Hard conversations don’t come naturally to me. They never have. It’s something I’ve had to learn how to do, practice, and get better at over years—not a strength I started with. 

I know exactly why it doesn’t come naturally: I’m a high D, high I on the DISC assessment. The D in me wants the problem gone, fast—no lingering, no half-measures. The I in me wants everyone to still like me afterward. A hard conversation means picking one of those, not both, and I’ve spent more weeks than I’d like trying to find a third option that doesn’t exist. 

I’m Stephanie Everett. I run Lawyerist Lab, and I hear this exact hesitation from owners constantly. I’ve been there myself: I let a performance problem run four months longer than I should have, because having the conversation felt harder than living with the problem. By the time I finally dealt with it, the only option left was letting the person go—someone who, with an earlier conversation, might have fixed whatever was actually wrong. Might have. That’s the tax. 

If any of this sounds familiar, congratulations: you already know what needs to happen. You’re just waiting for permission. 

We call this the Avoidance Tax, and it isn’t unique to firing decisions—a hard conversation, a boundary, a phone call you’ve been putting off all pay the same tax. Every day you delay, you pay a little more: in energy, in credibility, in options that were open a month ago. Not anymore. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

Feedback Has a Limit 

Sometimes one conversation is all that’s needed. The person hears you, adjusts, and that’s the end of the matter. 

Sometimes that’s not enough. Performance improves for a couple of weeks and slides back, you have the conversation again, and you get the same result. 

If you’ve had essentially the same talk more than twice without anything sticking, you’re not dealing with a communication gap anymore. You’re dealing with a fit problem, and no amount of additional feedback closes that. 

Ending things doesn’t mean you gave up too early. It means you finally believed what the pattern was already telling you. 

The Real Cost of Waiting 

Think about whoever on your team is covering for the person you haven’t dealt with yet. It’s not the extra work that wears them down—it’s watching nothing change while they do it. Five or six hours a week, easily, on top of their own job, and nobody officially asked them to take any of it on. 

At first they say something. Then they stop, not because it stopped bothering them, but because they’ve decided they don’t want to be the one who’s always complaining. 

They’re keeping score too, noticing exactly who gets held to the standard and who doesn’t. 

That’s before anyone resigns. When they do, you lose more than staffing—you lose what they knew, the relationships they’d built, and months while someone new gets up to speed. Waiting isn’t the cautious move here. Waiting is the costly one. 

The Kindness Trap 

Most owners don’t avoid this decision because they’re careless. Delaying feels kind: one more chance, a little more patience, a little more time to see if things turn around. 

I understand the impulse, but kindness isn’t really what’s driving it. Delaying is easier, and less scary. It’s the professional equivalent of leaving a note under someone’s windshield wiper instead of knocking on their door: technically you said something, but you also made sure you wouldn’t have to watch their face while you delivered the news. 

Delaying doesn’t make the cost disappear. The cost just moves somewhere else. The person doesn’t get the clarity to go find a role where they’d actually succeed, your team doesn’t get the relief of watching the standard hold, and you don’t get to be the leader who handled the problem early, while the problem was still small. 

The kindest thing you can do is tell them clearly, while there’s still time and dignity in how the conversation happens. Waiting doesn’t make the moment easier on them. Waiting only delays the moment, with less goodwill left by the time that moment arrives. 

Handling the Exit Well 

By this point, the decision’s usually already made. There’s a four-step path we walk through in our book, Be a Next Level Leader: The Four Cornerstones of Law Firm Leadership: 

1. A direct conversation 

2. A follow-up conversation if the first one didn’t stick 

3. A formal written plan with a real review period 

4. If none of that produces change, an exit. 

If you’ve genuinely done the first three, what’s left is executing well, and that means a real transition plan, honest communication with the rest of the team, and treating the person with respect on the way out, even now. 

Executing well also means not confusing “this is hard” with “this is wrong.” Ending a relationship that isn’t working is rarely comfortable, and that discomfort is usually just what the right call feels like when you’ve delayed the decision for a while. 

What to Do This Week 

The Avoidance Tax compounds the same way whether the delay is a firing decision, a rate increase, or a policy you won’t enforce. 

Name the problem you’ve been sitting on. Out loud, to yourself, in specific terms—not “things are a little off,” but “I’ve had this conversation twice, nothing’s changed, and I’m still hoping the third time is different.” 

