Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently affirmed a 41-month prison sentence imposed on a dentist convicted of tax evasion. In U.S. v. Ulibarri,¹ the court rejected the dentist’s arguments that the sentence was not reasonable due to his reliance on a tax scheme promoter’s alternative tax mitigation strategy and business trust structure to eliminate federal taxes.

Ulibarri serves as a reminder to lawyers that the IRS pursues clients of tax scheme promoters, particularly when they significantly and repeatedly utilize the scheme.

Background

Ryan Ulibarri, a dentist licensed in Colorado, owned and operated Ulibarri Family Dentistry starting in 2014. After establishing the dental practice, Ulibarri attended a seminar led by associates of Larry Conner purporting to teach business owners how to eliminate federal income taxes on business income using Conner’s alternative tax-mitigation strategy, which was determined to be an abusive trust tax scheme. Against the advice of his lawyers and accountants, Ulibarri used Conner’s unlawful tax shelter for over seven years.

Using Conner’s strategy, Ulibarri funneled his business earnings through a series of “sham trusts.” To effectuate the scheme, Ulibarri assigned ownership of Ulibarri Family Dentistry to a business trust, which distributed income to a family trust, which then distributed income to a charitable trust. Ulibarri’s family spending was covered by funds held in the trust accounts, and Ulibarri then improperly claimed these personal expenses as deductions.

The trust tax returns reported distributions and deductions matching or exceeding the reported income, with the net positive income ultimately “donated” to a tax-exempt private family foundation. The foundation also loaned funds back to the sham trusts, allowing Ulibarri full control and beneficial use of the dental practice income without any tax liability.

From 2016-2023, the scheme enabled Ulibarri to avoid more than $1.6 million in taxes on $5.3 million in earnings from the dental practice.² During this time, Ulibarri concealed the scheme from his banks and the IRS by using nominal grantors to sign documents and providing misleading and deceptive information about his income, assets, and trusts. He continued using the scheme even after repeated warnings from lawyers, bookkeepers, and lenders, and even after his initial indictment.

In 2024, Ulibarri was indicted by a grand jury on six counts of tax evasion for his 2017-2022 tax years. He ultimately pled guilty. The district court determined Ulibarri’s offense level, made adjustments, and then sentenced Ulibarri to 41 months of imprisonment, three months supervised release, over $1.6 million in restitution, and a fine of $150,000. This was the maximum imprisonment under the range for the applicable guidelines.

Ulibarri appealed to challenge his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

10th Circuit analysis and decision

The 10th Circuit addressed both Ulibarri’s procedural and substantive unreasonableness claims but ultimately affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Procedural reasonableness

The 10th Circuit first reviewed Ulibarri’s procedural claim, noting that a sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court incorrectly calculates the guidelines sentence, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider statutory sentencing factors, relies on clearly erroneous facts, or does not adequately explain the sentence.

In this case, Ulibarri contended that the district court abused its discretion in misapplying the sentencing guidelines by improperly including, and miscalculating, a 2023 tax loss. He also contended that the district court improperly assessed a two-level “sophisticated means” enhancement.

Ulibarri was not indicted for the 2023 tax period, but the district court had included the 2023 loss in his sentencing. Ulibarri argued that his 2023 tax loss was not related to the tax scheme conduct. The 10th Circuit reviewed IRS testimony and district court findings to the contrary, which indicated the 2023 tax loss resulted from continuing to implement the tax scheme by using the sham trusts.

The 10th Circuit found that the district court did not err in finding that the sham trust usage in 2023 was part of the same course of conduct and aggregating it with the other loss amounts for the years in question.

In calculating the 2023 tax loss, the IRS agent used a guidelines method for unfiled returns treating the tax loss as 20% of gross income, less tax withheld or paid. Ulibarri made several arguments about the practice gross receipts and cost of goods deductions calculations done by the IRS agent under this method. However, the 10th Circuit noted that the guidelines contemplate a reasonable estimate based on available facts and found that the district court’s calculation of the 2023 tax loss was a reasonable estimate under that standard.

Finally, the guidelines provide a two-level sentence enhancement for an offense involving “sophisticated means,” which is especially complex or intricate conduct in execution or concealment of an offense. Ulibarri argued the tax scheme was not “sophisticated” and did not involve elaborate planning or concealment on his part; he had merely purchased Conner’s tax shelter services and relied on financial advice as a client.

The 10th Circuit had no trouble finding that Ulibarri’s offenses involved sophisticated means, noting he misused multiple financial accounts, sham trusts, and grantors, and went to elaborate lengths to hide more than $5 million in business income from the IRS.

The 10th Circuit also rejected Ulibarri’s effort to shift blame to the tax shelter promoter, noting that he continued using the tax shelter scheme despite clear and repeated warnings from his lawyers and accountants that the conduct was unlawful.

Based on these findings, the 10th Circuit concluded that the district did not err in applying a sophisticated means sentencing enhancement.

Substantive reasonableness

The 10th Circuit next addressed whether the district court abused its discretion in applying the following U.S. Code § 3553(a) factors to impose an unduly long sentence:

• The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant
• The need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime, deter future criminal conduct, prevent the defendant from committing more crimes, and provide rehabilitation
• The sentences that are legally available
• The sentencing guidelines
• The Sentencing Commission’s policy statements
• The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
• The need for restitution

Ulibarri argued that the district court did not give adequate weight to certain factors, including the compromise to his personal and professional reputation, the conviction itself as general deterrence without a custodial sentence, unfair sentencing disparity relative to similarly situated defendants, and his inability to work while incarcerated which delayed restitution payment.

The 10th Circuit found that all of Ulibarri's factors were argued at length during the sentencing hearing and further found that “re-weighing” the § 3553(a) factors would be "beyond the ambit of our review."

The 10th Circuit concluded that the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range and presumptively reasonable, and the sentence, therefore, was not substantively unreasonable.

Conclusion

The 10th Circuit decision in Ulibarri shows the difficulty in challenging district court discretion in applying sentencing guidelines. The decision also rejects the idea that a taxpayer can simply rely on a tax shelter promoter or professional advisor in structuring and implementing a tax shelter scheme.

Endnotes
1 2026 PTC 130; 10th Cir. 2026.
2 Id.

Paul Unger is a lawyer, speaker, and author in the field of legal technology. He has lectured in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Contact Unger at punger@affinityconsulting.com.

If you get 150 emails, 50 messages, 20 telephone calls, 15 walk-in interruptions, 25 social media notifications, and 50 email or internet curiosity breaks, that totals 310 digital interruptions. Divide that into 480 workday minutes and you have an interruption every 1.5 minutes! 

A 2025 Microsoft study indicated the average American worker is interrupted every two to three minutes — 275 times a day — by meetings, emails, or chats during core work hours.¹ Researchers in a 2007 Microsoft study concluded that it takes about 15 minutes to return back to work following an electronic-based interruption.² 

If lawyers are interrupted every two minutes, and it takes 15 minutes to return back to work they were performing, it can feel almost impossible to get anything done during the workday. This is why you may look at your timesheet some days at 5 p.m. and see only two hours of billable time, but feel like you put in a 14-hour day. 

The reality is we live in an age of information overload. We are constantly connected to the world, from smartphones, social media, 24-hour news networks, tablets, and computers. Unfortunately, this constant information overload may worsen our attention span. 

Between document filing deadlines, meetings with clients, case law research, and other tasks, an interruption every couple of minutes could greatly hinder a lawyer’s ability to effectively practice law and serve their clients. 

One way lawyers can help overcome the inability to focus is by learning attention management skills. Here are five attention management tips you can implement today that are easy, practical, and will make a big impact on your ability to focus and practice law. 

1. Turn off ALL notifications 

Why would you want to give the world a hotline to your brain? Turn all notifications off, and I mean all of them. 

In Microsoft Outlook, email notifications can be turned off by navigating to “File” > “Options” > “Mail” and deselecting the four different methods of notifications when a new message arrives. On an iPhone, go to Settings > Notifications and turn off notifications by app. As a recent Microsoft article notes: “The inbox may still be the front door to work, but too often it opens to a flood of unprioritized chaos.”³ 

You can also schedule “Do Not Disturb” times on your phone and computer to limit the texts, calls, and other notifications you receive. 

2. Practice single-tasking 

Clear your desk and your multiple monitors of information that is not directly relevant to the project you are executing. 

For example, email creates distraction explosions every 30 seconds to five minutes. How can lawyers possibly focus if they see those explosions hit in their inboxes? You should always minimize your email platform on your monitor unless you are batch processing emails or planning upcoming tasks.

Just because you have two or three monitors doesn’t mean you need to have something displayed on them, especially if the information displayed derails your ability to focus on the task in front of you. 

3. Use the Pomodoro method 

Pomodoro is a technique that utilizes a 25-minute timer. You work on a single task, preferably deep-thought work, for 25 minutes and then take a break and do whatever you want for five minutes. In other words, work in intervals. 

The human brain functions well when maintaining attention to a single task for 25 minutes. After 25 minutes, studies show workers begin to lose focus. By giving yourself a five-minute break, you can return to deep-thought legal work for another 25 minutes easily. 

Once you get a little momentum going and are immersed in the project, it becomes a lot easier to make progress on the task at hand. 

This technique can make a huge impact on productivity and help combat procrastination. 

4. Tackle deep-thought work early in the day 

Dive into deep-thought work, writing, or projects in the morning. Our brains function better following quiet time or sleep. In addition, this is theoretically the time before other tasks pop up throughout the day that could derail your attention. This can be one of the most productive times of the day since there could be far fewer interruptions. 

5. Create rituals 

Rituals are small checklists or short rigid schedules designed to execute the same desired tasks during a set period of time. Rituals can help form positive habits and prevent you from taking email or internet curiosity breaks. They also remind us to do things we frequently forget. 

By adding rituals and checklists, lawyers can greatly enhance their ability to focus and do those things that seem to always fall off their radars. 

By implementing these five attention management tips, lawyers can take back control of their workdays, make progress on their to-do lists, and continue to serve their clients in a timely and ethical manner.

Endnotes
1 MICROSOFT, 2025 WORK TREND INDEX ANNUAL REPORT: 2025: THE YEAR THE FRONTIER FIRM IS BORN (April 2025), https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/2025-the-year-the-frontier-firm-is-born.
2 Steve Lohr, Slow down, brave multitasker, and don’t read this in traffic, N.Y. Times (March 25, 2007), https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/business/25multi.html.
3 Breaking down the infinite workday, MICROSOFT (June 17, 2025), https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/breaking-down-infinite-workday.

Jeff Schoenberger is a business coach for Lawyerist and a senior consultant for Affinity Consulting.

The world needs lawyers. People have disputes, contracts, estates, and regulatory puzzles that require the legal knowledge and services lawyers offer. But being needed does not necessarily mean being profitable. 

Even as the legal market posts solid gains, many firms, especially mid-tier and smaller firms, are feeling the squeeze. Rising costs, talent competition, and changing client expectations are pressing firms to rethink long-standing operational assumptions. 

See the big picture 

Contrary to some gloomy predictions of slow growth for law firms, recent years delivered strong results:

• Demand for legal services in 2024 grew approximately 2.6%, the strongest increase since before the 2008 financial crisis.1
• Billing rates have continued to climb, contributing to higher revenues across many firms.
• Among the Am Law 100, total gross revenue reached roughly $158 billion in 2025, representing about 13.3% year-over-year growth.2
• Profits per equity partner rose 12.3%.3

At the same time, the pace of demand growth decelerated late in 2024, with quarterly run rates settling around 3.3%.4 However, as 2025 unfolded, demand rebounded, with third-quarter law firm demand rising about 3.9% year-over-year, one of the strongest quarterly increases in recent history. This signaled sustained client activity and a continued opportunity for firms.5

Understand the new reality of expenses versus revenue 

Rising revenues are welcome, but costs are increasing right alongside them. Law firms continue to invest heavily in:

• AI, technology, and cybersecurity
• Talent acquisition and retention
• Practice management systems and business development

Operational costs have risen across the industry,6 and firms that treat these increases as unavoidable rather than strategic signals risk shrinking their margins and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. 

Combat rising expenses with efficiency 

Rethink client service touchpoints 

Not every client interaction needs to be in person or billed at premium rates. Routine communications can often be handled via phone, secure video (e.g., Webex, Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet), or client portals, a feature of many law practice management systems. This can reduce administrative friction while improving responsiveness. 

Invest in workflow and practice automation 

Modern intake, billing, and document workflows reduce repetitive work and improve consistency. The most successful firms adopt these tools deliberately, focusing on outcomes rather than novelty. 

Use metrics to guide decisions 

Tracking key performance indicators such as realization rates, cost per matter, and profitability by practice area enables smarter decisions. Across-the-board rate increases are rarely as effective as targeted, data-informed adjustments. 

Navigate the competitive talent frontier 

Recognize tight labor markets 

Competition for skilled lawyers remains intense. Corporations and in-house departments continue to draw talent away from firms, often offering competitive compensation and benefits packages.7 

Prioritize work-life balance 

Younger lawyers increasingly expect flexibility and balance. Firms clinging to rigid, hours-driven models may find themselves losing capable lawyers to alternative practice models. 

Focus on succession and mentorship 

As senior lawyers retire, firms without strong mentoring and succession plans risk losing both clients and institutional knowledge. Rebuilding those assets is far more expensive than maintaining them. 

Adapt to protect your firm’s bottom line 

The traditional law firm model is under pressure. That does not mean it is obsolete, but it does mean firms must adapt. 

Mid-tier and smaller firms should focus on:

1. Reducing unnecessary expenses without diminishing client value.
2. Managing revenue intentionally through pricing strategy and service design.
3. Treating talent strategy as a core business function, not an afterthought. 

Put simply, profitability is no longer a byproduct of good lawyering alone. Profitability in 2026 will belong to firms that align people, processes, and technology with clear business goals.

Endnotes 
1 State of the Legal Market 2025, THOMSON REUTERS INSTITUTE (Jan. 7, 2025), https://www. thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/state-of-the-us-legal-market-2025/. 
2 The 2025 Am Law 100 by the Numbers, LEGAL. IO (April 15, 2025), https://www.legal.io/articles/5609720/The-2025-Am-Law-100-By-the-Numbers. 
3 Id. 
4 State of the Legal Market 2025, THOMSON REUTERS INSTITUTE (Jan. 7, 2025), https://www. thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/state-of-the-us-legal-market-2025/. 
5 Debra Cassens Weiss, Law Firms See ‘Sharp Spike’ in Demand in Third Quarter, Report Says, ABA J. (Nov. 13, 2025), https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firms-see-sharp-spike-in-demand-in-third-quarter-report-says. 
6 2025 Predictions: Driving Profitability for Law Firms, SUREPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, https://surepoint.com/resources/blog/2025-predictions-driving-profitability-for-law-firms-and-optimizing-operations/ (last visited April 14, 2026). 
7 Frederick J. Esposito Jr, Law Firm Finance Trends and Predictions for 2025, ABA (Jan. 1, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-practice-magazine/2025/january-february-2025/law-firm-finance-trends-and-predictions-for-2025/.

William C. Martucci, who holds an LL.M. from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., practices nationally in business and employment litigation. He focuses on complex class litigation, including wage and hour litigation, in California, Massachusetts, and New York, as well as business-to-business litigation, executive compensation disputes, business torts, and unfair competition. A nationally regarded trial lawyer, Martucci is often sought out for high-stakes jury work. His jury work has been featured in The National Law Journal.

Burcu Erbaz defends clients in business and employment litigation matters. She graduated first in her class at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, where she was on the editorial board of the UMKC Law Review. Erbaz also served as a judicial intern for Hon. Stephen R. Bough in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, conducting legal research and drafting memoranda.

Minha Jutt represents clients in business litigation matters, including complex commercial disputes, restrictive covenants and trade secrets, and design and construction. Her experience extends to all stages of litigation, ranging from initial client counseling and fact investigation to dispositive motion practice to preparation for appeal. An honors graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law, where she served as the executive comments editor of the Kansas Law Review, Jutt clerked for Hon. Julie A. Robinson, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal profession has rapidly shifted from an experimental novelty to a foundational technological trend, representing in many respects a transformational shift comparable to earlier technological revolutions in the law practice. 

AI systems — especially generative AI tools such as large language models — are being adopted across law firms and courts to support key functions like legal research, drafting, document review, and administrative workflow automation. These technologies can process vast amounts of information and surface relevant statutes, precedents, and legal arguments more quickly than traditional manual methods, ultimately increasing efficiency and enabling legal professionals to prioritize strategic thinking over routine tasks. 

Missouri lawyers now routinely encounter AI in research platforms, document drafting tools, litigation analytics, and client-facing technologies. Used properly, these tools offer meaningful efficiencies, including faster access to information, assistance with initial drafting, and improved access to justice for self-represented litigants. Used improperly, however, generative AI poses serious ethical and professional risks. 

What distinguishes generative AI from earlier tools is not merely speed or convenience, but autonomy. Generative AI systems do not solely retrieve information; they generate content. That distinction is ethically significant. AI-generated outputs are statistical in nature and can produce inaccurate or misleading information, often referred to as “hallucinations.” These hallucinations are not rare anomalies; they are a known limitation of large language models.¹ 

These issues have already drawn judicial ire. As courts across the country have now documented, generative AI can fabricate case law, misstate holdings, and present false information in a manner that appears authoritative.² Several U.S. courts recently sanctioned lawyers for submitting briefs containing fabricated citations derived from unchecked AI output.³ 

Missouri’s ethical legal framework does not prohibit the use of AI. To the contrary, Missouri has long recognized that lawyers must adapt to technological change.⁴ Rule 4-1.1 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct requires competent representation, and Comment [6] expressly includes a duty to stay abreast of “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”⁵ Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11, issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel, confirms that generative AI is simply the latest technology subject to this longstanding principle.⁶ 

For Missouri lawyers, the ethical issue is not whether AI may be used, but how it may be used consistent with duties of competence, candor, confidentiality, and supervision.⁷ Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 properly frames generative AI as analogous to a nonlawyer assistant or external service provider: It’s a tool that may assist the lawyer, but it can never replace the lawyer’s independent judgment or responsibility for accuracy.⁸ 

Using AI in legal practice 

In various practices, perhaps one of the most widely advertised uses of AI is performing traditionally labor-intensive tasks in initial discovery, such as document review and e-discovery. Proponents of AI contend that AI-assisted tools can expedite labor-intensive tasks such as locating key documents, identifying key custodians, and summarizing documents. When performed accurately and thoroughly, these functions can streamline lawyers’ processes and save client expenditures on discovery — ultimately permitting lawyers to expend more time and client funds on more strategic and substantive phases of legal practice. 

Proponents of AI also contend that AI-assisted tools have the potential to streamline legal research by assisting lawyers in quickly locating on-point statutes and case law amidst vast databases. While the accuracy of these tools remains largely untested, they may develop into beneficial aids moving forward. 

AI platforms also have predictive analytic capabilities based on historical data. These capabilities can assess potential case outcomes and settlement ranges, as well as the possibility of the success of a motion based on district and judge-specific data. 

On the transactional side, AI-assisted tools can analyze dense legal terminology to spot inconsistencies, vague or unclear language, and potential risks and unfavorable terms. 

Ultimately, while these developing technologies may streamline and enhance the efficiency of various legal tasks, lawyers remain responsible for ensuring their use of AI complies with their professional obligations. 

Developing guidelines and case law: Missouri ethics and national enforcement trends 

Missouri’s ethics-first approach 

Missouri has addressed the use of AI primarily through ethical interpretation rather than prescriptive court rules. Informal Opinion 2024-11 provides a comprehensive road map for Missouri lawyers considering the use of generative AI.⁹ The opinion emphasizes several core principles:

• Competence (Rule 4-1.1): Lawyers must understand how generative AI works, what it can and cannot reliably do, and the risks associated with its use.¹⁰
• Confidentiality (Rule 4-1.6): Lawyers must evaluate whether AI platforms store, reuse, or expose client data and must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure.¹¹
• Candor to the tribunal (Rule 4- 3.3): Lawyers may not submit false statements of fact or law, including fabricated citations or mischaracterized authority.¹²
• Supervision (Rules 4-5.1 and 4-5.3): AI output must be supervised just as work performed by nonlawyer assistants, vendors, or junior lawyers is supervised.¹³

The opinion is explicit that lawyers may not rely blindly on AI-generated content. Any work product generated with AI assistance must be independently reviewed and verified by the lawyer before it is used in representation.¹⁴ 

In parallel with these ethical guidelines, Missouri legislators have also proposed statutory guidance over the last couple of years, including in 2025 through HB 1462, the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act.¹⁵ This bill, which did not pass the Missouri Legislature, attempted to codify key principles regarding the legal status and responsibilities associated with AI systems, including:

• Nonsentience: AI systems would have been declared nonsentient and could not hold legal personhood, personal relationships, or corporate roles.
• Human accountability: Owners, developers, and manufacturers would have remained legally responsible for AI outputs, including harm caused through intended or unintended use. Misuse by users would not transfer liability to the AI itself.
• Oversight and safety: Owners would have been required to maintain proper supervision and risk controls over AI systems, with liability for negligence or foreseeable harm. Developers and manufacturers would have to prioritize safety mechanisms and assess risks proactively.
• Piercing corporate veils: The statute made clear that corporate structures could not shield human actors from liability if AI-caused harm resulted from recklessness, negligence, or deceptive practices.

Together, the informal opinion and the proposed legislation reflect a dual approach in Missouri: The ethical guidance ensures lawyers remain competent and responsible in practice, while legislation could establish a clear legal framework assigning human responsibility and preventing AI from being treated as a legal actor. Both underscore that reliance on AI does not absolve lawyers or organizations from accountability. 

Missouri case law: Kruse v. Karlen 

Missouri courts have already enforced these principles. In Kruse v. Karlen, the Missouri Court of Appeals sanctioned a litigant for submitting an appellate brief containing fictitious AI-generated case citations.¹⁶ The court dismissed the appeal and imposed damages, emphasizing that citing nonexistent authority violates fundamental appellate obligations regardless of whether the error arose from AI use.¹⁷ 

Kruse is significant because it demonstrates that Missouri courts do not view AI misuse as a technical lapse, but as a serious breach of professional responsibility.¹⁸ The decision aligns squarely with Informal Opinion 2024-11’s insistence on verification and supervision.¹⁹ 

The federal approach and the push for certification 

Federal courts have likewise responded forcefully to AI-related misconduct. 

Missouri federal courts 

Some judges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri have individualized standing orders emphasizing the proper use of AI. As an example, Rule 18 of U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Divine’s requirements provides: 

Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence: All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must file a certificate on the docket, together with their notice of appearance, attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey. AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be fully checked for accuracy by a human being, using print reporters or traditional legal databases.²⁰

In addition, the Eastern District of Missouri has issued guidance for self-represented litigants that prohibits filings drafted by any form of AI and emphasizes that litigants — including lawyers — are responsible for the contents of their filings, including portions generated with AI, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.²¹ 

Kansas federal courts 

Newly promulgated Standing Order 26-01 guides the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.²² The order cautions that AI tools may generate false statements of fact or law, including fabricated citations, and reminds litigants that they remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all filings submitted to the court. 

Lawyers and parties must review and verify any AI-assisted content — including legal authority, quotations, factual assertions, and legal analysis — before filing. The order further warns that failure to verify AI-generated material may result in sanctions, including the striking of filings, monetary penalties, referral to disciplinary authorities, disqualification of counsel, filing restrictions, or dismissal of claims. In addition, the court retains discretion to require parties to disclose the use of AI in filings and to certify that any AI-generated material has been personally reviewed and verified for accuracy. 

In a decision on Feb. 2, 2026, District Judge Julie A. Robinson sanctioned multiple lawyers for their improper use of generative AI without independently verifying the legal authority cited in their filings.²³ The court imposed monetary sanctions of $1,000-$5,000 after five lawyers signed briefs containing fabricated and misrepresented case law generated by an AI tool.²⁴ The court emphasized that the use of generative AI in legal practice is not inherently improper; rather, the violation arose from the lawyers’ failure to verify that the cited authorities actually existed and supported the propositions for which they were cited.²⁵ 

As the court explained, the duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law is nondelegable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and lawyers who sign filings certify that the legal authorities contained therein have been reviewed and verified through human judgment.²⁶ Robinson further stressed that reasonably competent lawyers should be aware of the well-publicized risks associated with unverified generative AI research, including the potential for hallucinated legal authority, and that reliance on such tools without verification falls short of the objective standard required by Rule 11.²⁷ 

In Moore v. City of Del City,²⁸ the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal as a sanction after a pro se litigant cited numerous fabricated cases that the court determined were generated by AI.²⁹ The court emphasized that failure to verify citations wastes judicial resources and undermines confidence in the legal system.³⁰ Importantly, the 10th Circuit imposed a prospective certification requirement, ordering the litigant to disclose future AI use and verify citation accuracy under penalty of perjury.³¹

While Missouri has not adopted a formal certification rule, a functional equivalent already exists. Every Missouri lawyer who signs a pleading or brief certifies — by signature — that the authority cited exists and supports the propositions asserted.³² The use of AI does not alter that obligation. 

National cases 

In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., lawyers relied on ChatGPT to draft a motion that cited six nonexistent judicial decisions.³³ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that counsel failed to verify the AI-generated authorities before filing and imposed $5,000 in sanctions, while also ordering the lawyers to notify the judges whose names had been falsely attributed to fabricated opinions.³⁴ Widely regarded as the first major sanctions decision addressing generative AI in federal litigation, Mata established the now-frequently cited principle that the use of AI does not excuse violations of Rule 11.³⁵ 

More recently, in February 2026, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that traditional sanction rules adequately govern AI-related misconduct. In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the court observed that although generative AI represents a new technology, existing procedural rules already provide sufficient mechanisms to address inaccurate or fabricated legal citations.³⁶ The court emphasized that the same professional and procedural obligations apply regardless of whether legal research is performed by traditional means or assisted by AI.³⁷ 

Similarly, in Lifetime Well LLC v. Ibspot.com, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania highlighted the supervisory responsibilities of lawyers when AI tools are used in preparing filings.³⁸ The court warned that a lack of diligence and supervision — particularly where less experienced lawyers rely on generative AI without adequate review — may lead to both monetary and nonmonetary sanctions when filings contain false or fabricated legal authority.³⁹ 

Together, these cases reinforce a consistent judicial message: While AI may assist with legal research and drafting, the responsibility for verifying legal authority and ensuring the accuracy of court filings remains squarely with the lawyer. 

The American Bar Association 

The American Bar Association issued formal ethical guidance on lawyers’ use of AI in ABA Formal Opinion 512 and through interpretations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These authorities do not prohibit the use of AI in legal practice but instead require that lawyers employ such tools in a manner consistent with their professional obligations. 

