Beyond the Billable Hour: Christopher Anderson on Incentive Alignment,AI, & Future of Legal Practice

Time is the only thing any of us have that is not of infinite availability. If I as the attorney know, because it's true. If I find more things about which I can create drama, that I can create conflict, that I can create a fight, that I can create motions and discovery and litigation, I make more money. The firefighters become the arsonists. I am now not aligned with my clients. AI can liberate us from the stuff that's not really the practice of law. We're going to be able to serve our clients so much more deeply, so much more completely with It's going to restore what I think was the most honorable title we've ever been given and which we've stripped from most of our business cards, which is attorney and counselor at law. >> This is The Litigator's Edge, the podcast where smart strategy, practical innovation, and real-world experience come together [music] to move litigation forward. Each week, we sit down with attorneys, >> [music] >> legal tech leaders, and trusted advisers who are rethinking how great legal work gets done. You'll hear how law firms are building a competitive advantage. >> [music] >> These conversations are grounded, insightful, and designed to help you refine how you work and how you win. Here is your host, >> [music] >> Aniket Saoant. >> Hello and welcome to today's episode of The Litigator's Edge, the podcast where innovative attorneys reveal the strategies that have transformed their legal practice. My name is Aniket Saoant and I'm co-founder and CEO of Trellis. My guest today is a visionary attorney, a legal business consultant, and a man on a mission to fundamentally change how law firms operate and how lawyers get paid. Christopher Anderson is the host of the highly respected podcast The Unbillable Hour and the co-founder of multiple successful law firms, including New Leaf Family and Anderson Dodson. With a wildly diverse career that spans from prosecuting sex crimes in the Bronx to developing legal tech as a product manager for LexisNexis, he brings a battle-tested, deeply practical perspective to the business of law. Having lived the traditional law firm grind, he is today here to challenge one of the legal profession's most sacred cows, the billable hour. He joins us to share a road map for how litigators can ditch the time sheet, leverage new technologies, and build healthier, more profitable practices that deliver true predictability and value to their clients. It's my pleasure to welcome Christopher Anderson to the podcast. Welcome, Christopher, and thank you for being here. >> Anika, thank you. I'm just a real pleasure to be here and share this information with your listeners. >> I'm I'm sure they're looking forward to it and I know I certainly am. So, but before we get into that, I'd love to start each episode by asking each of my guests to share either a fun fact about themselves or a cringe joke. So, which will it be for you and what is it? >> I'm not good at the cringe, you know, Anika. I wish I were better. I'm not British enough. Um I I think the the most fun fact because it explains a lot about me and it's not cringey at all is that I'm I went to school as an astrophysics major. And you know, it's cuz it's always funny to me that lawyers are like, "Oh, I'm a lawyer because I didn't want to deal with numbers." I love numbers and and and science and I've really, you know, I think that's been an important part of why I've done what I've done. But so, yeah, astrophysics major, still am fascinated by it by astrophysics and what's what we're learning and continue to learn today about the cosmos both large and really, really tiny. We're learning some very interesting things right now about what's going on inside of atoms and nuclei. So, that's my fun fact. I'm a nerd and and astrophysics and and physics are my jams. >> That That's amazing. As someone who's not quite that much into the hard sciences, I'm a trained chemical engineer from way back when. I I appreciate that the STEM focus and I really enjoy uh >> [laughter] >> having conversations with those who made that transition from from STEM into into the law in whatever way they did so. That's awesome. Thank you for sharing. >> I love it. >> So, with that, that's actually a great segue into uh my next question, which is I think of every I think of every guest who makes the time to be on this podcast as a superhero and every superhero has an origin story. And I would love to learn yours, especially as it relates to your entry into law from from your astrophysics background. >> An origin story, yeah. You know, I still I really like the Superman one. Isn't that cool? Like came like came on a on a meteor that's actually a bassinet. I mean, that's the best story ever. Mine is is much less inspiring. You know, I made the joke that, you know, a lot of lawyers say they came into this business because they didn't want to do numbers. Well, I exited the astrophysics major because I just third-year differential calculus made me realize that maybe maybe at the end of the day that wasn't going to be the level to which I wanted to go. And and so, I began to search for other means to use the scientific method scientific thinking. And I actually entered into law through business. And that's what's really carried been with been the through-line for me. So, that's my origin story in a in a sense is that my first job was not bringing legal knowledge to science, but bringing science to legal. I work for a software company. We develop software um to help uh with insurance companies and law firms to crunch large amounts of data before AI and to see and notice patterns um in that data to help understand what was going on with um with mass torts, uh with large chemical spills, large gas emissions. And you know, then I started to iterate on that cuz I learned a lot about Yeah, that's right out of law school. I learned a lot about business there in software, and then I kept bringing that back. So, I would then brought that back into the