Then ask what that problem is actually costing you: not in dollars necessarily, but in the redone work, the attention you spend every time their name comes up on your calendar, and what somebody else on your team is absorbing so you don’t have to. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

AI ended our legal expertise scarcity. That’s not a metaphor. Here’s what it means for the law firm you’re trying to build. 

I’m old enough to remember what life was like before the internet. Things were…harder. 

When I was in middle school, my dad got a promotion, and my parents decided to buy a house. On weekends, we’d drive through neighborhoods my dad’s new job might put us in. When we spotted a for-sale sign, my mom would pull out a notepad and write down the address, the realtor’s name, the phone number. That was it. That was all we got on a Saturday. We had no idea how many bedrooms, what it was listed for, whether it was even in the same universe as our budget. We’d have to wait until Monday morning to call the agent and find out. 

I’ve thought about how many houses we drove past and didn’t write down. Because the outside didn’t look like enough. Because we assumed the price was wrong. Because the gate was closed and we didn’t have a key. 

The internet didn’t eliminate real estate agents. It eliminated their role as gatekeepers to basic information. When I bought a house a few years ago, I still used an agent. Not to find out how many bathrooms a listing had, but for someone who knew the neighborhood in ways no database captures. For help negotiating. For trusted referrals for the inspection, the repairs, the things that turn a house into yours. 

The same thing is happening to law. Faster, and with higher stakes. 

There’s now what you could call a legal brain on any device. Any laptop. Any phone with a $20/month subscription. It can’t replace judgment, presence, or trust. But it can replicate the output of thinking like a lawyer pretty well.   

At this year’s ABA TECHSHOW, the keynote speakers all agreed: the gate between legal expertise and people who need it is going away. And the wall is coming down with it. And, honestly, that was months ago. 

The gate between legal expertise and people who need it is going away. And the wall is coming down with it. 

If you’re a law firm owner, you’ve probably already felt some version of this. A client who researched their situation before calling. A prospect who asked questions you didn’t expect. A feeling that the information advantage you used to have is getting thinner. 

That feeling is correct. And the question isn’t whether to fight it. The question is what you’re going to do now that it’s true. 

Which parts of your practice are actually expertise? 

Here’s the self-diagnostic that every firm owner needs to do: look at your typical workday and sort it into two buckets. 

Bucket one: work that requires your judgment, your presence, and your specific understanding of this client in this situation with these competing pressures. The work where a wrong call has real consequences and only you—your experience, your character, your relationships—can navigate it. 

Bucket two: work that is pattern-matching dressed up as expertise. Document review. Routine drafting. Intake. Research on a question you’ve answered forty times. Work where ‘good enough’ has always been part of the equation, even if you’d never say that out loud. 

AI is coming for bucket two. Quickly, cheaply, and at a scale that makes your hourly rate look like a rounding error. 

That’s not a threat to your firm. It’s actually the best news your firm has gotten in years—if you let it be. 

The lawyers who are going to lose are the ones who can’t tell which bucket is which. Who treat all their work as irreplaceable craftsmanship when a meaningful portion of it is sophisticated-looking process. Who resist the audit because they’ve built their identity around the process, not the judgment. 

The lawyers who are going to win are the ones who do the audit honestly, hand off the loops, and double down on the work that really requires them. 

The work AI is coming for first isn’t your expertise. It’s the time you spend doing things that look like expertise. 

The end of the knowledge monopoly is good news for clients 

Take a step back from your firm for a moment and think about this from the other side of the table. 

There are people who know they have a legal problem but don’t understand enough to know if there’s a remedy. There are people who know they need a lawyer but can’t afford a consultation, let alone the engagement. There are people navigating situations that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to resolve with a traditional firm, and so they don’t resolve them at all. 

AI is changing that. The gap between people who need legal help and people who can access it is closing. That’s good. Unambiguously, morally, straightforwardly good. 

And yes—it will put downward pressure on prices for the work that is essentially information delivery. If you’ve been billing for access to knowledge that is now freely available, that part of your practice is going to compress. That’s real. But it was always a fragile foundation. 

What doesn’t compress is you. Your presence. Your judgment. Your relationships. Your ability to sit across from someone in the worst moment of their professional or personal life and help them figure out what comes next. 

