New Poll Underscores Growing Support for National Data Privacy Legislation

Over half of all Americans would support a federal data privacy law, according to a recent poll from Politico and Morning Consult. The poll found that 56 percent of registered voters would either strongly or somewhat support a proposal to “make it illegal for social media companies to use personal data to recommend content via algorithms.” Democrats were most likely to support the proposal at 62 percent, compared to 54 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents. Still, the numbers may show that bipartisan action is possible.

The poll is indicative of American’s increasing data privacy awareness and concerns. Colorado, Virginia, and California all passed or updated data privacy laws within the last year, and nearly every state is considering similar legislation. Additionally, Congress held several high-profile hearings last year soliciting testimony from several tech industry leaders and whistleblower Frances Haugen. In the private sector, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come out in favor of a national data privacy standard similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Politico and Morning Consult released the poll results days after Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) accepted a 24,000-signature petition calling for Congress to pass a federal data protection law. Senator Wyden, who recently introduced his own data privacy proposal called the “Mind Your Own Business Act,” said it was “past time” for Congress to act.

He may be right: U.S./EU data flows have been on borrowed time since 2020. The GDPR prohibits data flows from the EU to countries with inadequate data protection laws, including the United States. The U.S. Privacy Shield regulations allowed the United States to circumvent the rule, but an EU court invalidated the agreement in 2020, and data flows between the US and the EU have been in legal limbo ever since. Eventually, Congress and the EU will need to address the situation and a federal data protection law would be a long-term solution.

This post was authored by C. Blair Robinson, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Blair is not yet admitted to practice law. Click here to read more about the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Robinson & Cole LLP.

For more data privacy and cybersecurity news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

New Tools in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The explosive growth of internet pharmacies and direct-to-consumer shipment of pharmaceuticals has provided increased access to, and reduced the cost of, important medications. Unfortunately, these same forces have increased the risks that counterfeit medicines will make their way to consumers, endangering patient safety and affecting manufacturers’ reputation in the public eye.

While the Food and Drug Administration attempts to police such misconduct through enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), the resources devoted to enforcement are simply no match for the size and scope of the counterfeiting threat. Fortunately, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not without recourse, as several well-established tools may be used in the right circumstances to stop counterfeiters from profiting from the sale of knock-offs.

Experienced litigators can use the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to stop unscrupulous individuals and organizations from deceiving customers with counterfeit versions of trademarked drugs. Until recently, these legal weapons – including search warrants, seizures, forfeitures, and significant penalties – were typically wielded only by the government and only in criminal prosecutions.

As one recent case demonstrates, however, many of the tools that law enforcement has used for years to combat counterfeiters are also available to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, et al., the manufacturer of several trademarked HIV medications filed a civil complaint, under seal, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and RICO against scores of individuals and companies that were allegedly selling counterfeit versions of these drugs to patients across the country.

By deploying private investigators and techniques typically used by law enforcement, Gilead was able to gather a substantial amount of evidence before even filing the case. The company then used this evidence to secure ex parte seizure warrants and asset freezes, allowing it to locate and seize thousands of counterfeit pills and packaging before they could be shipped to unsuspecting consumers. Through the seizure of the financial proceeds of the alleged counterfeiting, Gilead prevented the dissipation of assets. If the company can successfully prove its RICO case, it stands to recover treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well.

Manufacturers of trademarked pharmaceuticals may consider using these and other tools to tackle the threat posed by counterfeiters. By drawing upon the experience and skills of trained litigators – particularly counsel who previously deployed these tools on behalf of the government while serving as federal prosecutors – companies can proactively protect their intellectual property and the consumers who depend on their products.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Labor Shortage: Will Additional Seasonal Visas Help?

The United States is in the midst of a significant labor shortage. In response to the growing demand for labor, the U.S. government recently announced it will expand the number of H-2B visas available for seasonal workers this winter. Although the announcement is hailed by some as necessary, critics suggest the response may be insufficient to meet growing demand.

The Modern Labor Shortage

Following the economic turmoil spawned by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. economy faces an unusual set of circumstances: instead of a lack of jobs, there is a lack of workers to fill available positions. Experts attribute the labor shortage to a number of potential causes, but some suggest a lack of immigrant labor is at least partially to blame. Due to lengthy processing times for immigration applications, foreign born workers hoping to enter the United States face unprecedented challenges obtaining the necessary paperwork to work here legally.

Biden Administration Expands Seasonal Visas

In response to the growing challenges of the labor shortage, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced they will issue a joint temporary final rule to make available an additional 20,000 H-2B temporary nonagricultural worker visas. These visas will be set aside for U.S. employers seeking to employ additional workers on or before March 31, 2022.

The visas are in addition to 33,000 visas already set aside for seasonal employers, marking a substantial 60% increase from the previous limit.

What is the H-2B Program?

The H-2B visa program allows U.S. employers who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. The industries most reliant on the H-2B program vary, but include landscapers, hotels, and ski resorts. By providing foreign workers to meet labor shortages in the United States, the program is meant to support the fluctuating needs of the U.S. economy.

The program has restrictions, however. The employment must be for a limited period, including seasonal or intermittent needs. To hire H-2B workers, employers must, among other things, certify to a lack of U.S. workers available to fill the position. Additionally, employers must certify that using the program will not adversely affect wages for similarly-employed U.S. workers.

Will Additional Seasonal Visas Be Enough?

Expansion of the H-2B program is being praised as necessary relief by some. However, others suggest it may not be sufficient to answer the growing labor demand in the country.

Business owners from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, hailed the news, citing the strained vacation industry that relies so heavily on seasonal workers to meet the high demand. Additional workers will provide necessary relief on many strained industries.

