Talking data with James Markham (The Legal MBA) : Iron Carrot

Season 4 Episode 9

Welcome to Season 4 of the Law Firm Data Governance podcast. I’m CJ Anderson, founder of Iron Carrot, the law firm data governance specialist. I’m thrilled to have a new season of insights about working with information and data in law firms.

Data governance is the key to unlocking your law firm’s potential. But it’s not the only area of data activity that is important for your firm’s success. That’s why, in this fourth season, I’m pleased to share some information, questions, and top tips about the other areas you might want to consider.

Episode Transcript

CJ Anderson

So today we’re going to dive into one of the most commercially important, but yet misunderstood shifts in the legal sector, and that’s how AI is reshaping law firm strategy and pricing and competitive advantage and how data supports and fits into that misunderstood area.

To help us make sense of it, we have someone whose writing has become essential reading for law firm leaders, and that’s James Markham. James is known for bringing commercial clarity to topics that law firms often overcomplicate, especially more recently, AI’s impact on pricing, operating models and client behaviour.

Welcome back, James.

James Markham

Thanks for having me CJ. Good to be here.

CJ Anderson

Before we get really into it, I do have to notice that you’ve changed roles since you last came on the podcast. How did this legal MBA thing come about?

James Markham

I change roles like most people change their socks. It was overdue. I mean, so the Legal MBA as a book started as a project in lockdown. Me and a guy I used to work with, Darren Mee. I think we were each other’s emotional support animals, sort of Labradors, Labradors through lockdown. And it was a, this is pretty grim, what should we do? Or should we write a book? And we landed on the Legal MBA and yeah, and that’s what we did. And it kind of kept us going through the dark days of am I allowed to leave my house and do I have to stand on my front lawn and bash pots with a spoon?

You say that out loud in 2026 and it does sound, it felt weird at the time, it sounds weirder now. So that’s where the book started and then we put the book out there and I think it became, I think increasingly it sort of just focused my attention on this underlying need around sort of foundational commercial skills within the sort of the legal community, the lawyers, the fee earners, as opposed to the business services staff or the broader ecosystem, and said that the book over the last couple of years has turned into a training programme.

I think we’ve put over 100 partners through our mini MBA now, which is great. And from my perspective, it’s those little light bulb moments of, oh, yeah, that makes sense. I get that now. And oh, I don’t have to keep doing the thing I’ve been doing for my entire career, there are other options available. You know, I can, I don’t have to just work harder to get this over the line. I can look at the service I’m delivering. I can introduce leverage or I can do something with pricing in a smart way.

So yeah, that’s been a really, just I think a really rewarding shift, I think, as we’re starting to see some of those stories come out of the impact that it’s had and the changes people have made to their practice.

CJ Anderson

That’s really exciting and also gives you a really interesting insight into what’s really going on on the ground and how people are really thinking, which is why I’m excited. You’ve kind of written extensively and dare I say it somewhat, sometimes provocatively, about how law firms are approaching AI. But before we dig into that, how would you describe kind of the current state of AI strategy across the legal sector from what you’ve seen?

James Markham

Yeah, I think, so I think if you look at it across the sector as a whole, I think you can see like a whole raft of like a wide range of different approaches, you know, people buying, people building, people starting up kind of AI native type firms and doing new things in exciting ways. So I think for the sector, for the industry as a whole, I think that’s very positive, that you know that experimentation and I have no doubt some good will come out of that.

I don’t think I’ve got a crystal ball to be able to point out where the good will be. And I think there will be some casualties. But I think for that, for the industry in the broader ecosystem, I think it’s been good. I think it’s been a really big catalyst. I think it’s exposed a lot of the underlying issues that you and I have seen long before AI was a thing, you know, issues around standardisation and process and data and what do clients actually want and is the hourly rate the best pricing model and all the rest of it.

I think that the AI thing has kind of been a catalyst across the sector to rethink some of those underlying assumptions. I think that’s very positive. I think in terms of the specific sessions we’re having with individual partners, there is, I think, then a really big gap between, if you like, the noise on LinkedIn, where somewhere between AI is taking all of your jobs and taking over the world and all the rest of it; actually, a lot of partners, I think, are in a place where it’s a, I don’t know. But they’re experimenting or I think increasingly they do find themselves stuck in between central management kind of going, here’s a shiny new tool, just work it out for yourselves. And potentially more juniors as well, kind of pushing ideas up through them.