practice in the DA's office would would introduce com- Believe it or not, this is the It's not like this was the '70s. In the '90s, introduced computers to the New York City DA's office. Then, you know, back out into software company, then back to the law, and kind of this back and forth um between business and law. And because I did that, I was constantly, while in the business side of things, looking for and learning about processes that and systems that were not being used in law firms. Because law was a profession, not a business, was the mantra. And then bringing those systems, tweaking them so that they matched the profession and the needs of the profession, and then helping law firms grow, change, iterate, evolve because of because of being able to operate more like a business, which at the end of the day actually serves your clients better, serves your team better, and serves the owners better when you do that. Um and so that you know, that's sort of a long-winded answer to the origin, but the origin really for me was the constant shift between business and law until finally, over the past uh since ooh I guess for the past 14 years or so, I've had my one foot firmly planted in law, the other foot firmly planted in business, and I'm existing in both spaces simultaneously, and that's really bri- brought the most energy and the most power to to what I'm able to bring to law firm owners and to help them grow their businesses. >> That's amazing. If I may If [clears throat] I may crack an astrophysics joke, you're you're like the Schrödinger of of business and law. You're in both You're You're You're in both states at the same time and you know, which which is great. >> That's all funny until the cat dies. Then it's not funny. >> That's right. That's fair. No, that that that's great. That's that's fascinating, Christopher, because jokes aside, you're you're you're both an outsider and an insider cuz you can bring that outsider's perspective from hey, here's how the rest of the world operates and why doesn't law, as well as you know, you have the credibility of of someone who's actually practiced law, has a law degree, etc. To actually bring that to to your peers as a force. So that that's great. Let's Let's maybe talk about your you know, your the moment that you specifically decided that hey, you know what? You've seen law, you've practiced law the traditional way, you've seen obviously others practice law the traditional way, but now obviously you're at looking for for you know, maybe transitioning away from the billable hour. So was there something specific that triggered this or was it a real slow realization over over a period of time? Can you walk us through that? >> Oh, it's not been slow at all. The You know, to back to your I want to like I think you hit on something that I want to make sure I emphasize. And it helps to answer this question, too. The I've always had a very deep need to test. Back to the scientific method, right? Everything Every idea I come up with, every every nuance that I have brought out of business and said, "Hey, this would really work well with law." I think there's a lot of people out there who form these hypotheses and then bring them out as if they're truths. Um, think there's there's real danger there. And it that's I want to say that because the answer to the billable hour question that you just asked is another one where there's huge danger. And so I've been insistent on trying my hypotheses on myself first. Now, you can call me the Jonas Salk of of law firm business. But you know, I I'm going to take the polio vaccine first. And not all those ideas are have been successful. I have fallen on my face a lot of times. Some ideas have not been successful, including this one about the billable hour. I have had to iterate that, learn from the mistakes. You know, learn in very difficult, painful parentheses, hopefully my wife's not watching, expensive, really expensive mistakes to find the truth. Cuz that's how the scientific method works. Most hypotheses are disproven. Science is a process of disproving things, not proving things. And that's how that we we came to this. But I just kind of wanted to emphasize the fact that you know, like a lot of what I talk about, I don't really talk about publicly until I've tested it. But so you asked, did I come slowly to this? No, I didn't come slowly to this. It be I mean, it it it's apparent And you know what? I think it's apparent to almost every lawyer practicing that bills by the hour. That it is terrible. There are some practices where I think it makes some sense. But I think transactional work it might make some sense. But generally speaking, I'm not sure there's ever been a person in the history of the world that has really ached for an hour of an attorney's time. Maybe their spouses, right? They just wish they'd spend more time with them. Maybe that. But other than that, our clients do not want our time. Like one of the my most hated phrases in the world is thank you for your time. I don't think you can thank me enough for my time. You can't pay me enough for my time. In all the things and this is this is where the crux comes. And I think everybody kind of knows this, but they don't know it. Like they haven't articulated it. Time is the only thing any of us has that is not of infinite availability. It is the only finite thing in our lives. We don't know when we're going to die, but we know that we will. And, you know, if depending on your belief system, there may be a supreme being who already knows. You're You're You may believe that your your date is already written. Some people don't believe that, but we all know that that date is coming. So, here we have this thing that is of finite availability. And we sell it for money, which is not of of finite availability. We can all create money at will. That's what we do. And so, we go around selling time for money, and then we wonder why things are broken. We trade the thing we have a finite uh uh amount and trade it for the thing that exists in infinite amount. That's a bad trade