Steve Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell, recently noted that if employers get past these hurdles, the visas could help the labor shortage, but only a little bit. After all, the labor shortage in the United States exceeds the additional 20,000 seasonal visas being offered. Recent estimates suggest 10.4 million jobs are available here. Moreover, applications under the H-2B program can be costly, forcing employers to weigh the financial implications of sponsoring workers under the program.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

CFPB to Examine College Lending Practices

On January 20, the CFPB announced that it would begin examining the operations of post-secondary schools that offer private loans directly to students and update its exam procedures to include a new section on institutional student loans.  The CFPB highlights its concern about the student borrower experience in light of alleged past abuses at schools that were previously sued by the CFPB for unfair and abusive practices in connection with their in-house private loan programs.

When examining institutions offering private education loans, in addition to looking at general lending issues, CFPB examiners will be looking at the following areas:

  • Placing enrollment or attendance restrictions on students with loan delinquencies;
  • Withholding transcripts;
  • Accelerating payments;
  • Failing to issue refunds; and
  • Maintaining improper lending relationships

This announcement was accompanied by a brief remark from CFPB Director Chopra:  “Schools that offer students loans to attend their classes have a lot of power over their students’ education and financial future.  It’s time to open up the books on institutional student lending to ensure all students with private student loans are not harmed by illegal practices.”

Putting it Into Practice:  The CFPB’s concern with the experience of student borrowers is in line with a number of enforcement actions pursued by the Bureau against post-secondary schools.  The education loan exam procedures manual is intended for use by Bureau examiners, and is available as a resource to those subject to its exams. These procedures will be incorporated into the Bureau’s general supervision and examination manual.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Legal Considerations for Ready-to-Drink Cocktails

The ready-to-drink cocktail or “RTD” category has exploded in recent years, and it’s occupied by more than merely craft distillers familiar with a carefully made cocktail. Brewers, distillers and even vintners have joined in, capitalizing on consumers’ desires for pre-made, no-fuss beverages. The most unexpected development to emerge with RTDs, however, is the legal complexity surrounding these products—something the industry is only beginning to understand.

Many of these legal issues stem from the fact that the legal regulatory landscape in most states has not caught up with the rapidly evolving alcohol industry. That leaves ready-to-drink cocktails, much like hard seltzers, as not having a specific class or type in certain states. Suppliers looking to enter the space have plentiful options when creating a new product, subject to what licenses the manufacturer holds and what those licenses allow them to produce.

Ready-to-drink cocktails can be spirits, malt, sugar, cider or wine-based. The base of the RTD product, nonetheless, is the key federal factor. It is also an important factor in most states when determining how the product will be treated from a legal perspective in the following areas:

  • Licensing needed to manufacture, distribute and sell the product;
  • Applicable franchise law (Do beer franchise laws apply to low-proof spirits?);
  • Available channels of distribution (Can you sell this product in grocery or convenience store?);
  • Excise tax rate charged to the manufacturer (Does state law have a lower excise tax rate for low ABV products?);
  • Labeling and advertising considerations (Is your product a modified traditional product?); and
  • Trade practice considerations/promotions (Do spirits laws apply?).

Industry members dabbling in a sphere that is relatively new to the market, state regulators and legislatures should be mindful of the patchwork of emerging regulations. Like hard seltzer, ready-to-drink cocktails are not a clearly defined category under existing alcohol law. Meanwhile, states are working quickly to legislate in this domain. New Jersey is considering a reduced alcoholic beverage tax rate on low-ABV liquors to align with the beer tax rate (NJ SB 701), Vermont is considering legislation to define “low alcohol spirits beverage” and treat it as a “vinous beverage” (VT HB 590) and the Washington State Senate has a bill pending that would establish a tax on low-proof beverages (WA SB 5049).

From franchise issues to excise tax, the issues discussed here are only a glimpse of the nuanced and complicated legal landscape that governs the distribution of RTDs and alcoholic beverages across all categories.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

USCIS Issues New Policy Guidance for O-1B Visas

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) recently issued policy guidance to clarify how to determine the appropriate visa classification for persons of extraordinary ability in the arts. Given the massive changes in the entertainment industry in the past year, including the increasing popularity of internet and streaming services, this guidance provides essential insight for those seeking to understand the nuances of O-1B nonimmigrant visas and determine which visa applies to their unique circumstances.

O-1 Visa Program for Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement

The O-1 nonimmigrant visa program provides nonimmigrant visas for individuals who possess extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who have demonstrated extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements.

The O-1 nonimmigrant visa program is broken down into the following classifications:

  • O-1A: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics (not including the arts, motion pictures or television industry);
  • O-1B (Arts): Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the arts;
  • O-1B (MPTV): Individuals with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry.

Generally, to qualify for an O-1 visa, a beneficiary must demonstrate “sustained national or international acclaim” in their respective field. To prove this, applicants must provide evidence of their credentials, including national or international awards or prizes, membership in professional organizations in their respective field, published articles in notable trade publications, high salary for their services, as well as other relevant evidence of exceptional expertise.

Under the O-1B category, as noted above, individuals in the entertainment industry can demonstrate either extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry. With the recent shifts in the entertainment industry, including the prevalence of household names from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc., it has become increasingly common for applicants to possess qualities that fall under both the O-1B (Arts) and the O-1B (MPTV) categories.

Determining the Relevant Standard for Artists with Some Connection to MPTV

The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges the difficulties associated with petitions that have elements of both O-1B (Arts) and O-1B (MPTV) classifications. According to the newly issued guidance, inclusion in the motion picture or television industry is not limited to whether artistic content will air on television or movie screens, noting that “USCIS considers streaming movies, web series, commercials, and other programs with formats that correspond to more traditional motion picture and television productions to generally fall within the MPTV industry’s purview.” Indeed, USCIS gives weight to whether an individual”s work aligns with industry organizations such as the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

However, under USCIS guidance, not all television stars are considered equal for the purpose of visa qualification. For instance, reality television poses an interesting problem because many of the “stars” are non-actors involved in a competition of some sort that takes place on television. According to USCIS, contestants on reality television programs fall outside of the MPTV industry, but judges, hosts, and those employed by the production company generally fall within industry parameters.