I think those partners are a little bit maybe stuck in the middle, stuck in the headlights with a, what do we do with this? So there’s a rich tapestry of approaches of what’s going on, I think.

CJ Anderson

Interesting. I think you wrote about that firms default into a three-part AI strategy that kind of buy not build, push gen AI reliability risks onto clients and shift to fixed fees without understanding value. What do those have in common? And I think you’ve noted that you see them as a path to commercial failure. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that?

James Markham

Yeah, and I think there was, I can’t remember when I wrote that, which is just a safe way of distancing myself from my own words, really. But I think what has, I think actually what has changed in the buy versus build since I wrote that, I think at the time it was a very buy, it was a buy a Harvey, buy a Legora, buy a co-pilot, that was that was safety, if you like, that’s where the market was maybe going.

I think we’ve then seen vibe coding as a thing, which is its whole other tangent and I think let’s just maybe not. I think, but yeah, I think there is now a little bit, there is more nuance to buy versus build. I think there’s kind of a go buy a standard product if you like, as a phrase, or maybe have a go yourself and kind of vibe code some stuff and see what happens. So I think there is some nuance there now.

I think the general reliability risk, I think if I go back to when when is it Denton’s and we were doing the Fleet AI thing, which you know was essentially a sort of a way of securing the data and putting a wrap around ChatGPT so that internally that could be used, 3.5 probably at the time could be used.

At the time, it was all a good product, and the world has moved on. But in terms of bringing that, if you like, to market and being able to have that as a capability with the firm, we spoke to clients. So I do lose track of the time, what we looked at three years ago now, I can’t remember, and really at that time, and this would have been kind of corporate clients rather than say B2C, there were two things that they highlighted.

One was the client confidentiality bit, like, you know, look after our data, don’t lose it, don’t use it to train open AI’s models or whatever. And the other one was this point around hallucinations. But clients at that time, and I think this probably still stands, their view was, but you’re going to cheque the work. So kind of, I don’t care. Like if you’re giving it to me, if it’s wrong, I’m suing you. And whether you’re suing someone else or not, or you’re claiming on your insurance policy, kind of not my problem. But they’re the two concerns. But if you’re saying you checked everything and the work quality is good, and you’re saying that the data is secure, then we’re happy.

And I think what I have perhaps am still a bit surprised at is I still think they’re the two sticking issues, really. I don’t think there are any new ones, and I don’t think either of those have been resolved. I think there are still concerns around where is data going.

There’s a bit of an odd thing in the US around what’s privilege; if you’re using these products, does privilege apply? I mean, that’s pretty existential for a law firm to land on an answer around that. And that I think is just expanding the data security confidentiality point.

The hallucination thing, I think what I don’t know, disappointed in like a wagging my finger at an errant child kind of way. I think what is clearly nuts to me is this idea that you have a provider of a software product, an open AI, a Harvey, a Legora, whoever, it doesn’t really matter. And they essentially disclaim all responsibility and liability for the accuracy of that product. Now, I can’t really, I feel that’s unprecedented. Here is my product, good luck is a pitch, right? But apparently this is fine. But it’s like I’ve said from the sort of the SaaS provider down: that’s what we’re doing. That’s the game we’re playing. Okay.

I think then what I’ve been, I think, disappointed is the right word, I think, for I have seen law firms then trying to pass that down the chain to clients with a kind of, well, we’re using these products and as you know, they’re a bit unreliable and therefore, our advice would be unreliable. And it’s like, well, no, you, what then are you being paid for? And I think then very, very exposed if clients go, well, if all you’re going to offer me is unreliable advice with no kind of quality guarantee, I will just cut you out and I can get that straight from the source now. And I think that’s, that feels to be fundamentally wrong. I think for a profession, like legal, but also you throw accountants into it. Or just anyone with any self-respect, frankly, into that chain to pass the hallucination risk down to the end client, who is the person least equipped to understand that, to be able to manage it, detect it, mitigate it, I think is just horrendously flawed and commercially has no legs, you know, you just come back to cold hearted capitalism rather than any moral high horse that I’m trying to sit on with this. That just does not work.