That is not something a language model can do. Not because AI isn’t powerful—it is—but because what clients actually need in those moments isn’t information. It’s accompaniment. 

The three things lawyers will always be able to offer 

Jordan Furlong, a keynote speaker for this year’s ABA TECHSHOW, put the future of lawyering into three words: advise, advocate, accompany. 

Advise: the ability to give personal counsel. Not just what the law says, but what it means for this client, in this moment, given what you know about who they are and what they’re trying to achieve. 

Advocate: the ability to stand with someone in any forum—a courtroom, a boardroom, a community meeting—and say, this person has something at stake and I’m here to help them protect it. 

But the third one is the one that stood out. 

Accompany. 

A client who comes to you is almost always in a position where something is wrong and they need to get somewhere better. They’re at point A and they don’t like it. They need to get to point B—or E or L or Q, wherever that is. And your job, more than any other thing, is to walk there with them. 

That accompaniment and sense of partnership, that ‘they were with me when I needed them’ is what every client remembers most about their best legal experiences. It’s not a clever argument. It’s not the settlement amount. It’s the feeling of not being alone in something hard. 

That is your competitive advantage. Not your knowledge base. Not your research speed. Not your document production capacity. 

You. 

The firms that win aren’t the ones who fight the technology. They’re the ones who finally figure out what they’re actually for. 

What you can do right now 

None of this requires a transformation strategy. It requires honesty. 

Look at your last week of work. Seriously. Pull up your time entries or your calendar or whatever record you have of where your hours actually went. Look at each item and ask: could an AI system, with the right context and a good prompt, have produced something 80% as useful as what I produced? If the answer is yes, that’s a loop. That’s bucket-two work. And you should be thinking about how to systematically hand it off. 

Not because your time isn’t valuable. Because your time is too valuable to spend on work that doesn’t require you. 

At Lawyerist, we’ve been helping small firm owners work through exactly this audit and building the systems to act on what they find. The firms doing this work now aren’t just saving time. They’re clarifying what their practice is actually for. They’re rebuilding their client relationships around the work that matters. They’re entering the next chapter of legal with a foundation that doesn’t depend on a monopoly that’s already gone. 

The gate is gone. The wall is coming down. That’s not a reason to panic. 

It’s a reason to finally build something worth building. 

Ready to audit your practice and figure out where AI fits? 

We built the AI Readiness Package specifically for small firm owners who want to adopt AI strategically—not reactively. It walks you through the audit, helps you identify what to hand off, and gives you a framework for building around your actual strengths. 

ai adoption

AI Readiness Package

Don’t wait to build an AI strategy that works for you.

Take a Look

“My paralegal says she’ll get me the draft by Friday. Monday morning comes, and I don’t have it yet.” 

“I keep finding typos in my associate’s briefs. I’m mentioned it twice.” 

“We have a process for our client intake. Half my team skips it when they are slammed.” 

I’m Stephanie Everett, founder of Lawyerist Lab, and these are common complaints from lawyers we work with. They feel ignored.  They’ve set the standard, and yet it feels like everyone is just going about their merry way.  

Once you’ve set the expectations with your team, you must be willing to hold that standard.  

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

Setting the Standard Is the Easy Part 

Naming the standard is a five-minute conversation. But holding someone to it, week after week, when they’re likable and busy and have a decent excuse every time, is the part that takes actual leadership.  

Most owners are pretty good at setting standards and pretty bad at holding them.  They don’t even realize it, because in the moment, letting it slide always feels reasonable. 

“They’re swamped this week.”  

“It’s just discovery responses, not a client-facing deadline.”  

“I don’t want to be the person who nitpicks a Monday morning.” 

Each of those is true in isolation. Stacked up over eight or ten weeks, they add up to a standard that exists on paper and nowhere else. 

What Enforcing a Standard Sounds Like 

It’s not a lecture. It’s definitely not a surprise performance review six months later. Enforcing a standard is a short, specific conversation, close to the moment the deadline was missed, that names exactly what happened and what needs to change. 

There’s a model I teach in Lawyerist Lab and in my book, Be a Next Level Leader: The Four  Cornerstones of Law Firm Leadership, called OIR: Observation, Impact, Request.  