Formal Opinion 512 explains that existing ethical rules fully apply when lawyers use AI-assisted tools.⁴⁰ The duties of competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor to the tribunal, and reasonable fee practices remain the responsibility of the lawyer.⁴¹ Lawyers must independently review and verify AI-generated outputs before relying on them in legal work and must take care to avoid entering confidential client information into publicly accessible AI systems.⁴² 

The opinion further encourages law firms to implement internal policies and supervisory measures governing the use of AI.⁴³ In addition, lawyers must ensure that court filings contain verified legal authority and may need to disclose the use of AI to clients when it materially affects legal strategy, confidentiality, or costs.⁴⁴ 

In essence, once again, the responsibility for the final legal work product rests with the lawyer — not with the AI system — and lawyers remain accountable for verifying the accuracy and integrity of any AI-assisted work.

Judicial AI misuse 

A recent Bloomberg Law article reported that two federal judges issued erroneous rulings after chambers staff used generative AI tools without adequate review.⁴⁵ While these incidents sparked concern about judicial oversight, their relevance to Missouri lawyers lies elsewhere: They reinforce that accountability follows authority.⁴⁶ Just as judges remain responsible for opinions issued under their names, Missouri lawyers remain responsible for filings submitted under theirs. 

Considering AI in practice 

Proper training 

While AI-assisted tools continue to be developed, they are not infallible. Law firms should provide training to their lawyer and nonlawyer employees about the ethical and practical considerations to be made regarding the use of AI. Law firms should also establish clear policies regarding permissible uses of AI. 

Lawyers must familiarize themselves with the extent of the capabilities and limits of the AI-assisted tools. Just as law students and lawyers traditionally underwent training for Westlaw and LexisNexis, they should similarly undergo training for each AI-assisted tool they intend to deploy. A lawyer should be able to understand and articulate the mechanism an AI tool uses in its analysis, especially when that analysis influences an important strategic decision. 

Beyond attending vendor-led trainings, lawyers should independently explore and test AI-assisted tools to ensure they can fulfill their intended purposes. For example, a lawyer may ask an AI-assisted tool to review and summarize an email or contract the lawyer has already reviewed before deploying the tool more widely. 

Confidentiality

Lawyers must ensure that AI-assisted tools preserve the confidentiality of the information — both client confidentiality and any information marked as confidential through a protective order or similar mechanism. Under Missouri law, lawyers must make reasonable efforts to protect client information. In the context of AI, law firms and lawyers should ensure all AI systems used are “closed,” meaning the systems store information in protected databases. Law firms should consult with IT or cybersecurity professionals to assess risks associated with security, data privacy, and unauthorized data retention. Lawyers should review applicable terms of use for each platform to assess the risk of unauthorized disclosure. 

Lawyers should further advise their clients regarding the use, risks, and benefits of AI before obtaining informed consent from the client if necessary. 

Supervision 

All work products generated with AI assistance should be independently reviewed and verified by a lawyer before the work product is used in client matters. As numerous case law and anecdotal examples demonstrate, AI is not infallible. Lawyers should scrutinize all AI-generated work product for accuracy, bias, and thoroughness and correct any deficiencies. 

Over-reliance 

Lawyers should not over-rely on AI-assisted tools for tasks such as legal research, contract analysis, or predictive capabilities. Instead, lawyers should assess case needs, client goals, varying strategies, possible outcomes, and risks to make an informed decision regarding the best use of AI to supplement the lawyer’s own analysis rather than replace it. 

Looking ahead: Practical and ethical implications for Missouri lawyers 

Missouri is entering a phase of normalization of AI usage coupled with heightened accountability. AI will remain embedded in legal practice, but tolerance for careless or unsupervised use is rapidly disappearing. For Missouri practitioners, the road map is clear. 

First, courts are increasingly unwilling to accept ignorance, delegation, or automation as excuses for inaccurate filings. Therefore, verification must become routine. Missouri lawyers should assume courts will expect every citation, quotation, and legal proposition — whether AI-assisted or not — to be independently confirmed. This expectation is not merely aspirational, it is increasingly being enforced, and the risk of sanctions is real. As Kruse and Moore demonstrate, courts are expanding sanctions beyond monetary penalties and are willing to dismiss cases, strike filings, and impose prospective restrictions when AI misuse results in false authority or misrepresentations of the law. 

Second, law firms must address supervision explicitly. Verification obligations apply regardless of who uses the AI — lawyer, intern, nonlawyer assistant, or law clerk. Informal Opinion 2024-11 makes clear that partners and managers bear responsibility for ensuring that lawyers and nonlawyers understand appropriate AI use. 

Third, confidentiality analysis is essential. Missouri lawyers must scrutinize AI platform terms of service and data-handling practices, particularly where client information is involved. 

Finally, Missouri lawyers should resist the false choice between innovation and ethics. Banning AI outright is neither realistic nor desirable. The ethical path forward is informed, careful, and accountable use. 

Looking forward, Missouri courts may consider whether to formalize AI practices through standing orders, appellate rules, or administrative guidance, particularly as federal courts experiment with disclosure and certification requirements. Even absent such rules, Missouri’s existing Rules of Professional Conduct and Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 already supply a workable ethical framework: Educate yourself on the technology, safeguard confidentiality, supervise its use, verify its output, and never abdicate professional judgment. 

Generative AI does not change the lawyer’s role as gatekeeper, advocate, and officer of the court. It amplifies that role. It is a powerful tool that magnifies both competence and carelessness. For Missouri lawyers, the ethical question is not whether AI will be used, but whether it will be used in a way that preserves the competence, candor, and integrity of the profession.⁴⁷

Endnotes 
1 What are AI Hallucinations?, Google Cloud, https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-are-ai-hallucinations (last visited Dec. 30, 2025). 
2 Moore v. City of Del City, No. 25-6002, 2025 WL 3471341, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025); see also Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 497 (D. Wyo. 2025) (“It is ... well-known in the legal community that AI resources generate fake cases.”). 
3 Daniel Wu, Lawyers Using AI Keep Citing Fake Cases in Court. Judges Aren’t Happy, WASH. POST (June 3, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/03/attorneys-court-ai-hallucinations-judges/. 
4 MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-1.1 cmt. [6] (2025). 
5 Id.
6 MO. INFORMAL OP. 2024-11. 
7 MO. INFORMAL OP. 2024-11, supra note 4. 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
10 Id.; MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-1.1. 
11 Id.; MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-1.6. 
12 Id.; MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-3.3. 
13 Id.; MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-5.1 and 4-5.3. 
14 MO. INFORMAL OP. 2024-11, supra note 4. 
15 AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, H.B. 1462, 101st Gen. Assemb., Mo. (2025), available at https://legiscan.com/MO/text/HB1462/id/3141592 (last visited Mar. 16, 2026). 
16 Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024), reh’g and/or transfer denied (Apr. 9, 2024). 
17 Id. at 53–54. 
18 Id.
19 MO. INFORMAL OP. 2024-11, supra note 4.
20 Requirements, Hon. Joshua M. Divine, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the E.D. Mo. (revised August 2025), available at https://www.moep.uscourts.gov/judge/joshua-m-divine. 
21 See Guidance for Self-Represented Litigants on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri), available at https://www. moed.uscourts.gov/self-represented-litigants-srl. 
22 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Kan., Standing Order No. 26-01 (2026), available at https://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/news/notice-proposed-amendment-local-rules-issuance-so-26-01-and-changes-form-protective-order (last visited Mar. 16, 2026). 
23 Doc. 218, Memorandum and Order, at 1, Overstock.com, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026).
24 Id. at 35–36. 
25 Id. at 20–21. 
26 Id. at 19–21. 
27 Id. at 26–28.
28 25-6002 (10th Cir. Dec. 03, 2025).
29 Moore, 2025 WL 3471341, at *3, supra note 5. 
30 Id. at *2.
31 Id. at *3.
32 MO. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT R. 4-3.1.
33 Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 Fed. Supp. 3d 443, 451–52, 465–66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). 
34 Id. 
35 Id. at 461–62 (explaining that fabricated authorities generated by AI cannot constitute "existing law” for purposes of Rule 11); see also Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 493 (D. Wyo. 2025) (sanctioning attorneys under Rule 11 for filing a motion that cited multiple nonexistent cases generated by AI). 
36 Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 25-20086, 2026 WL 456842, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026). 
37 Id. at *5–6. 
38 Lifetime Well, LLC v. Ibspot.com, Inc., No. 23-cv-02203, 2026 WL 195644, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2026). 
39 Id. at *4–5. 
40 See ABA Formal Op. 512 (2024). 
41 Id. at 2–4, 7–10 (2024). 
42 Id. at 5–6. 
43 Id. at 10. 
44 Id. at 7–9. 
45 Justin Henry, Judges Admit to Using AI After MadeUp Rulings Called Out, BLOOMBERG LAW (Oct. 23, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw. com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai.
46 Stephen Gillers (Prof., NYU Law), quoted in Judges Admit to Using AI After MadeUp Rulings Called Out, BLOOMBERG LAW, supra note 47 (discussing the need for judges and lawyers to verify AI-generated citations); For additional insights regarding AI in this context of judicial engagement, see generally Anika Jaitley, Daniel W. Linna Jr., Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, V.S. Subrahmanian & Siyu Tao, Artificial Intelligence in Federal Courts: A Random-Sample Survey of Judges, 27 SEDONA CONF. J. __ (forthcoming 2026). 
47 See generally New York State Bar Association, Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (April 2024). “Among the many comments and insights offered in connection with the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, the conclusion is instructive in the insights provided. This report offers no “conclusions.” As AI continues to evolve, so will the work of NYSBA and the groups tasked with ongoing monitoring. As a profession, lawyers and judges must continue to refine the initial guidelines suggested in this report and audit the efficacy of proposed rules and regulations. Legal professionals are encouraged to liken this journey to the mindset of ancient explorers: Be cautious, be curious, be vigilant, and be brave.”

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently found that a lawyer acting as director, president, and treasurer of a client’s investment corporation was personally liable for the corporation’s tax liabilities,¹ showcasing the significant risk lawyers should consider when acting as a director and officer of a client business entity. 

Background 

Isaac Neuberger was a principal in a Baltimore law firm and represented Michael Konig and other Konig family members for many years. In 2001, Neuberger formed Lehcim Holdings, Inc. for the family to utilize as an investment company. Neuberger was Lehcim’s sole director, president, and treasurer. 

Lehcim engaged in a variety of lending transactions with other Konig family business entities, including a series of loans of more than $8 million from Nightingale Ventures, Ltd. Neuberger was also the director of Nightingale from 2002-2009. Lehcim claimed substantial tax deductions for 2010-2020 for interest accruing on these loans from Nightingale. 

The IRS determined on audit that the Nightingale loans were not bona fide debt and disallowed the Lehcim interest expense deductions. In 2019, the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for more than $1.4 million in unpaid taxes and penalties, and it followed in November 2020 with the issuance of a Final Notice of Intent to Levy for more than $2 million. 

Neuberger and his firm outlined a complex plan for collection of Lehcim receivables and repayment of the Nightingale loans that was to involve money transfers among multiple companies. Konig was tasked with implementing the plan. This plan was completed in 2019 and 2020, resulting in more than $8.8 million in payments from Lehcim to Nightingale. 

In 2020, Neuberger, as Lehcim’s president, submitted a Form 433-B, Collection Information Statement for Businesses, to the IRS for Lehcim, showing assets substantially less than its liabilities. The IRS pursued collection efforts against Lehcim and issued Notices of Levy to Neuberger’s firm and related Konig entities, but the IRS did not receive funds from those sources. 

In 2022, the United States sued Neuberger under the Federal Priority Statute,² seeking a judgment that Neuberger was personally liable for Lehcim’s tax liabilities. An IRS expert determined that Lehcim was insolvent at the time each of the payments in question was made from Lehcim to Nightingale. 

District court decisions 

The district court issued decisions in 2025 and 2026 in this case. In the 2025 decision, the court addressed the elements for applicability of the Federal Priority Statute: (1) a debt due the United States, (2) the debtor’s insolvency, and (3) a triggering event under the statute such as a bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. The court also addressed Neuberger’s representative liability.

First the court cited prior authority for the conclusion that a federal tax debt is clearly a claim of the United States under the statute. The court agreed with the IRS expert that Lehcim was insolvent before each of the transfers to Nightingale. The court rejected Neuberger's argument that the government could not take the position that the Nightingale loans were not bona fide liabilities for tax assessment purposes, but alternatively treat the loans as liabilities for purposes of Lehcim’s solvency. The court noted that IRS disallowance of the Nightingale loan interest deductions was not the applicable test for whether to include this debt for insolvency purposes. 

The court then found that the transfers of more than $8.8 million by Nightingale, regardless of character, were preferential transfers akin to bankruptcy and were made when Lehcim was insolvent, satisfying the triggering event requirement for purposes of the Federal Priority Statute. 

The district court then turned to Neuberger’s potential representative liability. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b) a “representative … paying any part of a debt … before paying a claim of the Government is liable to the extent of the payment for unpaid claims of the Government.” In this context, the court found that Neuberger was Lehcim’s representative who had knowledge of the government’s claim at the time of the transfers to Nightingale. 

Noting that Neuberger was Lehcim’s sole director, president, and treasurer, the court found that Neuberger had authority to act on behalf of Lehcim and was integral in the development and execution of the plan to pay Nightingale before paying the tax liabilities — even though Lehcim’s owner, Konig, was ultimately responsible for implementing the plan. Based on these determinations, the court held that Neuberger was responsible for asset transfers under the Federal Priority Statute. 

Following the court’s 2025 decision, the parties further disputed damages. The government argued that Neuberger was responsible for all Lehcim’s tax liabilities, including continuing accruals of penalties and interest under the Internal Revenue Code, for a total of more than $3.3 million by the end of October 2025. The court found no support for tax law computations under the Federal Priority Statute. Instead, the court found that damages under the Federal Priority Statute should be determined based on the amount of the government claim for which Neuberger had notice, and not the ongoing accruals of penalties and interest.

Therefore, the court held that Neuberger was liable for approximately $1.88 million of taxes, penalties, and interest identified in the IRS’ 30-day letter issued in 2019. 

Conclusion 

The Neuberger case demonstrates the significant risk for a lawyer acting as a director and officer of a client business entity. The lawyer in this case appears to have outlined a plan for repayment of loans and possible resolution of tax liabilities as counsel, but when the client did not follow through and pay the business entity tax liabilities, the lawyer was left with substantial financial exposure.

Endnotes 
1 U.S. v. Neuberger, 2025 PTC 358 (D. Md. 2025); 2026 PTC 24 (D. Md. 2026). 
2 31 U.S.C. Section 3713.

Jeffrey Schoenberger is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

Artificial intelligence is everywhere. According to a Forbes Advisor survey, 97% of business owners believe tools like ChatGPT will help their businesses.¹ At the American Bar Association’s TECHSHOW in March, there were more than 15 sessions about AI.² And yet, lawyers continue to make headlines for citing cases that never existed — because an AI platform confidently made them up. 

That contrast tells us something important. AI is powerful, but it is not magical. Like any other tool in your firm, AI can help or hurt depending on how — and where — you use it.

The goal is not simply to “use AI,” but instead to leverage AI effectively in certain situations, with minimal risks and maximum results. 

Start with the right model 

Different AI tools generally serve different purposes, and many can outperform traditional search engines when you want an answer that synthesizes several sources. Below are five “general-purpose” AIs and how they may help your firm — without using them for legal research or analysis. 

• ChatGPT has become a household name and excels at more general inquiries like brainstorming, outlining, and producing first drafts.
• Claude tends to be more cautious, more structured, and better with long inputs. It is less “salesy” and more deliberate.
• Google Gemini has the advantage of access to Google’s ecosystem and your stored data.
• Microsoft Copilot shines inside Microsoft 365 — summarizing email threads, manipulating Excel data, and helping draft responses in Outlook or Word.
• Perplexity combines AI summaries with citations, which is helpful for market research, tech evaluations, and comparisons. 

These tools are not designed to do legal research or final-form legal writing. Treating AI platforms as substitutes for legal judgment is how lawyers could end up embarrassing themselves — and worse, explaining themselves to disciplinary authorities. 

The safest and most effective approach is simple: 

• Use AI for administrative work or for early drafts in areas where you are already knowledgeable.
• If you can confidently spot errors, omissions, or bad advice, you are in the right territory. 

Example 1: marketing 

Many lawyers know what they want to say but dread sitting down to write it. Marketing content, such as blog posts, newsletters, and social media, often stalls out at the blank page stage. 

That is where AI earns its keep. 

In this example, start by asking ChatGPT for ideas. The quality of the results depends on the prompt.

An OK prompt: “Give me ideas for social media posts for an estate planning firm.” 

A better prompt: “I am the owner of a solo estate planning firm. I primarily work with single mothers, and I am a single mother myself. I need ideas for blog posts aimed at single mothers who do not yet have an estate plan.” 

Specific context produces better output. Once you find an idea you like, ask ChatGPT for a draft. If the draft misses the mark, tell it why and ask for a rewrite. 

You will still need to edit and factcheck. But if writer’s block is your bottleneck, AI can get you moving. 

Rule of thumb: If something feels wrong, fix it. If you are unsure, verify it or remove it. 

Example 2: writing email responses 

Not every email requires legal analysis. Many require clarity, tone control, or a nudge toward action. 

For example, Copilot can help by drafting a response based on your instructions: “I need to follow up politely but firmly and ask the client to respond.” 

That differs from asking for legal advice. Used this way, Copilot may save time and reduce friction. 

This can work particularly well for re-engaging clients who have gone silent for months. Sometimes the hardest part is figuring out what to say and how to say it. AI can help you get over that hump. 

Example 3: drafting firm policies 

Policies are another area where AI can provide leverage without undue risk. 

For example, suppose you want to formalize a work-from-home policy. You already know the rules: 

• Two days remote per week
• Three days in the office, and
• Two weeks’ advance notice for planned remote days. 

Feed that information into ChatGPT and ask it to draft the policy. You will likely receive a surprisingly thorough draft covering objectives, eligibility, approval processes, communication expectations, equipment, security, and acknowledgments. 

Will it make assumptions? Yes. 

Will it include things you do not want? Probably. 

But reviewing and refining a draft is far easier than starting from scratch. It may also surface issues you had not considered. 

A critical rule: Always start fresh 

One final operational note that matters more than people realize: When you switch topics, start a new chat in the AI platform. 

Reusing an existing conversation confuses the model and degrades output quality. Treat each task as a clean slate. You will get better results faster and with less frustration. 

The takeaway 

AI is neither a silver bullet nor a ticking time bomb. It is a productivity tool — one that rewards clear thinking, good judgment, and appropriate boundaries. 

Start by using it where the stakes are low and your expertise is high. That is how you can transform your legal practice using AI without becoming an example in an ethics presentation.

Endnotes 
1 Katherine Haan and Rob Watts, How Businesses Are Using Artificial Intelligence, FORBES (April 24, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ software/ai-in-business. 
2 American Bar Association, TECHSHOW, Chicago, Ill. (March 25-28, 2026), https://www. techshow.com.

From St. Louis to Kansas City to Springfield and across the whole country, one issue that seems to unite lawyers is this: We’re not great at billing our clients.

We didn’t go to law school to learn how to become bill collectors, and my school certainly didn’t offer many “how to run a law firm” management courses. So, when and how exactly are we supposed to pick up the details on invoicing?

Because of this, many firm owners learn receivables by trial and error (legal pun intended). With that in mind, here are a few billing tips and tricks to help along the way:

Three tried and true billing tips for Missouri law firms
1. It’s a mental game.

Clients come to you at some of the worst moments in their lives. The least lawyers can do is be predictable in our billing schedule.

Clients shouldn’t be waiting months to receive an invoice, and sending bills sporadically doesn’t foster confidence (or trust) between you and your client. Whether you bill monthly or on another cadence, the key is consistency.

A practical rule of thumb: send invoices around the 4th of every month. If the client gets paid on the 1st, their paycheck has likely cleared by the time your bill arrives, making yours one of the first bills they’ll pay rather than something that gets pushed to “later.”

2. The call is coming from inside the house (yes, you).

Often, the real reason firms fall behind on billing is simple: hours don’t get logged. We’ve all been there; waiting until the end of the month to input time, only to realize we’re trying to reconstruct an entire month of work like it’s a missing evidence timeline.

The problem is that it’s nearly impossible to recreate every billable increment for a month. We forget details. You log six hours for a day that happened two weeks ago, but you know you were at the office for ten. Now you’re losing revenue for the firm — and for yourself.

You and your staff need a rule for tracking time. Ideally, this happens daily, but weekly is more realistic for many firms.

And if you have a few “problem children” at your firm who struggle to track time consistently, consider adopting Smokeball’s Autotime feature. It runs in the background and tracks what you’re doing and for which matters.

3. It’s time to join the modern day

Lawyers are not always known for being early adopters of change, but if there’s one place where modernizing pays off quickly, it’s billing.

It’s time to adopt technology that can automate the most frustrating parts of the process. Your firm administrator will thank you. Your future self will, too.

That means using software like Smokeball, which lets you:

— Print prebills in bulk (and separated by lawyer)

— Automate invoice creation

— Send bills to clients all at once — without going case-by-case

Instead of manually pushing invoices one matter at a time, you can press a button, and your bills go out in a batch.

And if you bill hourly, it’s also worth thinking about adopting an evergreen retainer policy, which can also be automated with the right system.

Bottom line for law firm billing

Billing doesn’t have to be the headache it was back in the day. Technology exists now to make it easier and more consistent.

Try it and give yourself one less thing to chase at the end of every month.

Trust accounting and billing software by Smokeball

As a member of The Missouri Bar, you get access to Smokeball’s trust accounting and billing software at no cost, valued at $588/user/year, to help you manage your trust accounting compliantly and bill easily. Click on this link to access your software: https://bit.ly/mobarbill-blog-0226.

Jordan Turk is a practicing lawyer in Texas and Smokeball’s director of education and attorney development. Smokeball is cloud-based legal practice management software. 

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

The U.S. Tax Court recently held that taxpayers had taxable income resulting from termination of whole life insurance policies, a consideration that tax lawyers should keep in mind when serving their clients.

In Fugler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,¹ the tax court found that when a couple terminated whole life insurance policies with outstanding loans, they received constructive distributions from the policies that were includible in their gross income.

Background 

In 1987, David and Cindy Fugler purchased whole life insurance policies from Mass Mutual insuring their two children. The Fuglers were the owners and beneficiaries of the policies, which required annual premiums of $150 per year until each child’s 65th birthday or their death, whichever occurred first. The policies also allowed borrowing against cash surrender value. 

From 1988-2006, the Fuglers paid the annual premiums. In 2006, they borrowed $10,500 from one policy and $11,000 from the other policy. From 2007-2016, the Fuglers borrowed from the policies to cover the annual premiums. Interest on these loans also was added to the loan balances on each policy. By 2018, the policies had loan balances of $19,845 and $20,699. 

The policies also had cash surrender values which increased over time from accumulated dividends but were reduced by the outstanding policy debts. In 2018, the Fuglers notified Mass Mutual of their intent to terminate the policies. Mass Mutual provided surrender forms and advised them that surrender could result in taxable income. The Fuglers submitted the surrender forms and received checks for $3,033 and $2,729 with respect to the policies.

Mass Mutual reported the distributions to the Fuglers on Form 1099-R, indicating taxable income with respect to each policy, calculated as the gross distribution, including the checks distributed and the outstanding loan balance, reduced by insurance premiums paid. For one policy, this resulted in a $16,028 taxable amount. For the other policy, it was a $16,578 taxable amount. The Fuglers did not report income from Mass Mutual on their 2018 tax return.

The IRS proposed an increase to the Fuglers’ income for the taxable amounts on the Mass Mutual Form 1099-R, and the Fuglers pursued relief in tax court. The issues in the case were: 

(1) whether the policy distributions were includible in the Fuglers’ 2018 taxable income, 
(2) whether the Fuglers were entitled to a deduction for interest paid on the policy loans, and 
(3) whether the Fuglers were entitled to innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code § 6015.²

Statutory background and tax court analysis 

Code § 61 defines “gross income” as income from any source including “income from life insurance and endowment contracts.” Code § 72 further provides that amounts received under annuity, endowment, or life insurance contracts are included income, and amounts received from nonannuity life insurance contracts are income to the extent they exceed investment in the contract. 

The tax court also cited prior cases for the concept that loans against life insurance policy cash value are loans from the insurance company to the policyholder, and these loans are not taxable distributions when received. However, the tax court stated that a taxpayer constructively receives proceeds from a terminated life insurance policy to the extent that existing policy loans are satisfied from the policy’s cash value, citing Mallory v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.³ 

In Fugler, the tax court, therefore, found that the taxpayers constructively received proceeds in the amount of the outstanding loan balances that were satisfied upon termination of the policies. The tax court held that the Fuglers’ taxable income for 2018 included these constructively received policy loan balances in addition to the checks received for the remaining cash value of each policy.

The tax court next addressed the Fuglers’ claim for interest expense deductions. The Fuglers claimed the proceeds of the policy loans were used in connection with their mining and logging business. The commissioner stated the interest was nondeductible personal interest. Section 163(h) disallows a deduction for personal interest, unless the interest is identified in §163(h)(2), which includes categories such as interest relating to a trade or business, investment, qualified residence, etc. However, the tax court found the Fuglers offered no evidence to show they were engaged in a mining and logging trade or business and no evidence that the loan proceeds were used for that purpose. As a result, the tax court held that the interest paid on the policies was nondeductible personal interest.

Finally, the tax court recognized that the IRS had conceded Cindy Fugler was entitled to innocent spouse relief. The tax court also confirmed that innocent spouse relief is only available to one spouse in response to David Fugler raising a similar claim.

Conclusion 

Fugler demonstrates why lawyers should remind their clients to carefully consider the tax implications in terminating insurance policies with outstanding policy loans. In some cases, it may make more economic sense to maintain the policies until death of the insured so that nontaxable death benefit proceeds repay the loans. 

Fugler also reminds taxpayers that interest deductions are only available for specific categories, like a trade or business, and that taxpayers must be able to demonstrate use of loan proceeds relating to the category in question for deductibility.

Endnotes 
1 Fugler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Summ.Op. 2025-10 (U.S. Tax Ct., 2025). 
2 § 6015. Relief from joint and several liability on joint return, 26 USCA § 6015. 
3 Mallory v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2016-110 (U.S. Tax Ct., 2016).

Melinda J. Bentley is legal ethics counsel for the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Correction: This article was updated on March 9, 2026, to correct the statement: “Second, funds subject to this exception are only advance paid fees, and advanced paid expenses must still be held in a client trust account.”

Have you ever heard a colleague say something is required, or not required, by the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct and wondered, “Is that right?” This article examines 10 scenarios to help you separate fact from fiction when complying with the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Scenario 1: The Supreme Court of Missouri does not require lawyers to have a statement as to confidentiality in the footer of emails. Fact or fiction? 

Answer: Fact. 

The rules do not require that a lawyer place a statement as to confidentiality in the footer of emails, although such a statement may be a best practice.¹ While there can be practical reasons for including such a statement, or disclosures required by other law, statements that start with “The Supreme Court of Missouri requires,” “The Missouri Bar requires,” “The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel requires,” or “The Legal Ethics Counsel requires” are not accurate. 