Video blogging, a staple of the increasingly popular YouTube and TikTok platforms, poses similar questions. However, USCIS makes clear that static web content, like video blogs, generally falls outside the O-1B (MPTV) classification and is more appropriate for O-1B (Arts) petitions. USCIS notes that if an artist’s work or appearance on an MPTV production is incidental to their non-MPTV work as an artist, the MPTV classification may not be appropriate.

Guidance for O-1B Visas

The newly-issued guidance provides some clarification of the nuances that distinguish O-1B (Arts) beneficiaries from O-1B (MPTV) beneficiaries. Potential beneficiaries and practitioners can continue to consult the USCIS Policy Manual for up-to-date guidance in this quickly changing industry.

Article By Raymond G. Lahoud of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more immigration legal news, visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Greenwashing and the SEC: the 2022 ESG Target

A recent wave of greenwashing lawsuits against the cosmetics industry drew the attention of many in the corporate, financial and insurance sectors. Attacks on corporate marketing and language used to allegedly deceive consumers will take on a much bigger life in 2022, not only due to our prediction that such lawsuits will increase, but also from Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations and penalties related to greenwashing. 2022 is sure to see an intense uptick in activity focused on greenwashing and the SEC is going to be the agency to lead that charge. Companies of all types that are advertising, marketing, drafting ESG statements, or disclosing information as required to the SEC must pay extremely close attention to the language used in all of these types of documents, or else run the risk of SEC scrutiny.

SEC and ESG

In March 2021, the SEC formed the Climate and Environmental, Social and Governance Task Force (ESG Task Force) within its Division of Enforcement. Hand in hand with the legal world’s attention on greenwashing in 2021, the SEC’s ESG Task Force was created for the sole purpose of investigating ESG-related violations. The SEC’s actions were well-timed, as 2021 saw an enormous increase in investor demand for ESG-related and ESG-driven portfolios. There is considerable market demand for ESG portfolios, and whether this demand is driven by institute influencers or simple environmental and social consciousness among consumers is of little importance to the SEC – it simply wants to ensure that ESG activity is being done properly, transparently and accurately.

Greenwashing and the SEC

The SEC has stated that in 2022, it will be taking direct aim at greenwashing issues on many different levels in the investment world. As corporations and investment funds alike increasingly put forth ESG-friendly statements pertaining to their actions or portfolio content, the law has thus far failed to keep pace with the increasing ESG statement activity. It is into this gap that the SEC sees itself fitting and attempting to ensure that the public is not subject to greenwashing. In order to tackle this objective, expect the SEC to focus on the wording used to describe investments or portfolios, what issuers say in filings, and the statements made by investment houses and advisors related to ESG.

From this stem several topics that the SEC’s ESG Task Force will scrutinize, such as: whether “ESG investments” are truly comprised of companies that have accurate and forthright ESG plans; the level of due diligence conducted by investment houses in determining whether an investment or portfolio is “ESG friendly”; how investment world internal statements differ from external public-facing statements related to the level of ESG considerations taken into account in an investment or portfolio; selling “ESG friendly” investments with no set method for ensuring that the investment continues to uphold those principles; and many others.

2022, the SEC, and ESG

Given the SEC’s specific targeting of ESG-related issues beginning in 2021, we predict that 2022 will see a great degree of SEC enforcement action seeking to curb over zealous marketing language or statements that it sees as greenwashing. Whether these efforts will intertwine with the potential for increased Department of Justice criminal investigation and prosecution of egregious violators over greenwashing remains to be seen, but it is nevertheless something that issuers and investment firms alike must closely consider.

While there are numerous avenues to examine to ensure that ESG principles are being upheld and accurately conveyed to the public, the underlying compliance program for minimizing greenwashing allegation risks is absolutely critical for all players putting forth ESG-related statements. These compliance checks should not merely be one-time pre-issuance programs; rather, they should be ongoing and constant to ensure that with  ever-evolving corporate practices, a focused interest by the SEC on ESG, and increasing attention by the legal world on greenwashing claims, all statement put forth are truly “ESG friendly” and not misleading in any way.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Statute of Limitations Commences in False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

On January 10, 2022, the Sixth Circuit held in El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 2022 WL 92565 (6th Cir. Jan 10, 2022) that the statute of limitations period for a False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation case commences when the whistleblower is first informed of the retaliatory adverse employment action.

El-Khalil’s False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

While working as a podiatrist at Oakwood Healthcare, El-Khalil saw  employees submit fraudulent Medicare claims, which he reported to the federal government. In 2015, Oakwood’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) rejected El-Khalil’s application to renew his staff privileges.  After commencing a series of administrative appeals, El-Khalil found himself before Oakwood’s Joint Conference Committee (JCC) on September 22, 2016. The JCC, which had the authority to issue a final, non-appealable decision, voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges.  On September 27, 2016, the JCC sent El-Khalil written notice of its decision.

Three years later, on September 27, 2019, El-Khalil sued Oakwood for retaliation under the False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation law.  Oakwood moved for summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was not timely filed in that the JCC’s decision became final when it voted on September 22, 2016 and therefore the filing on September 27, 2019 was outside of the 3-year statute of limitations. The district court granted Oakwood’s motion and El-Khalil appealed.