So you’ve got to, I think, still be able to tackle the hallucination thing. So you’ve got to put the sort of the firebreak in somewhere that says, we’re checking this stuff before it’s coming through. And then I think it does link through to the third point around the fixed fees and the understanding of value-based pricing. It’s really, really hard, I think, to have told your clients for decades we charge by the hour. The value isn’t the time it takes us to do the work, either explicitly or implicitly. You’re saying that with the hourly rate model. And now you’re saying, oh, the hours are going to reduce, but the value doesn’t. Like, kind of, yes.

Like, there are some hurdles you can jump around that says the value of the contract is the value of the contract or whatever. You know, the advice we give you during the litigation is the value there. But you’ve conditioned your clients for years to equate value with hours. So you’ve got some real work there to unpick that. I think it does feel a bit like a bait-and-switch.

You know, oh, now, now you’re prepared to talk about fixed fees, but I’ve been asking you for that for the last five years and you’ve told me, oh, but you can’t. It’s too complicated. I think this is this base assumption thing. I just think there’s this, we have to go back to the base assumptions and we have to properly articulate that, well, what are we doing? What guarantees are we giving around work quality? And how are we pricing that in a much more fundamental way than I think most are used to doing.

CJ Anderson

So what do you think law firms are kind of least prepared to confront in that space? Like what are they, what are the conversations that these law firm leaders aren’t having about getting to value-based pricing or picking a tool or what’s that hurdle that they need to get over to make this work?

James Markham

What are they least prepared to do? I think if you strip it right back, I think there are four questions that any firm, practice group leader, partner, all the way through that, needs to answer. And it’s kind of the, who do you serve? Who are your clients? What do you do forthem? What are the service propositions? What is it that you do for those clients? And then how do you price it and how do you deliver it?

I think that the AI bit falls in the how do you deliver it? And I think that is a large tail, but frankly a tail to the broader dog of, I think, particularly especially questions like, well, who are your clients and which of those clients do you want to continue working with that want to continue working with you? And what the service is and which of those services will we continue to offer in an AI-ified way, a not AI-ified way, whatever, and what are we going to do going forward and then how do we price it?

And I think the bit of those four that I think the firms are least prepared to look at is that service propositions piece. I think there is generally an ability and a willingness to look at clients and say, do you know what, there just isn’t a fit here anymore. We need to, we need to move. I’m not saying it’s easy and it’s uncomfortable. I think firms have done that historically and can do that.

I think the pricing is, if you like, the immediate flash point and the pressure point of, uh-oh, hours are going down, what do we do? But that is surmountable, you know, that is surmountable by moving to fixed fees and value-based pricing and all the rest of it.

But I think there is this potentially quite existential point around the, what are we trying to do here guys/girls? You know, what are the services that we offer and do they need to change to a more significant degree than, oh, it’s what we did yesterday, but there’s a bit of AI and a bit of magic and it makes it a bit faster. I think that that kind of what are the problems for our clients and how do we solve them? And some of that is legal advice, some of that is other stuff that the clients want.

I think that’s actually quite different because I think that’s, you’re into like proper soul searching here. You’re what did I, what have I been doing with my training? Why am I here for the last 20 years? I’ve been doing this, you know, I’m a real estate lawyer, I’m an employment lawyer, this is what I do. I think pivoting it back out into what does the client want and what can we reasonably do for them at a sense of price and the rest of it? I think that’s the bit they’re least prepared for.

CJ Anderson

And if, as they kind of go through that soul searching, they’re going to have to hit the, are we competitively distinct? If AI is standard across the market and we, you know, bought the same tools as everybody else and we’ve created the same offerings as everybody else, are we distinct enough? And that’s one of the dangers.

Like how worried should firms be about that competitive distinction? And what’s, in my view, is that data is going to have a role to play and some people are going to be better at AI than others because of what they’ve done with their data. Is that a fair assumption on my part or is there something else in that mix that people should be thinking about?

James Markham

Yeah, I agree. I think data is a potential point of differentiation. It’s not just because I’m on your podcast, CJ. I do believe that. Honestly, I believe that. I’d have said it to anyone. I do. And I think firms, I think there are, you said there are some, you know, boutique, genuinely differentiated firms that do like a thing and they do that thing really well. They’re known for that thing and off they go. That’s what they do. And those firms are probably okay. And or even individuals within firms that have a very clearly defined, this is what I do and why I’m really good at it. And this is why I can confidently use AI to help or not use AI because it’s inappropriate. I can explain that and that’s all good.