Confidentiality is the key ethical consideration for lawyers in determining if email is an appropriate means for communicating matters with clients, and a lawyer should discuss such concerns with the client prior to using email.² Rule 4-1.6(c) states that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of the client.” Comment [15] to Rule 4-1.6 provides guidance regarding reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access or inadvertent disclosure. Factors lawyers should consider include, but are not limited to:

the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use).

Further, Comment [16] to Rule 4-1.6 provides guidance regarding reasonable precautions to prevent client information from reaching unintended recipients. Lawyers should consider factors including “the reasonableness of the lawyer’s expectation of confidentiality … the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement.” 

In applying these considerations, lawyers should discuss with clients as to whether emails should be used to communicate about the representation. They should also consider the nature and sensitivity of the information that may be exchanged, what protective measures can be utilized to preserve confidentiality, and how the client may be accessing email and who else might also have access to that email (i.e. the client’s employer or family members).³

Scenario 2: A lawyer must withdraw immediately from representing a client and not contact them if the client files a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or a fee dispute resolution program. Fact or fiction? 

Answer: Fiction. 

Just because a client files a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or seeks assistance from a fee dispute resolution program does not mean the lawyer is prohibited from contacting the client unless the client is represented by counsel in that matter.⁴ Neither the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel nor the fee dispute resolution program would be representing a client such that contact would be prohibited pursuant to Rule 4-4.2. 

A conflict of interest is not always present just because a complaint is filed. Sometimes the filing of such a complaint stems from a simple lack of communication or miscommunication. The lawyer should consider whether the lawyer’s personal interest materially limits their ability to represent the client’s interests.⁵ Specifically, consideration should be given to “if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests,”⁶ or “if the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.”⁷ 

Additionally, such circumstances do not automatically require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation. In this scenario, Rule 4-1.16 would only require withdrawal if the client discharges the services of the lawyer,⁸ or if continuing the representation would cause the lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.⁹ The lawyer may be permitted to withdraw if the criteria of Rule 4-1.16(b) are met. 

Whether the lawyer is required or permitted to withdraw, they still must provide notice to or seek the permission of the tribunal and continue with the representation when ordered to do so, notwithstanding other good cause for terminating the representation.¹⁰ If the representation is terminated, to the extent reasonably practicable, the lawyer is required to take steps to protect the client’s interests.¹¹ 

Scenario 3: A lawyer moving from Law Firm A may be screened from any conflicts of interest when joining Law Firm B. Fact or fiction?

Answer: Fiction.

Missouri does not recognize screening when it comes to conflicts related to Rule 4-1.10, addressing imputed disqualification of law firms; and Rule 4-1.9, addressing former clients and lawyers moving between law firms.¹² While screening may be helpful in persuading a client to waive a conflict, such conflicts must be addressed pursuant to those specific rules.¹³ 

Instead, “screened” is a defined term pursuant Rule 4-1.0(k):

[T]he isolation of a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that the isolated lawyer is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law.

Screening is only permitted in appropriate circumstances pursuant to Rule 4-1.11, 4-1.12, 4-1.18, and 4-6.5. 

Scenario 4: Flat fees must always go into the client trust account. Fact or fiction?

Answer: Fiction.

Pursuant to Rule 4-1.15(c), which requires a lawyer to deposit legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance into a client trust account, there is an exception that if the advanced paid flat fee does not exceed $2,000, it may be deposited into another account. 

There are a few important notes about this exception. First, although it is permissive for the lawyer to choose to keep advance paid fees that do not exceed $2,000 in another account, it is not required.¹⁴ Second, funds subject to this exception are only advance paid fees, and advanced paid expenses must still be held in a client trust account.¹⁵ Finally, this exception applies only to advance paid fees that do not exceed $2,000, not installment payments for a larger sum.¹⁶ 

Scenario 5: A lawyer may respond to negative online reviews posted by clients, because clients waived confidentiality by posting information regarding the representation. Fact or fiction?

Answer: Fiction.

Rule 4-1.6(b)(3) only permits a lawyer to make a limited disclosure of confidential information “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client …” An online review does not constitute a controversy between the lawyer and the client, so the lawyer may not respond and disclose confidential information in that public forum.¹⁷ 

Scenario 6: A lawyer may not withhold a client’s file for nonpayment of legal fees. Fact or fiction? 

Answer: Fact. 

Missouri Advisory Committee Formal Opinion 115 provides that a lawyer may not withhold a client’s file for nonpayment of legal fees. Instead, the client owns the file “from cover to cover, except for those items contained within the file for which the attorney has borne out-of-pocket expenses such as, but not limited to, transcripts.”¹⁸ It is important to note that there may be some limited exceptions to the content of materials to be provided to the client as part of the file, such as information subject to a protective order or settlement agreement,¹⁹ or information subject to a discovery agreement.²⁰ 

Lawyers should consider Rule 4-1.22, Missouri Advisory Committee Formal Opinion 115, substantive law, and other Missouri informal opinions when determining the contents of the client file.²¹ 

Scenario 7: Lawyer A may not pay a referral fee to Lawyer B for sending a new client to Lawyer A. Fact or fiction? 

Answer: Fact.²² 

Rule 4-7.2(c) prohibits a lawyer from giving “anything of value to a person for recommending a lawyer’s services.” That includes a “referral fee” from one lawyer to another. However, Rule 4-1.5(e) permits lawyers who are not in the same firm to divide fees so long as certain conditions are satisfied:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; (2) the client agrees to the association and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) the total fee is reasonable.²³

Scenario 8: Lawyer A prepared a will and deeds for a client who is now deceased. The personal representative’s lawyer, Lawyer B, requested that Lawyer A turn over a copy of the client’s file. Lawyer A may not disclose information, other than the actual will the lawyer considers still valid, or a deed that has been recorded, without a court order, unless the client gave express consent to permit disclosure. Fact or fiction?

Answer: Fact.²⁴

Rule 4-1.6 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b).” In this scenario, it is impliedly authorized that Lawyer A may provide Lawyer B with the client’s will so the client’s estate planning wishes may be followed. However, the entire file may not be provided absent informed consent of the client prior to the client’s death, consistent with Rule 4-1.6(a) and 4-1.0(e); or a limited disclosure to comply with other law or a court order, consistent with Rule 4-1.6(b)(4).²⁵ 

Scenario 9: A lawyer may disclose information contained in public court records the lawyer filed on behalf of the client without the client’s consent. Fact or fiction?

Answer: Fiction.²⁶

Rule 4-1.6 prohibits disclosure of confidential client information unless a valid exception is met, and Rule 4-1.9(c) does likewise for confidential information of a former client. Even though information may be contained in a public record or available on Case.net, it is still confidential as to the lawyer. Comment [3] to Rule 4-1.6 notes that confidentiality

… not only applies to matters communicated in confidence by the client, but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

Further, Comment [4] explains that confidential information includes protected information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information by a third party. This would include information that could lead to the discovery of the client’s identity or of the situation involved.

Scenario 10: Lawyer A has been contacted by the surviving spouse of Lawyer B, a solo practitioner, who recently passed away. Lawyer A may not review the files of Lawyer B at the request of surviving spouse. Fact or fiction? 

Answer: Fact.²⁷ 

Unless Lawyer B obtained the informed consent of clients for another lawyer outside the firm to access the clients’ confidential information in the event of Lawyer B’s death or incapacitation, Lawyer A may not review the client files of Lawyer B absent appointment as a trustee pursuant to Rule 5.26. 

Conclusion 

If lawyers have questions about the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct in their practice, they can contact the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel via MO-Legal-Ethics.org to seek an informal advisory opinion about their prospective conduct.²⁸

Endnotes
1 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2012-01.
2 See Melinda J. Bentley, “The Ethical Implications of Technology in Your Law Practice: Understanding the Rules of Professional Conduct Can Prevent Potential Problems,” 76 J. Mo. B. 20, at 22 (2020) (discussing application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to email and other electronic communications with clients). 
3 Id.
4 See Mo. Informal Opinions 2022-05 and 20050059.
5 Rule 4-1.7(a)(2).
6 Rule 4-1.7, Comment [8].
7 Rule 4-1.7, Comment [10].
8 Rule 4-1.16(a)(3).
9 Rule 4-1.16(a)(1).
10 Rule 4-1.16(c).
11 Rule 4-1.16(d).
12 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2017-07.
13 See Mo. Informal Opinions 20060003, 20050030, and 20030007.
14 Rule 4-1.15(c).
15 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2018-15.
16 Id.
17 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2018-08.
18 Mo. Formal Opinion 115; See also In the Matter of Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226, 234 (Mo. banc 1997); McVeigh v. Fleming, 410 S.W.3d 287, 289 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2013).
19 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2020-07. 
20 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2020-08.
21 See also Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri Resource Page: File Retention Resources, https://mo-legal-ethics.org/for-lawyers/resources/file-retention-resources/. 
22 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-05. 
23 See also Rule 4-1.5, Comments [7] and [8] (providing further guidance on division of fees). 
24 See Missouri Informal Opinion 20040004. 
25 See also Rule 4-1.6, Comments [10]-[13]; Missouri Informal Opinions 2017-04, 2015-02, 20070016, 20060004, 20010154; 20000165; 990146; 990118; 980080; 970100; 960130; 950264; 950018. 
26 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2015-02. 
27 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-11. 
28 See Rule 5.30(c).

Jeffrey Schoenberger is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

The Supreme Court of Missouri entered an order Dec. 16, 2025, that, in part, simplified redaction instructions and enhanced the process for correcting redaction. As you review your redaction process, remember Adobe Acrobat Pro has a built-in redaction tool you can use to help protect your clients’ sensitive information. 

Whether you’ve used Acrobat for a while or are just getting started, here is the six-step process to most effectively use its tools to remove not only text, but AI metadata.

1. Open the PDF you want to redact in Adobe Acrobat Pro 
 

2. Activate the redaction tool 

a. Go to the “All tools” pane on the left (or select “All tools” from the top menu bar). 

b. Scroll down and locate the “Redact a PDF” tool, then click it. If you don’t see “Redact a PDF,” you may need to click the blue “View more” link at the bottom to see the option. Alternatively, you can click the magnifying glass on the top right of the toolbar and search for “Redact,” then click “Redact text and images.” 

c. A new “Redact a PDF” pane will open on the left-hand side.

3. Mark content for redaction

Acrobat lets you redact text and images in three ways. You can select text or images piecemeal, you can redact entire pages, or you can have Acrobat search your document for words or phrases (e.g., social security numbers, account numbers, children’s names) and mark those for redaction. Note that the third option, called “Find text and redact,” only works in PDFs with optical character recognition, meaning you can search and copy and paste text in the PDFs. 

For this example, we’ll do “Redact text and images.”

a. Click the “Redact text and images” button in the “Redact a PDF” pane. 

b. Use your mouse to select text or images you want to redact. For text, click and drag to highlight what you want to redact. For images, click directly on the image or area. Your selection should be surrounded by a red border. Hovering over it should turn the text or image solid black.

4. Preview and apply the redactions 

a. Once you’ve marked all areas, click “Apply” at the bottom right of the “Redact a PDF” pane. 

b. A prompt will ask if you’re certain you want to permanently redact the content. You also will have a toggle switch to “Sanitize and remove hidden information.” It’s generally recommended to enable “Sanitize and remove hidden information,” since it now removes embedded AI-generated metadata that may not be visible but could contain sensitive prompts or summaries. By toggling this switch on, in addition to performing your redactions, Acrobat will search your document for metadata (e.g., comments, bookmarks, attachments, form fields, and AI content) and remove it. 

c. Click “Continue.”

5. Save the redacted PDF

Acrobat will prompt you to save a copy of the document with a file suffix of “Redacted.” Navigate to your preferred saving location and click “Save.” 

Acrobat will also ask you to save a second copy, because redactions are permanent and irreversible. You now have two PDF documents: the original with all sensitive information intact; and the redacted one, with sensitive information removed, suitable for filing or distribution.

6. Review the document to ensure all sensitive content is correctly redacted 

Properly redacting private information protects your clients, complies with confidentiality rules, and guards against sanctions or malpractice claims. Many firms now add redaction checks to their internal audit trail. Schedule in time to double-check your work — and Acrobat’s.

Conclusion 

With these steps in Adobe Acrobat Pro, you can securely remove confidential content and protect your clients’ information. If you have questions, Adobe provides a redaction guide on its website. 
To help you even better serve your clients, access no-cost comparison charts, white papers, checklists, and more at MoBar.org/LPM.

“The rule of law contributes to an effective form of government that ensures a stable, equitable society. To persevere, it must be applied fairly, consistently, and without prejudice to all citizens. It is defined by a framework that provides access to the courts, limits governmental intrusion, and guarantees accountability in government. Protecting the rule of law is synonymous with supporting, defending, and preserving the United States and the Missouri constitution, our best hope for achieving ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ as explained by Thomas Jefferson.” 
– Hon. Thomas C. Clark, Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District in St. Louis

“No fear of arbitrary interference, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 
– Dave Schulte, Kansas City

“Rule of law means that everyone, regardless of who they are or the circumstances they face, is protected by the same rights and held to the same standards of accountability and justice. It reflects a commitment to treat all people equally and fairly. Upholding the rule of law requires ensuring that every individual can rely on the system to safeguard their dignity, freedoms, and rights. As a capital defense attorney, it means providing those facing the most serious consequences with high-quality, zealous representation that promotes fairness, justice, and accuracy, which ensures my clients’ constitutional rights are protected at every stage of litigation.” 
– Delaney Catlettstout, associate trial counsel at Missouri State Public Defender Central Capital Division in Columbia

“I view the rule of law as the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. The rule of law stands for the proposition that no one, no matter how powerful, no matter how prestigious their position, is above the law. Human history shows that we frequently fall short of this ideal. But this extraordinary vision of government at its best is most certainly worthy of pursuit.” 
– Dr. Tony Simones, director of citizenship education at The Missouri Bar in Jefferson City

“As Karl Olivekrona and others of the Swedish School of Legal Theorists posited in the early 20th century, all governments exist because they possess the ability to apply superior force against all other people. Because of this ability, members of government make rules, i.e. laws, that everyone must follow. Those who disobey the rules subject themselves to potential applications of state force. All societies are ordered by this dynamic. But law making and law enforcement is always fluid and shaped by the consent of the people to subject themselves to the law. Therefore, states must always balance enforcement of the law with the willingness of the people to be bound by the law. The people can challenge state force if they withdraw their consent to being bound by offending laws. This, to me, is foundational to the rule of law.” 
– Michael Sewell, lawyer at Sewell Law, LC in St. Louis

“The rule of law is a fundamental maxim of civil society, establishing that every individual, from the highest official to the lowest citizen, is governed not by the arbitrary will of any single person, but by a set of established and impartial laws derived from the immutable principles of reason and the inherent laws of nature. These laws serve to secure universal justice, ensuring that similar causes are always treated with like equity, and provide predictable boundaries for civil conduct, such that all liberties and properties are protected under a uniform and consistent application of right.” 
– Kevin O. Callahan, lawyer at Callahan Law in Springfield

We were wondering … What keeps you going as a lawyer when you feel discouraged? Share your answer at MoBar.Wufoo.com/forms/closing-statements.

Jeffrey S. Krause is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

There is a common misperception that solo and small firm lawyers cannot afford the same level of tech security as larger firms. While it is true that firms with larger budgets can afford a larger security infrastructure, it does not necessarily mean their security is better than what a smaller firm can obtain. 

More likely, a larger security infrastructure results from more employees, including those whose job it is to maintain security, and from being a more prominent target. Small firms can also implement robust security to protect their firms and clients. Smaller firms may have fewer weak spots to protect, but they need to know those weak spots and implement security to guard them. They might also find they already pay for the tools they need.

Here are some easy ways to greatly enhance your firm’s security going into 2026 while spending little-to-no money. 

Duty 

One thing is clear: All lawyers have a duty to protect their clients’ data. The Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.6(c) states: “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of the client.”

Unless you want to argue about reasonableness, Rule 4-1.6(c) does not provide an exception for solo and small firm lawyers, giving them leeway due to firm size or budget. The duty is the same — you must take reasonable steps to protect client information. In doing so, you are also taking reasonable steps to protect business and personal information. 

Security weak spots 

High-profile security breaches are often reported as if a genius hacker cracked an elaborate system designed to prevent unauthorized access. While this occasionally happens, most security breaches are much less interesting. Users are careless with already-weak passwords that they may use on multiple sites. 

For example, an employee’s password to the firm’s Clio may be the same as their Netflix password, their Facebook login, and, most dangerously, that one sketchy website they visited four years ago. Affinity Consulting’s resource on password managers, located in the connect.MOBAR forms bank, can help you familiarize yourself with good password principles and password management programs. 

Some organizations do not require strong passwords or an additional layer of security if a password is compromised. Devices may be lost without the data being properly secured. In other words, solo and small firm data security is about protecting data from our own mistakes. 

Microsoft 365 

The good news is that you likely have the tools to provide sophisticated security to your clients and their data. Microsoft 365 is nearly ubiquitous among solo and small firms and provides many of the features needed to protect data. Microsoft 365 Business Standard costs $12.50 per user per month and provides almost everything you need. You might also consider Microsoft 365 Business Premium, which has additional features related to security, at $22 per user per month. 

Both the standard and premium plans include multi-factor authentication and an extensive list of security defaults. Both plans provide anti-spam, anti-malware, and anti-phishing features, and allow users to control access to SharePoint and OneDrive files. Correctly using these features provides a significant level of security.

The premium plan adds conditional access features, advanced anti-phishing, safe links and safe attachments, sensitivity labels, and data loss prevention services. You may decide the $9.50 per user per month is worth it to protect yourself from unforced errors. For example, the data loss prevention service notifies you when you attempt to share credit card numbers or content falling under HIPAA and may catch you from sharing that information in an insecure way. The service also provides a report of any information you shared. Proactive features like this help prevent errors, break bad sharing habits, and give you a list of information you have released “into the wild.” 

Passwords and multi-factor authentication 

An easy way to address security weak spots is to consider password strength. With any Microsoft 365 plan, you can set password policies. Interestingly, Microsoft’s guidance regarding passwords is different than what you may have heard previously. While it does caution against easy-to-guess passwords or passphrases, it does not state that longer is necessarily better, complex character requirements are necessary, or periodic resets serve a purpose. Instead, much of the guidance centers around multi-factor authentication. 

Most of us are familiar with MFA. It requires the user to provide two or more verification factors to gain access. For example, when a user attempts to log in from a new device or location, they enter their login and password as normal. If this information is correct, a message is sent to their phone. The message contains a code that must be entered before the user can proceed. 

Not only does Microsoft include MFA for Microsoft 365 components, MFA can also be configured to work with other applications via Azure AD (Active Directory). In addition to text message-based codes, many sites offer software-based codes, which can be stored and viewed in programs such as Microsoft Authenticator, Google Authenticator, or Twilio’s Authy. 

With MFA, compromised passwords cannot be used to gain full access unless the bad actor also possesses and is able to successfully log in to the device to which the message is sent. This is where device encryption comes in. 

Device encryption 

Encrypting your computers, laptops, tablets, and phones is another critical step in protecting data. If you enter a code to access your tablet or phone, you are already using encryption. Entering the wrong code too many times can lock or even erase the device. Good luck getting the MFA code from a locked phone. This simple encryption protects against a lost or stolen phone being used to compromise your data.

For computers and laptops, a little more work is required. For Windows Pro devices, turn on BitLocker to encrypt the device hard drive. It does not stop someone with the credentials from accessing the computer. However, a thief would have to know how to access the stolen laptop. If they do not know the credentials, they may attempt to remove the hard drive and access data that way. They cannot do this without the BitLocker code. A similar encryption tool, FileVault, is available for Mac users. 

Conclusion 

No security is bulletproof, and a short article cannot cover every aspect of security. However, Microsoft 365 and Windows, which most solo and small firms already use, offer powerful security features. Implementing just a few of them can fortify the most common weak points in your firm’s security. Combined with strong passwords, your security fortifications will rival most firms, irrespective of size.

"Mentoring attorneys is essential because it shapes not only their professional growth but also the future of our legal community. Guidance from experienced practitioners accelerates skill development, builds confidence, and instills the highest ethical standards. It also fosters a culture of collaboration, where knowledge is shared, questions are welcomed, and challenges become opportunities for growth. 

“By investing in mentorship, we’re not just training better attorneys, we’re cultivating leaders who will serve clients, victims, the courts, and the broader community with integrity for years to come.” 
– Jacqueline Ledezma-Ruelas, senior assistant prosecuting attorney at the Greene County Prosecutor’s Office in Springfield

“I’m in a unique position in my career where I’m both a mentor to law students/new attorneys as well as a mentee seeking guidance from my partners/more senior attorneys. I’m assigned a mentor at work, but I’ve developed mentor/mentee relationships from being involved in the legal community through local and statewide bar service, plus law school connections. I’ve found that having transparent conversations about the difficulties of practice, as well as being a resource, has been the way I mentor and receive mentorship. As a self-governing profession, it’s crucial that we reach back to guide others in achieving success for themselves and their clients.” 
– Lauren E. Smith, associate at MG+M The Law Firm in St. Louis

“For much of my career, I have been an in-house attorney in organizations where I am either the only attorney or one of only a few internal attorneys. As a result, I have usually found opportunities to mentor other attorneys through Missouri Bar activities such as Leadership Academy and Young Lawyers’ Section or programs and functions of local or practice-area specific bar organizations. I have always believed that relationship building, whether as a mentor or mentee, is crucial in the practice of law, and it has absolutely resulted in career opportunities for me, but also provided me with contacts to reach out to when I, as in-house counsel, am looking to hire outside counsel in a particular geographic region or practice area.” 
– Jason Paulsmeyer, claims litigation counsel at the Missouri Farm Bureau Insurance in Jefferson City

“I mentor future lawyers by coaching a high school mock trial team. Helping young folks understand the structure of a trial and basic rules of evidence helps me hone my own skills in a low-stress environment and helps me see things from different perspectives. Providing mentorship helps build and maintain collegiality, which is critical in our profession.” 
– Laura E., associate attorney in St. Louis

We were wondering … What does the Rule of Law mean to you? Share your answer by writing to gtlustos@mobar.org or visiting MoBar.Wufoo.com/forms/closing-statements.

Answers have been edited for length, clarity, and style.

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Mayo Clinic is an “educational organization” exempt from unrelated business income tax with respect to certain indebtedness. In Mayo Clinic v. U.S.,¹ the 8th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota’s summary judgment in favor of the Mayo Clinic and rejected the government’s argument that the Mayo Clinic’s patient care was a substantial noneducational purpose. Instead, the court affirmed a broad definition of an educational organization for purposes of the unrelated business income tax exemption. 

Background

Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) exempts from taxation corporations and foundations “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific … or educational purposes.” The code also allows individual taxpayers to deduct “charitable contribution[s]” to “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.”² 

Concerned a judicial weakening of the § 501(c)(3) exclusivity requirement had created a tax loophole for for-profit businesses, Congress imposed an unrelated business income tax (UBIT) on § 501(c)(3) organizations.³ In the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Congress expanded UBIT to include acquisition indebtedness of debt-financed property that is held to produce income. The UBIT provision in Code § 514(c) at issue provides that acquisition indebtedness does not include debt incurred by a “qualified organization” in acquiring or improving real property. Qualified organizations include § 501(c)(3) educational organizations as defined in § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

The Mayo Clinic is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and a § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. The Mayo Clinic operates a nationwide network of hospitals, clinics, and the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science. For the tax years in question, the Mayo Clinic received investment income from debt-financed property and claimed exemption from UBIT under § 514(c)(9)(C)(i), which incorporates the definition of “educational organization” from § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

Following an audit, the IRS denied the Mayo Clinic’s exemption, asserting that its health care operations were more than incidental to its educational activities, and it did not qualify as an “educational organization” under the relevant treasury regulations. The Mayo Clinic paid the assessed UBIT and sought a refund in district court. 

The district court initially ruled in the Mayo Clinic’s favor, holding the “primary function” and “merely incidental” tests in the regulations were invalid. On appeal, the 8th Circuit partially reversed the district court’s ruling, upholding the validity of the “primary function” and “merely incidental” requirements but rejecting the limitation in the regulations to “formal instruction.” The case was remanded for further factual findings, and the district court again found the Mayo Clinic was organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes and had no substantial noneducational purpose. The “fusion” of the Mayo Clinic’s health care, education, and research functions was the basis for the district court’s factual conclusion that the Mayo Clinic has no substantial noneducational purpose. 

The government appealed, and the 8th Circuit issued its decision in July 2025.

8th Circuit analysis and decision 

The 8th Circuit decision focused on two key issues: the meaning of “primary” purpose, and whether there was integration of functions to support a substantial noneducational purpose. 

Meaning of “primary” purpose 

The government argued that to qualify as an educational organization, education must be the organization’s predominant purpose and not merely a substantial one. The 8th Circuit rejected this argument, affirming the district court’s interpretation that “primary” means “substantial” rather than exclusive or predominant. The 8th Circuit relied on Board of Governors v. Agnew,⁴ where the U.S. Supreme Court held that “primary” can mean “essentially” or “fundamentally.” The 8th Circuit further reasoned that this interpretation aligns with treasury regulations recognizing organizations such as museums, zoos, and symphony orchestras may have multiple substantial purposes and still qualify as educational organizations. 

Based on this analysis, the 8th Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in its interpretation of “primary” as meaning substantial. The 8th Circuit also noted that even under the government’s definition of “primary,” the district court properly found that the Mayo Clinic’s substantial patient care activities are educational based on the Mayo Clinic’s careful integration of education and clinical practice. 

Substantial noneducational purpose and integration of functions 

The government also argued that the Mayo Clinic’s expansive clinical practice represented a substantial noneducational purpose in the form of a commercial business. The 8th Circuit determined the proper test is whether a nonexempt purpose is substantial, not whether the organization engages in activities that could also be conducted for profit. The court noted that a single activity can serve more than one purpose and that commercial activities can further a tax-exempt purpose. Relying on the district court’s factual findings showing that education, research, and clinical practice at the Mayo Clinic are fully integrated, the 8th Circuit concluded that the Mayo Clinic’s patient care is a vehicle for delivering medical education rather than a separate noneducational function. 

The court acknowledged that the presence of a substantial noneducational purpose could disqualify an organization from the UBIT exemption but found no evidence that the Mayo Clinic’s clinical practice existed independently of its educational mission. The 8th Circuit also rejected the government’s argument that the Mayo Clinic should be treated as a hospital or research organization rather than as an educational organization, holding that the Mayo Clinic’s characteristics as an educational institution entitled it to the UBIT exemption.

Based on this analysis, the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court holding that the Mayo Clinic is an “educational organization” exempt from acquisition indebtedness UBIT. 

Conclusion 

The 8th Circuit’s decision in Mayo Clinic provides lawyers with important guidance for tax-exempt organizations with multiple integrated purposes. The court’s adoption of a “substantial” standard for the “primary” purpose test allows a potentially more forgiving factual analysis for academic medical centers and other similarly integrated institutions. Importantly, the government arguments and appeals in this litigation may indicate that the IRS intends to further challenge educational organization exemptions in this context and otherwise. The court’s analysis in Mayo Clinic emphasizes the importance of integrating educational activities with other organizational functions and the factual scrutiny lawyers should expect in these cases.