Sixth Circuit Denies Relief

In affirming the district court, the Sixth Circuit held that the text of the FCA anti-retaliation provision (providing that an action “may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred”) is unequivocal that the limitations period commences when the retaliation actually happened. It adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief,” not when the plaintiff discovers the retaliation. The retaliation occurred on September 22 when the JCC voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges, and the JCC’s September 27 letter merely memorialized an already final decision.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the False Claims Act’s whistleblower protection provision does not contain a notice provision. As soon as Oakwood “discriminated against” El-Khalil “because of” his FCA-protected conduct, he had a ripe “cause of action triggering the limitations period.” The court noted that if an FCA retaliation plaintiff could show that the employer concealed from the whistleblower the decision to take an adverse action, the whistleblower might be able to avail themself of equitable tolling to halt the ticking of the limitations clock.

Implications for Whistleblowers

Some whistleblower retaliation claims have a short statute of limitations and therefore it is critical to promptly determine when the statute of limitations starts to run.  For most whistleblower retaliation claims that are adjudicated at the U.S. Department of Labor, the clock for filing a complaint begins to tick when the complainant receives unequivocal notice of the adverse action.  Udofot v. NASA/Goddard Space Center, ARB No. 10-027, ALJ No. 2009-CAA-7 (ARB Dec. 20, 2011).  If a notice of termination is ambiguous, the statute of limitations may start to run upon the effective date of the termination as opposed to the notice date.  Certain circumstances may justify equitable modification, such as where:

  1. the employer actively misleads or conceals information such that the employee is prevented from making out a prima facie case;
  2. some extraordinary event prevents the employee from filing on time;
  3. the employee timely files the complaint, but with the wrong agency or forum; or
  4. the employer’s own acts or omissions induce the employee to reasonably forego filing within the limitations period.

See Turin v. AmTrust Financial Svcs., Inc., ARB No. 11-062, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-018 (ARB March 29, 2013).

When assessing the statute of limitations for whistleblower retaliation claims, it is also critical to calculate the deadline to timely file a claim for each discrete adverse action or each act of retaliation.  However, in an action alleging a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts outside the statute of limitations period are actionable where there is an ongoing hostile work environment and at least one of the acts occurred within the statute of limitations period.  And when filing a retaliation claim, the whistleblower should consider pleading untimely acts of retaliation because such facts are relevant background evidence in support of a timely claim.

Article By Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

For more whistleblower and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Zuckerman Law

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Episode 9 – Mental Health and Relationships in the Legal Industry with GrowthPlay [PODCAST]

Rachel and Jessica discuss the new focus on mental health and connection within the legal industry. Deb Knupp from GrowthPlay joins with her expertise and shares how GrowthPlay encourages law firms to get away from transactional practices and instead work toward positive talent and client experiences.

We’ve included a transcript of our conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for style, clarity, and readability.

 

 

INTRO  00:02

Hello, and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for The National Law Review. Stay tuned for a discussion on the latest trends in legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices and more.

Rachel  00:15

I’m Rachel.

Jessica  00:17

And I’m Jessica. And we’re the Co-hosts for The National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast.

Rachel  00:23

In this episode, we’re excited to talk to Deb Knupp, Managing Director for GrowthPlay. Deb, would you like to introduce yourself?

Deb Knupp  00:28

Well, I would. And thank you all so much for having me. And I have the good fortune of working in a business growth play. And we are a consulting firm that really uses a research and data driven approach to help our clients accelerate revenue, really amplify and elevate talent, and do so all in the context of creating exceptional client experiences. And so I principally work with law firms, we’ve we’ve served more than 50% of the am law 200. And we’re coming upon our 400 Law Firm engagement over the last 20 years. So it’s been a great ride, and what an honor it is to get to be with you guys today.

Rachel  01:11

Well, it’s an honor for you to join us. I’m sure all that expertise will be really useful to our listeners here. So one of the main focuses we wanted to really dial in on here are a lot of the opportunities created by the pandemic and where the legal industry goes from here. I think a lot of times people talk about the challenges of COVID-19. I think less often we talk about, you know, sort of the great opportunities that this pandemic created for the industry. So what do you think will be the greatest lessons learned that could propel the legal industry forward into the best version of itself,

Deb Knupp  01:43

You’ve heard, sometimes people say, you know, let’s not waste a good pandemic, and not get the lessons that we want to learn. And I think that the experience in the legal industry, and really what occurred in March of 2020, like it was across the world really required a certain level of crisis response, and how to navigate and abate fear, and then very quickly engage in what I think will be a pandemic word for the ages pivot to an approach that really allows business to continue and clients to be served. And when you look at some of the more significant things that I think law firms gained or are gaining, having responding to the pandemic is first, I think we obliterated the myth that you have to practice law only in the confines of bricks and mortar. I think that the the idea of having remote work or having a capacity to perform billable work at a quality level, at a responsiveness level, I think for many years pre pandemic, it was often assumed that the quality and the value is going to be achieved when it was done live and in the context of a building. And what I love now is that we have not only seen the continuity of excellence, and responsiveness and value continue to be generated over the last 20 months, I think there’s a lot of evidence to support that maybe we’ve seen an improvement in quality and responsiveness and engagement with clients. So I think in many respects, I think we’ve added another dimension into professional services and billable work delivery, that has the capacity to continue to drive even more value for clients and be incredibly valuable to talent. I think the second thing that the pandemic has certainly taught us is how critical it is to have systems for collaboration and communication. Again, if you look at the light switch, you know, immediately there was a grand exposure of how on networks, many organizations were in keeping connections with both internal relationships and client connectedness. And so again, I think that the heavy investments that were both necessary to remain in business and now I think are vital tools for ongoing connectedness and collaboration, I think we’re going to see a real benefit for the comfort and how we connect with clients. And even looking at us right now, as we’re connecting on a platform, you know, zoom and other virtual and web based platforms, I think there’s a lot of value in building greater depth of intimacy and relationships, greater access, for communication and connectedness. And I think the facilitation of utilizing platforms. Modernizing, if you will, the practice of law through the utility of technology, I think we got a grand, you know, drinking from a firehose kind of moment, to sort of prove that concept. I think the last thing and I think this is an important thing for us to continue to pay attention to, is there’s never been a place in time, at least in my lifetime, where I’ve seen the playing field absolutely levelled when it comes to the integration of work, and a person’s personal life and how we were all universally disrupted. In this space where our human connectedness and the desires and wants and needs for human flourishing, we really saw a reset,

Rachel  05:10

As you sort of alluded to, many law firms have done pretty well. And they perform well financially this past year. So what do you think will be the most important growth priorities for firms as well as sustain that growth long term?