I think though there is a sort of thing like I guess a bell curve of distribution. I think the vast majority of firms, practise groups, partners sit in a bit of a rump where they frankly do what everyone else does. I don’t mean like the same as the 9000 firms across England and Wales, but the number of times if we go back to the training we do, the number of times when we talk about pricing, we hear it’s a market rate. You know, we’ve got to be aware of our competitors, you know, the four or five firms on the panel that we have to be competitive on price, not necessarily the lowest, but we have to be there. That is a really strong sign that you are not differentiated, right? You know, you are, no one likes it, but you are a commodity in the eye of your client. If you are, if 70, 80% of what you’re doing is being won on price, you are not differentiated.

And so I think when you move to this world where every firm has a Harvey or a Legora or a Co-pilot that have the same generalised capabilities and also some of your larger clients have those as well. So the banks are, I think, quite heavily moving in this direction as we speak. I think that pricing pressure continues and it’s not because of AI. It’s not that AI has commoditised the service; it’s you were always a commodity supplier.

And I think I don’t think people want to admit to that and that feels very uncomfortable. But that is what it is. If a client is looking at you saying, I could work with CJ, I could work with James, I could work with Tom, Dick, and Harry, who can maybe turn it around the quickest and who’s the lowest price? You’re a bit stuffed.

So then you come to, well, what is differentiation? And I think firms are going to be unable generally to differentiate based on the tech stack. If you’re all using Harvey, that doesn’t get you any points in a pitch, does it? So then you kind of resort to, oh, but our people and our culture and we’ve got offices near you. Great, but also every other law firm is saying that. So it’s not a point of verifiable differentiation. Youjust sound like everybody else.

So you come back to what can you differentiate on? Now, I think I think data is, if you look at it internally, I think that is a core asset. I think the we’ve done 1000 jobs just like yours in your sector for clients that look just like you. These are the pitfalls. This is what we advise dadadadada. There is huge value in that. And if you can gatekeep that and not leak that out, which I think is another issue that law firms have at the moment, but if you can kind of control that sort of the boundary of your organisation and control that data, there is huge competitive advantage to be leveraged from that. You’re far more so than tech or process. I mean, I guess you could have a nice shiny portal that clients interact with you if you like, if that’s what you’re into. Great.

But actually, it is the data point. And then it’s the relationships and the judgement and the genuine, we understand you as the client, we understand your sector, your industry, whatever it is. I think that’s how you break out of this kind of commoditization cycle. You’re just so exposed, it doesn’t even matter if you’re using AI, you’re exposed to your competitor or your peer firm down the road using AI and reducing prices by 50%, but you’re going to have to respond to that. If you can’t explain why you’re better than that firm now when you’re within, say, 10% on price, if their prices drop by 30 to 50%, where do you think the work’s going? I don’t feel this is difficult.

CJ Anderson

It feels it’s a reasonable path that people can, you know, perhaps foresee and map out in their futures and do something to mitigate. And I think the interesting thing I think we’ve both noticed is that there’s a bit of private equity interest in law firms and they tend to go after kind of commoditized areas. So do you see private equity shaping or misunderstanding AI’s impact on this legal sector?

James Markham

I feel like you’re deliberately baiting me on all of the…

CJ Anderson

Of course, always.

James Markham

So I’ll sit on the fence with private equity. I think it is a storm in a teacup and probably a waste of time. But I think you’ve got a lot of advisors that want it to be a thing. You know, you’ve got brokers, you’ve got accountants, you’ve got consultants that want it to be a thing.

I don’t, I fundamentally, I get private equity’s role in producing capital event or liquidity event for the existing partnership, get that, like, and let’s just own that and face into that. That’s what we’re doing. And there’s no there’s no judgement around that, but I think there’s a lot of complication with trying to hide it if that’s what you’re actually doing here. So if you created sort of an exit event of sort for the existing partners, I think that’s fine. I think that, you know, you’re setting yourself up then, you’ve now got a third party that wants to cut the profits every year or whatever, but…

And then you get into the challenge, well, how is private equity going to grow that pie in a way that the existing partners value that five years down the line, and they don’t see it as just a drain and we could have done it ourselves. And I think the challenge with private equity is I really struggle to point at many things that private equity is uniquely positioned to do that the law firm couldn’t do itself if it actually wanted to.

