starts to get your mind going in the direction of, there are different ways to do some things.
Once you’ve gotten exposed to that, probably the best way to do this is either some articles on the internet or there are a number of one day events that you can attend that are constantly going around the country.
Lean is like learning to play the piano in many ways. It is a skill that you develop over time. You don’t just read the theory and say, “Aha. I know what to do.” And so you will need some exposure to a teacher who can show you how to do things versus just reading about how to do things. Having said that, it is incredibly easy to do and low cost to do, even for a solo practitioner.
Chad Main: A lot of the discussion on today’s episode has been pretty theoretical. But I started this podcast to offer more than just theory. I wanted to get tips from our guests about how lawyers may actually apply some of these ideas to their legal practices. When I asked Ken where people could start to apply lean thinking to their practices, he said, “The first step is mapping out all the tasks that they do, and try to find areas to eliminate waste.”
Ken Grady: This is where we get into things like process mapping, and there’s a very good book out there by Karen Martin on process mapping. And basically what you need to do is understand within your particular environment, how do I do what I do? How do I, if I’m a divorce lawyer, what is the process I go through to handle somebody’s divorce? If I’m a criminal lawyer, criminal defense lawyer, what do I go through?
Process mapping is an easy and systematic way of saying, “These are the steps I follow to produce a document, to produce a particular output, and it would be good if I did the same steps each time in the same order, that I don’t miss things, I don’t make mistakes. We can do templates so that is more consistent. We reduce variability, etc.”
And so you learn to break down your practice into these processes, focus on the processes, ask yourself why I do certain steps, they don’t add value, let’s eliminate them, and you start developing a mindset of how to make your practice efficient, without taking away creativity.
We’re not asking you to forgo how you come up with some of the fourth amendment or fifth amendment arguments you might make, but once you decided to make that argument, you’re gonna write a brief. Be incredibly efficient in writing that brief. Otherwise, you’re just wasting somebody’s time and money, probably both yours and your client’s.
You know, I was at Seyfarth Shaw, which is probably the leading proponent globally on it, and by the time I left, we had something like five or six hundred process maps active that were used for things, and we were process mapping for clients all the time.
So, it’s tremendously scalable, and you know we really have to decide what it is you want to focus on at any given time, to understand the process and improve the process. But, this is the core idea of what Toyota does with many things. How do we do what we do? How can we get rid of the waste? How can we do it better?
How Process Improvement in Legal Can Help With Access to Justice
Chad Main: Ken’s talked a lot about the elimination of waste in the practice of law. Getting rid of time wasters and tasks that don’t add any value for the client. By doing so, this frees up time. Of course, some of that time can be spent on doing other work that makes money, but some of this time we save may also be used for the greater good. That is, providing access to legal help to those who might not otherwise have it available to them.
Ken Grady: So, I spend a lot of time with students who get to intern or extern with small law practices or those other areas, defender’s offices, legal aid, etc., and so they see very close up and personal what happens when you don’t have a way of controlling your environment through lean thinking, my preference, or something else. You waste enormous amounts of time. You have huge number of just things that fill your day, that are absolutely clouding you or blocking you from doing anything else. And you know, I have tale after tale, after tale from the students who have been in this environment and see what’s going on. That means that the individuals, the lawyers, are precluded basically from doing anything except just surviving from day to day.
A small practitioner’s environment is probably somewhere around 80% of where our lawyers live. Twenty percent the large firms, 80% the small, medium size firms.
If we simply attacked that crowd by giving them ways to get done what they need to get done, without all of this extra burden, they would have time to now devote to this next question. How do I serve individuals who in many cases, may be able to afford something for legal services, but can’t afford the average cost of a lawyer in the United States who handles a commercial matter for an individual of $230 to $240 an hour. But could afford something less than that if that service were provided very efficiently and the lawyer could still make money on that lower cost, because they wouldn’t have all the waste involved in the process.
And so, we’ve got a system that is just preventing our lawyers from helping people who can pay something, and it’s certainly blocking the lawyers from those who are not able to pay something.
So, we gotta fix that. We gotta find a way to be able to get legal services to these people. So, lean and its related entities is my way of saying, “If we could teach lawyers how to be, not just a good lawyer, but how to be good business people, how to run an operation, a legal services operation in a way that is profitable at what a manufacturer would call a lower break even point, then we have pent up resources to bring to bear on the problem.” And that’s not the approach we have been taking.
We have been taking an approach that simply says, “Katy bar the door. You’re not getting anywhere near the lawyers,” and that keeps prices high, and it keeps the services from the people that need the services, and it’s building a lot of frustration in the system.
Such to the point that, today one of the trends is to find ways to get services done without lawyers. So, we have anywhere from vendors who are offering that type of activity to governments that have now set up lawyer free, or lawyer restricted zones for dispute resolution.
We’ve seen that in Australia and in Canada. And that is pushing lawyers towards irrelevance, because as soon as your clients say, “Well, I think I can do this without you. I can get to where I need to go without your services,” then you have just defined yourself as irrelevant. And that is the growing trend that the bar associations are hoisting on the legal community. And I think that’s too bad, because there isn’t an equivalency between doing it yourself and having some alternative, and getting the knowledge that lawyers do offer that can help clients.
And so, that’s sort of the nub of this. We’ve gotta find a way to fix the system to free up lawyers to do things economically for their clients. That may require some very radical thinking on how we provide services, but we need to do that. Otherwise, they’re just gonna go it without us, because nobody is going to stop and say, “You know, I won’t do it because the lawyers charge a lot of money, and the only way to get it done is through the lawyers.” We can see that with something simple that’s become very popular. The do not pay app that was developed by the guy who was a Stanford non-law student. He’s an undergraduate.
Chad Main: Ken, thanks for your time, I appreciate it. To close this out, where can people find you?
Ken Grady: The easiest place to find me, the easiest places to find me are on Twitter @LeanLawStrategy, on LinkedIn, and if you’re on Medium, I have a publication called The Algorithmic Society, which just won an award from the ABA for one of the top 50 law blogs.
Chad Main: Well, that’s today’s episode, hope you enjoyed it. If you wanna subscribe, you can check us out on pretty much any major podcast platform like iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, and Sound Cloud. If you wanna get a hold of me, please shoot me an email. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. That’s C-M-A-I-N@P-E-R-C-I-P-I-E-N-T.C-O. I hope you tune in next time, where my guest is Casey Flaherty. He and I talk about a few things, but one of the main things we talk about is how if there’s really gonna be change in the practice of law, clients are gonna have to demand it. Until next time, this has been Technically Legal.