Deb Knupp  05:24

Well, I think first and foremost, to sustain growth is not to believe that a blip is, is going to be consistent. If you’ve seen an inflection in your practice or growth in your practice, and just making the assumption that the volume of work the demand for work, sometimes what we see in times of prosperity is you are tempted to put a lot of investment in things because you anticipate that that pipeline in that workflow is going to have continuity, I think it’s really important to discern what financial growth have you experienced based on pent up demand, that will have a shelf life that will sort of run a course, and then re establish sort of what a new normal level of demand and interests are, and where we have seen innovation drive new lines of revenue, new ways to engage with clients in productive billable work, and really pour your attention into those kinds of services. As a good example, I think law firms have certainly gotten a lot more creative, on how to think about the advisory part or the counseling aspect of the practice of law versus maybe the transactional or dispute related parts of practice of law. So I think our ability to widen the purview of the advisory services, quality Council, and deliverables for which clients are delighted to invest in pay, I think we’re going to see a real opportunity for that kind of prioritization.

Rachel  06:50

So how are firms paying attention to the intersection of client experience and talent experience? And who’s driving that growth?

Deb Knupp  06:57

Well, I think we can say confidently, that those two things are inextricably linked, right. There’s no win, particularly in professional services. And more specifically, within a law firm, I think what we have absolutely gleaned certainly in the last 20 months, but as we even look beyond is that you cannot give away what you don’t possess. And I think that when we look at, if you’ve got an engaged workforce, if you’ve got talent, that loves the work that feels meaning and purpose in their work, they feel like they’re a part of something where their identity into something greater than their own individual practice or own individual contribution. If you’ve got a workforce that is really tuned in to that experience, it absolutely allows you to give a much higher, more high value, a premium way of really elevating what it feels like to be a client. When you are a person who feels invested in you have greater abundance to feel a capacity to invest in others. And so when you look at the intersection of the great resignation, you look at that talent shortages that are certainly come into play. When you look at some of the trend data around associate recruiting and retention, I think it’s incredibly important that law firms continue to see that that has as much to do with billable work and client development and business development, as you may be putting in trying to engage clients and invest in clients and, and do work for clients. And so I think there’s a great level of intersection. And I think law firms that are that are faring really well and will continue to stay in growth are putting as much attention in the talent experience. As we might have seen historically, pre pandemic, a lot of firms really investing what it means to create an unparalleled client experience. So I think these two things are very synonymous and going hand in hand. And I suspect that firms that win in the future will continue to see them as not disparate, but absolutely interdependent as we look ahead.

Jessica  08:58

That’s so great that you mentioned putting that extra energy and work into your clients. And I think that also is going to translate to your workers. Of course, a lot of firms right now are doing the diversity, equity, inclusion or DEI initiatives. They’re just trying to grow their practice to be better and connect with their clients in that way. So what are you seeing as far as DEI? What’s working well, what’s not working? I’d like to get your perspective on that.

Deb Knupp  09:24

I’ll start with just maybe some of the more daunting statistics, I think we have to really pay attention to some of the larger trend lines when you look at the research and data that comes out of, you know, reputable institutions that are looking at, you know, minority corporate counsel and how we’re seeing, you know, business demand and how firms are faring in responding to client or outside counsel, inside in house counsel, looking for their outside counsel to really match and meet diversity expectations. We have not yet fully seen a connectedness play itself out where numbers are increasing retentions increasing the mix of diverse counsel and serving and meeting client demands. We have not seen the lift in performance as of yet. And so the question really becomes, well, why not? Like what what’s missing here? I saw a recent statistic HBr consulting, does an annual law department survey. And as they look at all of the criteria, that out that in house law departments are looking for from their outside counsel, the single biggest jump in prioritization that they saw from their 2020 survey was a 14% increase in dei being a priority for selection and retention of preferred counsel. So demand is there. In house law departments, clients are saying, we want more diversity, equity inclusion, intersections with our firms, we want that and to see it at a double digit of growth and prioritization, I think that if you’re if you’re an outside counsel or private practice, we need to pay attention to this. At the same time, how we show up, though, in response to that, I think is where the innovation, ingenuity and creativity really have to come into play. And so when I think about firms that are doing really well, number one, I think they’re changing the question. The question that underscores a lot of dei initiatives right now is how do we get more women and lawyers of color to equity partnership, and that has been the brass ring of standards. When we think about retention, when we think about growth, it is all been predicated on, we know we’re being successful when we have more women, more lawyers of color in the equity partnership ranks or in the leadership ranks of a particular law firm. And while that is certainly a key indicator of success, if your firm is a destination firm, where lawyers of color and women and and LGBTQ attorneys can thrive. And that’s not the only metric. And in some cases, the desirability of being an equity partner in a law firm may not be the only destination that you might see your diverse talent wanting to move towards. So firms I think are doing well are widening the question, which is to say, what are all the paths of participation that would be desirable to retain the best and brightest diverse talent? What would have to be true about our firm and making those paths available? One path is ownership equity partnership. And are there other pads? Are there other designs of work structure, profile roles, structure compensation structures, that would really allow people who would be considered under the umbrella of diversity for them to want to work, not just based on one singular metric? And I think if we can begin to widen the question to say, What would have to be true about our firm, we’re diverse talent wants to do their best work, I think you’re gonna see a lot more innovation, a lot more adjustments in role design, I think our whole construct of associates and income partners and equity partnership and counsel, I think we’re going to see a shuffling of new jobs to emerge. I think what we think of is full time and flex time, I think we’re gonna see some radical transformations of that, I think how people get compensated, what it means to, you know, be available for various aspects of client service. I’m already starting to see firms start to address that. And I think those are incredibly positive things. I think the last thing that I’d say, again, where there’s still need, but I can tell you that firms are starting to invest in it, I think, a big reason why we’re seeing so much exit and again, pandemic is certainly revealed, you know, a big part of the great resignation has disproportionately impacted women. And I think when you look at the division of labor, and the realities of what it looks like to be a woman at work, who also is a parent or is caring for elderly parents or has a senior parent level of dependent care, we have seen this the statistics are highlighting is there is disparity, there is a significant amount of difference. And so I believe that law firms are really any organizations who can look at the data and say we acknowledge the data, and then design for things where again, not withstanding workforce availability or workforce, job designing in order to really meet the demand. So that resignation is not the only option. I think firms are going to have to start looking at different ways that we can attract and retain on a season of life basis, where people can move in and out of work velocity based on the other demands for time, whether that’s child care, elder care, but I think there’s also other demands on time, you know, based on academic interest or a desire to step away and maybe work in house be in business for a year or two and then returned to private practice. I think this will not only be useful across the entire workforce, regardless of diversity, I do think this is going to have a unique positive benefit. When we apply this in spaces where we’re navigating the retention and growth of individuals who would be considered diverse.