So I think there is a role for sort of the M&A roll up, get some efficiencies in the back office. But yeah, okay, fine. But that’s really only because you’re kind of providing these sort of mini exit events and providing some liquidity to enable that. Law firm mergers have always happened without that. So it’s not a necessary condition, but I do get that it helps.

I get that in, say, some B2C markets, there is something about investing in, sort of like about portals earlier, but portals and workflow and probably some quite aggressive approaches to marketing pricing to win market share. I think the private equity capital is more patient than partner capital, so that kind of works.

But when it comes to AI. Are we really saying we need a private equity so we can afford some Legora licenses? Is that where we are? You know, this is annual like P&L licencing costs. This is not, we’re training our own LLM and there’s this huge capital balance is going to accrue on the balance sheet that we need to fund; and so I think my fundamental issue with private equity is I just don’t get it beyond the very obvious it’s an exit event for the existing partners.

I don’t think it adds anything that the law firm themselves couldn’t do if they were so inclined. So you’re sort of left with this If you’re a strong, high-performing law firm, I think you’re going to kind of look at private equity and go, yeah, I don’t get it either. James is right. And if you’re a weaker firm that hasn’t invested in it, you know, you’re still on a practice management system that’s 20 years out of date or whatever.

Yeah, yeah, I can see that, yeah, we need some money to make this work, but then you’re not really a very attractive investment for private equity. You know, you’re kind of then in a, it’s almost like a turnaround bordering on distressed purchase, which is fine, but there’s a really high execution risk in that. So is there a meaningful role of private equity in AI? No. Is there a meaningful role of private equity at all? Also, no.

CJ Anderson

But no, that’s a good answer.

James Markham

But anyway, I just sit on the fence with that one. I didn’t want to show my hand.

CJ Anderson

No, that was that was really balanced.

James Markham

Yeah, like BBC levels of impartiality.

CJ Anderson

Absolutely.

So let’s go from like theoretical state of the market into something really practical. So if you were advising a leadership team tomorrow and they went, James, where do we start? What’s the first conversation we should be having about all of this stuff? What do we do? Where would you tell them to go? What would you tell them to do?

James Markham

I mean, I…

That’s probably a classic consultant answer. I think it’s I’ll ask them a question back, which is what you’re trying to achieve, you know, and I think that is the first step and it is so often skipped for all kinds of reasons. One, we don’t think to ask it. You know, two, you know, law firms that the partnership model, it’s a lot of decision making by consensus. So it’s not just what does one person think and off we go.

It’s what does potentially the whole partnership think that takes time and it’s a bit of soul searching and it feels like it feels very unproductive, a bit navel-gazing when you could be doing some billable hours instead. But I think that is at this point in time, that is the key, key question. You know, I think it’s, I think it’s for a leadership team, if you like to come to a conclusion on what do they think about this AI stuff. You know, are they very bearish on it? Are they very bullish on it? Are they somewhere in the middle? Is it it’ll all blow over? You know, we’ve been here with document automation, it’ll just fizzle out or a bubble will pop.

I think you’ve got to take a view on what do you think the size of the opportunity or the threat is. I think there’s a, and what do you want on the other side of that? Do you just want to kind of weather a storm? Do you want to grow? Do you want to acquire some of these other firms that are struggling? Do you want to trailblaze and train your own LLM if you really, if you really want to kid yourselves?

What is it you want to achieve over a whatever three, 5, 10 year period? I think if you’ve got clarity on that and you’ve got consensus around that, I think that makes every other question 1000 times easier because then you can start saying, right, to achieve that, what sort of clients do we want and how does that compare with the clients we have and how do we move between the two? What services do we currently offer? What services do we need to offer? And how do we move between the two? How are we pricing work? How are we delivering the work?

If you clear on, it’s like an A to B, it’s a gap analysis. You probably have some understanding of where you are right now. I think if you have the clarity on where you’re getting to, it makes it a lot easier to get there as opposed to I’m leaving my house in the morning, let’s see where I end up at 5 o’clock at the end of the day. I mean, it’s an approach, but it’s not the best one. So where do you start? Start with what, where are you going to London or Edinburgh? Sent. ‘Cause you’re not doing bunch, you’re in Middlesbrough, you got to split the difference.

CJ Anderson

Easy question. No.

So, I mean, I also think there’s something around behaviour in some of these questions. So is there a behaviour change that partners need to adopt if they want AI to actually deliver strategic value from their AIs? Is there something in the way partnerships are operating that is holding them back here?

