Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

What if the best way to build a successful law firm is to stop doing things the way law firms have always done them?

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux is joined by Jonathan Merel, founder of Merel Family Law, for a wide-ranging conversation about technology, culture, leadership, and what it actually takes to grow a law firm.

Jonathan shares how he has built a 20+ lawyer family law firm by questioning some of the legal industry’s oldest assumptions. Tyson and Jonathan discuss the opportunities and ethical concerns surrounding AI, why law school still leaves lawyers unprepared for the business of law, and why grades and credentials do not necessarily predict who will become a great lawyer.

They also dig into Jonathan’s approach to building a firm people actually want to work for. From creating a modern office environment and investing in personal brands to hiring an in-house divorce coach, developing future leaders, and giving employees room to grow, Jonathan has intentionally built around the people inside the firm.

The goal isn’t simply to grow a bigger law firm. It’s to build a firm where great people can build great careers, clients receive a better experience, and the business can continue growing without losing the human element that made it successful in the first place.

What You’ll Learn

  • How Jonathan is using AI without losing the human side of practicing law.
  • Why law school may not prepare lawyers for the business of running a firm.
  • Why personality, emotional intelligence, and business development can matter more than grades.
  • How Jonathan built a stronger culture by doing things differently from the firm he left.
  • Why investing in your people can become one of the biggest drivers of law firm growth.

Timestamps

00:00 — Using AI without losing the human side of law

08:46 — Why law school needs to teach the business of law

13:20 — What actually makes a great lawyer

29:24 — The bulldog vs. the fox in family law

33:02 — Leaving a firm to build something better

39:22 — Building a people-first law firm culture

42:44 — Why Jonathan hired an in-house divorce coach

63:22 — What still drives Jonathan after 17 years in business

Connect with Jonathan

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanmerel/

Website: https://merelfamilylaw.com/

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:00)
So Jonathan, you’re very tech-forward with your firm, which I think is kind of cool. It’s all over your website.

Tell me what you’re doing. I want to hear some of the things you’re doing that are pretty cool.

Jonathan Merel (00:18)
We’ve always tried to be progressive, whether it comes to tech or how we treat the attorney-client experience.

I’m always trying to push the envelope.

Obviously, AI is everywhere. We’re trying to stay on top of it, but also toe the line when it comes to what’s acceptable, ethical, and not ethical. That’s still a slippery slope.

When it comes to client management software, developing a modern law office with all the bells and whistles, and the technology available to us, we’re really just trying to stay on top of things because it’s such an ever-changing world.

AI is obviously a big part of the tech piece.

I’m doing webinars and trying to get to seminars all over the place just to stay on top of things. Especially with AI, you feel like you’re on top of it, and then you hear about something else it can do and think, holy shit, I didn’t even think of that.

It’s changing so quickly.

Tyson Mutrux (01:20)
Are you doing anything with AI that’s more client-facing, where they actually see it?

Jonathan Merel (01:27)
Not really.

At this point, we’re experimenting with different aspects of AI available through our client management software, getting clients in the door, marketing, and utilizing AI chatbots on our website.

But I’m a little hesitant to give it too much rope.

I still want to stick to our roots and continue developing what’s gotten us our success, which is the people who work with us, our attorneys, and our staff.

If you let go of those values too much, you can slip into this world of AI that is obviously efficient and super smart, but you start losing that human touch.

That’s at the center of the attorney-client relationship, and I never want to lose that.

Tyson Mutrux (02:20)
Do you bill by the hour, or is it flat fee?

Jonathan Merel (02:24)
We bill by the hour.

Tyson Mutrux (02:28)
Have you found AI allows you to bill more, or does it allow you to save clients money? Have you noticed any difference yet?

Jonathan Merel (02:38)
That’s the question.

It can certainly do things in a fraction of the time that humans can, but I still think you need humans to go through it and make sure it’s right.

I would never trust a review of someone’s bank accounts or a discovery production and just trust what the computer spits out without going through it ourselves.

Even if it’s drafting questions you would ask in a deposition or outlines to prepare for a trial or hearing, it’s a good thing to get you going.

But you still need the human element to review it and make sure it’s part of your own style.

Tyson Mutrux (03:35)
We’ve built AI into our process where it helps us answer discovery responses.

It can get you maybe 80% of the way there, but you still have to put your eyeballs on it because it’s not 100%.

For us, we’re PI, so we don’t bill by the hour. We need to move quickly.

I do wonder if billable-hour firms eventually switch to more of a flat-rate model because AI changes the equation.

If you can have something drafted via AI in 45 seconds that you normally would have billed 10 hours for, the model starts to shift.

Jonathan Merel (04:28)
Right.

Then the question becomes the ethical part of it.

At least in the counties where we practice, judges don’t want to be reading AI-generated stuff.

But can they even tell the difference?