Jessica  15:19

I’m so glad you mentioned all of that, because so much of this labor shortage… I mean, I think a lot of these issues we’re covering today is why this is happening, you know, firms are finally -and I would actually argue any workplace- is finally spending that extra time if they can to put, you know, DEI initiatives as part of their brand, or as part of their firm skeleton, basically, their foundation, and even just taking care of employees differently. I mean, I think for so long companies weren’t really thinking about how can we take care of our employees mental health or, you know, work-life balance, and now that’s such a big focus. And I think it’s for the better in, especially in the legal industry? What are you seeing law firms do in their culture that can benefit or has benefited health and mental health in the workplace.

Deb Knupp  16:12

So first, when it comes to the great work that law firms are doing, I want to I want to highlight something that’s so important. In fact, there was a great research statistic that BTi consulting published is that the the large percentage of clients that have absolutely no idea what your law firm is doing in this space of Dei, and also in the space of employee health and well being. And so I think it’s critical to understand that when if you are a firm that is leaning into these things, and doing a lot to invest, and try to sort and to figure out and to and to be creative and having the freedom to redesign and re reimagine. I think it’s really important that where you were doing that not only making that known to your clients, certainly from a promotion and reputation building, I think it’s also really important to invite your clients into that conversation. I can say that right now, some of the best exchanges that I’m watching is that law firms aren’t trying to design these responses in a vacuum, but they are opening it up to be resourcing benchmarks and best practices from their their clients and other companies and other industries. So that we don’t have to go it alone. So let me just start there by responding and saying, Look, this is a place where there’s a lot of hard stuff going on. So your ability to not make it visible to your clients and also to invite others in. That’s that’s PERS response. More specifically, though, just on the on the construct of the mental health. So when you think about the shadow pandemic, and some of the things that experts are citing, and this is really at the risk of being my namesake of Debbie downer, I’m going to tell you that we need to wake up to this, because I don’t know that we’re talking about this enough, is that many mental health experts are suggesting that the cost and consequence for depression, anxiety, addiction, suicide, that the cost and consequence will be far greater and loss of life, and loss of productivity that we will see the crisis peak in 2024, that there is predictions that more people may lose their lives related to trauma coming out of the pandemic than the people who actually died from COVID-19. Now, if that doesn’t start to get our attention, we got to tile in and say, look, it’s like a tsunami that’s looming out there. And the question is, what are we doing right now? Because even if our own cultures, our own people aren’t a part of that statistic, where they aren’t struggling with trauma with mental health conditions with suicide, the probability that they have a plus one relationship in their life is almost assured that if it is not happening to your talent who works at your firm, I want you to examine how many of them are parents or aunts or nephew or aunts or uncles or grandparents to children between the ages of 18 to 24. At one point during the pandemic 25% of people aged 18 to 24 25%, one in four, contemplated or acted upon suicide. Think about one in four people between the ages of 18 and 24. How many people work at your law firms or your places of business, that have relationships with people in that age, not the least of which thinking about the impact of those incoming first years, who are just just a little older than this particular demographic. Consider this other difficult statistic. When you look at the rise of eating disorders, and the rise of anxiety and depression in diagnosable mental health conditions. Children between In the ages of 14 and 18, saw 300 to 400% increases in these diagnoses. And that doesn’t even take into account all of the other kinds of things that have been looming out there. With regards to social media and the impact of bullying, isolation and various other comparative data that really frightens me and as a parent of three teenage girls, I have to tell you, I’m paying attention to these things. So when a law firm can step back and say, Look, while this may not be happening today, we may not have people right now for whom this is an active issue. If we look ahead to the year 2024, what would we be doing today, in anticipation that this will become a thing for our firm or for our clients, and their plus ones. So my counsel or my recommendation to every managing partner and leader and law firms that I get to work with is to first of all acknowledge that we’re not separated from this. And in many respects, given the nature of billable work and the pressures to Bill and to be productive, that in some cases can exasperate these particular issues at a project at a pretty high clip and high calling. So I think that cultures that are going to be doing really well and addressing this are starting to understand that while we guess our EAP, or employee assistance programs, for access to mental health care, is something that is a baseline table stakes of employee benefits or or talent benefits, that’s a great place to start. I think that we also have to create more opportunities and access to creating conditions so people know how to be with people in suffering, that we that we master the communication techniques that you often learn in therapies, like the technique of validation, how do you hold space for people while they’re suffering? How do you not relegate someone into shame and isolation when they’re struggling with alcohol or drug addiction, or they have someone in their life that is, so I think it’s not only making sure that we have the care and support leaves of absence opportunities for people to have space and flexibility. I think we also have to create cultures that create the destigmatizing. One of my maybe my most compelling experiences during the pandemic, around this particular issue was a law firm that we work with Will the managing partner, in an effort to address the mental health conditions of the team, he himself created communication and visibility to a lifelong battle and struggle that he had had with depression, anxiety, and suicide, and how he made that visible and how he connected Himself to those sets of conditions as a role model. And as a way of saying, Look, you can look upon himself and say he’s the managing partner of a law firm. He’s one of the most successful people’s people in, in this ecosystem, and yet, his willingness to make visible his own journey, and how he’s navigating, and how he continues to create care around this. It’s that kind of courage that I think will allow us all to navigate the shadow pandemic with more grace, more compassion, more empathy, and as a result, more lives will be saved.