Endnotes

1 Mayo Clinic v. United States, 145 F.4th 877 (8th Cir. 2025)
2 IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii).
3 See IRC § 512-14
4 Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. Agnew, 329 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1947)

Jeffrey R. Schoenberger is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

When you think about being micromanaged, you might feel frustrated and annoyed. However, as legal professionals serving clients, micromanaging their experiences will not only result in happy clients, but also great referral sources. 

Micromanaging the client experience is mostly about managing expectations, looking at how your firm delivers service, and being willing to make changes in your approach or process for the benefit of your clients. Put simply, leave nothing to chance when it comes to the experience a client will have with your firm.

1. Respond to inquiries timely — and completely.

Don’t just answer one of the three questions they asked you. Take the time to make sure you address everything they asked — even if the question can’t be answered without a formal meeting or more information. Skipping questions will make you appear as if you don’t know or are avoiding the question.

2. Consider how your phones are being answered.

Do prospective clients feel welcome when they call? Is there a friendly voice on the other end of the phone? Next time you walk through your firm’s front door, look around. Try to see what a prospective client would see. First impressions are a very important part of micromanaging the client experience.

3. Schedule follow-ups with prospective clients quickly. 

It’s not about hounding them to become your client — it’s about showing you are committed to their issue and want to ensure they partner with the right law firm to protect their rights and interests. 

4. Send a retainer letter.

In the letter, explain to the prospective client the way your firm operates: how you communicate, how you bill, how often you will provide status updates on their case, who will work on their case, and what your collections policy is. And then do what you say.

5. Update your clients at least weekly, even when not much has happened with their cases.

Never make the client ask you for a status update. 

6. Offer opportunities throughout the case for clients to provide feedback.

Ask, “How are we doing? Are you happy with the level of communication? How else can we help?” If you know your client spoke with one of your associates earlier this week, ask about their interaction. At the end of the case, ask the client about their intake process experience, if they would recommend your firm, etc. If given the opportunity, clients may provide valuable feedback about the way you or your team is performing. Never hesitate to ask because you are afraid of the answer. 

7. Follow up even after a case closes — a month later, three months later, etc. 

“How are things? Need anything else? Don’t forget we are here for you no matter the situation.” 

Micromanaging the client experience will position you as a trusted advisor for your clients, and their instinct will be to call you no matter what they need. People want to do business with people they like, and they want to feel heard. Don’t be afraid to overcommunicate, ask for feedback, and adjust your and your team’s processes if the client feedback suggests you should.

Annual Law Update: June 13, 18, 23, 26

10.0 MCLE | 1.0 Ethics

7:40 a.m.-6:07 p.m.| Virtual

This virtual program covers key legal areas such as appellate, civil trial, employment, workers' compensation, family, bankruptcy, real estate, probate, torts, criminal law, and ethics. Industry professionals from prominent Missouri firms will provide updates and insights, making it an essential opportunity for lawyers to fulfill their MCLE needs. Register for 2025 Annual Law Update

CLE Express: June 11, 17, 21, 25

15.5 MCLE | 4.1 ethics | 1.0 Elimination of Bias 

7 a.m.-8:42 p.m. | Virtual

Lawyers can earn all 15 hours of MCLE for the compliance year in this one-day virtual program. Learn about updates to various areas of law, U.S. Supreme Court Highlights, and ethical dilemmas. 

Register for 2025 CLE Express

Ethics Express: June 12, 24, 28, 30

3.0 MCLE | 3.0 Ethics | 1.0 Elimination of Bias

9-11:44 a.m. (June 12, 24, 28, and first June 30 session); Second June 30 session: Noon-2:44 p.m. | Virtual

Need to complete your MCLE ethics requirements? This virtual program is the perfect opportunity to take care of your ethics credits in less than three hours. 

Learn from these topics:

- Shakira, secrets and scandals: Attorney ethics and the world of offshore deals
- The rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani: Lessons in legal ethics from a public scandal
- Harmony in justice: Using R&B to address bias and diversity in the legal profession

Register for 2025 Ethics Express

Pre-litigation investigations: June 11

1.1 MCLE

9-9:54 a.m. | Virtual

Refresh your knowledge and skills in this virtual program on an overview of what lawyers should consider investigating prior to filing suit or taking a case. This program will cover steps to take to set your client and case up for success when first receiving a potential claim, including saving evidence, securing witness information, determining expert needs, and defining a strategy early. Register for virtual program

Cognitive biases and their effect on negotiations and decision-making: June 16, 26

1.1 MCLE | 1.1 Ethics | 1.1 Elimination of Bias 

June 16: 10-10:54 a.m. and June 26: noon-12:54 p.m. | Virtual

As human beings, our brains are wired to make cognitive shortcuts based on our previous experiences and unconscious assumptions. Learn how implicit cognitive biases can negatively affect the ability of lawyers and their clients to effectively interpret information and make objective decisions in the mediation context, including way to improve decision-making abilities. Register for virtual program

YLS Trial Skills Workshop: June 20

8.0 MCLE

9 a.m.-3:49 p.m. | Virtual

Join this virtual program focused on essential trial skills! Whether you’re new to the profession or a seasoned pro, you’ll learn from a distinguished panel of speakers who will cover everything from voir dire to closing statements.

Register for 2025 YLS Trial Skills Workshop

Successful succession: Make a plan for your firm: June 25

1.0 MCLE | 1.0 Ethics

9-9:52 a.m. | Virtual

Plan ahead for your firm and safeguard your professional legacy. Without proactive planning, the abrupt sale or closure of a firm can have disastrous consequences — not only for your clients but also for your family and colleagues.

In this program, you'll learn:

- Ethical considerations surrounding proper client communication in the event of sale or incapacity
- Proper retention and destruction policies for client files
- How to designate a trustee in the event of incapacity or inability to continue practicing
- What to consider when you want to sell your practice

Register for 2024 Successful succession

Bots and boundaries: Ethical considerations in a world of rapidly evolving legal AI usage: June 27 

1.0 MCLE | 1.0 Ethics 

noon-12:50 p.m. | Virtual

Hear about the importance of carefully considering ethical rules and risks in making AI choices as it rapidly evolves in the legal industry. Register for 2025 Bots and Boundaries

Click here for a full list of MoBarCLE programs in June. Visit MoBar.org/MCLE to record your hours, file your My MCLE annual compliance report, and read frequently asked questions.

Jeffrey S. Krause is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

Jeffrey R. Schoenberger is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

For lawyers, relationships are not just important — they are fundamental to success and longevity. While most of the business world uses customer relationship management software, the legal industry has been slow to adopt it, despite the undeniable importance of relationships in legal practice. 

This slow adoption represents a missed opportunity. CRM software can provide essential tools for lawyers to track important information about the people they meet and turn that information into mutually beneficial business relationships, helping foster strong, long-lasting connections. 

Keep track of facts 

You know the names of your client Sally’s spouse and children, her hobbies, favorite sports teams, and so on. Knowing that Sally’s spouse is Jim, she has a son, Thomas, in high school who plays volleyball, and she enjoys building ships in bottles has no bearing on legal work for her small business. But, of course, it’s courteous, it could be interesting — maybe you like ships in bottles, too — and it builds connections and rapport. 

For basic facts like these, you don’t need a heavyweight program. David Rockefeller, chief executive of Chase Manhattan Corporation, did it all with Rolodex cards.¹ 

Whether you use Apple or Google Contacts, Microsoft Outlook, or just a folder with text files in your default notes app, capture the relevant information in a way that makes sense to you. Complexity can hinder, especially if you value mobile access. 

In Apple Contacts, for example, in addition to name, phone, email, and address, it includes a “related name” field. Based on the example above, you could add two related names and relationships: “spouse” for Jim and “son” for Thomas. The related name field can hold whatever you like. Instead of just Thomas, you could write “Thomas (volleyball; middle blocker).” It’s just a text field. Outlook contains a similar feature. 

What about hobbies (ships in bottles), business wins, or other news Sally shares? You will find contact apps limiting. You could use a combination of the notes fields and a TextExpander snippet to keep a log of events, as one example. Suppose Sally said September was her business’s first month of $200,000-plus sales. You could open Contacts, click in the “note” section, type the date, and then type “first month of over $200,000 revenue.”

Whether it’s Apple Contacts, Outlook, or a cross-platform notes app, this system travels with you.

Use facts for business growth 

What the above-described system offers in simplicity, speed, and mobility, it sacrifices in flexibility, reporting, and automation. For example, to us humans, “court clerk,” “ct clerk,” and “clerk of courts” are the same person or office. Not to a computer. If you wanted to create an email list of everyone you noted talking to about an issue with the court clerk’s office, it’d be a mess to pull together because the data isn’t “sanitized.” You’re looking at a labor-intensive process to assemble an email list. 

Programs like Clio Grow, Lawmatics, and HubSpot provide organizational structure, reporting, and communications tools that humble contacts apps cannot match. Fullfledged CRM programs manage all stages of recruiting a new client or a new matter for an existing client. Suppose Sally wants to buy the building she currently rents for her business. You would create a new matter in Lawmatics (or an intake in Clio Grow) and add Sally as the contact. You can now track all interactions with Sally in persuading her to hire your firm to handle the commercial real estate purchase. 

CRM software tracks matter stages such as new lead, under review, engagement agreement, and retained. Each matter contains a calendar-centric timeline where you can add notes, schedule appointments, track emails, assign tasks, and send and receive documents. 

These capabilities may remind you of practice management software. While there are similarities, significant distinctions come in reporting and marketing tools. The more you use the CRM software, the more you can report on — for example, what percent of commercial real estate prospects greater than $500,000 become clients. Or how many inquiries resulted from an educational event you held at the community center. Or the average estimated value of clients who hire you versus those who do not. Where do you see the best return on your time? Does reporting show that Sally introduces you to lots of individuals who become clients? 

This is where CRM software shines. Lawyers traditionally market in one of two ways. One way is loud. They broadcast their name in any way they can, obtain a large number of leads, and hope that some are of sufficient quality. The other way is to quietly rely on word of mouth. Not as many leads come in, but they tend to be of higher quality. Unfortunately, neither of these methods are very targeted.

CRM software allows you to identify patterns you might miss and take advantage of them. If you market loudly, is your television ad working as well as your radio ad or your billboard? Which timeslot is working best? If you market quietly, what patterns can you identify in your best referral sources? Which sources are providing you with the best referrals? What patterns exist in those referrals and the work you do for them? This type of information lets you put your marketing dollars to work where they are most effective. 

Where practice management software focuses on handling matters for clients, CRM software focuses on the steps from prospect to signed client. In our example, once Sally agrees to representation on the purchase, a CRM tool like Lawmatics can send an engagement agreement template for her to electronically sign along with an option to pay any retainer. It can then transfer the collected information to practice management programs. 

Get started

For facts and mobility, start with either Apple Contacts or Google Contacts. Both support related names and notes. Google Contacts also supports user-defined fields. Each is accessible from the web. 

For a complete CRM solution, look for one that connects with your practice management system. A robust integration will save you time as you turn more tidbits into leads into clients.

Endnotes 
1 Joann S. Lublin, David Rockefeller’s Rolodex Was the Stuff of Legend. Here’s a First Peek. The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 5, 2017), www.wsj.com/articles/davidrockefellers-famous-rolodex-is-astonishing-heres-a-first-peek-1512494592.

The Missouri Bar and Smokeball recognize the important role solo and small firms play in every local community. By providing Smokeball Bill at no cost, all members of The Missouri Bar will now have access to a user-friendly software solution that ensures trust accounting compliance and simplifies billing.  

“By providing Smokeball Bill at no cost to all Missouri Bar members, we hope to assist them with running efficient and compliant law firms so they can even better serve their clients,” said Shelly Dreyer, 2024-2025 Missouri Bar president.

Manually managing trust accounting can lead to compliance errors and malpractice claims. Smokeball Bill makes it simple for members to easily comply with trust accounting regulations. The software also helps firms send and collect invoices and bills.

“By providing Smokeball Bill software, which typically costs $588 per user/per year, at no cost to Missouri Bar members, we aim to enhance the resources accessible to the legal community as a whole and to the clients they serve,” said Jane Oxley, CRO and co-founder of Smokeball.

This is Smokeball's 14th no-cost product partnership with a state bar, following the announcement of partnerships with state bars including the State Bar of Texas and the Oklahoma Bar Association. To learn more about Smokeball’s no-cost product offering with The Missouri Bar or to sign up, please visit www.smokeball.com/missouribill.

About Smokeball - Smokeball is your partner to drive your law firm into the future. As the industry's leading cloud-based legal practice management software, Smokeball empowers you to run your firm specific to your area of law. Our platform gives you all the insights and tools you need to work smarter, not harder: automatic time tracking and invoicing, streamlined workflows for your specific practice area, a library of over 20,000 standard legal forms and documents, and actionable reports. Smokeball is a member benefit of over 20 U.S. bar associations. Learn how to run your best firm at smokeball.com.

About The Missouri Bar - The Missouri Bar was created in 1944 by order of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Its mission is to improve the legal profession, the administration of justice, and the law on behalf of the public. Through educational programs, publications, and more, The Missouri Bar serves as a valuable resource for members — and for the citizens of Missouri.

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

The Internal Revenue Service recently issued a revenue procedure and revenue ruling on controversies involving worker classification that lawyers should know to best advise their clients or handle their own firms’ business.

Revenue Procedure 2025-10 provides updated guidance regarding the implementation of § 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, which addresses controversies regarding whether individuals are employees for purposes of employment taxes. Revenue Procedure 2025-10 modifies and supersedes Revenue Procedure 85-18, clarifying the definition of employee, whether a taxpayer has treated an individual as an employee, § 530 procedural requirements, and the reasonable basis safe harbor.

The IRS also issued Revenue Ruling 2025-3 providing scenarios where § 530 relief and related Internal Revenue Code provisions may apply. 

Revenue Procedure 2025-10 

Section 530 was enacted to provide relief for taxpayers involved in worker classification disputes with the IRS. Section 530 generally provides that if a taxpayer has not treated an individual as an employee for a tax period, then the individual is deemed not an employee for that period unless the taxpayer had no reasonable basis for their position. Section 530 relief only applies if the taxpayer did not treat the individual as an employee for federal employment tax purposes and meets each of the following requirements for the period in question:

1. The taxpayer filed all required federal tax returns, including information returns, on a basis that is consistent with the taxpayer’s treatment of the individual as not being an employee (reporting consistency requirement).

2. The taxpayer did not treat the individual or any individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee (substantive consistency requirement).

3. The taxpayer had a reasonable basis for not treating the individual as an employee (reasonable basis requirement). A taxpayer shall be treated as having a reasonable basis if the taxpayer’s treatment was in reasonable reliance on any of the following: 

a. judicial precedent, published rulings, technical advice with respect to the taxpayer, or a letter ruling to the taxpayer;

b. a past IRS audit of the taxpayer in which there was no assessment attributable to the treatment (for employment tax purposes) of the individuals holding substantially similar positions; 

c. long-standing recognized practice of a significant segment of the industry in which that individual was engaged; or 

d. the taxpayer had some other reasonable basis for not treating the individual as an employee.

Revenue Procedure 2025-10 confirms the following definition of the term “employee” for purposes of § 530: 

"(1) an officer of a corporation under §§ 3121(d)(1), 3306(i), or 3401(c) of the code;

(2) an individual, who under the common law rules, has the status of an employee under §§ 3121(d)(2) or 3306(i); 

(3) agent-drivers, commission-drivers, full-time life insurance salespersons, home workers or traveling or city salespersons under §§ 3121(d)(3) (statutory employees) or 3306(i); 

(4) an individual who performs services that are included under an agreement pursuant to Section 218 or Section 218A of the Social Security Act (218 Agreement) under § 3121(d)(4) of the Code; and

(5) an officer, employee or elected official of a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing under § 3401(c)."

Revenue Procedure 2025-10 outlines the following guidelines for determining whether there was “treatment” of an individual as an employee for a period for purposes of § 530:

"(1) The withholding of income tax or FICA taxes from any payments made to an individual, whether or not the tax is paid to the IRS, indicates ‘treatment’ of the individual as an employee. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) below, the filing of an original or amended employment tax return (including a Form 940 ‘Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return,’ 941 ‘Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return,’ 943 ‘Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees,’ or 944 ‘Employer’s ANNUAL Federal Tax Return’), with respect to an individual, whether or not tax was withheld from the payments made to the individual, indicates ‘treatment’ of the individual as an employee.

(3) The filing of Schedule H (Form 1040), Household Employment Taxes, with respect to an individual, whether or not tax was withheld from the payments made to the individual, indicates ‘treatment’ of the individual as an employee. 

(4) The filing of a Form W-2 ‘Wage and Tax Statement’ with respect to an individual, or the furnishing of a Form W-2 to an individual, whether or not tax was withheld from the payments made to the individual, indicates ‘treatment’ of the individual as an employee. 

(5) Contracting with a third party to perform acts required of employers with respect to an individual, whether or not tax is withheld or paid to the IRS or the third party otherwise satisfies the terms of the contract, indicates 'treatment' of the individual as an employee. 

(6) The filing of a delinquent or amended employment tax return for a particular tax period with respect to an individual as a result of IRS collection or examination activities or other compliance procedures, does not indicate ‘treatment’ of the individual as an employee for that period. IRS correspondence that merely advises the taxpayer that no return has been filed and requests information from the taxpayer is not a compliance procedure. However, if the taxpayer takes any of the actions identified in section 3.03 with respect to those individuals in a later period (for example, the taxpayer withholds employment taxes or files employment tax returns with respect to those individuals for the periods following the period audited), those actions indicate ‘treatment’ of the individuals as employees for those later periods. 

(7) A return prepared by the IRS under § 6020(b) for a period is not ‘treatment’ of an individual as an employee for that period."

Revenue Procedure 2025-10 also includes key procedural considerations for application of § 530 in an employment tax audit, including the following:

– “[T]he IRS will provide written notice of the availability of section 530 treatment before or at the start of any employment tax audit inquiry relating to the employment status of one or more individuals who perform services for the taxpayer or when it appears that a determination concerning worker classification will be made.”

– Before analyzing whether individuals are employees in an employment tax audit, the IRS will first consider whether a taxpayer has satisfied the requirements of § 530. 

– Detailed considerations are outlined for the application of the reporting consistency, substantive consistency, and reasonable basis requirements. This includes details regarding how the IRS will apply the reasonable basis safe harbors in § 530(a)(2). 

– If a taxpayer establishes a prima facie case for meeting the reporting consistency requirement, substantive consistency requirement, and one of the reasonable basis safe harbor requirements, and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with reasonable requests from the IRS, then the burden of proof will shift to the IRS with respect to the applicability of § 530.

Revenue Ruling 2025-3 

Revenue Ruling 2025-3 addresses whether § 530 or reduced rates under § 3509 of the Internal Revenue Code apply to five example situations, as well as whether the IRS will issue a Notice of Employment Tax Determination under § 7436 for U.S. Tax Court review. Section 530 rules are outlined in this ruling consistent with Revenue Procedure 2025-10. The ruling also confirms that under § 3509, a taxpayer who does not meet the § 530 requirements may still be eligible to remit unpaid taxes at reduced rates so long as the taxpayer did not intentionally disregard the requirement to withhold and deduct employment taxes. 

Revenue Ruling 2025-3 notes that § 7436 provides for tax court review of certain employment tax determinations by the IRS if the following elements are present: 

"(1) an examination in connection with the audit of any person; 

(2) a determination that – 

(a) one or more individuals performing services for such person are employees of such person for purposes of subtitle C, or 

(b) such person is not entitled to relief under section 530(a) with respect to such an individual; 

(3) an ‘actual controversy’ involving the determination as part of an examination; and 

(4) the filing of an appropriate pleading in the Tax Court."

The five situations and IRS positions are summarized here. 

Situation 1 

The taxpayer hires individuals who provide services during the year and pays each individual a weekly fixed amount and a weekly bonus amount. The taxpayer does not withhold or pay federal employment taxes on any of the payments and reports the total amount of the fixed weekly amounts and the weekly bonus amounts on Form 1099-NEC “Nonemployee Compensation.” 

During an audit, the IRS determines that (1) the taxpayer does not meet the statutory requirements for § 530 relief, and (2) the individuals are employees. The IRS proposes to assess federal employment. The taxpayer claims it satisfies the statutory requirements for § 530 relief and does not agree that the individuals are employees. 

The IRS holds that § 530 is applicable to this situation because the taxpayer did not treat the individuals as employees, and the IRS is reclassifying the individuals as employees. Whether the taxpayer is entitled to § 530 relief depends on the substantive consistency, reporting consistency, and reasonable basis requirements. If § 530 does not apply, § 3509 may be applicable because the taxpayer treated the individuals as non-employees and did not deduct and withhold federal employment taxes from amounts paid to the individuals, and the IRS is reclassifying the individuals as employees. Whether the taxpayer is entitled to § 3509 reduced rates depends on the statutory requirements in § 3509. 

A § 7436 Notice will be issued at the conclusion of the audit or after the IRS appeals the consideration if no agreement is reached. 

Situation 2 

The taxpayer employs individuals who perform services during the year, treats the individuals as employees for the services that they perform, and pays each individual a weekly salary and a weekly bonus amount. The taxpayer treats the weekly salary as wages for federal employment tax purposes and withholds and pays federal employment taxes with respect to the weekly salary. The taxpayer does not treat the weekly bonus amounts as wages for federal employment tax purposes and reports the bonus amounts on Form 1099-NEC. 

During an audit, the IRS concludes the bonus amounts are wages and proposes assessing federal employment taxes on the bonus amounts. The taxpayer claims it satisfies the statutory requirements for § 530 relief with respect to the bonus amounts and does not agree that the bonus amounts are wages. 

The IRS holds § 530 and § 3509 are not applicable to this situation because the IRS is not reclassifying the individuals as employees. The taxpayer treated the individuals as employees, and there is no controversy over whether the individuals are employees or independent contractors with respect to their services. 

A § 7436 Notice will be issued at the conclusion of the audit or after the IRS appeals the consideration if no agreement is reached. 

Situation 3 

Same facts as situation 2 except the taxpayer does not report the weekly bonus amounts on Form 1099-NEC or any other information return. The IRS holds § 530 and § 3509 are not applicable to this situation for the same reasons stated in situation 2, and the IRS will issue a § 7436 Notice at the conclusion of the audit or after appeals consideration if no agreement is reached. 

Situation 4 

Same facts as situation 2 except the taxpayer does not report the weekly bonus amounts on Form 1099-NEC or any other information return and does not claim it satisfies the statutory requirements for § 530 relief with respect to the bonus amounts. The IRS holds § 530 and § 3509 are not applicable to this situation for the same reasons stated in situation 2. 
In situation 4, the IRS will not issue a § 7436 Notice because the taxpayer did not claim relief under § 530 concerning the bonuses, and there is no controversy over whether the individuals are employees or independent contractors. 

Situation 5 

The taxpayer employs individuals who perform services during the year and enters a contract with a third party to pay each individual a weekly salary, withhold and pay federal employment taxes, and file federal employment tax returns. The third party pays the weekly salaries, withholds, pays federal employment taxes, and reports the weekly salaries and taxes on Form 941 and Forms W-2 using the third party’s employer identification number.

In December of that same year, the taxpayer pays a year-end bonus amount directly to each individual for the individual’s services during the year but does not treat the year-end bonus amounts as wages, withhold or pay any federal employment taxes, or report the bonus amounts on any information return. 

During an audit, the IRS concludes that the bonus amounts are wages and proposes to assess federal employment taxes on the bonus amounts. The taxpayer claims it satisfies the statutory requirements for § 530 relief with respect to the bonus amounts and does not agree the bonus amounts are wages. 

The IRS holds § 530 and § 3509 are not applicable to this situation because the IRS is not reclassifying the individuals as employees. The year-end bonus amounts are additional wages for the same services performed by the individuals who were treated as employees. 

The IRS will issue a § 7436 Notice at the conclusion of the audit or after appeals consideration if no agreement is reached because (1) there was an examination in connection with an audit, (2) a determination was made that the taxpayer was not entitled to relief under § 530 with respect to the year-end bonus amounts, and (3) the IRS and the taxpayer disagree on whether the statutory requirements for § 530 relief have been met. 

Conclusion 

The recent IRS releases relating to employment tax audits provide a key roadmap for navigating worker classification audits. Section 530 can provide a safe harbor to avoid retroactive reclassification results, and § 3509 can provide key relief with reduced rates in some situations where § 530 relief is not available.

Use the gratitude gram in March/April Journal to tell a colleague “thank you” 

Studies have found that expressing gratitude can help improve anxiety, depression, and stress – mental health concerns many lawyers face. As part of its project to inspire more well-being in the legal profession, the 2024-25 Missouri Bar Leadership Academy class has provided a gratitude gram on page 59 of the March/April 2025 Journal that you can use to express your appreciation to a colleague, client, judge, or opposing counsel. Fill out the gratitude gram, tear it out, and pass it along to spread some positivity.

Save $50 when you register for MOSOLO by May 6 

Join other lawyers seeking distinct, practical CLEs to enrich their practice during the MOSOLO Small Firm Conference, June 5-7 at Margaritaville Lake Resort in Osage Beach. The MOSOLO Small Firm Conference will provide opportunities for lawyers to engage with other legal professionals and share specialized knowledge and skills during social and networking events. Save $50 by registering by May 6 at MOSOLO.org to get the early bird rate of $320 per person.

Words of well-being: "How do you meet clients’ needs without sacrificing your own well-being?" 

“If we are not taking care of our well-being, we are not able to fully take care of our clients. Maintaining my well-being is an important part of my legal practice and my life. Ultimately, it comes down to boundaries. Early on in my career, I realized that I needed to consider what boundaries were important so that I could keep balance with work and life. These are things like acknowledging what I need on a day-to-day basis to be organized and productive, how I communicate with clients, and working out systems with my staff to prioritize case tasks.” -Amy Rebecca Johnson, lawyer with Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C. in St. Louis

MoBar memory 

Bob Welch, president of the Kansas City Bar Association, takes part in a simulated interview with Bob Priddy, MissouriNet news director, during a training session on techniques of media interviewing at The Missouri Bar Spring Committee Meetings, May 4, 1984.

Network and collaborate with lawyers through The Missouri Bar’s committees 

With The Missouri Bar’s Spring Committee Meetings coming up April 28-May 1, now is a great time to expand your professional circle and collaborate with lawyers in your practice areas through the bar’s nearly 40 open enrollment committees. Committees are the driving force behind the work and activities of the bar. Their activities include, but are not limited to, developing and presenting CLE programs, increasing public understanding of the law, and developing programs to help lawyers improve the efficiency of their practices. Missouri lawyers can join one or multiple committees at no cost any time at MoBar.org/Committees-Sections.