AI has become so developed that you can tell it to write in your own writing style. It becomes almost impossible to decipher what’s truly AI, what was really done by the lawyer, and what’s a combination of both.

Something is going to have to change down the road.

But even if you can do something in a fraction of the time, you have two questions.

One, is that acceptable to clients when they’re paying you to do the work?

Two, even if you use AI, you can’t blindly sign something and file it with the court.

With litigation, you still have to get in front of a judge. You have to litigate. You have to cross-examine.

At least for now, I don’t think a robot can do that.

Hopefully we still have jobs.

Tyson Mutrux (05:45)
You just gave me an idea.

I’ve got a Claude skill that speaks in my voice. It’s more for drafting emails to clients and creating content.

Let’s say you’re a phenomenal writer and I want to steal your writing style.

I could take all of your pleadings that you’ve filed, scan them in, and theoretically I could write like you automatically.

Jonathan Merel (06:13)
A hundred percent.

You could create the Jonathan skill.

I’m sure it’s happening.

Tyson Mutrux (06:22)
What do you think about these attorneys getting in trouble because they’re filing motions with fake cases generated by AI?

Jonathan Merel (06:32)
I think it’s the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what could result from AI.

It’s a double-edged sword.

For saving time and being more productive, absolutely. It makes sense. It can do things we cannot do as humans.

But there’s a slippery slope because it’s not always perfect.

The one time it isn’t perfect, suddenly you’ve got bullshit citations or something else that gets you into trouble.

Then it becomes convenient to say, “Well, it wasn’t me. That’s just what got generated.”

You back yourself into a corner.

Like any advancement in technology, there are tons of benefits, but there are definitely concerns, especially ethically when you’re dealing with the law.

Tyson Mutrux (07:22)
We contract out some of our motion practice for overflow work.

Nothing has come up yet, but we had one case where I was furious because I thought there was a fake case in a motion.

I thought it was AI and I was ready to be done with them.

They were scrambling and eventually found the actual case. It was just some obscure case.

But part of our process now is that one of our attorneys checks every single case.

I don’t trust anybody.

We make sure every citation is a real case because it terrifies me.

Jonathan Merel (08:10)
You can get burned so badly.

It works both ways too.

You have to look at the cases the other side is citing because if something could turn a decision one way or another and the case doesn’t even exist, that’s a huge problem.

It’s definitely a new frontier.

Tyson Mutrux (08:46)
When we were going to law school, you were Shepardizing, looking through Westlaw, old statute books, casebooks, looking for the red flag, yellow flag, green flag.

I don’t even know how you teach some of that anymore.

How does AI change law school curriculum?

How should we design law schools now?

Jonathan Merel (09:10)
If anyone follows me on LinkedIn, they know I think law school is pretty much complete nonsense.

There are obviously some benefits to it, but my problem is the practicality of the curriculum.

I understand that you need to go through the gauntlet of law school and the bar exam to practice.

But I don’t understand why they’re still teaching so much about cases that are ancient history.

I understand that maybe that’s the basis of your knowledge and trains your brain to think like a lawyer.

But there’s almost no practical component outside of moot court, law review, or maybe drafting.

Nobody knows how to actually run a business.

Nobody teaches you how to develop a law firm or what law actually looks like in an office setting.

They teach you how to think like a lawyer, but not how to be a lawyer.

Tyson Mutrux (10:30)
What’s interesting is that if you look at the rankings, a lot of the schools that are more practical and skills-based are ranked lower.

The more theory-based schools tend to be ranked higher.

It’s almost like the whole system is built around theory instead of real-world experience.

Jonathan Merel (10:58)
Exactly.

I don’t understand how at least 40% of law school couldn’t be teaching you how law firms work and what it’s actually like to be in a law firm.

They’re certainly not teaching the business aspect of law.

Getting paid. Running a law firm. Creating a law firm.

Every student should be required to go through a class teaching you how to start a law firm and understand the business side of it.

Finance, hiring, marketing, all of these things should be part of the curriculum.

Tyson Mutrux (12:00)
We had law practice management.

My former co-host Jim Hacking was actually my professor. He was an adjunct.

Every week he brought in a different solo or small-firm attorney to teach a different aspect of running a firm.

It was brilliant because those are the people you actually want to learn from.

Jonathan Merel (12:28)
Exactly.

There should be so many different parts to it.

Finance. Starting the law firm. Hiring. Marketing.

Those things are barely on people’s radar when they become lawyers.

Tyson Mutrux (13:02)
I’ve heard rumblings that some law schools are shifting toward more hands-on, practical education.

But even if it’s remotely like what you and I went through, it’s so far behind what’s happening with AI right now.

Jonathan Merel (13:20)
I think the legal industry in general is behind the times.

It’s traditional. I understand that.

But it has to start adapting.

Tyson Mutrux (13:34)
You’ve also talked on LinkedIn about how much law school rankings and grades really matter.

What are your thoughts there?