It’s simple:  

First, describe what happened. Imagine a video of the scene replaying and name the undisputed facts. Never assume the person’s intent. Saying “it seems you don’t care” invites debate and defensiveness. Naming “you agreed to deliver the draft responses to me by Friday, but I didn’t get them until Monday” is a fact.  

Next, name the effect it had. “I had set aside time to review them and give them to the client for their review. The delay compressed all of our deadlines.” 

Finally, state the result you need instead. “In the future, we need to meet the deadlines we set. If you see that you aren’t on pace to hit a deadline, I need to know as soon as possible. What can you do differently in the future?” 

  That’s not harsher than “you need to be more reliable.” It’s just specific enough that there’s nothing left to guess about. 

What Happens When  You  Let Standards Slide 

Here’s where letting a standard slip gets costly, and it rarely shows up where you’d think to look for it.  

The real cost is what your senior associate is quietly absorbing. Every Monday, she’s the one doing the cleanup: reviewing what should’ve already been done, flagging what’s missing, redoing pieces that came in rushed.  

 She’s also keeping score. She’s noticing that the standard applies to her Friday deliverables and not to anyone else’s and that pointing it out hasn’t changed anything. The first couple of times, she mentions it. After that, she stops not because it stopped bothering her, but because she’s decided it’s not worth being the person who is always complaining about a coworker. 

A year later she leaves, not over one bad week, but because she spent that year concluding that reliability doesn’t get rewarded here, that being the one who follows through just means you inherit everyone else’s slack. And she’s not the only one drawing that conclusion. Whoever’s left is watching how you handled it and deciding how seriously to take the next standard you set.  When One Conversation Doesn’t Fix It 

Sometimes it does. You have the OIR conversation once, the pattern breaks, and that’s the end of it. Most performance issues, caught early and named clearly, resolve right there. 

When they don’t, the answer isn’t to repeat the same conversation and hope this time lands differently. There’s a four-step path we walk through in our book:  

1. A direct conversation  

2. A follow-up conversation if the first one didn’t stick,  

3. A formal written plan with a defined review period, and, if none of that produces change,  

4. An exit.  

Nobody wants to get to step four. But getting there isn’t the failure.  

Staying stuck on step one for a year having the same hallway conversation on repeat—that’s the failure. 

Consistency Is What Makes a Standard Real 

The fastest way to break trust in a standard is to enforce it selectively.  

If you address a missed deadline with one person and wave it off for another, your team doesn’t conclude the standard doesn’t matter to you. They conclude it never really existed, and that what actually determines the outcome is who you like better. 

This gets harder, not easier, with your best people. It’s tempting to give your highest performer a pass because everything else they touch is excellent. Do that enough times and you’ll find your best people are the ones testing the boundary the most, simply because they’ve learned there isn’t one. 

What to Do This Week 

Pick one standard you’ve been letting slide. Start with the one that has been bugging you for weeks.   

Write the OIR down: what you observed, the impact, what you need instead. Then have the conversation. This week, while it’s still a five-minute course correction instead of a six-month resentment. 

Your team already knows what you’re willing to tolerate. This week, show them what you’re holding them to. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

For the past two weeks, we’ve walked through when to hire and how to hire. If you followed those lessons, you figured out who you needed for the role and ran a real process instead of grabbing the first resume that looked decent. You welcome your new team member. 

Then, six weeks in, the new hire isn’t performing the way you expected. And you start wondering if you picked wrong. You probably didn’t.  

I’m Stephanie Everett, founder of Lawyerist Lab where we help law firm owners build better businesses. In our work with small firm owners, the pattern shows up constantly: the hire was solid. What was missing were clear, explicit expectations before day one. Not an assumption that “they’ll figure it out.” An actual, written, standard for what good looks like. 

When you miss that step, it can result in working getting redone and the owner slowly picking the task back up themselves. This week, we’re breaking down what we mean by setting expectations, what it costs you when you skip it, and how to build it into your hiring process starting now. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

Why Expectations Matter, and the Many Kinds You’re Actually Setting 

Here’s what makes this step easy to skip: expectations feel obvious to you. You’ve been doing this work, running this firm, and living inside these norms for years. Of course, the deadline is Thursday. Obviously, you flag a problem before it becomes a crisis. There’s no question you need to be ready to stay late the night before a trial starts. 