Tech tip: Phishing is now more than just email 

Did you know that phishing extends beyond email? Scammers are starting to branch out to other communication mediums, including text messages, direct messages on social media, and even voice calls with AI-generated voices of people you know. Have a plan to confront these situations so you can best protect you and your clients’ information. If something feels off, it is best to verify the source of the message. For voice calls, you can hang up and call back at the number you have on file.

Save the date

Spring enrollment ceremony | April 25 | Jefferson City 

Spring Committee Meetings | April 28-May 1 | MoBar.org/SCM25 

Well-Being Week in Law | May 5-9 | MoBar.org/WWIL2025 

Board of Governors meeting | May 9 | Jefferson City 

MOSOLO Small Firm Conference | June 5-7 | Osage Beach 

MCLE deadline | June 30 | MoBar.org/MCLEreporting

Ask the average person how lawyers differ from their neighbors and one answer you’re likely to hear is, “They speak a different language — legalese.” Sadly, that perception is not wrong. 

In contrast to other professions, lawyers tend to cling to the language of the past with a seemingly unshakeable tenacity. This includes contracts that announce themselves with “WITNESSETH,” references to “the said minor child,” and the dreaded “here” family (herein, hereinabove, heretofore, hereby, etc.). There are dozens of examples of archaic, outdated words and phrases that lawyers use, erecting barriers to comprehension and unnecessarily requiring clients to ask what documents mean. 

How is it that these words from the distant past persist, and what can lawyers do to break the mold and give clients separation agreements, sales contracts, leases, trusts, pleadings, and a host of other documents written in language they can readily understand? 

How and why 

First — the how and why. My own theory, based on personal experience and nods of recognition when I’ve outlined it to other lawyers, has to do with our first experiences as “baby lawyers.” 

Law school graduates possess lots of knowledge about the law of contracts, torts, trusts and estates, property, and other substantive areas. They have learned how to read cases and statutes and how to find the law. Frequently, however, they have little knowledge about how our profession is practiced in the real world. 

When my first employer asked me to draft a PDL motion (a motion pendente lite for temporary orders in a family law case), I had no clue where to begin. Recognizing my confused look, he quickly found an example and handed it to me. “COMES NOW, THE PETITIONER,” it began, so I duly inserted the relevant information from the case I was assigned into the old motion. That document became my template for future motions. And since the motion closed with, “WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays,” that phrase appeared at the end of every pleading I drafted. “That’s the way it’s done,” I thought to myself. 

It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to visualize the same scene occurring when my boss began his life as a lawyer and his first employer similarly handed him examples to rely upon for drafting pleadings, contracts, and other legal documents. 

Another likely contributor to outdated writing style is a lawyer’s fear of risking a bad outcome from using untested language. Some lawyers may think, “If it was good enough for other lawyers, it’s good enough for me,” or, “It’s what the judge expects.” 

So, if a lawyer in 1940 wrote a contract stating, “NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration herein expressed, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows,” modern lawyers may fear that changing that lingo will jeopardize the contract’s effectiveness.

Write how you speak 

In “Legal Writing in Plain English,” Bryan Garner, editor of “Black’s Law Dictionary,” offers lawyers a simple suggestion: “If you wouldn’t say it, don’t write it.” 

Consider giving those outdated templates a much-needed refresh. Read them carefully and consider whether the average person would understand the language. If you, a highly trained professional, are struggling with any of the words or the convoluted syntax, your clients may have trouble making sense of the document. 

Constantly ask, “What does this word or phrase add to the document?” If the only answer is “Because it’s always been there,” take it out. Once you’ve decided you need to make changes, where should you begin? Here are a few suggestions for streamlining your documents so clients can understand them: 

Assume document will be attacked by that lawyer 

You know the one — the lawyer who twists words in a sufficiently plausible way that you will have to respond, and your client will have to pay you while you try to convince a judge that your words meant what you intended them to mean. If you start with simple, modern language and sentences, you are setting yourself (and your client) up for success from the beginning. 

Jettison the jargon 

No statute or rule requires pleadings to open with “Comes now…” Get rid of the formulaic language and replace it with the simplest possible version. Instead of, “Petitioner, by and through counsel, for her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, states and avers as follows,” change it to, “Petitioner, for her petition for dissolution of marriage, states:,” for example. 

One easy change that will immediately make documents clearer is to give “herein” the heave-ho. Every time a contract refers to a proposition “stated herein,” I ask the question, “In what?” Does that mean in this paragraph? In this section? In this document? In the pending action? While in most instances, the answer will be clear from context, lawyers can eliminate all possibility of misinterpretation with a few clarifying words like, “as stated in this [paragraph/agreement/section].” 

Once you get rolling, you will discover other ancient hangers-on that can be thrown in the trash forever. “Wherefore, Plaintiff prays” becomes, “Plaintiff therefore requests.” “In witness whereof the parties hereunto have set their hands to these presents as a deed on the day month and year hereinbefore mentioned,” becomes simply a blank preceded by the word “Date.” You get the idea. 

Say it once 

“Null and void.” “Cease and desist.” “Indemnify and hold harmless.” 

Some lawyers believe the notion that saying something twice is the legal equivalent of double bagging at the grocery store. Remember the basic contract principle that each word in a contract is to be given meaning. By saying something twice, a lawyer may give another lawyer the opportunity to insist to a judge that the two terms have distinct meanings.¹ Pick one. 

Also, eliminate “belt-and-suspenders” numbers. Perhaps when lawyers handwrote contracts, they needed to spell the number out and then put the numerals in parentheses: “three hundred twenty-seven (327).” In a typed document, though, there is nothing ambiguous about “327.” You will, however, create unnecessary ambiguity by saying “twenty-four (6).” That kind of error disappears if you settle on one version — words or numbers.

Additionally, have the parties agree once at the beginning of the contract, rather than reminding readers throughout the document that, “the Parties further agree…” If the contract began with, “The Parties agree:” then you’ve fulfilled that contract requirement. All there is left to say is what they’ve agreed to. And there’s no reason to say, “The Parties agree as follows” or “to wit.” 

Define terms

Since my practice focuses on family law, I’m accustomed to pleadings and agreements that refer to the petitioner and the respondent, usually capitalized (superfluous capitalization, in my opinion). By page three of a separation agreement, however, it’s very easy to lose track of which party is which. Due to the confusion, a lawyer may accidentally award the Lamborghini to the husband instead of the wife, for example. 

The simple fix: Define the parties by their first names at the top of the document — “Petitioner, Morgan Miserable (‘Morgan’).” Notice it didn’t say “(hereinafter sometimes referred to in this Agreement as ‘Morgan,’)” and yet you understood exactly what it meant. Once the court approves the separation agreement, they are no longer husband and wife, but they will most likely retain their first names. 

Lawyers can define the separation agreement as “the Agreement.” The date of entry of a judgment of dissolution of marriage in this example, is defined as “the Entry Date.” The anticipated judgment becomes “the Judgment.” More complicated terms, such as a definition of “net income,” lawyers can explain once, with subsequent references using the name of the defined term. Lawyers can use capital letters to clarify which terms are defined so there is no confusion between, say, “a party” and “a Party,” with the latter meaning a party to the action. 

Simplify, simplify, simplify 

After drafting a document, reread it, both to make sure there aren’t any errors and to see how it could be more concise. Some formulas may jump out immediately. “In the event that” can almost always be replaced with “If.” Try it out. You’ll be amazed at how quickly you’ll begin to remove that overworked phrase. 

Eliminate unnecessary modifiers. When a document states, “The Parties currently hold title to…” in a separation agreement, ask, “When other than ‘currently’ could it be talking about?” When the boilerplate says, “as provided for in any law now or hereinafter effective of this state or any other state or territory of the United States or any foreign country,” it can be shortened to, “as provided for in any law in effect now or in the future in any state or country.” 

And don’t forget the boilerplate, the most neglected section of most contracts. Lawyers focus closely on the terms of the contract, but they often forget that the boilerplate contains other terms the parties must agree upon. “That’s what we always put in contracts,” is not a good enough answer to a client’s questions about these “standard” paragraphs. Every sentence needs to be clear, not to mention grammatical. 

Have another person read your document

Both for ensuring clarity and avoiding legal and factual mistakes, it makes sense to have another lawyer in the office review the document. Sometimes lawyers get so involved in the drafting they miss something crucial. If you are a solo practitioner, ask a paralegal or a legal assistant to review the document for clarity. 

Conclusion 

I always tell clients that if they don’t understand every term in a contract I’m asking them to sign or approve, I haven’t finished my job. 

Begin by eliminating every word people don’t use in normal speech and replacing each with the modern equivalent. Go through a second time to make certain you haven’t repeated yourself unnecessarily. Have a non-lawyer read the document and give feedback. If an administrative assistant doesn’t understand, there’s a good chance a client won’t either. 

Take pride in your writing. Even the densest contract can be made understandable with a little extra effort. The more time you spend on a document, the shorter it may get as you eliminate unnecessary repetition and replace the ancient with the modern.

Endnotes 
1 “There has been a welter of needless litigation over the doublet [indemnify and hold harmless], as litigants have wasted countless dollars fighting over imaginary differences between the words – differences that have no historical justification.” Bryan Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage (2011).

Solo and small firms often find the role of a bookkeeper tough to fill. Most small firms may not need a full-time bookkeeper, leading them to try incomplete solutions or handle the work themselves. In many small firms, no single person plays the consistent everyday role of ensuring orderly finances. Regardless of how simple you believe your firm’s finances to be, having a constant form of oversight is valuable. A bookkeeper can streamline your finances and prevent costly errors, helping your firm stay compliant and financially healthy.

Here are eight key bookkeeping tasks that require consistent attention.

1. Time entry

If you bill by the hour, someone must be certain that time is entered into the billing system. Time entry is not the bookkeeper’s responsibility, but you should have an enforced policy of contemporaneous time entry. Then, your bookkeeper looks at daily or weekly reports to ensure people stay current with time entry. Trying to recall what you did for a client on March 3 – when it’s now March 31 and you are about to run bills – is a recipe for frustration and lost money.

2. Expense entry

If you advance costs for clients, you must have an expense recovery process and a set of eyes reviewing your bills and identifying opportunities to recover costs. Many small firms overlook this step. The partner/owner/solo runs to the courthouse for a hearing, tosses a $5 parking fee on their personal debit card or the company credit card, and then forgets to enter the recoverable expense on the client’s matter. A dedicated bookkeeper would be tasked with reviewing the company credit card, check register, bank statement, and bills to ensure all costs advanced have been properly invoiced for recovery.

3. Prompt billing

Bills should be sent out every month, or every quarter – whatever frequency you have adopted – but it should be consistent. You cannot get paid if you do not send bills.

4. Collections

Bills that go out should be paid by your terms. When they are not, someone should be following up for payment. Solo and small firms are not positioned to finance their clients’ legal bills.

5. Accounts payable

You want to get paid, and so do your vendors. Often paying bills is done when the partner/owner/solo has time. They get a bill and simply pay it without regard to the balance in the operating account, or without considering what other bills are coming due. Managing accounts payable is just as important.

6. Bank reconciliations

All operating accounts and trust accounts should be reconciled monthly. Too often, we log into online banking, see a positive balance, and assume we have money available. Be aware of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing your clients’ funds, trust account reconciliation, use of trust accounts, and the like.

7. Reports/month end

What’s your AR (accounts receivable) balance? What’s scheduled to be paid? What are the bank balances? How much WIP (work in progress) awaits billing? Someone should be responsible for running these reports and making sure the partner/owner/solo understands them.

8. Payroll

Even if payroll is outsourced, someone must ensure it’s submitted on time – weekly or monthly.

While this list appears long in article format, it might not represent 40 hours of work per week, and you may not want to increase your firm’s overhead with the cost of another employee – including salary, benefits, technology, office space, PTO, health insurance – even on a part-time basis. In that case, outsourcing is the answer for your firm.

Look out for weekly legislative updates 

During the legislative session, The Missouri Bar’s government relations staff prepare a regular update on activities in the Missouri Legislature that may impact lawyers and their practices or be of interest to legal professionals. Keep an eye out for the Friday updates at News.MoBar.org.

Words of well-being: “What does well-being look like for you as a legal professional?” 

Hon. William J. Gust, probate commissioner for the 21st Judicial Circuit (St. Louis County), shared practices he has implemented as a legal professional to improve his physical and mental well-being. 

“Exercise is one such practice as I’ve found that it helps calm my mind and makes me a generally more pleasant person to interact with. Sometimes this practice can be as simple as a lunchtime walk around the block or a few flights of stairs in between hearings. 

“Another mostly daily practice I use to improve my well-being is quiet time. Most days I try to shut my door for 10-15 minutes before I start working and focus on my breath. This helps center and prepare me for my day. Sometimes, if I know I have a particularly challenging hearing, I will take 10-15 minutes before the hearing as a second bonus quiet time. I will also use this technique during a break on some of the longer, more contested trials I have. This quiet time is a way to admit to myself that the job can be difficult and sometimes I need to give myself a mental reset.”

Mark your calendar for Missouri Bar 2025 conferences 

These multi-day conferences provide an opportunity for lawyers to network with and learn from other legal professionals, all while obtaining continuing legal education hours. 

– MOSOLO Small Firm Conference – June 5-7 at Osage Beach 
– Bernard Edelman DWI Law & Science Seminar – July 24- 25 at Lake Ozark 
– Annual Family Law Conference – Aug. 14-16 in Branson 
– Annual Meeting of The Missouri Bar and Missouri Judicial Conference – Sept. 17-19 in Branson 
– Estate, Trust & Elder Law Institute – Nov. 6-7 in St. Louis 

Visit MoBarCLE.org for updates on the conferences as the year progresses.

Tech tip: Embrace AI for legal research and routine tasks 

The success of the modern law firm depends significantly on efficiency and output. Many legal research products are now incorporating artificial intelligence to help lawyers through the tedious portions of tasks. Make ethical considerations, though — ensuring the type of AI is appropriate for your law firm to use, client confidentiality will be maintained, you don’t solely rely on content created by a generative AI platform or service, and you verify its accuracy. 

For more information about ethical considerations regarding generative AI, read the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri’s informal opinion 2024-11.

MoBar memory 

Former President Harry S. Truman was made an honorary member of the Kansas City Bar Association on Feb. 6, 1958. Shown with Truman at the meeting are from left: Harry Gershenson, president of The Missouri Bar; Truman; Robert A. Schroeder, president of the Kansas City Bar Association; and Charles S. Rhyne, president of the American Bar Association.

Register for updated guardian ad litem programming 

Complete your training requirement of GAL Standard 14.0 by attending the bar’s updated guardian ad litem CLE programs. The programs cover an array of topics, including:

– review of the basic functions of a GAL;  
– inspiring words about the importance of GALs in the family court system; 
– developmental perspectives on communicating with a child about their best interests; 
– guidance on how to interview children and present recommendations to the court; and 
– insight on successfully navigating new cultural territory.

Register for three-hour or eight-hour GAL programs at MoBarCLE.org.

Save the date

Missouri Bar Board of Governors meeting – March 6-7, Jefferson City 

Show Me the Constitution – April 7, Columbia 

Spring Committee Meetings – April 28-May 2, virtual

Danielle DavisRoe, Esq., is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

Ready to take the leap into solo practice in 2025? Building a tech-savvy law firm is no longer optional – it is essential. From drafting documents to sending bills, technology makes it all happen.

Investing in the right technology will save you time and frustration for years to come. While you don’t need to buy everything up front, here’s a list of things to consider as your business grows. 

Hardware 

When selecting a laptop, focus on processor speed and RAM. The more powerful your laptop is, the faster it will run and the more time you can devote to even better serving your clients and communities. Screen and keyboard size are only important if you plan on working remotely frequently. 

Invest in a docking station to use large monitors, a full-size keyboard, and a mouse from your desk. When selecting a docking station, ensure it supports as many monitors as you plan to use and has enough USB ports for all your ancillary hardware. 

Most ancillary hardware, including wireless keyboards and mice, require a USB port. Depending on the laptop model and docking station, you may quickly run out of ports. While Bluetooth keyboards and mice cost more than other wireless devices, they don’t need USB ports to work. 

Consider investing in at least two monitors. If your laptop and docking station can support three monitors, get three. It may be tempting to get one extra-wide monitor, but if you ever need to share screens on a video conference, it’s easier to control what you share when you have multiple monitors. 

Remember to purchase a quality webcam and audio device for video conferencing. While most laptops have webcams, speakers, and microphones built into them, they are rarely of sufficient quality. The webcams built into laptops are usually placed at awkward angles and aren’t useable when your laptop lid is closed while docked. 

If your firm will handle papers, invest in a quality desktop scanner to easily scan incoming paper. Laser printers cost less than inkjet printers over time. 

Software 

Before your firm opens its doors, you’ll need an email client, a word processor, a PDF editor, and accounting software. 

It’s tempting to go with Google Workspace for email and word processing, but you may want to consider Microsoft Office. Word is a more powerful word processor than Google Docs, and Excel has several features Google Sheets lacks. You can also use Microsoft Teams for your phone system with the right Microsoft 365 subscription. 

Microsoft users can also use Teams for video conferencing. Teams makes it easy to share videos and screens with attendees, record calls, and activate background noise cancellation. Alternatively, consider Zoom for video conferencing. 

Your law firm will handle hundreds of PDFs, so consider an Adobe Acrobat subscription, which includes Adobe Sign to make it easy to collect digital signatures. To Bates number and properly redact PDFs, you’ll need Acrobat Pro. Other quality PDF applications include Kofax Power PDF and Foxit PDF Editor. 

While QuickBooks seems like the obvious choice for accounting software, it isn’t designed to accomplish everything lawyers need to do. You’ll need another program to send bills, and if you bill hourly, you’ll need a way to track your time. A word processor and spreadsheet might work while your matter volume is low, but they aren’t scalable. As your business grows, you’ll need software that can grow with you. 

Instead of QuickBooks, look for an all-in-one practice management solution that handles matter management, time entry, billing, and accounting. Most practice management solutions also have some document management and automation features. There are countless cloud-based systems that make it easy to work from anywhere. 

Marketing 

Remember to make room in your budget for marketing. Even if you don’t expect many clients to find you through a Google search, you need a website to give your firm a professional online presence. You can hire someone to create a quality homepage with contact information and include additional information later. 

Set up social media business pages for your firm anywhere you think clients may search for you. Even if you aren’t planning on doing much marketing on social media, you want people to find your firm if they are looking for it. 

Check out 99designs for budget friendly logo, website, PowerPoint, and business card designs. With 99designs, designers compete to create winning designs. You select the winner and get full rights to use the winning design. You can also hire quality web designers and graphic artists on sites like Fiverr and Upwork. 

By investing in the right technology that best aligns with your firm’s unique needs and goals, you can streamline your workflow, boost your efficiency, and elevate your legal services. As you prepare to hang your shingle, access no-cost comparison charts, white papers, checklists, and more at MoBar.org/LPM.

Microsoft Outlook allows you to create and save email templates that can help you even better serve your clients by communicating more effectively and efficiently.  If you’re familiar with templates in a word processing program like Microsoft Word, you see the power email templates offer. Rather than rewriting the same email frequently or finding an old email where you answered similar questions, you can create a customized template with default language.  

Some situations where email templates may be useful include new matter request forms, instructions to a client, directions to your office, etc. 

Currently, Microsoft has three versions of Outlook and all support email templates. Windows users could be running “Outlook (new)” or “Outlook (classic).” The icon you click in the task bar or start menu indicates your version. Mac users have only “Microsoft Outlook.” Although it isn’t labeled as “new,” its interface behaves mostly like “Outlook (new)” for Windows. 

Below are steps for each program on (a) how to create and save an email template for later use, and (b) how to use a saved email template to create a message. 

Outlook (classic) on Windows 

(a) Creating and saving an email template 

1. Open Outlook and click New Email to create a new message. 
2. Write the email message you'd like to save as a template. Leave placeholders (e.g., Xs or email space) for parts you may customize later. 
3. Click File in the message window (not the main Outlook window). 
4. Select Save As. 
5. In the Save as type dropdown, choose Outlook Template (*.oft). 
6. Navigate to the folder where you want to save the template (default is the Templates folder). 
7. Name the template and click Save. 

(b) Using a saved email template 

1. Go to the Home tab and click New Items in the ribbon. 
2. Select More Items > Choose Form. 
3. In the Look in dropdown, select User Templates in File System. 
4. Browse to find the saved template, select it, and click Open. 
5. Make any edits to the email and send it.

Outlook (new) on Windows 

(a) Creating and saving an email template 

1. When creating your first email template in Outlook (new), start with step 1. When creating subsequent templates, you can begin with step 5. 
2. Open Outlook and click New Email. 
3. Click the Insert tab > Enhance Outlook with apps. 
4. Search for My Templates. 
5. Right-click on My Templates and select pin. This adds an icon for templates to your Insert ribbon. It looks like a page with a lightning bolt at the bottom right. 
6. Click the My Templates icon you just added to the Insert ribbon. 
7. In the sidebar that opens, select the blue Template button at the bottom. 
8. Give your template a name and write the text you'd like to save as a template. 
9. Click Save. 

(b) Using a saved email template 

1. Open a new email window. 
2. Navigate to the Insert ribbon and click the My Templates icon. 
3. In the sidebar that opens, click on the saved template you wish to use. The content appears in the email. 
4. Make any changes and send the email. 

Outlook for Mac 

(a) Creating and saving an email template 

1. Open Outlook and click New Message. 
2. In the message toolbar, click the ellipses (…) and select My Templates. 
3. In the sidebar that opens, select the blue Template button at the bottom. 
4. Give your template a name and write the text you'd like to save as a template. 
5. Click Save. 

(b) Using a saved email template 

1. Open a new email window. 
2. In the message toolbar, click the ellipses (…) and select My Templates. 
3. In the sidebar that opens, click on the saved template you wish to use. The content appears in the email. 
4. The template content will load into the email. Edit as necessary and send. 

For more resources to help you build, manage, and protect your practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center. 

Chances are you have a credit card in your wallet right now. And I would bet you have an expectation that merchants will regularly accept your card as payment for goods and services. Your law firm’s clients are no different. Credit cards are a modern way of transacting business in 2024, and by not accepting credit cards, you are almost sending the message that your firm is behind the times. And quite frankly, that is not a good message to send out to the prospective client public, especially the growing millennial and even Generation Z client base. Whether your firm regularly deals with individuals or companies, offering the option of paying your firm’s bills and/or retainer requests by credit card is simply expected.

Your clients expect it in 2024

If you walked into a local merchant, selected items for purchase and then walked up to a payment register, most of us would expect the merchant to take credit cards and would likely be taken aback if asked to pay by cash or check only. Now, there are some businesses that still operate this way, but most throughout the world now transact business with credit cards. Law firms should be no different. Asking your client to pay you by cash or check only makes doing business with your firm harder and could, in the near future, cause a client to think twice about doing business with your firm. Further, credit card payments typically permit your client to extend their payment terms beyond the charge date, allowing your firm to get paid faster.

Get paid faster: control your cash flow

Too many lawyers look at the balance in their operating account as a barometer of business success. The better barometer is cash flow. How regularly are your invoices going out and how quickly are those invoices being “relieved” or paid? Delivering invoices quickly and accurately is the first step but making it easy for your clients to remit payment is just as important, if not more important. Simply put, accepting credit cards improves cash flow which is more important than cash in the bank. Cash flow is an analysis of current cash on hand, payables due to vendors, receivables expected from clients and anticipated billing in future periods.

Because firms primarily work on a “bills out, money in” basis, you want to shorten the time between the two actions.

Cost is simply the cost of doing business

This writer believes we should just buck up and eat those credit card processing fees. Getting paid faster is worth the 2-3% fee. And don’t pass that fee along to your clients — that’s again, in this writer’s opinion, petty and borders on ridiculous. If you’re accepting a $30,000 retainer, amounting to, let’s say, a $900 processing fee – i.e. 3%, you may want to simply ask your client to remit payment by check, but don’t refuse that retainer because it’s being paid by credit card. 97% of a retainer is much better than zero. And remember, the 2-3% fee is typically considered a normal business expense and tax deductible. Note, however, that there are some legal and ethical considerations.

Use credit card processing tools built into your law practice management software or deal with a merchant processing company that deals with law firms

You may use a law practice management software (LPMS) to track important case-related information like contacts, calendar appointments, documents, case facts, and communications including emails and texts. Examples of such products include Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, Rocket Matter, and Smokeball. Of that sample, four of them have credit card processing built in. Smokeball, while having no built-in tool, tightly integrates with LawPay, as does MyCase, which is owned by LawPay’s parent company. While they still charge the typical credit card processing fee, they connect seamlessly to your LPMS-generated invoices and make it easy to include ePayment links in invoice emails. As a member of The Missouri Bar, you can receive discounts on certain products. Click here to view your member benefits.

If you do not use an LPMS, or yours lacks a built-in ePayment tool, you can still take advantage of credit card payments via a merchant processor.

Consider LawPay, Law Charge, or LexCharge, as they specifically deal with law firms. That means, for example, they’ll understand what an attorney’s trust account is and that there can be no merchant processing fees associated with it. Also, you would not have to deal with your banking institution’s in-house or preferred provider. Just about any credit card processing company can work with your firm and deliver fast payments to its bank accounts — operating and/or trust.

Every study of the subject tells us law firms that make it easy to pay by credit card are more likely to be paid faster and in full. Make it easier on the client and yourself by charging ahead.

1. Respond quickly: In today’s fast-paced world, timely communication is crucial. Clients appreciate prompt responses to their inquiries and concerns. A quick response demonstrates respect for their time and shows that you prioritize their needs. 

2. Address the emotional aspects: Legal matters often involve significant stress and emotions. Acknowledge your client’s feelings and concerns, even if they aren’t strictly legal in nature. A compassionate and empathetic approach can build trust and strengthen the attorney-client relationship. 

3. Leverage AI for enhanced communication: Artificial intelligence can be a powerful tool for client communication. Use AI to draft initial responses tailored to your client’s level of legal understanding. This ensures clear, professional, and compassionate communication every time, regardless of your workload or emotional state. AI can also help save time, allowing you to get more done in less time. 

By implementing these strategies, you can cultivate positive and productive relationships with your clients, leading to greater satisfaction and successful outcomes.” 
- Christian T. Misner, with Donner Applewhite Attorneys at Law in St. Louis

“Always be honest. Respond to client communications promptly. Don’t be afraid to say, ‘I don’t know but I’ll find out.’ And don’t take yourself too seriously.”
- Jennifer Kornblum, with Jennifer Kornblum Law LLC in Springfield

“It’s actually relatively simple: Follow through with the recommended work, do it with excellence, keep your client informed throughout the process, and summarize what you did for them at the end of the representation.”
- Andy Peebles, with Carnahan Evans PC in Springfield

We were wondering … What is your professional new year's goal for 2025? Share your answer by writing to nhillen@mobar.org or filling out a form at mobar.wufoo.com/forms/closing-statements.

For many law firms without a trained bookkeeper or accountant, the general ledger is the aspect of accounting that confuses them the most. Debits and credits, journal entries, and the chart of accounts can feel like foreign concepts. Here’s a simplified breakdown of these bookkeeping/accounting concepts.