in anybody else's book. Now, that's bad for us. And I wanted to start there. Right? Because unless I can show people that it's bad for us, the in the impetus to change is smaller. But it's also bad for the clients. Now, you see behind me I'm I've got one of my brands behind me, New Leaf Family. Think about family law. This is true of all areas of law. If I as the attorney know because it's true that if I find more things about which I can create drama that I can create conflict, that I can create a fight, that I can create motions and discovery, and litigation I make more money. >> The arsonist has become the firefighter. >> Yes. Yes. And it's still a bad trade for me. So, I'm not doing any better cuz I'm I still only have a finite amount of time. So, really I don't have to sell more of it I don't have to create more drama for you cuz there's the next guy coming down the I can create more drama for him. But it's also bad for the client because now, yes, I love it. The arsonist the firefighter has become the arsonist. I am now not aligned with my clients. Some of my clients want more drama. Maybe I'm aligned with them a little bit. But most of them want a solution. And the billable hour does not incentivize quick solutions. I I'll never forget when I was first starting to practice, I came into a law firm and a senior partner was was telling me about when he was an insurance defense lawyer. And he had this huge case and like it was he had several lawyers but his case was occupying his whole team for months and months and months into into more than a year. And then they settled. And everybody around him is like celebrating, "Yay, we celebrated the case." And he's going like, "Oh, We celebrated this we we settled this case. Now we have to go find something else to do." >> [snorts] >> And and you know that that's sort of like this is what's wrong with the billable hour. It it is totally The clients were happy but the lawyers were lawyers' incentives what made the lawyer happy was not aligned. And and it like I said, nobody actually wants an hour of an attorney's time. And think about this. Where else do we buy professional services this way? Nowhere that makes us happy. You know, I had I had a like they broke my jaw when I was a kid. I didn't want to pay the dentist by the hour or the the the endodontist the oral surgeon by the hour to fix this problem. I just wanted my jaw fixed, right? Imagine if he charged by the hour and and like it was like taking his time to to get that problem fixed. That that you know wouldn't work but we don't pay our surgeons that way. We don't pay our doctors that way really. We don't pay our auto mechanics that way. We don't pay anybody else that way. They They're They're There is a fix and a price. There are very few professions where we really charge by the hour. You might My CPA for for my law firm charges me X thousand dollars per for per uh, return and charges me a monthly fee for ongoing advice. We don't talk about, oh, you talked to me for an hour, so I got more great advice from you. Please get it to me in 10 minutes. And so what do you know, so you say did that come to me gradually? No, this always seemed wrong. This always seemed conflictual. What came gradually is how to fix it. Because this industry is so married to it. It's so deeply. I mean, from from what we're taught from, you know, from the law firms that teach us to the regulators, right? Really doesn't most state bars, I shouldn't say all because some are being progressive about this. But most of them really don't know how to evaluate legal work by anything but the billable hour. Right? So, when a when when a client, when there's a complaint or when there's an issue that comes up that, uh, goes to the reasonableness of the fee, the courts always fall back to how many hours did it take? And and that just that that props up this system. Even newly family where we do not charge by the hour. Because we know that that's how we'll be measured someday. We keep the time. And we we make sure and we do we also have other things in place to make sure that our fees are reasonable in the context of the time spent. Which is unfortunate, right? And but but so so the solutions came gradually in that there there is a way to do a flat fee in a lot of cases. There's there is a way to do non-billable hour work that makes sense for the clients, that makes sense for the lawyers, where you're not trading your time for money. And most importantly, aligns the lawyers with their clients. And that's what, you know, that's that's what I am preaching to anybody who'll listen. >> Thank you for sharing that, Christopher. That was That was [clears throat] an amazing sort of articulation of of how you came to you know, this realization. For the for the benefit of our audience who may not actually know they're they're mostly attorneys, but they and and they many of them like you practice you know, billing by the hour. But for those who don't know who may not know the origin story of the billable hour, where did it come from number one and why is it so hard in in the legal profession in your opinion? >> Yeah, I You know what? I can't answer the second question. I mean, I I I gave you the the artifacts, right? It's how the bar measures things. Um but I think it's a little bit circular. It's how the bar measures things because now it's how we've done it for a really long time. In my first law firm that I went to work with, the senior partner of that firm had a legal bill framed on the wall. And it'd always stuck with me. It was handwritten. It was on a smaller than 8 and 1/2 by 11 piece of paper. It's kind of paper I I don't ever see anymore. But think about it like there's a kind of hotel stationery size, right? >> Mhm. >> And it had a lot of words like I did this, I did this, I did this. I did this, I did this. It was actually you know, quite a lot of writing in a paragraph form. Then a space and then handwritten for services rendered. I think it was $350. And this thing was from I think it was the late 19th century. Um so it was a lot of