None of that is obvious to someone who started three weeks ago. What’s obvious to you is invisible to them, and the gap between those two things is where redone work, missed deadlines, and quiet resentment all come from. Expectations matter because they’re the only thing standing between a new hire’s best guess and your actual standard. Skip them, and you’re not really delegating. You’re hoping. 

And “expectations” is doing a lot of work in that sentence, because it’s not one thing. Most owners think they’ve covered it once they’ve named the task and the deadline. That’s a fraction of what a new hire needs to know: 

Performance expectations. What level of output counts as meeting the bar. Completing the task and completing it the way you’d have done it are two different deliverables. 

Quality expectations. The specific standard for how the work looks and reads, tone, formatting, and level of detail. 

Timeline expectations. Not just the deadline, but how far in advance you expect to hear if that deadline is at risk. 

Communication expectations. Response times, preferred channels, how much detail you want in a status update versus a quick heads-up. 

Availability expectations. Whether nights and weekends are ever part of the job, and exactly when, so nobody’s guessing about a boundary that was never stated. 

Decision-making expectations. What they’re empowered to decide on their own, and what needs to come to you first. Nothing erodes trust faster than a new hire getting corrected for a decision they had no way of knowing wasn’t theirs to make. 

Feedback expectations. How and when you’ll tell them how they’re doing, so silence doesn’t get read as approval. 

Cultural expectations. The unwritten norms about how people behave here, speaking up, disagreeing, asking for help, that never make it into a job description but get enforced anyway. 

Miss any of these categories and you haven’t set expectations. You’ve set a task list and left the actual standard to chance. 

Three Signs You Skipped This Step 

1. You’re Redoing Their Work 

This is the most expensive version. A new paralegal drafts a client letter. It’s not wrong exactly, it’s just not how the firm does it. You rewrite it. Then you rewrite the next one. Three months in, you’re spending more time fixing their work than you would have spent doing it yourself. 

If that’s costing you even four hours a week at $150 an hour in your own time, that’s $2,400 a month. Over a year, that’s close to $29,000 in redone work, on top of what you’re already paying them in salary. 

That’s not a performance problem. That’s a gap in the standard you never actually communicated. 

2. You’re Avoiding the Conversation 

Six weeks in, something isn’t clicking, and instead of naming it, you keep hoping it self-corrects. Meanwhile, the new hire has no idea anything is wrong. They think they’re doing fine because nobody’s told them otherwise. 

This is the “no news is good news” trap, and it’s expensive in a different currency: trust. By the time you finally raise it, three months of misaligned work have piled up, and the conversation that could have been a five-minute course correction in week two is now a performance conversation that feels like an ambush to them and a confrontation to you. 

3. You’re the Bottleneck by Default 

Because expectations were never set clearly, everything routes back through you. Every question, every judgment call, every piece of work that needs a second look. You hired someone to take work off your plate, and instead you’ve added a layer of review to your week. 

Firm owners we work with in Lawyerist Lab often describe this moment the same way: they hired someone specifically to get their time back, and six months later they’re spending as much time managing the new hire as they used to spend doing the work themselves. The math never improves, because the missing piece was never the person. It was the absence of a standard anyone could be held to. The new hire is missing their operating instructions. 

Notice that none of this requires more hiring skill. It requires a different habit: writing the standard down before the person needs it, instead of discovering the standard in your own head the first time someone misses it. That’s a fixable gap, and it’s a smaller lift than most owners assume. 

How to Actually Set Expectations 

Start With the Last Time It Went Right 

Don’t start by imagining the perfect hire. Start by remembering a piece of work from that role that landed well. What made it good? Tone, turnaround time, level of detail, who got looped in and when? That description, in plain language, is your starting standard. It doesn’t need to be polished. It needs to exist somewhere other than your head, and it needs to reach the new hire before their first assignment, not after their third mistake. 

Write It Down Before Day One 

A standard you’ve only said out loud once, in passing, during a busy week, isn’t a standard the new hire can refer to. Instead, build your operations manual. You don’t have to write the entire thing in a week. But do start capturing processes and details as you go. Generative AI is a big friend here and can help you capture your processes and expectations.   

Say the Unwritten Rules Out Loud 

This is the step almost everyone skips, because the unwritten rules don’t feel like rules to you. They feel like common sense. Say them anyway. How fast you expect a reply after hours. Whether you want to be told about a problem the moment it happens or once it’s solved. Whether pushing back on a partner’s draft is welcome or overstepping. None of this is instinctive. All of it gets enforced the first time someone breaks a rule they didn’t know existed. 