Chart of accounts 

The chart of accounts is the list of all accounts within your general ledger. There are typically six main types of accounts: 

— Asset accounts include your bank accounts, your furniture, your equipment, and any other assets the firm may own.

— Liabilities accounts include credit cards and banknotes owed by the firm.

— Equity accounts, sometimes grouped with liability accounts, show the amount of capital a partner or shareholder may have in the firm. These are grouped with liabilities as they represent the equity due to the shareholder or partner. 

— Income accounts reflect the amount of fee income, interest income, etc., that has come into the firm during a given period. 

— Expense accounts reflect the various expenses incurred by the firm for things like payroll, rent, supplies, and other overhead-related costs. 

— Retained earnings accounts are automatically calculated within the accounting system, based on how all other accounts on the financial statements add up. Essentially, retained earnings represent the cumulative net worth of the firm. 

Journal entries 

Every entry on the general ledger is two-sided – a debit and a credit. Most journal entries are made automatically by the accounting software based on the transaction you entered. Occasionally, however, you may need to make a manual journal entry. 

An automatic journal entry happens when you enter a payment from a client into the system. The payment is for fees only. The accounting system sees that and automatically debits the bank account and credits fee income. It also happens when you write a check to the landlord for rent. It would automatically credit your bank account and debit the rent expense account. 

The hardest thing for most people to understand is when something is considered a debit versus when it is a credit. Most transactions affect your bank account somehow. If you can remember that money going into the bank account is a debit, and money coming out of your bank account is a credit, then the other side of the transaction is always going to be the opposite.

Financial statements 

An income statement, sometimes referred to as a Profit & Loss (or P&L), is the net income of the firm for the current fiscal period. It shows income versus expenses. The difference between them is the net income for the period. At the end of every fiscal year, the income and expenses zero out and the new fiscal year starts fresh. The net income is used for tax reporting, and it moves over to the balance sheet as part of total retained earnings. 

A balance sheet compares the assets to the liabilities/equity. The difference between the two is the total retained earnings. The assets and liabilities do not zero out at year end, but rather carry from year to year. The current year retained earnings should always match the net income year to date on the income statement. 

A trial balance represents a combination of all accounts on the chart of accounts, giving the full financial picture, essentially combining the income statement and the balance sheet. It typically gives a starting balance for each account, shows the net change to the account, and the ending balance for it. For some accounts the net change will be a debit and for others it will be a credit. Therefore, the total net change for all accounts during a particular period should be equal. If they are not, then somehow your general ledger has gotten out of balance and should be corrected. Checking the trial balance at the end of each accounting period should be a standard procedure. 

Budgeting 

Budgets are very important. Any good back-office software product will allow you to budget expenses and income, realistically mapping out your cash flow for the year. As you print your financial statements month to month, you can see how your firm is faring compared to the budget number and compared to prior months or years. This will help you identify trends before it’s too late. 

Conclusion 

Lawyers went to law school and passed the bar to practice law, not to do accounting. But it is a fact of life that part of owning any business is cash flow and billing/accounting. Also, your firm has a duty to responsibly manage your clients’ funds and provide proper accounting of services to each client.

Follow the guidelines above, familiarize yourself with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and make sure you have some checks and balances in place. By doing this, your firm will be able to focus on the practice of law, rather than worrying about finances. 

Correction: This article was updated at noon on Jan. 15, 2025, to correct the description of “expense accounts.”

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

Individual taxpayers should think about applicable tax rates, the standard deduction, limits on itemized deductions, and multiple other issues. Businesses should examine corporate tax rates, limits on business deductions, increased expensing, and first year depreciation for some assets. The deduction for qualified business income also continues to impact individuals and their businesses. This article outlines several individual and business planning issues to consider before year-end. These items will not apply in every situation, and taxpayers should adjust their planning for their circumstances. Taxpayers should carefully monitor ongoing legislation and the potential impacts on year-end matters. 

Year-end planning for individuals 

Look at expanded standard deductions 

Consider the expanded standard deduction, eliminated personal exemptions, and limits on itemized deductions. For 2024, the basic standard deduction is $29,200 for joint filers, $21,900 for heads of household, and $14,600 for singles and married taxpayers filing separately. For taxpayers either 65 or older or blind, there are additional standard deductions. Many itemized deductions remain either reduced or eliminated. Taxpayers may find that the increased standard deduction provides more tax benefit unless allowable medical deductions (as limited), allowable state and local taxes (as limited), allowable charitable deductions, interest deductions on qualifying residence debt, and other allowable itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. For taxpayers with timing flexibility, there may also be an incentive for “bunching” allowable itemized deductions into one year and using the standard deduction in other years. 

Increase withholdings 

Have an employer increase withholding of state and local taxes (or pay estimated tax payments of state and local taxes) before year-end for deduction of those taxes this year. This can be beneficial if a taxpayer expects to itemize deductions this year and doing so will not cause state and local tax deductions to exceed applicable limits. 

Plan for 3.8% net investment income tax 

This surtax is 3.8% of net investment income (NII) that exceeds modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) thresholds. Year-end planning for the 3.8% surtax depends on estimated MAGI and NII. Some taxpayers may want to defer additional NII until next year, some may want to reduce MAGI other than NII, and some may be able to minimize both NII and other MAGI. 

Consider additional 0.9% Medicare tax 

This tax applies to individuals receiving a combination of wages with respect to employment and self-employment income exceeding applicable thresholds. Employers must withhold the additional Medicare tax from wages in certain circumstances. Self-employed persons must include it in estimated tax payments, and some employees may need more withholding to cover the tax. 

Expedite income 

Accelerate income into this year in cases where a taxpayer’s marginal tax rate is expected to be lower this year than it will be next year due to economic conditions or expected changes in filing status or applicable rates. Postponing income can produce savings for taxpayers who expect to be in a lower tax bracket next year. 

Examine lower long-term capital gain rates 

Consider lower long-term capital gain rates on sales of assets held for more than one year. Depending on taxable income levels, taxpayers may want to utilize these lower rates for capital gain sales and avoid selling capital assets with offsetting losses that reduce the benefits of the lower rates. The reduced rates apply to adjusted net capital gain to the extent that this amount, when added to regular taxable income, does not exceed certain thresholds based on filing status. Analysis of taxable income, potential capital gains, and other applicable taxes is required to determine the best combination. 

Consider your retirement contributions and distributions 

Maximize retirement plan contributions, including catch-up contributions of additional amounts for taxpayers 50 and older. Remember that retirement plan distributions may be subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax penalty for taxpayers who are not at least 59-and-a-half years old. There are certain exceptions to this penalty, including a limited qualified birth or adoption distribution. 

Review required minimum distributions (RMDs) from retirement accounts 

RMDs are the minimum amounts that must be withdrawn from qualified retirement plan accounts beginning at age 72, or age 73 for taxpayers reaching age 72 after Dec. 31, 2022. Participants who are still working and making contributions to an employer sponsored retirement account may be able to further delay RMDs on that account. Taxpayers who fail to take RMDs can be subject to a substantial excise tax on the required amounts that are not withdrawn. 

Consider making qualified charitable donations from traditional individual retirement accounts 

Qualified charitable distributions are made directly to charities, and $105,000 per taxpayer who is at least 70-and-a-half years old is not included in gross income or itemized deduction calculations and limits. In addition, the qualified charitable distribution may reduce RMDs when applicable. Taxpayers can plan for this benefit by maximizing contributions to traditional IRAs with amounts that may later be used for qualified charitable distributions. 

Consider a Roth IRA conversion 

A taxpayer that would prefer a Roth IRA can convert traditional IRA investments into a Roth IRA if eligible. A conversion will increase adjusted gross income (AGI) for this year, so taxpayers should consider the impact on other tax calculations. 

Examine your health savings account contributions 

This applies for taxpayers eligible to make HSA contributions. HSA contributions may be deductible from AGI, so the benefits could be available even if a taxpayer does not itemize deductions. 

Increase flexible spending account amount 

Increase the amount set aside for next year in an FSA if you did not set aside enough for this year. Earnings set aside in an FSA allow payment of medical and dental bills with pre-tax earnings. 

Wrap up gifts that apply for annual gift tax exclusion 

Complete annual gift tax exclusion gifts before the end of the year to save gift and estate taxes. For 2024, taxpayers can give $18,000 each to an unlimited number of individuals but cannot carry over unused exclusions from one year to the next. These transfers also may save family income taxes where income-earning property is given to family members in lower income tax brackets who are not subject to tax at their parents’ rates (kiddie tax). 

Consider education deductions and other credits 

Tax-free distributions from § 529 qualified tuition programs are allowed for higher education expenses. This has been expanded in recent years to include up to $10,000 per beneficiary per year for elementary or secondary public, private, and religious schools, as well as expenses for participation in certain apprenticeship programs and qualified education loan repayments. For taxpayers under certain income thresholds, there are also several credits and deductions available and limited student loan interest may be deductible. Student loan forgiveness in 2024 should generally be excludible from income for federal tax purposes but may result in state or local income taxes. 

Consider home related tax provisions 

Mortgage interest is limited to the level of acquisition indebtedness depending on when the home was acquired ($750,000 for homes acquired on or after Dec. 16, 2017; $1 million for homes acquired before that date); mortgage interest allocable to the portion of a home used to operate a business is not subject to this limitation. Interest on home equity indebtedness may be deductible to the extent the debt was used to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. Gain of up to $500,000 for married taxpayers ($250,000 for other taxpayers) on the sale of a home is excluded from income, but the portion of the home used for business or rented reduces this exclusion from gain. Discharges of qualified principal residence indebtedness may be excluded from gross income. 

Consider clean energy credits 

Clean energy credits include residential clean energy credits and vehicle related credits. Eligibility for residential credits depends on the improvements made, annual limits, and or applicable percentages. Vehicle credits vary by date of acquisition, battery size, and manufacturer eligibility, which can be impacted by total qualifying vehicles sold and place of final assembly. 

Year-end planning for business owners 

Consider the qualified business income deduction 

This applies for non-corporate taxpayers where up to 20% of qualified business income from a domestic business operated as a sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC taxed as a partnership, or S corporation. For 2024, the deduction may be limited (with a phase-in for the limitation) if taxable income is over $383,900 for married couples filing jointly or $191,950 for other filers. These deduction limitations may apply depending on whether the taxpayer has a service-type trade or business such as law, accounting, health, or consulting, or whether the trade or business meets W-2 wage and qualified property (like machinery and equipment) requirements. Because there are taxable income thresholds and phaseouts for certain taxpayers, there may also be significant tax savings from deferring income or accelerating deductions into a particular year, depending on the taxpayer’s circumstances. Similarly, a taxpayer may be able to increase the deduction available by increasing W-2 wages or qualified property before year-end. 

Make expenditures before year-end that qualify for § 179 business property expensing 

For tax years beginning in 2024, the expensing limit is $1.22 million for property placed in service this year, reduced dollar for dollar for property placed in service over $3.05 million. This expensing is available for most depreciable property and qualified improvement property, which generally includes interior building improvements, and roofs, HVAC, fire protection, alarm, and security systems. Importantly, property acquired and placed in service before year-end is eligible for full expensing for the year. 

Look at first-year bonus depreciation 

Consider first-year bonus depreciation for new and some used machinery and equipment purchased and placed in service. Like expensing, bonus depreciation is available for the full year even if the asset was placed in service late in the year, so year-end purchases may receive a full first-year bonus write off. Notably, bonus depreciation is being phased out, with 60% available in 2024; 40% in 2025; 20% in 2026; and elimination in 2027. 

Consider changing to the cash method of accounting, rather than the accrual method 

“Small businesses” with less than $30 million (for 2024) of average annual gross receipts over a three-year period may be eligible for the cash method if they meet other requirements. Depending on the business, the cash method of accounting may allow more flexibility in timing income and deductions. 

Consider timing for debt-cancellation and disposition 

Consider timing for a debt-cancellation event, including whether lower effective tax rates are expected this year or next year. Also take into account disposition of a passive activity to allow a deduction for suspended losses to reduce current year taxable income. 

Review partnership and S corporation information 

Review partnership and S corporation basis to make sure it is sufficient to deduct losses in current and future years. Also examine S corporation salaries to ensure that shareholders receive reasonable wages and that distributions are based on ownership percentages of shareholders. The IRS often audits S corporations that pay all profits as distributions without accounting for reasonable wages to shareholders for their work in the business. 

Consider setting up and utilizing retirement plans and health insurance plans 

These plans can provide key benefits for retention of employees and for owners of a business. 

Consider business credits 

A variety of credits may apply for a particular business, including credits related to retirement plans and employees, as well as research and development, clean energy, and vehicles credits. 

Conclusion 

Election outcomes could lead to new legislation and could provide additional considerations for year-end and ongoing planning.

Jeffrey S. Krause is senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

Or worse, your desktop computer shuts down, losing that project you’ve spent hours on. 

With winter weather on the horizon, now is the time to ensure you and your staff have everything needed to continue serving clients during power outages. 

Where to start 

In 2022, the average electric customer in the United States endured two power outages lasting a combined five-and-a-half hours.¹ In Missouri specifically, power providers averaged a little more than one interruption per customer and a total loss per interrupted customer of slightly more than two hours.² Those numbers include major events such as winter storms and tornados. 

When it comes to protecting yourself and your firm from power outages, you should apply a cost-benefit analysis. For example, if your only consideration is ensuring your laptop remains operational during an outage, adding a generator at your firm or house is probably overkill since laptop and cell phone batteries can outlast most power outages. Plus, many cell phones have the option of turning into a hotspot that can provide temporary internet access. 

On the other hand, there are plenty of critical devices that will not have power during an outage. Network connections, workstations, servers, and peripherals such as monitors and printers need continuous power to operate. 

Making the best decisions for you and your firm about backup power requires three questions: 

– What do you need to keep devices running during a power outage? 
– How long do you need them to run? 
– How much are you willing to spend? 

There is also one additional consideration you must remember: Power surges are bad for all electronics. When the lights flicker or the power comes back on after an outage, there are typically surges in power. When making decisions about backup power, you’ll want to ensure it protects against power surges. 

Power on the go 

When you are on the road, your backup power needs are limited. As mentioned earlier, your laptop and phone will outlast most power outages, and the combination of the two provides internet access if you have a cell signal and hotspot. However, both will need to charge eventually. If you will be away from any source of power for an extended period, you will need a portable battery. 

A battery that can charge a cell phone may not be the best when charging a laptop. Most portable backup batteries are like a one-gallon gas can; it won’t fill the tank but will get you out of a jam. Read the specifications of each backup battery you research but understand that every laptop is different, and it is difficult to predict how long any given battery will take to charge your laptop. 

Surge protection on the go is also easy. Consider a small power strip that includes surge protection, two to four outlets, and several USB connections. 

Options when working from home 

When working from home, there is much more to consider. Once again, your laptop and cell phone may be enough to keep you working through most outages. However, if you are using a workstation or if you have a setup that includes things like a USB dock, multiple monitors, soft phone (aka voice over internet protocol, or VoIP), or any other peripherals, you need to keep those running during an outage. In addition, you need to keep any internet-related devices operating. This includes your modem, router, Wi-Fi extenders, and a network hub if your home is cabled. 

This is where a cost-benefit analysis really comes into play. You can keep these devices running for at least a short time with an uninterruptable power supply (UPS). A UPS acts as power strip and surge protector but also has a battery backup. There are many options if you search online for “uninterruptable battery backup.” 

The hard part is figuring out what you need. Most units are designated as something like 1500VA, which indicates the voltage and amps. What you need to know is the amp hours of the battery and the wattage use of the items you plan to connect to it. 

Do the math and determine how many watts of devices you will be plugging into the UPS. For example, a desktop computer might use 75-250 watts, while a 22-inch monitor typically consumes anywhere from 20-45 watts. 

Next, determine the watt hours of the battery. A 12-volt, 9-amp battery stores 108-watt hours. That means you can power 108 watts of devices for one hour, 216 watts of devices for 30 minutes, etc. In other words, no UPS is going to run forever on battery power, but 30 minutes may be more than enough to outlast most outages and certainly enough time to save your work before powering everything down. 

Follow the same process to keep your internet-related devices running on a separate UPS. 

Lastly, consider surge protection. You can buy individual surge protectors or have a whole-house surge protector installed. 

Protecting your office 

If you lease space, you have limited options when it comes to backup generators. Your landlord may already have it covered. If not, they are unlikely to invest in a generator for just your space. On the other hand, if you are the only tenant, they may be open to the idea if you are willing to contribute to the cost or endure an increase in rent. 

Regardless, there are things that can and should be protected. This starts with your internet connection and should include any other networking devices and your server, if you still have one. All these devices should be on a UPS capable of powering them at least as long as it takes to properly turn them off. 

Consider smaller UPS devices for your desktops to ensure you can properly save things and power down. The interruption of a power outage is bad enough without losing a critical document you have been working on for the past hour. 

Conclusion 

Power outages may be infrequent and short-lived. However, they tend to come at the worst possible time and may prevent you from getting that important document completed and filed. With a few simple precautions, you can protect yourself against most outages. Or, if your situation warrants, you can spend some money to keep the lights on and continue working through much longer interruptions.

Endnotes 
¹ U.S. electricity customers averaged five and one-half hours of power interruptions in 2022, U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (Jan. 25, 2024), www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61303. 
² Annual Electric Power Industry Report, Form EIA-861 detailed data files, U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (Oct. 10, 2024), www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861.

The Missouri Bar has partnered with Fastcase since 2007 to offer complimentary legal research to its members. If you’re a member of The Missouri Bar, you can access Fastcase’s nationwide legal research service – cases, statutes, regulations, court rules, and constitutions. The service includes free reference attorney support by phone or chat and unlimited searching and printing. The service normally costs $1,145 per year, but Missouri Bar members receive this service at no cost. 

A merger of strength 

While Fastcase was building a deep library of legal materials in the United States, vLex was founded in 2000 in Spain and worked to democratize the law in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Sharing a common mission, Fastcase merged with vLex in 2023. The Fastcase legal research service will be called vLex Fastcase in the United States, and the global corporate name remains vLex. 

The merge formed one of the world’s largest law libraries, with more than 1 billion documents in the combined library from more than 110 countries, and more than 3 million subscribers. Veteran legal journalist Bob Ambrogi said the merger would “reshape the legal research and legal technology landscape on a global basis.” 

Big upgrade for Missouri Bar members 

The new version of vLex Fastcase had a soft launch in Missouri on Nov. 19. vLex Fastcase will remain at no cost for Missouri Bar members, but the new version will offer some significant upgrades to members. 

Cert citator 
Is your case still good law? vLex Fastcase will include the robust Cert citator, a combination of AI and a human editorial review of more than 700,000 citations. The teams have been researching, developing, and testing the citator for four years. The result is a more powerful new citator. 

Vincent AI 
vLex Fastcase will include some of the features of the Vincent AI platform from vLex. Vincent uses artificial intelligence to create headnotes for judicial opinions and find references similar to a selected document, as well as provide tools to translate research into other languages, which can be helpful for advising clients for whom English is not their native language. Some of the tools from Vincent AI will be available for an additional monthly subscription, such as AI-powered research, draft memos, redlines, reviewing contracts, drafting briefs, M&A due diligence, and more. 

Sleek, new interface 
The new vLex Fastcase features a more streamlined, easier-to-read design to make research simpler and more accessible for experts and beginners alike. 

The same benefit, but better 

Through vLex Fastcase, Missouri Bar members can continue to access up-to-date judicial opinions, statutes, regulations, and more for Missouri and the other 49 states, as well as at the federal level. If you subscribe to secondary publications or the briefs and pleadings database, those subscriptions will move with you to the new platform. 

Logging in to vLex Fastcase will work the same way. Visit The Missouri Bar website at MoBar.org/MemberBenefits, navigate to the “Research|Write” category, click the vLex Fastcase button, and log in with your bar username and password. That will log you directly into your personalized start page in vLex Fastcase. 

To learn more about vLex Fastcase and the available updates, watch a tutorial video at MoBar.org/vLexFastcase-Tutorial.

For more resources to help you open, build, manage, protect, and wind down your practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center at MoBar.org/LPM.

Collaboration happens in two forms: asynchronous and real-time. We generally prefer asynchronous communication — text messages, emails, and perhaps voicemails — over real-time communication. How often do you text or email from your phone compared to making actual calls in a given day?  

Different forms of collaboration may be helpful for different areas of your practice. If something isn’t going smoothly, consider switching the type of collaboration you use depending on the situation. 

Asynchronous  

Asynchronous collaboration allows people to work from anywhere at any time. Early birds can collaborate with night owls. New Yorkers can collaborate with counterparts in the Far East. Time zones don’t matter. Here are tips to make asynchronous collaboration better:  

Basic document sharing  

1. If you’re not on the paperless bandwagon, start by getting a scanner to turn important papers into documents that can be shared easily. After scanning the papers, programs like Adobe Acrobat or ABBYY FineReader can convert a PDF to an editable Microsoft Word document.  

2. To work together over the internet, your document must be accessible to your collaborator. The easiest sharing platform is Dropbox, although there are plenty of competitors in this market. In fact, Apple (iCloud Drive), Google (Google Drive), and Microsoft (OneDrive) all offer free space; they just can be a bit more challenging to share from.  

3. Apple Pages, Google Docs, and Microsoft Word all offer free web-based versions of their respective word processors. If your collaborator doesn’t have the same word processor as you, they can access these free versions to edit the document you share, although they must create an account with the vendor if they don’t already have one.  

4. Each person can now edit the document.  

Share information rather than a document  

1. Microsoft’s OneNote is the most cross-platform of the note-taking or “everything bucket” solutions. Create a notebook, share it with your collaborator, and either of you can put almost anything you can imagine in there: lists; checklists; images (whose in-image text will be scanned so you can search for it); other documents like Word, Excel, or PDF files; and even handwritten notes from an Apple Pencil or Surface Pen. OneNote is available on all the major platforms (Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android). There’s even a web-based version if you’re collaborating with someone who doesn’t want to download the free app.  

2. All the major web-based practice management platforms offer some version of a client portal. But don’t be limited by the word “client”. These portals are shared spaces where anyone you allow can see and interact with information you choose to make available from your practice management program. Clio lets you share just about anything through the portal. Clients can even upload documents and send you secure communications through it. Cosmolex offers a similarly rich portal experience. Actionstep’s portal, on the other hand, is restricted to document sharing. Visit the Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management site to get an idea of features, comparisons, and considerations regarding practice management. If you decide to buy, the bar’s Member Benefits page provides discounts for many top contenders.  

Real-time collaboration  

If you and your collaborator need to work on the same document simultaneously, consider two factors: how tech-savvy your collaborator is and how complex the shared document is (e.g., complex formatting, lots of images, etc.) 

Technophobe collaborators  

If the person you’re sharing the document with is not a technophile, the easiest thing to do is a web meeting where one of you opens the document and shares your screen. You can even grant keyboard and mouse control to your fellow participant so they can edit and navigate the document while the document remains on your computer.  

All the big web meeting platforms support screen and control sharing, though many require a paid account. If you’ve made it this far without a paid account at Zoom, WebEx, or similar, this LPM comparison chart will help you choose one.  

And once you’ve made that choice, read up on video conferencing professionally and get a pair of good headphones.  

Although you don’t need it for mere document collaboration, I recommend getting a high-quality webcam. The ones built into laptops stink, a fact confirmed by no less than the Wall Street Journal. I have and like Logitech’s Brio Ultra HD Pro Business. Despite the alphabet soup of a name, it works wonderfully and has a built-in microphone and privacy shutter (great if your office doubles as a bedroom). 

Complex documents

Complex documents share best in their native format. In the legal world, this usually means Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Luckily, sharing is fairly easy for these programs, and your collaborator doesn’t have to own (or subscribe to) Microsoft Office. Here are the steps to share a Microsoft Office document via OneDrive (or SharePoint) so others can edit it at the same time and see changes as they happen:  

1. Save your document to OneDrive  

2. Open the document via the Office desktop app or Office web app.  

3. Click the “Share” button at the top right of the Office app.  

4. Enter the email address of your collaborator. Type a message if you like. Then click “Send.”  

5. As an alternative to the step above, you can choose “Copy link” if you’d prefer to send the person a link via a text message or other means. It’s just a web link.  

6. The collaborator receives a link they can click to access and edit the document.  
7. When you both have the document open simultaneously, you will see a circle with initials of others in the document in the top right of the app or web app window. Clicking on a pair of initials reveals what page of the document that person is currently viewing or editing.  

Mix and match  

Depending on the information you’re sharing and the tech skills of your collaboration counterparts, one method may make more sense than another. In my experience, older clients prefer web meetings where you control everything as they comment or dictate text. Most other folks prefer asynchronous document sharing because, like text messages or emails, they can review the documents at a time convenient to them.  

You probably remember your first laptop. You may also remember how difficult it was to use a laptop as your primary workstation. The laptop’s size limited the number of outputs it supported. The solution? A docking station. I still recall snapping my laptop into a docking station designed specifically for that laptop, which was quite expensive and fixed in one place. Well, enough about the “good old days.”

Docking stations are simple devices that expand how you can use almost any computer, whether a workstation or laptop. They also work with many tablets such as a Microsoft Surface, which uses a Windows interface. As the name implies, the main requirement is a USB port. Once connected, a USB dock increases the number and type of peripherals you can connect. For example, the dock I am using as I write this is an ICY BOX USB 3.0 Universal Docking Station, available at Amazon for around $100. It works with either Windows or Mac. It provides HDMI, ethernet, USB, and microphone ports, among others.

In addition to the connections this device provides, the portability and flexibility cannot be overstated. It is essentially plug and play, meaning a desktop, laptop, or MacBook Air can be connected with a single USB 3.0 connection. I have another small USB dock I carry in my laptop bag, allowing me to connect to various devices I might encounter on the road. While most people use these devices to expand a laptop or tablet, they work just as well with workstations, especially when it comes to adding additional monitors.

Docking stations come in many shapes and sizes. If looking for one, I suggest focusing on two things, starting with the video connections. Make sure the dock offers outputs to any monitors you wish to connect. Second, and probably most important, confirm what type of connection it uses. More and more of these devices are connecting via USB-C, so make sure your laptop supports this. If it does not, go with a USB 3.0 model. You may have to shop around a bit to find the right combination of video outputs and connection type.

USB docking stations are a low-cost way to expand your productivity. Depending on the number and type of connections, you can expect to pay anywhere from $50 to $200, with most falling in the $125 range. They provide an easy way to attach additional peripherals to any computing device and utilize those peripherals with multiple devices.

1. Use Rules to automatically sort incoming and outgoing email 

Through Outlook Rules, you can automatically sort email into different folders. From the Home tab, click on Rules. From here, you can create rules based on various criteria, such as the sender, the subject, or specific words in the body of the email. 

2. Create Quick Steps to process email with a single click 

The Quick Steps feature combines multiple actions into a single click. For example, you can create a quick step that forwards an email to your assistant, moves that email out of your inbox, and marks it as read with a single click. On the Home tab, click on the dropdown arrow in the Quick Steps gallery. From here, you can create and manage your Quick Steps. 

