The legal industry has long relied on the strength of its relationships, the quality of its legal work, and the predictability of its billable hour. But when it comes to financial operations — specifically billing and collections — many firms are still functioning on outdated assumptions, fragmented tools, and reactive processes that no longer meet the demands of the market. If the goal is to grow, improve profitability, and serve clients better, then firms must look at their revenue cycle as a strategic asset — not just a back-office function.
The concept of "The Matrix" has existed for decades in professional services firms, though it represents a relatively new framework within the legal industry. This powerful approach to understanding organizational capabilities and client relationships offers law firms a strategic advantage in today's competitive marketplace.
A new generation of legal tech, including rapidly advancing AI and AI assistants, is introducing capabilities that don’t just automate individual steps. These tools act as proactive collaborators, intelligently navigating complex documents, surfacing key risks, applying context, and taking action. They’re helping legal teams move from manual to marvelous — and that transformation is happening faster than many realize.
No longer is legal risk management confined to checklists and backward-looking assessments. AI and OSINT are enabling legal professionals to anticipate, adapt, and act with greater speed and precision. But realizing the full potential of these tools requires more than technical integration. It demands a new operational mindset — one that prioritizes intelligence, agility, and continual learning.
The end of the billable hour has been prophesied for years. But, as the steady adoption of artificial intelligence upends how legal work gets done, the promised efficiencies from automation are most likely to emerge in certain elements of deal work, like due diligence and contract review and analysis.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