money. I did these things. Here's your bill. Kind of like your doctor's bill. Right? You know, I did you know, if you go to your doctor's office, you you pay your copay. You paid the amount. But you also know in your doctor's office, and this is going to answer your question, that behind that copay, if you ever look at your explanation of benefits that you get from your insurance company, that they've line itemed everything, including hours spent. That's where this came from. Before the 1960s, nobody billed by the hour. Nobody. But insurance companies were starting to pay lawyers more and more money to defend cases. And they were they they began to have shareholders who demanded transparency and accountability and efficiency and profits. And so one day the the bean counters and you know and computers came about, which is a very important piece of this. And they said, "Well, we need a way to measure whether our law firms are doing a good job for us, whether they're being efficient." And they they came up with well, only way we can think of to do that is is by the hour. And so we're going to have them create bills by the hour and we're going to have them code them in a way that the computers can read them and then tell us whether they're reasonable. And so the bill by the hour was born in the insurance defense part of the business. Well, then who else was a huge consumer of legal services? Large corporations. General counsel. And general counsel got wind of this and said, "Oh, that looks Not only does that look really good, but they've now written the software and created the billing codes, leads, that we can use and create a measurement of our outside counsel that we can hold them to." And so now it's come it's now leapt out of insurance into business. And then you know, where are most lawyers trained? Well, most lawyers go through a larger firm before they go to a smaller firm and it's just started leaking out. And everybody starts doing it. And then the bar starts doing it. So it's but it all comes from insurance companies needing a way to measure law firms. This was never meant for consumer-facing law. This was never meant for family law firms. It never really came interestingly never came to criminal law firms for the most part. And stayed away from some other practices like estate planning. Right? Where where it just never really crept in. But it crept in places where litigation happens because that's where it was really born and where it was meant to measure. And then it just stuck. And nobody really asked the question about is this good for the clients? And to my chagrin because I work with lawyers nobody asked is this good for us? And it's not. It incentivizes all the wrong behavior. Including working more hours in order to earn what we need to feed our families and protect our future. Um so I think your granted I think your question was where did it come from? That's where it came from. >> yeah that no that that's again I I that thank you for sharing that and I I I really mean that because I don't know of another example where the the billing mechanism for a profession came from outside that profession which is essentially what you're saying which is a Yeah, and why would that be aligned with the interest of that profession if if the you know the based on that story. So that's that's fascinating. So now let's talk about you you you mentioned you speak with and work with attorneys across the country. You also interview them on your podcast, The Unbillable Hour, which I would encourage everybody to take a look at. I I I I skimmed through a couple of episodes and they're they're fantastic. But, when you speak to these law firm owners, Christopher, and when you tell them essentially, you know, some version of what you're sharing with us for for our audience here today, you know, to move away from this hourly billing and how it doesn't really benefit anybody in in in your view, what what is their reaction? What are their mental blocks? What are their fears? How do they What What What do they say when you tell them that? >> Well, generally speaking, lawyers fear change, right? So, there's that. And so, just to you know, to be clear, the you know, I I work with law firms across the country to help them improve their businesses. And I have this conversation with them. But, most of them still bill by the hour. I'm not trying. I'm holding the door open. I'm not pushing anybody through it. I have found that that like I told you earlier like like when I get good ideas, I run them through my business. I also use my business as an exemplar. Right? I believe the best proof is in what the market says it wants and what the result is. So, you know, we we brought this to New Leaf Family only 5 years ago. 5 years and 3 months. We launched New Leaf Family as the as a subscription-based family law firm. A few firms have followed. Not many. They will because the clients, the market loves it. And but it's dangerous for the lawyers, right? There is risk to figure out what the subscription should be and how you should apply it and how you treat the clients in it and how you make sure it's fair and reasonable and how you make sure it's ethical. And we've spent a lot of time and a lot of money developing that. So that it works, but it works. And the clients absolutely love it. You know, we have grown to be I think we're the third or fourth largest family law firm in Colorado. And we're not showing any signs of stopping, and we're going to be, you know, going to a state near you. And, you know, you you got a couple choices. You can fight us. You can follow us. Or you can join us. Like cuz you know, that's I but I'm I'm open with it, right? I share this knowledge cuz I think it it it is aligned with what our clients want, and it makes lawyers' lives better. You know, a lot of the lawyers that work now at New Leaf Family used to have their own practices. They make more money. They take home more money. They are happier. And the clients are better served here. And that's that's the proof I just bring to the marketplace. It's like