Jessica  23:08

I think that’s such a good thing that that attorney did, because mental health in particular, and you know, even in a regular work place, it’s such a silent I guess, the silent visitor, if you will, of people who work it even in a physical office, let alone remote work or hybrid, where you don’t even you already don’t really hear it or see it. But then you have people working remote, it’s harder to reach those people in general. You know, is there a way? What are some specific things firms can do up front to prevent some problems from starting in the first place? Are there any, you know, tactics that specific firm members have used Besides sharing their story? Because that’s a very good, I think, connective way to connect with people.

Deb Knupp  23:55

Absolutely. So I think it’s so in addition to I think creating systems for visibility and messaging, where courageous people can put a face against things that maybe are stigmatized, I think that that’s just as a general sense. Where you have willingness or courageous people who want to be advocates in this space and creating pathways for those stories to be told or those those messages to be shared. I think that that’s that’s a strong value, and will often fall under the umbrella of sort of firm communications. I think a secondary, as I’ve already mentioned, is I think taking a fresh look at your benefits programs and really understanding you know, is there parity and access to mental health coverage and and what does that look like with regards to essential priorities in the benefits plane designs, and how you can come alongside folks who may be struggling in getting proper care. In large part because of financial scenarios. I’ve seen more firms establish what I’d consider most like benevolence related funding such that that people anonymously can or to the firm I’m anonymous, but people can tap into hardship in a way that allows coverage if their benefits plans run out, or if there are not places where that kind of financial reinforcement can be made available. And I think that can be true not only in mental health, but that’s also when you’re navigating home insecurity, you know, food insecurity, and other conditions. So I think those are certainly places to look. I think, additionally, the advent of new benefits. One of my favorite things that I got exposed to during the pandemic, is an organization called home thrive and they they provide elder care, concierge services for eldercare, I think a growing area of depression and anxiety isn’t isn’t a person who is aging parents. The isolation, the shame, the struggle, and knowing how to navigate where parent, your child becomes parent, and how do you navigate that there’s an entire Benefits Service that brings that kind of elder care, concierge service and really helping provide resources to people like me, who have to navigate caring for an aging parent or an aging loved one. And so I think at looking innovatively and how to do that, we saw a lot of that in the childcare space. So again, I think that additions of things like elder care another arena, I’m also noticing a lot of firms are creating, for lack of another sermon, the construct of resource groups, where people can come together around particular areas of affinity, where they may be navigating particular challenges or struggles. So again, when you look at individuals coming together around affinity, where their struggles with maybe diversity related resource grouping, I think is something that’s a little bit more popular and prevalent, certainly has been seen in major corporations, I think law firms are starting to build that into their larger affinity related programming. But I think there’s also resource groups when you can bring community together when it’s navigating, you know, parenting teenage children, or working with seniors and navigating elder care and how to navigate that, or how you navigate some of the challenges that may come with the stability of marriage or, or family dynamics. I think firms that this understand that we need to be our whole self, to our workplaces. And then we need to really examine how we can create space and safety for people to leverage connectedness and community. In some ways, it makes them even more loyal, more connected to your place of work. Because these kinds of extra things are made available to care for the whole person.

Rachel  27:25

I’m so glad we’re talking about mental health today, because I think it’s often important to destigmatize it, I think the more people talk about, especially their own struggles, and they’re not ashamed to find help, but I feel like it’s often like almost an invisible disease. Like if people don’t talk about it, then people don’t know about it. And they feel alone. And I think talking about struggles and ways that companies can really help their employees think is really helpful. So one of the other topics we wanted to touch on a little bit today was more relationship building. So creating and maintaining relationships, legal industry. So what are some ways that law firms, legal marketers can create authentic relationships with clients?