Match the Delegation to the Person, Not the Task 

A brand-new hire needs explicit, step-by-step direction: what to do, in what order, checked at each stage. Someone who’s been in the role six months needs less of that and more autonomy in everyday tasks for their role, checked in at milestones instead of every step. Delegating the same way to both people is its own version of skipping expectations. You either micromanage someone who’s ready for more, or hand full autonomy to someone who was never told what full autonomy looks like here. 

Put the Check-In on the Calendar Before They Start 

Don’t wait to see how it goes. Schedule several reviews of their work before their first day, not after you’ve already noticed something’s off. A short, specific check-in weekly for the first 2 months will catch misaligned standards while they are still five-minute conversations. The same gaps caught in month four are performance problems. Bottom line: don’t stay quiet.  

Confirm They Heard What You Meant 

Setting an expectation and having it land aren’t the same event. After you walk through the standard, ask them to repeat back what they heard in their own words. This takes two minutes and catches the gap between what you said and what they understood. 

The Foundation of Every Good Working Relationship 

None of this is complicated. It’s just easy to skip, because the standard already lives in your head and it feels obvious there. The work is getting it out of your head and into a conversation your new hire gets to have, before the first assignment, not after the third mistake. 

Do that, and you’ve given them something most new hires never get: a clear sense of what’s expected. This is the foundation the whole working relationship gets built on. Everything that comes after, trust, feedback, the freedom to eventually hand off bigger things without a second look, starts here. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

You just lost another one. Maybe it was the paralegal who seemed sharp in the interview and fell apart under deadlines. Maybe it was the assistant who was lovely to work with and impossible to hold to a process. Either way, you’re back where you started, telling yourself the same story: I’m bad at hiring. I keep picking the wrong people. 

You’re not bad at hiring. You’re skipping the part of hiring that happens before you ever look at a resume. 

Most hiring failures in small firms get filed under “bad fit” or “wasn’t the right person.” That diagnosis feels true because it’s the last thing you noticed. But by the time a hire doesn’t work out, the failure already happened weeks or months earlier—in a job posting nobody thought through, a process built on gut feel, or a decision made because you were drowning and needed a body in the seat.  

I’m Stephanie Everett, founder of Lawyerist Lab, and there is one thing I know it’s this: the person you hired isn’t usually the problem. The absence of a process is. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

Why You Need a Hiring Process 

Most firms think a hiring process is the paperwork around hiring: post the job, screen resumes, do a couple interviews, make an offer. That’s the mechanics. It’s not the process. 

A real hiring process exists to answer one question before you ever meet a candidate: what does this specific role require someone to do, and how will I know if a person can do it? Without that question answered, every interview is just a conversation. You’re not evaluating fit. You’re evaluating whether you liked talking to someone. 

That distinction is the difference between a role that gets filled and a role that gets filled correctly. 

Most Law Firms Owners Make the Same Hiring Mistakes Without Knowing It 

Mistake # 1: You’re hiring for chemistry, not fit 

How many times have you heard you should hire someone you’d enjoy grabbing a drink with after work? Please stop doing this. 

Here’s why it persists. Liking someone in an interview feels like useful information. But it is probably just comfort. And that signal may be the wrong one. 

Your goal in hiring isn’t to find your next friend. It’s to find the person who fills a specific role, operates inside your team’s framework, and shares your team’s actual values—not your taste in conversation. A candidate can be someone you’d never grab a drink with and still be exactly right for the job. A candidate can be someone you’d love to grab a drink with and still be exactly wrong for it. 

Mistake # 2: You never tested whether they can work inside your systems 

One of our Lawyerist Lab members, Cari, had done the hard part. She’d documented every process her team was supposed to follow for managing cases. Clear steps, clear expectations, all written down. And her assistant kept ignoring it. 

“She just keeps ignoring the process and ignoring me when I ask her to follow it,” Cari said. She felt disrespected. But the assistant wasn’t being defiant. She was a genuinely good person who could not operate inside defined structure. She wanted to do things her way. Cari’s systems and this assistant’s working style were oil and water. They were never going to mix. 