3. Search for emails 

Outlook's search function helps you quickly find specific messages in your inbox. Once you click in the Search Bar, you can take advantage of all the options on the Search ribbon, such as searching by sender, subject, whether the email has attachments, and more. 
With Outlook’s robust search functionality, you might be able to stop organizing emails into subfolders all together. 

4. Use AutoText to insert commonly used text 

AutoText entries are pre-written (and pre-formatted) snippets of text that you can insert into your emails with just a few clicks. They can be used for answers to commonly asked questions, instructions, lists of attached documents, and more. 
Start by typing and formatting the new entry in a new email. Select the text. On the Insert ribbon, under Quick Parts, select AutoText, and Save the Selection to the AutoText Gallery. Then, you just need to select the entry from the gallery to insert it into a new email. 

5. Use Flags to remind you to follow up on emails 

You can use flags in Outlook to help you remember to follow up on emails. Right-click on the email in your inbox. Under follow up, select when you plan on following up. You can then filter or sort your inbox by flags to quickly see emails you flagged. 

6. Use Categories to organize emails 

Categories can help you organize your emails into different groups and color code them. This can be helpful for quickly sorting and filtering email. You can create custom categories to meet your needs. Categories are also useful for color-coding calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts. 
Right-click on the email in your inbox. Under Categorize, select the desired Category. To edit the existing Categories, select All Categories. 

7. Filter your email 

Filters are a great way to quickly show only unread emails, email categorized in a certain way, or flagged emails. From the View ribbon, click on View Settings. Then click on Filter to set up a filter. You can save a filter from the View ribbon, by clicking on Change View, and Save Current View as a New View. 

8. Customize your view 

Outlook allows you to customize the way that your inbox is displayed. Decide which columns to show, sort your email in a variety of ways, and add your calendar or tasks to your inbox. All the settings related to how your inbox appears can be found on the View ribbon. 

9. Work faster with keyboard shortcuts 

Keyboard shortcuts can help you work more efficiently in Outlook. Commonly used keyboard shortcuts include: 
Delete key – deletes the selected email/appointment/task 
Ctrl + F – forward 
Ctrl + R – reply 
Ctrl + N – new email 
Ctrl + 1 – switch to email 
Ctrl + 2 – switch to calendar 

10. Clean up your inbox automatically 

Your mailbox has a limited amount of space. (Go to Info under the File menu to see how much space you have remaining.) If your mailbox is starting to fill up, you can free up some space by archiving old emails. Archived emails are stored in an Outlook data file (.pst) on your computer and are no longer visible in your inbox. 

You can set up automatic archival rules on a folder-by-folder basis. Right-click on a folder and go to Properties to access its AutoArchive settings. 
Taking control over your inbox is key to a productive and stress-free workday. Take a deep breath, grab a cup of coffee, and get ready to take control of your inbox. Once you have control of your inbox, you’ll be able to even better serve your clients by focusing on more important tasks at hand. 

“Go to older lawyers and ask for referrals. That’s how I started 45 years ago. I get five calls a day for cases I don’t handle, and I don’t have anyone to refer these matters to.” 
- Alvin Wolff, with Wolff & Wolff Trial Lawyers in St. Louis 

“Find a mentor, and don’t confuse zealous advocacy with incivility.” 
- Elizabeth Ituarte, with Ituarte & Ituarte in St. Louis 

“Become very knowledgeable in one area of the law. Attend seminars and programs covering that area of the law. Become a Missouri Bar presenter in that area. Collaborate with fellow lawyers who also practice in your chosen area of practice. Charge a fair fee for your knowledge and expertise. Never be afraid to decline representation of a new client if you feel uncomfortable representing that client. Finally, always return your calls.” 
- Rice Pete Burns, with Burns, Taylor, Heckemeyer, Green, Edwards & Graham, LLC in Sikeston

We were wondering … How do you create and maintain good, professional relationships with clients? Share your answer by writing to nhillen@mobar.org or filling out a form at mobar.wufoo.com/forms/closing-statements.

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

Labeled “Protect your clients, protect yourself,” this year’s annual campaign included forums and several news releases by the IRS.¹ 

The news releases focus on the concern that tax and legal professionals are prime targets of criminal syndicates that either trick or hack their way into professionals’ computer systems to access client data. Even when client data is stored in a secure platform, such as the cloud, lack of strong authentication can make information vulnerable. For example, in the tax system context, identity thieves use stolen data with real financial information to file fraudulent tax returns that are then difficult for the IRS and the states to detect. 

The IRS emphasizes tax and legal professionals need to focus on data security fundamentals and watch for emerging vulnerabilities, as well as new updates involving multi-factor authentication and the latest requirements for a Written Information Security Plan. The campaign highlights a series of actions that tax and legal professionals can take to better protect their clients and themselves from data theft. 

Create a security plan 

The Written Information Security Plan, or WISP, is an “easy-to-understand document developed by and for tax and industry professionals to keep customer and business information safe and secure.”² IRS Publication 5708 provides guidance and sample language for creating a WISP. The IRS also notes that the Federal Trade Commission requires a WISP to keep customer data safe. See IR-2024-208 for more details. 

Understand the different phishing scams 

Tax and legal professionals are “common, everyday target[s] of phishing scams designed to trick the recipient into disclosing personal information such as passwords, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, or Social Security numbers.”³ 

Phishing/Smishing 

“Phishing emails or SMS/texts (known as ‘smishing’) attempt to trick the recipient into clicking a suspicious link, filling out information, or downloading a malware file. Often phishing attempts are sent to multiple email addresses at a business or agency increasing the chance someone will fall for the trick.”⁴ 

Spear phishing 

In some phishing scams, potential scammers identify potential victims and deliver more realistic emails, commonly referred to as a “lure.” “These types of scams can be trickier to identify since they don’t occur in large numbers. They single out individuals, can be specialized, and make the email seem more legitimate.”⁵ 

For example, “fraudsters pretend to be real taxpayers [or clients] seeking tax [or legal] help. They use emails to try to get sensitive information or gain access to a practitioner’s client data. In these fake ‘new client’ schemes, the fraudster can send a malicious attachment or include a link to a site that the tax [or legal] professional thinks they need to access to obtain the supposed new client’s [… sensitive] information. But in reality, the site is collecting information from the [… professional], such as their email and password, or loading [malicious software] onto the [… professional’s] computer to gain access to their computer or system.”⁶ 

Clone phishing 

A newer type of phishing scam “clones a real email message and resends it to the original recipient pretending to be the original sender. The new message will have either an attachment that contains malware or [a] link that tries to steal information from the tax [or legal] professional or recipient.”⁷ 

Whaling 

“Whaling attacks are very similar to spear phishing, except these attacks are generally targeted to leaders or other executives with access to secure large amounts of information at an organization or business. Whaling attacks can also target people in payroll offices, human resource personnel, and financial offices.”⁸ 

Know the tell-tale signs of identity theft 

Many “professionals who report data theft to the IRS also say they were unaware of signs that a theft had already occurred.”⁹ Signs tax and legal professionals should watch for include “multiple clients suddenly receiving suspicious IRS letters requesting confirmation that they filed a tax return; tax professionals seeing e-file acknowledgements for far more tax returns than they filed; and tax pros’ computer cursors moving seemingly on their own.”¹⁰ See IR-2024-193 for more details. 

Utilize multi-factor authentication 

Lawyers and tax professionals should use multi-factor authentication, or MFA, to even better protect their clients’ information. The FTC even requires all tax professionals use MFA to protect clients’ sensitive information. “The June 2023 change mandates MFA to strengthen account security by requiring more than just a username and password to confirm an identity when accessing any system, application, or device.”¹¹ 

“The extra layers of different authentication factors include something only a user knows, like a username and password; something they have, like a token or random number sequence sent to their cell phone; or something unique, like biometric information. These provide extra assurance that a […] client, not an impostor, is gaining access.”¹² 

Understand the “Security Six” protections 

Here are six important security basics that form a critical defense against identity thieves and hackers: 

1. “Anti-virus software scans computer files or memory for certain patterns that may indicate there’s […] malware – on the device. Anti-virus vendors find new issues and update malware daily. This is why it’s important for users to install the latest updates of the software.”¹³ 

2. “Firewalls provide protection against outside attackers. The firewall shields computers and networks from malicious or unnecessary web traffic. This helps prevents malicious software from accessing the user’s system.”¹⁴ 

3. “Multi-factor authentication adds an extra layer of protection beyond a password. The returning user enters credentials like a username and password. Then, there’s another step, such as entering a security code, token or a biometric like a fingerprint.”¹⁵ 

4. “Backup software or services should be routinely used by tax [and legal professionals] to back up critical files on their computers and hard drives to external sources. This is helpful not just to protect against a cyber-attack but is also helpful in case of device failure or a natural disaster.”¹⁶ 

5. Drive encryption software, also known as disk encryption, “transforms data on the computer into protected files that are unreadable to outsiders. This means only people who are authorized to access the data can do so.”¹⁷ 

6. Virtual Private Network, or VPN, is important since many firms’ employees occasionally connect to unknown networks or work from home. “This allows for a more secure connection. A VPN provides a secure, encrypted tunnel to transmit data between a remote user over the internet and the company network.”¹⁸ 

Conclusion 

The “Protect your clients, protect yourself ” campaign highlights several important concerns for professionals relating to client and firm data security. Importantly, the current series also identifies some key federal requirements, including multi-factor authentication and 
implementation of a WISP, that may apply to your legal practice.

Endnotes 

1 Protect Your Clients; Protect Yourself — Summer 2024, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Aug. 27, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/protect-your-clients-protect-yourself-summer-2024. 

2 IR-2024-180. 

3 Id. 

4 IR-2024-188. 

5 Id. 

6 IR-2024-183. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 IR-2024-180. 

10 Id. 

11 IR-2024-201. 

12 Id. 

13 IR-2024-218. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

Jeffrey S. Krause is senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group LLC.

Then, after you go out of your way to help them, they dispute the bill and only pay after demanding you write off some of your valuable time. 

Securing and maintaining clients can be hard, so you try to be flexible and accommodating. On the other hand, working with difficult clients can be a major source of stress for you and your team. 

The good news is that losing difficult clients may not be as damaging for your revenue and profitability as you think. What you need is a system for assessing your clients and moving them either up the satisfaction scale or out of your life. 

Understand your numbers 

Your firm generates “leads,” and you turn a certain percentage (conversion rate) of those leads into clients. Each client comes to you with a “number of transactions” and spends a certain “amount per transaction.” This generates revenue, and you get to keep some of it (margin). What is left is profit. The formula looks like this:

Leads x Conversion rate (%) = Clients 
Clients x Number of transactions x Dollars per transaction = Revenue 
Revenue x Margin (%) = Profit 

The genius of this profit formula is that it gives us insight into what drives profitability. Most of us believe that more clients or more revenue makes us more profitable. While that is true, clients and revenue are products of other inputs. For example, the number of clients derives from how many leads your firm generates and what percentage it turns into clients. Clients that come back often and spend more generate more revenue. Conversely, clients that increase overhead, waste time, demand discounts, or pay late decrease your profitability. 

Armed with this data, you should see difficult clients in a different light. This knowledge is the first step in the process of moving clients up or out. 

Grade your clients 

Grading your clients is the process of scoring them to determine where they fall on a scale of A through F. 

Starting from the bottom, clients who score an F include those who are abusive to you or your staff, and you should stop taking new work from them immediately. Clients who score a D waste your time, dispute bills, and pay late. Clients who score a C sometimes do these disruptive things. Clients who receive a B rating rarely do these things and only when justified. And clients who score an A on the scale are polite, communicative, and refer other A and B clients to your firm. 

While your staff and your intuition help when grading clients, the best place to start is with your technology. Running productivity and realization reports will quickly tell you which clients you are discounting, writing down, or writing off and how often you are doing so. This data will often confirm what you already suspect. 

Other than those who are clearly irretrievable, your goal is to move clients up the scale. 

Up or out 

Moving clients up the scale is about setting ground rules and sticking to them. If a client is calling constantly and then disputing their bill, make it clear that calls are billable. Also, make it clear that properly documenting the call requires you to spend and bill a minimum of 15 minutes per call. Stick to this and send them the resulting bill. Do not automatically discount because you think someone will not pay. If they balk at paying, offer a one-time write-off while stressing that, in the future, your billing policies will be followed. 

For clients who do not pay on time, establish and follow a system of reminders. A bit of directness goes a long way. You may even find that you have inadvertently allowed your clients to think it is OK to pay late or not pay at all. It is time to break that cycle. 

Most clients move themselves up the grading scale. Once they know the rules, they will call when necessary but avoid incurring a charge just to vent or complain. If they want to continue working with you, they will do so on your terms. 

Once you make these changes, you will also notice a few clients will move themselves out. 

If you are worried that this may lose you a few clients, you are right. However, this also frees you to do your best work for your remaining clients. 

Conclusion 

It’s frustrating working with clients who are a wrong fit for your practice. Once you realize that losing a client is not the end of the world, you can create a system that nurtures the best ones. Start moving your clients up or out today. Your future self will thank you for it. 
 

If an unforeseen emergency – like another pandemic – occurred, would you already have contingency plans in place? If you retired, would the law firm continue operating smoothly? Strategic succession and contingency planning can help you prepare for the future so you can even better serve your clients without disruption.

Contingency planning prepares you for the unknown, the unplanned. Succession planning, on the other hand, is the preparation for a planned exit from the firm (most often retirement). The two go hand-in-hand.

When considering what the future might hold, you must think about the people who will carry the torch in your absence, the core processes that keep business running smoothly, and how to transition work and clients seamlessly.

First-rate players

You can’t plan for the future without planning for those who will succeed you or take over in the event of an unplanned absence. Early identification of star players provides you with time to mold them into stellar leaders and rainmakers. The sooner you start working with these key players, the more time you have available to help shape them into whom the firm needs them to be.

Fundamental processes

Numerous fundamental processes drive every firm. Strategic planning requires identifying those processes and documenting every step, from client intake to closing letters. Process documentation has immediate benefits. New hire onboarding is more efficient, and process documentation helps get everyone in the firm on the same page.

While documenting processes, look for areas of potential improvement and gaps in the firm’s coverage. Ensure that there is a back-up for each task. Should someone suddenly leave the firm, you don’t want to be left in the lurch.

Future transitions

Transitioning work and clients is never easy. The most successful transitions start before retirement is on the horizon and must begin before an emergency is upon the firm. Ensure that every client works with and trusts at least two lawyers in the firm. Clients must be comfortable with your replacement long before you decide to retire.

Train associates to handle every type of matter that comes in. Work side-by-side on the complicated matters and provide them guidance on how to handle the thorniest issues. Then, when you are ready to retire or an emergency arises, they will be prepared to handle the workload.

This type of planning isn’t easy. Keep succession and contingency planning in mind with every decision your firm makes so you – and your clients – don’t have to worry in the future.

For more resources on contingency and succession planning, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

Do you have a nagging suspicion that you’re missing something when running your firm? Maybe some key insight that would make your firm more competitive. Or perhaps a way to run your firm more efficiently to even better serve your clients. Here are three steps to help you get on the right track – taking your firm from surviving to thriving.

Step 1: Gain clarity

Positive change starts with absolute clarity. Cut through the noise and identify the root causes of the issues keeping you up at night, not just the symptoms. Clarity comes from avoiding superficial answers.

Maybe everyone in the office knows that something “takes too long.” We know intuitively that the answer isn’t “do it faster.” If that would fix it, it would be fixed. More often, something “taking too long” has more to do with repeated, disparate interruptions than with a lax worker or slow technology, for example. If one person answers the phone, greets visitors, and prepares letters for mailing or emailing, then letters being slow to mail probably isn’t the result of the person or internet speed.

Step 2: Get insight

Leverage the power of perspective to change how you think about your firm’s future. Tap into the wisdom within your firm and uncover better, smarter ways of working. Generally, the people doing a process daily, such as paralegals, intake personnel, and receptionists, have the best understanding of how client-facing interactions really go. Better understanding how things happen or are handled now in the present day is a more valuable starting point than the memorialized platonic ideal stored in a 10-year-old binder on a dusty shelf.

Step 3: Develop your roadmap

Finally, understand where you’re going and how to get there. Your detailed, actionable practice analysis report empowers you to confidently take your next steps toward an efficient, highly successful practice. 

Profound transformations start with a crystal-clear understanding of your most significant challenges and exciting opportunities. Focus on the following three key areas of your practice.

People

Your people – your employees and clients – are your greatest asset and greatest source of insight. Open dialogue is critical to the success of organizational change. Take the time to listen to, document, and thoroughly explore challenges, suggestions, and concerns offered by your team and clients. Go beyond the “what” to understand and communicate the “why.” Using a people-first approach, you turn skeptics into champions for change.

Process

“The way we’ve always done it” is the enemy of efficiency. Sometimes, it just takes a fresh pair of eyes to see your processes’ time- and energy-wasters. Think of process steps as puzzle pieces. How can they best fit together? Document how you do things now. Do this in a thorough, detailed way. Once you know the step-by-step of how you do things now, which sometimes differs markedly from existing written procedures, then it’s time to find levers to adjust, goals to change, and measurements of success.

The ultimate goal is to eliminate waste, cut procedural clutter, improve efficiency, and document everything to ensure that folks complete things the same way every time. Or at least most of the time.

Technology

Even the best, most expensive technology can’t save you from underlying process inefficiencies. That’s why you must start with people and processes and then explore technology solutions.

This approach lets you deploy technology precisely in line with what you need — nothing more. Sometimes, a team simply needs more training on your existing solution. Sometimes, a reconfiguration of a current solution does the trick. Whether it’s new software, a complete system overhaul, or optimizing what you already have, your target should be to get the most for your technology investment.

Conclusion

Identify and prioritize your firm’s steps to advance from surviving to thriving. Get the right people in the right roles following the right processes and having solid tech support. Then, you’ll go from feeling overwhelmed and stuck to empowered, confident, and optimistic about your firm’s future.

For more resources to help you build, manage, and protect your practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

Lawyers and their firms interact with all manner of websites and services, and care that private information is safely managed. We also operate websites and services where consumers and our clients expect the same.

In this environment of ever-increasing data collection and aggregation and concomitant breaches, regulating bodies are starting to respond to consumer complaints and have begun to act. Your law firm’s website may soon be in their crosshairs, impacting your engagement and reach with current and potential clients.

Websites know no geographic boundaries, lawyers so regulations related to data collection affects lawyers in three ways:

1) what we disclose to website visitors about data-collection practices;

2) the ability of an individual to obtain a copy of that collected data; and

3) the ability of individuals to erase that data under limited circumstances. The most important of these is disclosure of data collection.

Data collection and cookies

Websites store information about visitors and track their interactions via tiny text files called “cookies.” Cookies are not inherently malicious and are often helpful. Amazon uses them so you can store contents in your shopping cart while continuing to click around. Cookies are also why you’re able to stay logged in to password-protected websites.

The privacy concerns with cookies arise from “tracking cookies” or “third-party tracking cookies.” These cookies “follow” you around the internet as you browse websites and build a more intimate and complete picture of you. Have you noticed how, when you search Google or Amazon for “Sonicare toothbrush,” you subsequently see electronic toothbrush ads on other websites you visit? You’ve experienced the power and reach of tracking cookies.

Go to wikihow.com/View-Cookies to learn how to review the cookies on your computer’s web browsers.

Requirements

To comply with the recent government regulations, websites must disclose their use of cookies. This is why, in visiting websites in the last couple of years, you’ve seen more and more “pop-up” disclosures regarding data collection and cookies.

What do you and your website need to do then?

- Your website must provide visitors with accurate and specific information about what every cookie your website uses does.

- You must obtain a website visitor’s consent before using any cookies beyond those necessary for essential website functions, such as allowing users to stay logged in as they bounce around and return to your website.

- Once the visitor consents, you must document and store that consent.

- Visitors must be able to access your site even if they reject certain types of nonessential cookies.

- Visitors must be able to withdraw or change their consent easily.

It’s entirely likely and reasonable that you don’t have the foggiest idea what cookies your website uses or what’s stored in those cookies on visitors’ computers. That’s OK. There are several websites that will examine your website for compliance and tell you where you are deficient. If you are responsible for your website’s backend, there are tools available for WordPress, Wix, and Squarespace.

If you have no idea what the preceding sentence means, there are plenty of companies willing to walk you through the process, such as OneTrust.

Missouri data disclosure laws

While Missouri has no laws specifically governing data disclosure, § 407.1500 RSMo. regulates consumer notifications of actual data breaches. The statue defines a breach as “unauthorized access to and unauthorized acquisition of personal information maintained in computerized form by a person that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information.”

Personal information is an“individual's first name or first initial and last name plus one or more of the following:

- social security number,

- driver’s license number or other government identifying number,

- financial account numbers (in combination with a PIN or other access credentials),

- unique electronic identifier or routing code (in combination with a PIN or other access credentials),

- medical information, or

- health insurance information.

The statute provides two exceptions as to whether accessing such information qualifies as a breach. First, good faith access is not a breach. Second, a reportable breach occurs only if the accessed personal information is “not encrypted, redacted, or otherwise altered by any method or technology in such a manner that the name or data elements are unreadable or unusable.” A breach of encrypted information need not be reported if the encryption key was not compromised.

Additionally, a breached party’s notification obligations may be tolled based on a law enforcement request (e.g., an ongoing investigation) or superseded by another law (e.g., HIPAA for healthcare organizations).

Notifications from the breached party to affected individuals must happen within 45 days of the breach’s discovery, which could be long after the breach’s occurrence. If the breach impacts more than 500 state residents, the business must notify the attorney general’s office.

Finally, the law provides a private right of action under which individuals may sue. Only those whose data was breached may sue for damages, and the Missouri Attorney General’s Office may also act.

For more resources about keeping your and your clients’ information safe, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

Document management solutions are critical to the success of today’s law firm. Legal specific document management eliminates the wild, wild west approach to document storage and security and significantly improves the efficiency and productivity of legal professionals.

 Selecting a document management system (DMS) can be daunting, but here are four simple steps to get you started on the path to selecting the perfect DMS for your firm or legal department.

Identify core features of your DMS

Understand the real needs of your firm before looking at a document management system. Does your firm have issues capturing emails? Are your challenges with finding documents? Are there difficulties with saving documents consistently and naming conventions? Truly recognizing the needs of your firm or department is the first step to understanding and selecting the features needed in a DMS.

Rank feature importance

One document management solution will probably not provide you with EVERYTHING on your list. Ranking your requirements will help. Know what features are critical to your firm or department. Know which ones you’d like to have but could live without and which ones you definitely do not want or need. It may be necessary to trade off some features that mean little to your process in place of ones that cannot be compromised.

Evaluate on premise solutions versus hosted, cloud-based solutions

Understand your choices when selecting the DMS configuration that’s best for your firm. Keep in mind that the number of on-premises vendors diminishes each year. Most investment and development focus on hosted (AKA cloud-based) solutions.

With on-premises solutions, you’ll need to consider whether you have someone with the knowledge to set-up and maintain the system, plus hardware/software costs and specialized manpower for maintenance. You also want a clear sense of the vendor’s long-term strategy for its on-premises product. If you must have an on-premises DMS, perhaps for regulatory reasons, ensure you understand the vendor’s commitment to future support for and investment in their on-premises products.

For hosted solutions, consider recurring costs (usually monthly, quarterly, or annually) to maintain servers and warehouse your documents, understand your data will live elsewhere, and maintain a strong internet connection.

Identify the choice that best meets your needs and budget.

Explore solutions via demo

Document management solutions should enhance the work your firm is doing, not add more steps or additional challenges. By watching an actual demonstration and seeing how a document management system’s features are performed, you’ll see which system will make your teams more productive and efficient.

Also, if a DMS indicates it can perform a critical function, ask the demonstrator to show you how it’s done.

For more resources on opening, building, managing, protecting, and winding down a law practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

It's common to see news about cybersecurity spiral away from the helpful and actionable toward the sensational and convoluted. In the spirit of simple, direct, actionable solutions, here are seven suggestions to improve your cybersecurity situation.

Enable whole disk encryption

With in-person events picking up following the COVID-19 pandemic, our laptops are on-the-go and more people are visiting the office. Enable whole disk encryption on all laptops and desktops. If a thief steals your computer, they cannot access client information absent your username and password, even if they remove the physical hard drive from the stolen computer and install it in a different machine. Whole disk encryption is built in to Windows and macOS.

Enable “Find My”

Check whether your device’s remote location feature is enabled. Apple calls its service Find My, and Google’s is Find My Device. Microsoft's feature is also called Find My Device. With these services, you can locate the lost device, lock it, have it play a sound to help you find it, and, if necessary, remotely delete the device’s contents.

Apple’s service covers Macs, iOS devices, and some AirPods. Google’s service supports Android smartphones, tablets, and Chromebooks. Windows 10 and 11 users can enable Microsoft’s Find My Device.

Asset recovery tags

Larger organizations have long used numbered or barcoded stickers to track what equipment they have and where it is. Companies like Dynotag and ReturnMe take this inventory concept and make it accessible to individuals and small businesses.

You purchase an identity tag from the vendor, which could be a sticker (most common), keyring, luggage tag, or even a literal dog (or cat) tag. You then create an account and register the tag’s number to your account. If you misplace your tagged item, whoever finds the item calls an 800 number or visits a website (both listed on the tag) to arrange the item’s return.

Think of these tags as “Good Samaritan stickers.” They don’t prevent theft, but they make it easy for good people to be helpful.

Complex passwords

Unique, complex passwords remain essential for online security. Start with the LPM whitepaper on password managers for good information, but with one update: Replace LastPass with Bitwarden following the LastPass data breach in 2022. I have also used 1Password for years and am confident in recommending it.

If online password storage unnerves you, the open-source KeePass stores password data only locally on your machine, not in anyone’s cloud, but that makes you responsible for backing up and securing your data.

Finally, I recently learned one reason Rolodex still exists. A lawyer I met uses Rolodex cards for each of his passwords. For example, filed under “A” is a card for Amazon listing his email address and password. Considering the weaknesses of a single-copy paper record in one location, it’s imperfect but beats using the same password for many sites. If you prefer something more portable than a Rolodex, Amazon sells password notebooks.

Two-factor authentication

This LPM whitepaper provides a primer on two-factor authentication (2FA). Enable it on every web service you use that offers 2FA. Visit the 2FA Directory to discover whether your practice management software, bank, etc. makes 2FA available.

1Password, Dashlane, and Roboform support storing 2FA codes in their password managers. If you’re using another program, or a Rolodex or notebook, you’ll need an app like Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, or Twilio’s Authy.

Admin consoles

A practice larger than a solo lawyer, even just a single lawyer and one part-time support staffer, should buy or subscribe to the “business version” of most needed software or services. Business-tier plans typically include an administration dashboard to control device and user access.

Examine your vendors of subscription-based tools for document storage, productivity software, eSignatures, and more. Secure, centralized user access and content management are a lifesaver for a lost device, ease employee onboarding and departure, and add a “belt and suspenders” approach to client data when paired with whole disk encryption and a “find my” service.