James Markham

Yeah, well, like you know what, you know… noting your leading inflammatory question for the second time. I am actually going to come into bat on in defense of partnerships. You know, I think yeah, maybe just stick the boots in a private equity again.

Yeah, I think that tat its purest, a partnership is an incredibly powerful and agile model, and I know that many people will disagree with both of those adjectives, but you’re getting a group of people together that have a common purpose. And so we go back to the what do you want to achieve as a group, right? Should we go do that together as a partnership?

Now, I think that you maybe get some scaling issues where, and sorry, so you don’t have principal agent problems that you do with a corporate body, you don’t have a private equity that has their own interests and all the rest of it. You should be all aligned. Now, there’s a whole bunch of other issues where it doesn’t quite work like that. You’ve got very short term views on profit and you pay it all out after 12 months the partnerships are not well aligned, you introduce executive committees and you start creating some of these sort of principal agent problems.

But at its core, and I think, you know, for me, this is why I quite like working with the smaller and the mid-sized firms, there is an agility there, there is an ability to get 10, 20, 30 people, whatever, around the table and get 80% of them, never 100%, 80% to say

yYeah, that’s what we want to do. And we want to spend some money to invest in that. We want to prioritise that, but not that. There’s a big adjustment with this practice group. We’re going to support them. I think that that is in the full defence of the partnership model. That is at its best.

Now, I think when you get into to bigger firms, you’ve got partners all over the place, and you end up with, I think, you know a partnership of self-employed individuals just wanting to get what they can out of the model. I think it doesn’t work, you know, as a partnership with a lowercase P rather than with an uppercase P. But I think that the partnership model is a very good vehicle to doing that. But I think you do have to come back to what is the common purpose? What are we trying to achieve as a group? I’m working through the differences in the, well, who’s going to win, who’s going to lose from that.

Yeah, I am fully supportive of the partnership model, maybe less so its execution in certain quarters, but in principle, I think it’s a good one.

CJ Anderson

I recognise that we’ve been chatting and I’ve been picking your brains for a long time. So let’s try and wrap this up. So we’ve talked about AI and private equity and partners and billing and a lot of things and data over this time together. What’s your final thought or thoughts on all of this stuff?

James Markham

My final thought, my final thought. I think probably as a builder at that last point, I think it’s the just work out what you’re trying to achieve first, agree that across the leadership team, and then you can work out how to move forward.

And you know, as a shameless plug, if you need help facilitating with that, we can do that. You know, from a commercial angle, we’re not in the, we being me and Darren and what we do with The Legal MBA, we’re not in the business of flogging you some technology. We’re largely agnostic, despite my opinions, on what is the world going to look like. I think it’s for law firms to work with that, come to a decision, for leadership teams to come to a decision as to what do they think the world’s going to look like and what do they want their role to be in that, rather than the… chasing what everyone’s saying on LinkedIn and but I’ve only got 6 LLMs in my tech stack and they’ve got 7. You know, that’s the route to madness.

So work out what you’re trying to achieve. Agree that across your leadership team and across your partnership more broadly and then start from there.

CJ Anderson

Sensible practical advice. James, thank you so much for joining me on this episode.

James Markham

No worries, thank you very much for having me.

CJ Anderson

I’ve got several takeaways from that conversation with James. For me, he cuts through the noise surrounding AI and law firms, arguing that while AI is accelerating the change, it’s really exposing the longstanding commercial weaknesses, not creating them.

His explanations for why firms must move beyond tool picking and instead confront deeper strategic questions about who they serve, what problems they solve, and how they meaningfully differentiate in a market where every competitor will soon have similar AI capabilities. That really resonated with me.

In terms of a practical takeaway, James highlighted data, yay, not technology, as the most sustainable source of competitive advantage and urged leadership teams to align on what they’re trying to achieve before making major decisions about pricing, service design or AI adoption.

If this conversation challenged how you think about AI strategy, pricing and firm differentiation, then his posts on LinkedIn and, of course, the Legal MBA are essential reading. Or why not join one of the Legal MBA webinars on AI impact on law firm commercial models?

If you want to understand where your own firm stands, download or complete the Iron Carrot Law Firm Data Governance Maturity Benchmark. It’s the most practical, evidence-based way to assess your readiness for AI-enabled work.

And if we’re not connected, follow me on LinkedIn for more insights on data governance, AI readiness, and the business of law.