I just I just prove by doing, and then I come on shows like this, or I speak on stages, and tell the tell the story about how to do it. Um but it's you know, you have the numbers, you have the knowledge, you being your audience, you're the people listening, on how to do this. You may need someone to help you put that knowledge to work, so that you could figure out what this looks like in your jurisdiction, in your neighborhood, with your client base. You know, so that so that it's aligned with your ideals. But it can work. I've proven that. And so now I just help people put it in place. >> That's that that's a great point um set of series of points that you made there, Christopher. One one term that you mentioned in in that last segment was the term risk. You know, I and so a corollary to that is things that I that that I've heard attorneys say, which is, "Hey, you know, litigation is too unpredictable. You know, cases could settle in in a certain amount of time. They could settle in a week, but they could go on trial for years. And therefore, by extension, the hour is in my mind, Mr. and Mrs. Attorney's mind, the only way to sort of mitigate that risk as best as I can. What is your counter to that? >> Twofold. One Yeah, I I I can say I speak at stages a lot. I work with large groups and with individuals. And one of my one of the most fun things that I run into is when I come to a lawyer and say, "Well, of all your cases over the past few years what's the average case value?" How much does your average case How much revenue does your average case bring into the firm? And to a person they will answer with a range. Oh, $7 to $15,000. And I get it. Again, we're lawyers cuz we don't want to do the math thing. But guys, the word average, it has one answer. It's not a range of answers. There's There's different kinds of averages. You could have the median, you could have the mean. We could get You know, we could get detailed. But there's one answer. Or maybe you know, you could see You could answer, "Oh, the mean is, but the median is." Which is actually two very different numbers in my business. But there is one average. So, to your point with the litigation has risks. I mean, it has has variations which create risk. And it absolutely does. But you do know what the average is. So, you can already mitigate risk in your business by knowing that. That means you might put more time in than than you got paid in this case unless in this case. And then you can also inject contingencies. If it doesn't go to trial, it's this. And if it does go to trial, we add this. Oh, but it might be a longer trial. I know, but there's an average. Right? And you can say, well, in these you can you can price it by kinds of case. There's so many ways you can skin it by getting a little bit of knowledge and doing a little bit of math. And and then you can reduce risk. Are you eliminating the risk? No, you are not. You are actually when you do the a subscription level business, you are moving some risk from the client to you. But I think that's what we should be doing. Because we have the information and they don't. Particularly in consumer-facing business or law firms, consumer-facing areas of the law, we have a very uneven playing field when it comes to doing business. The client has no information or very little and we have a lot. So, it I think it makes sense to move the risk to us because we're the ones who are capable of mitigating it. Moving all the risk to the client is moving the risk to the person who can't mitigate it and who's being driven by emotion and fear and other things to spend more money um that do does not serve them. We mitigate the risk also by changing We have two fundamental differences. We've been talking this whole show about one of them, which is moving to a subscription model. It's not the only model, by the way. Flat fees work, product-based billing works. There's a lot of other ways. We've been talking about one of them. But then the other thing changing the billing model is one. The other one is we change how we practice. We change our focus from what can we do or how can we win based on our definition of winning which is how most lawyers do it to how can we help the client achieve their goals? And clearly articulate those goals in such a way that everybody is aware and knowledgeable about what they are so that we can move towards them. That's an important part of the sauce and to mitigate risk. Because once you get the goals clear clarified, you are cutting off certain avenues of attack, certain avenues of of spending time and money to achieve the goal, which is good. And as long as the client's aligned with it and the client is fully informed, it's good. And then you just for the rest of it, you accept the risk, but you also accept the fact that averages mean that things even it out. And so you you you you accept that risk that then and with the knowledge that things will even out. And they do. And quite honestly, like if I hadn't been practicing for 24 years before I tried this it would probably wouldn't have gone as well. In fact, the truth is I in my second year of private practice, I tried a flat fee service. Disastrous. As many are because I didn't have the data, I didn't have the information. And I didn't know how to build the systems around it. Um, you know, the our subscription billing service is not simple. It's complicated. But it's explainable. And it works. And and and like I like I said earlier, I mean I think just to bring it back home it works for the clients. It aligns us with the clients. And it works for the lawyers and aligns the lawyers with doing really good legal work. because we're no longer tied to a metric that doesn't serve anybody. >> That that that's great, Christopher. There's There's a couple of things that really stood out from that for for me. One is the the [clears throat] practical take home that hey, every risk for any individual lawyer who's been practicing for a certain period of time, there is an average and that average sort of can anchor that individual lawyer