That mismatch wasn’t a character flaw in the hire. It was a gap in the hiring process. Cari needed a way to find out, before an offer went out, whether a candidate could actually work inside the framework her team runs on. She never built that test. So she found out the expensive way, months in, after the documentation was written, the training was done, and the frustration had set in on both sides. 

If your firm runs on a specific way of working, and most well-run firms do, your process has to check for that directly. Liking a candidate in the interview tells you nothing about whether they can operate inside your structure. Only a process built to test for it does. 

Mistake #3: You’re hiring reactively, out of pain instead of planning 

This is the hire that happens the week you’re underwater. Someone quit, or a case blew up, or you just can’t keep doing everything yourself anymore. You post the job Monday, you’re desperate by Wednesday, and you hire the first person who seems competent and available by Friday. 

There’s no structured interview. No scenario that tests how they’d actually handle the job. No real evaluation of fit, because there’s no time for one. You’re not hiring. You’re triaging. 

The cost of that hire usually shows up three months later, in redone work, in a client relationship that got handled wrong, in the hours you spend re-training someone who was never a fit for this role to begin with. Firms that hire reactively don’t save time. They borrow it, at a rate that comes due later with interest. 

Why You Need a Hiring Process  

Every one of these mistakes gets blamed on the person who was hired. None of them actually start there. They start with a role that was never clearly defined, a process built on instinct instead of design, and a decision made under pressure instead of on purpose. 

Fixing your hiring outcomes isn’t about getting better at reading people in an interview. It’s about building the process that tells you the truth about a candidate before you’re six months into finding out the hard way. 

Three Ways to Build a Hiring Process 

Do it yourself. If you have the time and the appetite to build a real process — defined role requirements, a structured interview, a way to test for systems fit — you can. It does take some deliberate work up front. Best for: owners with bandwidth to invest in building this once, well, and reusing it. 

Lawyerist Lab. Inside Lab, you get the frameworks and coaching to build a hiring process that fits your firm, plus the support to work through it in real time with people who’ve seen this pattern across hundreds of firms. Best for: owners who want to build this properly but don’t want to figure it out alone, and who are working on hiring alongside the rest of their firm’s operating system. 

Our Hiring Process service. For firms who need this handled, we’ll build the job posting, design the process end to end, and conduct the first round of interviews for you, for a flat fee. You get a fully built process and a shortlist of candidates who’ve already been evaluated against it. Best for: owners who know exactly what the role needs to accomplish but don’t have the time to build and run the process themselves right now. 

What to look for before you commit to any hire 

Your next hire shouldn’t be a bet. It should be the outcome of a process that already told you the answer. It is worth investing the time to get this right. 

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

 

Every law firm owner I work with says some version of the same thing: “I know I need to work on the business, not just in it. I just don’t have time.” 

That’s not a discipline problem. It’s an infrastructure problem. There is no meeting on the calendar, no protected block, no standing appointment with the one person whose job is to think about where the firm is headed. So, the meeting keeps getting requested and keeps getting declined, not on purpose, just by default, because everything else in the practice is louder and closer and due today. 

I’m Stephanie Everett, founder of Lawyerist Lab, where we help law firm owners build better businesses. Based on that work, I know exactly what it costs when you decline that meeting and how to build the structure to make the meeting a reality.   

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now

What “Working on the Business” Means 

Most owners hear “work on the business” and picture something vague: vision, mindset, or big-picture thinking. That vagueness is exactly why it never gets scheduled. Nobody blocks two hours for something they can’t name. 

Working on the business means specific things. Reviewing what’s actually driving revenue versus what feels busy. Deciding whether the practice areas you have match the practice areas you want. Looking at capacity and deciding whether to hire, raise prices, or say no to certain work. Naming the one or two structural bets that will matter most in the next twelve months, and killing the initiatives that are consuming time without moving anything. 

Working in the business is client work, staff management, the fire in front of you today. Working on the business is deciding what the firm should be doing differently so there are fewer fires next year. They require different mental states, and you cannot do the second one in the fifteen minutes between depositions. 

The Three Costs of Never Taking the Meeting 

1. You make the same decisions on repeat, at full price 

Should you fire that client? Raise your rates? Bring on an associate? These questions resurface every few months because without dedicated time to decide, you default to living with the discomfort instead of resolving it. A firm owner underpricing a core service by even 15 percent, on $600,000 in relevant revenue, is leaving $90,000 a year on the table. That’s not a one-time cost. That is the cost to your business every year you don’t sit down and decide. 