VPN

If you’re working away from home or the office and need internet connectivity, don’t join whatever WiFi network is available, even if it’s “secured,” meaning anyone can ask the barista for the password. There are two sound ways to connect to the internet when away from your “known safe” networks.

First, use your smartphone as a WiFi hotspot. This will drain your phone’s battery and eat data, but it’s safe. Second, subscribe to and use virtual private network (VPN) software.

A VPN encrypts your internet traffic before it leaves your computer. Once the encrypted traffic arrives at the VPN vendor’s server, it’s decrypted and released onto the public internet. This approach prevents your coffeehouse or hotel lobby neighbors from eavesdropping. A VPN generally slows your internet connection, but it’s a tradeoff in favor of security. Visit the LPM comparison chart page to compare VPN providers.

Tackling these seven suggestions on a one-a-day schedule will dramatically boost your security in a week.

For more resources on opening, building, managing, protecting, and winding down a law practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

Another tip that I’ve used pretty often is to plan ahead. Many events that require you to sign up ahead show the list of those who have registered, which makes it easy to scope out who you want to talk to in advance if you are more of an introvert. Figuring out who is going to be there and making a plan for who you want to talk to and get to know helps set the expectations for yourself so you won’t feel so overwhelmed. 

Lastly, don’t put too much pressure on yourself. As lawyers, we are often perfectionists who want to make sure we’ve shaken every hand in the room. But for many of us, especially if you are an introvert, that can just contribute to burnout. Challenge yourself to just make it to the event and meet a couple of new people. Then give yourself permission to relax! Our jobs are stressful, so cut yourself some slack and have fun!” 
-Elizabeth McNulty, with The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis

“Introduce yourself to everyone you meet and tell them what you do, and always have a business card handy to give them. That means everyone, not just other lawyers. Your clientele can come from many persons – your faith family, your doctors, your kids’ school, your hairdresser, your barber, or that random person in the supermarket. These persons may not need a lawyer, but they might pass on your business card to someone else.” 
-Nadine Atkinson Flowers, with Law Office of Nadine Atkinson Flowers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

“Join an organization that speaks to your heart. Be active and meet with other members. Referrals flow organically from people who know, like, and trust you. Be genuine in your interactions with people, and business will follow.” 
-Jennifer Kornblum, with Jennifer Kornblum Law LLC in Springfield

“Jump into a bar association project that you’re interested in – you will meet other lawyers and work toward a common goal together. This goal-driven networking is much easier for me than standing in a large room trying to strike up a conversation with a stranger.” 
-Danielle Atchison, with Mdivani Corporate Immigration Law Firm in Kansas City

“When you walk into a networking event, put your phone away! It can feel awkward, but people are more likely to introduce themselves or pull you into a conversation if you don’t have your nose in your phone.” 
-Alexa Hillery, with Casey Devoti & Brockland in St. Louis

We were wondering … What advice would you give to new lawyers? Share your answer by writing to nhillen@mobar.org or filling out a form at mobar.wufoo.com/forms/closing-statements.

Scott E. Vincent is the founding member of Vincent Law, LLC in Kansas City.

In O’Nan v. Commissioner,¹ the court found the taxpayer, a widow who had been granted innocent spouse relief, could not recover litigation costs from the Internal Revenue Service because the IRS position was substantially justified in the context of an issue of first impression relating to a tax lien priority argument. 

Background and findings of fact

Sarah O’Nan was married to Jonathan O’Nan until his death in November 2014. The O’Nans purchased a home in 2012 as joint tenants with right of survivorship, which the court found was a “survivorship tenancy” under Ohio law. The home was eventually encumbered by two mortgages. The O’Nans both signed the first and second mortgages, but Sarah O’Nan did not sign the promissory note with respect to the first mortgage. 

The O’Nans filed joint tax returns for 2012 and 2013 but did not pay their reported tax liabilities for those years. The IRS assessed these liabilities prior to Jonathan O’Nan’s death. After his death, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien against the O’Nans in April 2015. 

Sarah O’Nan sold the home in June 2015. The title company for the sale remitted the sale proceeds first to closing costs, next to the two mortgage holders, next $123,200 to the IRS in full satisfaction of the federal tax lien, and then the final net proceeds were issued to Sarah O’Nan. 

Prior to the home sale, Sarah O’Nan submitted Form 8857 to the IRS requesting innocent spouse relief for 2012 and 2013. In February 2017, the IRS granted Sarah O’Nan partial relief from joint and several liability for 2012 and full relief for 2013, but the IRS denied her claim for a refund of the IRS lien payment from the home sale proceeds. 

The tax court previously made the following findings and holdings with respect to the innocent spouse and refund claims in O’Nan v. Commissioner²:

1. Sarah O’Nan inherited her spouse’s one-half interest in the home fully subject to the IRS liens.

2. When § 6015(f) innocent spouse relief is granted, the innocent spouse’s federal tax liability is recalculated as if the spouses had filed married filing separate tax returns. 

3. Given Sarah O’Nan’s § 6015(f) relief, the IRS lien on the family home only attached to $3,340 (plus interest) of her separate tax liability for 2012. 

4. Under Ohio survivorship tenancy law, only the one-half of the sale proceeds from the home attributable to Jonathan O’Nan’s former one-half interest was available to satisfy the liabilities encumbering his interest. 

5. Sarah O’Nan signed the first mortgage deed but not the associated promissory note, so she was only a surety for Jonathan O’Nan’s obligation under that note.

6. After splitting closing costs equally and allocating the first mortgage debt all to Jonathan O’Nan’s share of the proceeds, there was only a small remaining amount for the second mortgage holder and the IRS. 

7. Sarah O’Nan was not the sole signer of the second mortgage promissory note, so the second mortgage holder had priority over the IRS with respect to all remaining proceeds attributable to Jonathan O’Nan’s former one-half interest in the home. 

8. Therefore, the entire IRS lien payment had come from Sarah O’Nan’s separate funds, and she was due a refund under § 6015(g)(1) for all the proceeds previously paid to the IRS except for her remaining separate liability for 2012 of $3,340 (plus interest).

Following the 2023 tax court decision, Sarah O’Nan requested an award from the court under § 7430 of almost $87,000 for attorney’s fees and litigation costs. This 2024 decision addressed the § 7430 award request. 

Tax court decision 

The court first provided an overview and interpretation of the applicable statute. Section 7430 provides for an award of litigation or administrative costs to a taxpayer in a proceeding by or against the United States involving determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty where the taxpayer demonstrates they:

(1) are the prevailing party, 

(2) exhausted administrative remedies within the IRS,

(3) did not unreasonably protract the proceeding, and 

(4) claim reasonable costs.

A taxpayer is a “prevailing party” under § 7430 if they substantially prevail with respect to either the amount in controversy or the most significant issues and have a net worth of $2 million or less. The court noted that even if these requirements are met, a taxpayer will not be treated as a prevailing party if the commissioner establishes the IRS position in the proceeding was “substantially justified,” meaning it would satisfy a reasonable person or has a reasonable basis in both law and fact. 

The court further noted that even if a taxpayer does substantially prevail, or even if the commissioner’s position was substantially justified, the taxpayer will be treated as a prevailing party under § 7430 if the court’s determination of tax liability is not more than the liability amount of a taxpayer’s qualified offer. Section 7430(g) defines a qualified offer as a written offer that: 

(1) the taxpayer makes to the commissioner after the notice of deficiency and at least 30 days before the case is first set for trial, 

(2) specifies the offered amount of taxpayer liability, 

(3) is designated at the time as a qualified offer for purposes of § 7430, and 

(4) remains open until the earliest of the date the offer is rejected, and the trial begins or 90 days after the offer is made.

A qualified offer does not support prevailing party treatment if the court’s judgment is entered pursuant to a settlement agreement or if the amount of tax liability is not in issue in the proceeding. 

The court first addressed Sarah O’Nan’s requests for administrative costs incurred prior to the date the IRS Office of Appeals issued a final determination regarding her innocent spouse and refund requests. On these costs, the court summarily found that she could not recover administrative costs incurred before the final determination letter date, regardless of whether she otherwise qualified for a § 7430 award. 

The court next addressed Sarah O’Nan’s settlement proposals. The commissioner had conceded that Sarah O’Nan substantially prevailed, that her net worth did not exceed $2 million, that she exhausted her administrative remedies and that she had not unreasonably protracted the proceedings. So, if any of Sarah O’Nan’s settlement proposals were qualified offers, the court was prepared to award her costs even if the commissioner’s position was substantially justified. 

The court noted that the qualified offer provisions do not apply to proceedings where the amount of tax liability is not in issue. The case in question was instituted to dispute the commissioner’s refusal to issue a refund of amounts taken to satisfy undisputed tax liabilities of Jonathan O’Nan. Sarah O’Nan’s tax liability was not in issue before the IRS or in the prior tax court proceeding, so the court found that no amount of tax liability was in issue under § 7430. The court further found that none of Sarah O’Nan’s settlement proposals satisfied the procedural requirement to be a qualified offer because they did not reference § 7430 or purport to be a “qualified offer” as required by the statute. Therefore, the court held that none of the settlement offers qualified under § 7430.

Since no qualified offer was made but the commissioner had conceded the other requirements for § 7430 were met, the tax court then addressed whether the commissioner’s position was “substantially justified.” The court noted that in the prior proceeding, Sarah O’Nan’s initial positions focused on whether the IRS liens were valid, and the court had granted the IRS partial summary judgment concluding the commissioner was justified in rejecting Sarah O’Nan’s lien argument under applicable statutory and case law. 

After the partial summary judgment, Sarah O’Nan raised the argument that her equity in Jonathan O’Nan’s former one-half interest in the home was insufficient to account for the full IRS lien payment. This argument presupposed that when a federal tax lien attaches to property jointly owned by two spouses and one spouse is subsequently granted innocent spouse relief for tax liability secured by the lien, the lien then encumbers the relieved spouse’s interest in the property only to the extent of the liability for which she was not granted relief. The court considered this a concept of first impression, stating it was not aware of any statute, regulation, or case establishing this point of law prior to the court’s 2023 decision in this case. The court cited several cases for the proposition that the commissioner’s position is substantially justified when addressing a question of first impression. The court also found the commissioner’s position with respect to the lien was justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person. 

Based on these findings, the tax court held that the commissioner’s position was substantially justified in the administrative and court proceedings and denied Sarah O’Nan’s motion for an award of costs under § 7430. 

Conclusion 

O’Nan v. Commissioner addresses a § 7430 request for costs in the context of innocent spouse relief, but it is a good outline of the statutory framework to request costs in other contexts that lawyers can use. The tax court emphasizes the importance of labeling settlement offers as qualified offers under § 7430 to support a later request for costs. Importantly, the court also confirms that the 2023 O’Nan decision was a case of first impression, establishing an important lien relief and refund consideration for innocent spouse cases that involve federal tax liens and IRS collection efforts.

It's a crazy world. Social media, 24-hour news cycle, client emergencies - it's a wonder we get anything done. We’ve all heard of a “to-do” list designed to help increase our productivity and keep us on track, but with so many things vying for our attention, here are some items you should consider for your “not-to-do” list.

Do NOT begin your day by immediately diving into email.

Instead, begin your day with a five-minute private planning session. I use SELF Journal for this and time block my day on paper. Along with this, I state some 30,000-foot goals and recite three things I am thankful for.

Creating a plan for your day and visualizing your goals before diving into email can help you keep the main goal in view. You can always adjust as the day unfolds, but start with a plan.

Do NOT start your day without a team huddle.

After your five-minute planning session, have a quick huddle with your immediate team. I call this the lightning round. Each person has 60 seconds to recite what they have going on today and for the rest of the week. This encourages communication, awareness of projects, and almost always results in shifting some tasks and schedules around to better distribute work and help each other.

Do NOT participate in meetings unless there is an agenda, and never organize one without one.

I like to take it a step further and try to identify a goal or theme for the meeting to give it “purpose” or spark engagement. Whatever the case, showing up to a meeting without an agenda and clear purpose is a recipe for wasting time and killing morale.

Do NOT say, “I will get that done this weekend or tonight.”

Why would you derail your personal life that way? Stop being a martyr, and schedule to do work tasks during business hours. We all need a life outside of work, and making promises like this will not only kill your personal life but also could lead to burnout.

Do NOT let people ramble in meetings.

We all know these people – they either don’t prepare for a meeting, don’t read the agenda, don’t stay on task, or they just love to hear themselves talk.

Everyone’s time is valuable and deserves respect. When this happens, politely suggest talking offline or recording it as an issue to include on a future agenda so those in the meeting can tackle issues on the current agenda.

Don’t be too rigid about this, though. Sometimes, spontaneous topics are  important. Try to fit those spontaneous topics into an agenda item where the floor is open for items not on the agenda.

Do NOT keep your email inbox open on your computer all day.

Your inbox is one of the most disruptive environments to place yourself in if you are trying to work on a project or take a “deep” dive into a task. It’s like choosing to write a complex brief or letter in a war zone – every two to three minutes, a bomb or a fire is landing in your inbox. How can one possibly focus in an environment like that?

Instead, skim your calendar in the morning and decide how often and for how long you can batch process your emails that day. Every day will be different. Aim for something reasonable like five times a day.

Do NOT carry your phone 24/7.

Let’s face it, that smartphone is a ball and chain. It is incredible how often we check our phones during the day, and it is having a terrible impact on productivity.

Take a phone “fast” by leaving your phone in a secure location all day while you are at work. Let your loved ones know to reach you on your office phone if an emergency occurs. 

For more resources on opening, building, managing, protecting, and winding down a law practice, visit The Missouri Bar’s Law Practice Management Resource Center.

Some had a succession plan in place, but too many did not make any arrangements for their practice. 

“Me? That won’t be me.” Maybe not, but it’s never too early to have a plan in place. 

The following two scenarios represent an unfortunate – but all too common – reality: The lawyers died while managing active practices. Catalina had a plan, while the other lawyer, Ryan, did not. Here’s what happened to their respective clients, cases, finances, and reputations.

Catalina 

Catalina, 54, had a successful solo domestic practice. Catalina and her lawyer friend, Ashley, often discussed ideas for improving their practices, as well as balancing professional and family responsibilities. When Ashley suggested they appoint each other as successor trustees under Rule 5.26 – to take over in the event of their deaths – Catalina responded like most lawyers: “It’s too soon.” 

Ashley persisted; Catalina soon not only designated Ashley on her annual enrollment statement, but also looked at planning guides on The Missouri Bar website. Catalina’s accessible records soon included regularly updated lists of clients and their cases. She had names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and contact information for each client’s authorized contacts. Catalina and Ashley set up systems to track their case timelines, and they made notes explaining their various practice systems. They wrote instructions for where the other could find all client and case material, both electronically and physically. They created digital checklists – email account information, cloud-based billing and accounting systems, website domain, password manager, online banking, credit card accounts, and more. 

Catalina and Ashley also separately created folders for tax records, payroll, employee benefit plans and insurance policies, post office box information, leases for equipment, and office space. Catalina’s operating and trust accounting records were kept separate, and she made notes to allow her prospective trustee to easily locate all fee agreements; billing records; checks; deposit slips; transaction journals; client ledgers; reconciliations; expenses and invoices; and third-party payment records. 

Last year, after a brief illness, Catalina died. Ashley preserved Catalina’s reputation for caring for her clients. Ashley made sure all clients got their files and helped find other lawyers to help. She easily received trust account authority to transfer unearned advance fees to clients. Ashley contacted the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for assistance in winding down the practice and was provided resources to assist. Ashley also notified the Supreme Court of Missouri of Catalina’s death. 

Catalina and Ashley planned for the worst. Last year, the worst happened, but Catalina’s clients and reputation survived.

Ryan 

Ryan, 32, also became sick last year. He too had an active solo practice. He too had a friend who suggested naming each other as trustees. But Ryan’s friend didn’t persist, and Ryan never got around to it. 

When Ryan became sick, his friend was too busy to help, and no lawyer stepped up to take over Ryan’s practice. Ryan’s clients didn’t know why they couldn’t reach him, and several clients eventually sent complaints to the OCDC. 

After the OCDC determined no trustee was designated to wind down Ryan’s practice, that office contacted local lawyers, the local bar association, and the presiding judge seeking volunteers to serve as trustees. A decision also needed to be made in conjunction with Ryan’s estate whether compensation would be paid to the trustees. Once two lawyers agreed to serve, the presiding judge in Ryan’s circuit appointed the two “volunteers” to wind down the practice, pursuant to Rule 5.26. 

Unfortunately, Ryan’s office and files were disorganized. For the last few years, Ryan did not have any support staff practice to assist with providing passwords and banking and filing system information to the trustees. By the time the two volunteers worked their way through Ryan’s files and systems, his former clients were frustrated and angry. Ryan had left his trust accounting records in disarray, and reconciliations could not be located. Ryan’s wife knew little about the practice; she did not have passwords or account numbers, she didn’t understand Ryan’s case filing system, and she believed the money in the trust account would become part of Ryan’s estate. 

The presiding judge accurately told the trustees that the OCDC would help them through the process. The OCDC guided the trustees through the process, and the Office of State Court Administrator provided a list of Ryan’s pending cases. Some – but not all – of Ryan’s current clients were located, and the appointed trustees returned those files. The trustees also located some former clients, and – for a while – were stuck holding those files, in the same way that Rules 4-1.15 and 4-1.22 would have required Ryan to maintain the files. Eventually, after multiple efforts, the trustees delivered the remaining files to the OCDC, where they will be stored for the remainder of the file retention period. 

At the conclusion of winding down Ryan’s practice, a final report was provided to the appointing court and the trustees were released. 

Ryan did not make a succession plan, and it resulted in stress and chaos for his clients and surviving spouse. Before his illness, Ryan never had a disciplinary complaint. His peers respected him. This preventable situation tarnished his reputation. 

Resources 

Every lawyer, especially solo and small firm practitioners, should have a plan in place in case they become ill or die. The Missouri Bar offers several resources to help lawyers create succession plans at MoBar.org/LPM. Lawyers can also refer to Supreme Court Rule 5.26, Rule 4-1.22, and Rule 4-1.15 for more information when developing a plan.

Jeffrey R. Schoenberger is a senior consultant at Affinity Consulting Group.

Therefore, you must educate yourself on proper social media usage to ensure that your private and professional lives do not conflict. 

Why are you on social media? 

As a first step, ask yourself, “Why do I use social media?” Do you use it to communicate with friends? To keep in contact with your children or other family members? Another reason? Perhaps you use social media to promote yourself or your business. 

Figuring out the “why” of social media for you helps you monitor your activity and allows you to use each individual platform appropriately. If you know why you use social media, then it is easier to determine how you should use it. 

One size doesn’t fit all 

Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat, Instagram, LinkedIn, and the other platforms have distinct functions, customs, and expectations. Once you know why you use social media, you can better use the individual platforms. For example, you may want to communicate with distant family members on Facebook or show your Instagram followers a photo of yourself at an interesting location. Both activities would be inappropriate on LinkedIn, which is used to promote your professional self and business. 

Exactly which platforms you prefer to use for these purposes is up to you, but make sure you’re using the platform(s) appropriately. It can take time to learn the proper use for each, but that time is well spent. 

Understanding your digital presence 

It can be easy to forget that social media is not actually private. Something most social media platforms have in common is the ability for people to gather quite a bit of information about you from relatively basic searches, even if you have strict privacy settings on your accounts. Many platforms allow users to publicly display personal information – name, location, employment, interests, relationship status, family and friends, etc. – alongside public posts.

Besides being aware of what you post, you should also understand other outwardly visible activity on social media. For example, Facebook groups and followed accounts on Instagram all tell a story about you as an individual and, by extension, as a member of your organization. 

Know your social media presence and the impression it gives others about you – and your employer – when they search for your account. You want a positive portrayal on all social media platforms, especially considering your boss, coworkers, and current or potential clients may view your online interactions. 

Conduct self-audits 

Even if you believe your social media account(s) could not possibly upset another person, perform an occasional self-audit to ensure you are representing yourself well. Some platforms, such as LinkedIn, have ways to view your account as strangers would.

This is a helpful tool when analyzing your accounts from the perspective of others. 

You may only use social media to interact with friends and family but still keep communication clean and appropriate. You may only be directly communicating with someone you are close with but that communication could still be visible to, or passed along to, others. 

Conclusion 

You can only meet so many people in person, but you can connect with countless people digitally. Remember: The image you create of yourself digitally is visible to many more people (and for much longer) than in-person engagements. Make sure the version of you that others see online matches the version they meet in person.

When we think about what to put on a firm website, remember that your clients are normal people, and so are you. Why do you visit a business’ website? Determine what’s helpful to you and add it to your firm’s site. Here are examples to get you started:

Schedule appointments that work for you and the client

One way to minimize distracting calls is to let folks pick appointment times themselves, in the calendar windows you allow. Services like Microsoft Bookings and Calendly sync with your calendar, allowing clients to see when you're free and schedule an appointment directly on your calendar.

Letting clients schedule appointments for themselves seems intimidating at first, but you can create rules to protect your time. “Buffer time” blocks time before and/or after the appointment, ensuring a gap to prepare for the meeting or organize your notes afterward. You can limit how soon clients can schedule appointments, guaranteeing plenty of heads-up to prepare for the meeting. You can also specify how far in the future someone can schedule and limit what hours are available each day of the week.

Both Bookings and Calendly offer code snippets, sometimes called “embed” or “widget” code, to add this scheduling functionality to your existing site.

Collect more information upfront using web forms

Clients completing intake or other informational forms in your office is as popular with them as filling out medical forms with a clipboard and dry ballpoint pen is with you. Apart from being time-consuming and annoying, no one wants to interpret the handwritten last name of a stranger.

Make life easier for clients and yourself by adding to your website tools you may already pay for: Google Forms and Microsoft Forms. Each is included with many Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 plans, respectively.

When selecting an intake form tool, ensure it meets the security requirements in your jurisdiction or practice area for the data you collect, e.g., HIPAA compliance for medical information. The free version of many tools is less secure than the paid version.

As with Bookings and Calendly, you can add questionnaires from each company’s forms product to your website.

In addition to these “general purpose” forms, Lawmatics, a web-based, legal-specific customer relationship management (CRM) application, provides more advanced options for forms on your firm site. If you subscribe to Clio Manage, its companion CRM product, Clio Grow, is another route to consider.

Explore the wide world of plugins

Many firms host their website on Squarespace or Wix, or they build the site using WordPress, which is available through countless providers. All support plugins written for their respective platform in addition to the embed and widget code mentioned above.

Plugins expand your website’s functionality, empowering you to go beyond text, videos, and images. Some potentially useful plugins for your law firm include a booking calendar (see above), advanced search features (to aid visitors in finding information on your site), and a chatbot or live chat. These features help your website live up to its potential and benefit clients — more than a mere business card.

Squarespace and Wix are self-contained, meaning they host your site online and provide the software that creates and customizes your pages. This approach offers a curated experience conceived and designed by one company. Its downside lies in being “closed source,” meaning that the software is not freely available for folks to modify and extend. Vendors permit plugins for these platforms at their discretion. Useful Squarespace plugins for a firm website include Dropbox, LinkedIn, SoundCloud, and Weglot. Wix plugin options include Dropbox, Magic Form Builder, and Social Media Stream.

WordPress has the most varied plugins of the three platforms. A web search for “law firm WordPress plugins” produces dozens of “top 10” lists of valuable plugins. While the WordPress software is free, the site hosting costs money, as do several popular plugins.

Being “open source” software means anyone can write and distribute a WordPress plugin. That’s beneficial — lots of plugins, but also a security concern. Before installing any WordPress plugin to your website, ensure it isn’t risky — download plugins only from official repositories. Read reviews from other users and explore what permissions the plugin requests.

While plugins offer valuable opportunities to enhance client interactions, you must prioritize website security over features. Don’t cut corners and leave your site vulnerable to hackers and malware.

For more practice management tips, visit MoBar.org/LPM for whitepages and checklists, as well as News.MoBar.org for articles covering a wide array of topics.

For lawyers – particularly solos and those responsible for making payroll each month – it seems there are only two states of the business. Either you are too busy to breathe, or you are scrounging around for billable work.

One of my colleagues refers to slow spells as time to “shake the trees” and work on those small tasks that need to be completed but you’ve forgotten about, or they were always less pressing than other matters. There are useful things you can do during slow periods that will eventually turn your “molasses time” into money:

Invest in training

You and your employees use core tools every day. I guarantee the computer programs you already own have features that would help you work faster and more accurately.

• If you draft documents, do you have templates with key language in one place that’s consistently editable with ease?
   
• Have you customized your email application with rules to filter incoming mail, separating client correspondence from newsletters and advertisements?
   
• How about setting up reusable task templates in your case management system?
   
• Have you developed a documented procedure for redacting PDFs for filing?

 Use your downtime to learn how to use your tools better.

If this interests you, Missouri Bar members get a 20% discount on Affinity’s legal-specific software manuals. Go here and use the coupon code MOBARMANUALS.

Catch up on CLE

Irrespective of business conditions, you will need CLE at the end of your reporting period, June 30, 2024. The Missouri Bar allows a portion of self-study CLEs to apply towards your MCLE hours. Here is a list of upcoming CLE programs.

Take inventory

Take inventory of your technology. Ask the following questions:

• Who has what? Make a list of each staffer and what they have as far as computers, monitors, scanners, printers, phones, and headsets. Also record what software each staffer has, the version of that software, and any associated licensing key. The software list says who has access to special software, like a child support calculator, and whose software should be upgraded.
   
• Where is it? After making the list, identify where that equipment is. Some equipment will likely at the office, but given hybrid-work policies, a fair portion might be in the homes of remote employees.
   
• How old is it? Record the purchase date and warranty status of each piece.

This inventory list will serve you well for two purposes: insurance claims, if necessary, and planning for replacement of equipment as it ages out of warranty.

Everything has a process

What you do in the firm has an “order of execution” or checklist of events/actions you take – from drafting a letter to a client to scheduling a meeting to creating, and executing documents. Even paying rent or restocking the coffee beans has a checklist.

Document how you do both administrative and substantive processes. Documenting processes will help you discover and eliminate bottlenecks. It also creates a “cookbook” should the person “in the know” be on vacation and the work still gets done.

Use the spreadsheet here to start your documentation process. Start with these two LPM whitepapers as your guides.

Centralize your knowledgebase

If you currently create client documents – whether it be a letter, estate plan, or operating agreement – by finding the most recent one you created for a client and modifying it for the current situation, you’re wasting time and relying on your memory to locate the starting point.

Take time to gather a representative set of recent documents – wills, for example – and assemble a single template, a starting document that contains the best versions of your provisions. Put those provisions into a single word processing document to use as your future starting point. See this LPM checklist as a guide on the subject.

Slow times in your business are stressful but remember there are useful things you can do during those times that will pay dividends down the road. And focusing your mind on something immediate and useful has benefits of its own.

For more practice management tips, visit MoBar.org/LPM for whitepages and checklists, as well as News.MoBar.org for articles covering a wide array of topics.