and their practices as to where sort of they they stand in terms of their their their business model, so to speak, on on on the you know, in terms of how they how they built. That's number one. But the more profound sort of abstract insight that you shared, which I thought was really I I haven't I haven't ever thought of anything in this in this manner that that you just shared, which is that they who hold the asymmetric information are also in a better position to absorb the risk. I think that's a fascinating insight and I think there's there's a lot there. And so I I really appreciate your your sharing that. >> Um you you mentioned New Leaf a couple of times and you mentioned your your subscription model. Can we can we maybe take a little bit of a detour and talk about that that part of your your professional world and and what you do at New Leaf and and maybe a little bit dive a little bit more into that subscription model that you mentioned. >> Yeah, so I'm I'm happy to talk more about New Leaf. I'll answer questions about the subscription model, but I want to be very careful. This is something that you know, as I said as I mentioned earlier, I talk I I work with a lot of law firms. I am the strategic business advisor for a bunch of law firms across the country. And one of the first questions when I I'm on stage or when I first start working with a client, and it doesn't matter what we're talking about. We could be talking about percent of percent of income that we pay to payroll or percent of expenses that go to rent or um what the best closing rate is for for consults. Or any a bunch of other numbers. And they all people always ask, "Well, what's what's what number should I be working towards?" And that's why I want to be careful when talking about subscription model because the the answer is going to be the same. And by the way, folks, it's the same answer you give clients when they ask you questions. Depends. It depends on your market. Where are you in this country? It depends on your clients. Who do you want to be serving? It depends on your courts. How complicated do they make things? How much work do they make you do? That, you know, that you have to kind of account for. It depends on your style. How do you practice law? Depends on all these things. So, the answer is unique to your business. And so, I'm not going to talk about numbers because God bless them, someone out there is going to go and say, "Anderson told me if I charge this much, then this will work." And so, I'm not going to do that. Newly family, I I think I you know, I I Newly family serves clients in right now in Colorado. We're about to branch out to several other states. And we serve And by the way, we have to refigure this out for each jurisdiction we go to. And so, I talked to I talked to lawyers and practitioners in those states to figure out the numbers that I already knew when I started this. And I you know, I knew to figure I knew how to figure it out. But so, you know, I figure this out again every single time. I can help you do that. I can help your listeners do that, but I've got to help them one-on-one. And so we then we we serve clients through every every area in in in family law, but we do it all on a subscription-based model. We help clients who have very simple cases with one kind of subscription, and we help clients with very complicated matters with a different level subscription. And we assess them based on their individual characteristics. So, we have a model that we apply so that we can to figure out the price for each client based on their individual characteristics of their case. And it's just it took, you know, that what that's the secret sauce. That's what it took so long to get right is to be able to figure that out up front and use the word average into a very much more finely-tuned algorithm that helps to set that. Everybody here can do that. But you might need help setting it up. And and that's, you know, that's how I you know, I can help people do that. I obviously can't do that on a one-hour podcast, but but you know, it takes it takes some setting up and some doing. But the the the the the payoff is happier clients and happier team and at the end of the day happier law firm owners because it all becomes it all actually even though we bring on risk, it all actually becomes a lot more predictable. Um and then and the clients love it. The clients absolutely love it. >> That that that's >> I'm asking. >> Yeah, no, absolutely. And then that's actually fascinating cuz for because for me listening to you share that Christopher, my takeaway is that hey, if for an attorney who's listening, they they are right in that there's some level of risk involved in the matters that they take on. However, with with the models of the kind that that you've developed for your own firm and that you develop for other law firms a law firm owners across the country, those models serve to mitigate that risk which then enables this non-billable hour sort of more more incentives aligned billing structure which which makes a lot of sense. So, did I get that right? >> Yeah, that's exactly it. >> That's good. That is exactly it. Um awesome. Let's now shift to the to the to the elephant in the room, right? To especially today, especially in the last three and a half four years or so, which is AI. And so, you know, your your your sort of realization around the billable hour and its suitability or lack thereof for a lot of a lot of areas in legal practice obviously predates AI, but now AI enters the the conversation pretty much everything that anybody does. And so, you know, given that so many different applications of AI can do in minutes would take hours maybe for a junior associate or an attorney to do, you know, what is how does the how does that affect this whole conversation with the whole thesis that we've been talking about for the last 40 minutes or so? >> Profoundly. But not in the way most people think. And it I'm concerned because most people think about this the wrong way. Most people that I listen to that are talking