That’s not a pricing problem. It’s a gap in strategic infrastructure. 

2. Everyday noise crowds out the thinking that prevents everyday noise 

Here’s the loop: you’re too busy putting out fires to plan, so nothing gets built that would reduce the fires, so you stay too busy to plan.  

Firms that never break this loop don’t get calmer as they grow. They get louder. The associate you should have hired eighteen months ago is still not hired, so you’re still doing the work they’d be doing, so you still don’t have room to think about hiring. 

Every month this loop runs uninterrupted; it compounds. A firm that skips strategic time for two years isn’t in the same place it would have been with quarterly resets. They’re carrying two years of deferred decisions, and deferred decisions don’t wait quietly. They show up as burnout, turnover, and plateaued revenue. 

3. You are the only person who can see the whole system, and you’re always inside it 

Your staff sees their piece. Your bookkeeper sees the numbers. Nobody else in the building has a full view of where the firm is going, what’s working, and what’s structurally broken. That view only exists in your head, and you can’t read the label when you’re inside the bottle. Every day you spend exclusively inside the day-to-day is a day the only person capable of seeing the whole system isn’t looking at it. 

The cost here is invisible until it isn’t. It’s the practice area that stopped being profitable eighteen months ago. It’s the associate who was ready for more responsibility and left because nobody noticed. Owners don’t miss these because they’re not paying attention. They miss them because they’ve never stepped back far enough to see the shape of the whole thing. 

Three Ways to Make the Meeting a Reality 

Option 1: Self-facilitated quarterly block (low cost, high discipline required) 

Put a full day on the calendar every quarter, out of the office, phone off. Bring last quarter’s numbers, a blank page, and three questions: what’s working, what’s not, what needs to change in the next 90 days? This costs nothing but the day itself. It requires you to actually protect the day when a client emergency tries to eat it, which is where most owners fail. 

Best for: owners with some strategic clarity already who mainly need protected time, not outside perspective. 

Option 2: A structured strategy day with outside facilitation 

This is a single, focused session, in person or virtual, run by someone whose job is to keep you from spending the day reorganizing your inbox instead of doing the work. An outside facilitator asks the questions you’d avoid asking yourself and keeps the day from collapsing into a status update. This is the option most owners actually need: enough structure to get somewhere, without the ongoing commitment of a full engagement. It’s where a Lawyerist Lab strategy session or a facilitated retreat day typically lands. 

Best for: owners who have tried the DIY version, and it kept getting bumped, or who know they need outside eyes on a specific decision. 

Option 3: Ongoing strategic support with a standing cadence 

This is quarterly or monthly strategic sessions built into the year, with someone tracking follow-through between sessions, so decisions don’t get shelved. It costs more, in both dollars and time, but it solves the failure mode: not the absence of one good planning day, but the absence of anything holding you accountable to the plan once daily noise returns. This is the shape of Lawyerist Lab membership. 

Best for: owners who’ve done the one-off retreat before and watched the plan die by March. 

What to look for before you commit 

Take the Meeting 

If your business has been trying to get time with you and keeps getting rescheduled, that’s not a character flaw. It’s a missing structure. Building that structure doesn’t require an overhaul. It requires deciding, once, which of the three options above actually fits where you are, and then protecting it the way you’d protect a client’s deadline. 

If you’ve read this far and know you fall into Option 1, the DIY block that keeps losing to a busy month, the fastest way to get unstuck isn’t more willpower. It’s putting the day somewhere it can’t be rescheduled. 

That’s what LabCon is. Two and a half days out of the office, with other firm owners doing the same work at the same time, so the day survives contact with your calendar instead of losing to it. It’s built to be the starting point, not the entire plan: you leave with the decisions made and the follow-through structure to keep them from sliding back into the noise. 

Registration for the September 28 event is open for the next week. If this is the year you actually take the meeting, get the details and register here before the window closes. 

Strategic work happens on the calendar, or it doesn’t happen. 

Email me stephanie@lawyerist.com if you want to talk more about why you should join us this year in Atlanta.  

Subscribe

Join the Lawyerist Community

Get expert insights and practical tips delivered to your inbox every week.

Subscribe Now