Deb Knupp  28:04

Well, I like to think of this as a starting point, Rachel is that we got to recognize that there’s a very fine line in stalking someone and staying connected to them. And they’re really the distinction that we often say is really in the in the zone of how welcomed is the effort to stay connected, how welcomed is it by the receiver, in wanting to be engaged with you as a firm. And so when we look at legal marketing techniques, and how to frame a client centered, or an other centered approach, to having authentic reasons to stay connected, we find really simply that it can fall under a construct that we call it growth, like the three ends. And the three ends are almost failsafe when you think about these three ends from the receivers perspective. So if you think authentic reasons to connect with a client, or potential client or referral source, you need to have one of these three things in place. So in number one, is invitations. A great way to stay connected to your clients is invite them to things that they would find beneficial, inviting them to be a part of activities, conversations, education scenarios, inviting them to things that lift them up, allow them to, to flourish, to be smarter to be stronger in ways that are welcomed. And so if you want to build a relationship with a client and you want to stay in front of them, one you need to understand what are the kinds of things that your clients like to do? What are the kinds of things that they are aspiring to grow and learn, personally and professionally so that when you are orienting the end of invitations, that you have far more readiness to activate the end of an invitation in a way that will increase the odds that not only will it be received, but it will received and will feel like a relationship investment. Think the second end is the end of introduction. There’s no better way to really cultivate relationships with your clients and potential clients, other than when you’re introducing them to people that they actually want to meet. Now, this the underscoring, is actually want to meet. This is not about ambush introductions, where you decide that two people need to meet and grab coffee or have a conversation. This is though the permission based in of introductions, when you can ask clients, you know, the kinds of people the kinds of service providers the kinds of help that they’re looking for, again, professionally, personally, maybe within the law firm, maybe outside and larger professional services, when you can facilitate the ends of introductions, that a client would actually welcome and find valuable in their network, there’s a real value and it will feel like a relationship investment. The final end of the three ends is insight or information sharing. And so once again, if you can create an inventory of insights, that allow your clients to be smarter your clients to be lifted your clients to have benchmarks, or you can seek insights, meaning the inquiry of voice of the client research, that exchange of insights and information, again, as long as it’s welcomed, and it’s on point with something that the receiver would like to receive. When you do that, and you dial in with that kind of sharing or inquiry. Again, it feels like a relationship investment. So I think the answer in any kind of ongoing sustainable relationship investment is to pay attention to the three ends, and making sure again, that they’re tailored to the receivers. perception of value.

Rachel  31:33

I wonder if you could also talk about what some of the key like, x-factors are in terms of like legal marketing at law firms.

Deb Knupp 31:40

We know we’ve talked a little bit already about talent experience and client experience, which are often referred to as sort of CX, which would be an x-factor for client experience when TX or EX is sometimes you see it for employee experience or talent experience. And so I think those are two that we need to be paying attention to. And really, again, at the intersection of how those things are informed, I can tell you that there are a few other x-factors that I think are really important to examine and integrate. When we look at things like brand experience, when you think about what it feels like to be in your ecosystem, on your website, receiving your your press releases, you know, being on your news feeds, and your newsletters, and hearing about the things that you’re promoting the accolades, the awards, the causes, the charity things, the pro bono things you’re doing. All of those things sort of underpin this construct of a brand experience, where you can not only engage brand experience, for the purposes of getting more recognition, you actually can look at your BX brand experience in giving more inspiration to others. Of course, I would be remissed a growth play, we often look at the RX, which we refer to as the revenue experience, or the sales experiences it might be in recognizing that when you’re engaging in your go to market strategies, in the name of business development, that the revenue experience doesn’t have to feel like an exercise of trying to strong arm or manipulate somebody to give you something, you actually can have that experience feel like an act of service. And when you design and plan for when you leverage all of your business generating to leave the prospect or that or that referral source in a better space, utilizing the three ends that I mentioned earlier. And investing in that prospect or referral source, the revenue experience not only will allow you to get revenue, it will also allow you to give that value of wisdom in a way that will leave a mark. And finally, when we look at revenue experience, it is about getting revenue, it’s about getting the sale, but it’s also about giving the deposit of wisdom. So you can look at the interplay of those 4x factors, I think you begin to see brand new avenues and channels that could lead to generating opportunities overall for growth.

Rachel  33:53

How does that then play into some of these, you know, G3 selling strategies that we’ve spoken about, that legal marketers can focus on? Well, when you look at the construct of getting things, I think I get strategy, which is one of the G’s, and clearly is something that needs to be paid attention to. And we’ve got to always be replenishing our pipeline to look for that net new opportunity to bring the client in. So I get Strategy is a strategy of prospecting, referral, generating, pursuing targeting, engaging until such time as there’s billable work. I think that the other two G’s or something just to highlight quickly, I think there’s also a real strong importance on your growth strategy. A lot of law firms talk about the benefit of cross selling, but yet not always as impactful or effective. So when you think about the strategy of grow, for purposes of cross selling, we need to be looking at that strategy with a keen eye because the cost of sell is considerably lower. And we’ve got to look at the infrastructure around cross selling or growth of an existing client to make sure we’re not falling into the impediments or traps of how do you recognize people are incentivized or create collaboration in a way that’s really in service to clients. Think the last few years the guard strategy, this is probably the area that gets most overlooked. And I think the pandemic really brought to life, how important existing clients are, and how important it is to love on your existing clients. And so guard strategies really are all about not taking an existing client for granted. You may have a very large market share or be the law firm, to a particular client and have all of their legal spend. The question though, is what are you doing to protect that? How are you re originating that work? How are you investing in protecting that client relationship and looking for new innovation, new value, and new ways to really build loyalty, so that there’s inoculation against competition? Because I can say that when clients shift law firms, it’s not usually only because they’re unhappy about the legal service, or they’re unhappy about the rates, a lot of times they leave, or they look to get new counsel, because they’re being ignored, or taken for granted. So G three is about getting, it’s about growing, and it’s about guarding. And when we can look at the revenue strategies that go with those three things. I think there’s real power and lifting many people to contribute positively affect revenue that would come from any one of his three G’s.  Excellent. We’ve had a great conversation today on mental health and well-being in the egal industry. So thank you to Deb Knupp from GrowthPlay for joining us today.

OUTRO  36:32

Thank you for listening to The National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes for the latest legal news. If you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www dot NAT law review.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

For more Legal Reach Podcasts, please see here.