about it are running around concerned that this will gut the legal profession. That AI is coming for lawyers. And that thinking has a premise that is fundamentally incorrect. And that is that the completion of forms the administrivia of the law also known as a lot of what we do is what's valuable about this practice. And you know why they think that? Cuz the billable hour teaches us that. Because you know what? Our billable hour rewards us exactly the same for filling out, completing a settlement agreement or a memorandum a memorandum of understanding or a brief that is a lot like the other briefs we did already. For calculating child support, calculating alimony, for calculating a sentencing guideline, for drafting a business agreement, for for for pleadings, for defensive pleadings, for plaintiff's pleadings, for so many things. That's you know, like you said you mentioned say some people have associates too, right? Some people have paralegals too. But we bill hourly for this stuff. And we pretend that that's the practice of law. It's not and it never was. And then we say yeah, it's coming for us. No, it's coming for that. And if but then people I I'm going to walk you through the thought pattern because it's really important. So then people go like, well, if it's coming for that, that's most of what we do, then it's coming for a lot of us. And to me that just is so sad to be thinking that way because it ignores what's really about to happen. What's really about to happen is we're going to be able to serve people better. The truth is that we can't serve people the way they want to be served in the current model. Because they can't afford it. Or we can't afford to. It's two sides of the same coin. If we put in the time that is required under the current system to serve people the way they really like to be served with a depth and the empathy and the understanding with which they'd like to be served, either they'd go broke or we will. So, we live with and we accept and we tolerate a level of service that's given us the reputation that we deserve. That's what AI can do. AI can liberate us from the stuff that's not really the practice of law and can enhance our ability to do the service to a level that even without all that trivial administrativia we couldn't do. We're going to be able to serve our clients so much more deeply, so much more completely, with so much more holistic knowledge applied to how we treat their case and treat them that it is going to revolutionize this profession. It's going to restore what I I was the most honorable title we've ever been given, and which we've stripped from most of our business cards. Which is attorney and counselor at law. We get that back. And our clients get that back. And if that's where people take this, ain't no AI coming for us. It is going to be this magnificent, one of the many that have come along tools to help us. But it's going to help us in a way that none of the others have. That's what I see. And so, you know, when Richard Susskind wrote his book, The End of Lawyers, most people left like forgot that that title of his book had a question mark at the end. It was the end of lawyers? The answer's no. It's just the end the beginning of the end of a dysfunctional system that doesn't serve lawyers, clients, or law firm owners. And the introduction of basically my dream of a system that does. And how cool is that? Joy, the practice of law can be joyful, and the joy's coming. And I'm, you know, I'm trying to be a force to, you know, I'm not an AI engineer. I don't know how to build AI large language models, but I know how to implement them to benefit the three the three constituents that I've been talking about. And that's that's my mission. >> That's amazing, Christopher. This has been This has been an absolutely illuminating conversation. Just a couple of final questions to to wrap it up here for us. Um so practically speaking, for the law firm partner owner, you know, who's listening to us right now, who's listening to you right now, who's burned out on this whole, you know, billable hour grind, they they sort of feel maybe that it's not the right thing to be doing, but you know, everybody does it, so they have to do it anyway, and maybe they feel trapped by their firm's legacy systems. What is the very first step that they can take tomorrow to start transitioning their practice to a better model? Maybe step two or three is, you know, reaching out to you, but what is step one? >> Step two or three might be reaching out to me, so thank you for that. Um step one is learn. If you aren't using a an a If you haven't had conversations with a large language model, start. If you haven't learned yet the difference between generative AI and agentic AI, Google it and learn it. Um if you haven't been checking out the tools that are commercially available to help with various aspects of your practice, to start to bring you know, you don't have to build this stuff. To start to bring those capabilities to you through commercially developed and vetted products, get one. You know, some of them are expensive, but very, very useful. Like I think it's Lexus's I think it's Prodigy, Westlaw's CoCounsel, Harvey, look into them. But the first step is really like it's not magic. Just start using it. And then yeah, I think you have then start learning from others who are a little bit further along the path than you. And so you don't feel like you have to reinvent the wheel. This is not, you know, it would be it's so funny to have this conversation, right? Cuz like let's take ourselves back uh 20 eight years and go like, "Oh, man, we're going to have to learn the internet." Right? But that's how people felt. Because it was this new tool. We didn't know how it fit, how to use it. And so we felt like we had When I I told you like at the beginning of this conversation like my first job I went to did wrote software uh and um helped helped insurance companies and insurance defense lawyers implement that software to detect patterns. Well, part of that was actually teaching people how We we taught a course in that called keyboarding. We taught a course in that called mousing. Like we had to teach people to use these tools. Nobody thinks about that. They're just they're they're extensions of us. Then, you know, came along Steve Jobs. Did anybody teach you how to use one of these? Nope. Nope. [snorts] When my kiddo, who's now 18, was four, I didn't have to teach him how to use this, either. 20 years from now, nobody's going to be like, "Ah, I got to learn how to implement AI." You're not even going to see it anymore. We're at that beginning phase. But for the law firms that want to become everything they can be, then it's got to become as second nature as a keyboard and a mouse. And the way you get that is start using it. That's it. And one last thing, it's very important. Do not use the free stuff. >> [laughter] >> I wanted to say it really loud. Do not use the free stuff. We have obligations as attorneys to confidentiality and privilege. You have to make sure that the tools you use are meeting that obligation by not using the stuff that you share with it to learn on. The free stuff does. Always remember with any technology, if you're not paying for it, the product is you. You are selling your clients' information to have access to this tool. Don't do that. You know you can't. But some people don't know that's what's happening. They just think it's free because, you know, Open AI and Anthropic are just, you know, remember Anthropic is Anthropic. It's not philanthropic. >> [laughter] >> It's just Anthropic. It's a business. They're a great business. I love them, but mm. [clears throat] Use the Use the professional-grade stuff that protects your clients' privacy. Just wanted to make sure we didn't say that anywhere in the show. That's important. >> Absolutely. So in in terms of resources, obviously, you know, it's great advice I think to tell people to just go out there, you know, jump with both feet into the into the water as it were and and and test it out for yourself. In addition to that, what resources can help people sort of understand better what what they're diving into. So obviously one would be, you know, your podcast, the Unbillable Hour. But what what what is something else outside of that that will, in your opinion, help sort of the legal professionals who are interested in sort of pursuing this path, you know, understand understand both the realities of the non-billable hour business model as well as of AI and the two are, you know, inexorably intertwined at this point. What is your suggestion there? >> Oh, I don't Yeah, I mean I actually I don't think they are intertwined at all. I think with the one exists the the the the the lack of the the killing of the billable hour. Remember, the billable hour the the law existed without the billable hour long before calculating machines were brought to be. So, not it not intertwined at all. It is a an accelerate an enablement tool. But, you know, the so Listen to I mean the the the where where can you go? You listen to my podcast. Go to seminars. Learn from people who know what they're talking about. They're but let me just also learn you. There's so many people that like some people like used Claude for a week and are now teaching on seminars on Claude for lawyers. Don't. Don't. Did Anthropic just did a Claude for lawyers web webcast. I think it's available as a recording. Go listen to that. Listen to people who have really been using it, you know, for a long time, which in this world is like 3 months. Uh you know, the be careful who you trust, who you listen to. And I I'm not trying to blow my own horn here. I don't work with that many clients. But, you know, work with people who are doing it into their own businesses already at a level that is beyond yours. And you know, and do remember there's no gurus. This stuff is literally a generative AI is months old. Large language models are years old, but they you know, how we're using them keeps evolving, keeps changing. Just keep learning. That's That's all I got to I can say is keep learning. And if you're you know, if you want learn from someone who's who's committed to committed to the the result that I was talking about and not committed to the result of wow, this could replace all our people. Cuz that's a wrong result. That does not improve the world. And this is a tool that can really improve the world. >> Absolutely. Final question for you, Christopher. Is there a question that I should have asked you, but I didn't? >> Oh gosh, uh Oh, there's a there's a hundred. We didn't even talk about the you know, the new uh knowledge about how beta decay is proving that uh muons may be existing in two universes simultaneously. Like we didn't even go there. So, you could have asked that, you know, uh Uh there's there's so much, but no, uh she uh I think I think we've covered a lot of ground here today. Um And then I hope I hope it's been valuable for you and I hope it's been valuable for your listeners. I thank you for the opportunity to expound. >> Absolutely. It's it's been it's been uh valuable to me personally on many levels, right from the profound and the abstract, uh you know, such as some of the insights that you shared, right down to the super practical, you know, tips and and and guidelines that you had for for attorneys. So, thank you very much for your time, Christopher. Really appreciate it. Uh I'm sure your audience will learn a lot from this. So, I thank you again. >> You bet. You take care. >> The Litigator's [music] Edge podcast requires more than a conversation. It takes action, research, [music] and collective wisdom. If today's episode resonated with you, we'd love to hear your insights. Join the conversation and help us shape the future together. We'll be back with more stories, strategies, and real-world [music] solutions that are making a difference for everyone. In the meantime, be sure to subscribe, [music] rate, write a review, and share it with someone you think would benefit from it, too. Thanks for listening, >> [music] >> and we'll see you on the next episode.