Jonathan Merel (13:45)
When I hire, I’m not really looking at what law school someone went to or what their grades were.

People considering law school get stuck on, “I have to go to a great law school. I need a great LSAT score.”

I understand that’s how the world works, but I don’t necessarily think it translates into success as an attorney once you pass the bar.

If you’re a hustler, you work your ass off, you’re personable, you know how to get clients, network, and market, I’ll take that person who got Cs in law school over the straight-A student from Harvard who has been buried behind a computer and is scared to do anything.

Tyson Mutrux (14:42)
I completely agree.

But how do you interview for that?

Jonathan Merel (14:48)
It depends on the position.

With an entry-level person, you have to gauge how the interview goes and really get to know them.

I’d rather just talk with someone than ask all these standard, old-school interview questions.

What do they do for fun?

What’s their social life like?

Who are they as a person?

When you engage with someone like a person, you get a much better idea of how they’re going to act when they’re not just sitting behind a computer.

There’s so much more to practicing law than the actual law.

Jonathan Merel (15:35)
I tell the lawyers at my firm, “You are your own entity under the umbrella of Merel Family Law.”

Treat it that way.

I’ll give you the resources you need to market yourself and build your personal brand within our brand.

At the end of the day, that translates into success.

You want lawyers who can bring in business.

You want them to know how to talk to clients and potential clients.

That gets lost when all the focus is on where somebody went to law school and what their grades were.

Intelligence does not necessarily equate to being the best lawyer.

Tyson Mutrux (16:25)
Emotional intelligence is huge.

How do you balance them marketing themselves as their own entity inside the firm while also getting the work done?

Jonathan Merel (16:40)
It’s a balance.

A lot of networking happens outside regular office hours, but I encourage people in networking groups to use our office to host things.

We have a unique office setup with a bar, lounge area, and other spaces.

I created it with the vision of using it to connect people.

They can bring in referral sources, networking groups, charity events, board meetings.

We support people joining bar associations and charity boards.

We give them the tools to expand their network and ultimately turn that into business.

They obviously still have responsibilities as lawyers, but I incentivize them to bring in their own business.

They get a cut of cases they originate.

It all works together.

Tyson Mutrux (17:56)
I’m interested in your background because I’ve got a quote from you about not wanting to wear a boring tie and a boring suit and go into a boring office.

Your father was a criminal defense attorney, right?

Jonathan Merel (18:10)
My father was a criminal defense attorney, and my uncle was a lawyer.

I was surrounded by the law, but family law was never part of it.

I played the game for 20 years.

I was litigating, wearing a suit and tie, going to court every day.

I started my firm almost 18 years ago, but I always had a different vision.

Why does everything have to be so stuffy?

I understand courtroom etiquette. Court is a serious place and deserves respect. Judges deserve respect.

I’m not suggesting lawyers should walk into court in shorts and a T-shirt.

But especially in family law, lawyers sometimes take on this personality where they have to be incredibly intense and serious all the time.

There’s a time and place for that.

But you can relax a little in how you practice, how you meet clients, and how you create your office.

People encountering lawyers for the first time are already intimidated enough.

Clients appreciate it when you relax a little.

Employees appreciate it.

Prospective employees appreciate it.

Tyson Mutrux (20:10)
Do you have a dress code when clients come in?

Jonathan Merel (20:16)
Yes.

People still have to dress appropriately when clients are there or when they’re going to court.

But I’m not getting suited up as much as I used to.

I’ll wear a collared shirt or a jacket.

Years ago, there wasn’t even a question. I was in a suit and tie.

I don’t know that clients really care anymore.

Everything has become more relaxed.

The clothing itself has changed too. You can wear a nice performance shirt, pants, or a jacket and still look presentable.

It doesn’t have to be the stuffy old suit, tie, and shiny shoes every day.

Society has changed, and I think law has changed with it.

Tyson Mutrux (21:30)
Why didn’t you go the criminal defense route?

Jonathan Merel (21:35)
I never had an interest in it.

Honestly, I didn’t even know if I wanted to be a lawyer.

I was finishing school in Madison and didn’t know what I wanted to do. I thought law school could be a stepping stone.

Growing up, we had phones ringing all night from the jail. There were calls at two in the morning with bail bondsmen and everything else.

During my first year of law school, I got a job as a law clerk at a family law firm.

It just clicked.

I didn’t want to do something transactional or repetitive.

I love interacting with people. I’m social.

I liked helping people get out of shitty situations, helping people who were being abused, and hearing these crazy stories.

It keeps you interested.

It’s never dull.

That was my first legal job, and it’s basically all I’ve known since.

Tyson Mutrux (22:45)
Where did you go to law school?

Jonathan Merel (22:49)
Chicago-Kent.

Tyson Mutrux (22:53)
I was wondering if you went to Wisconsin because if you graduate there and practice in Wisconsin, you don’t have to take the bar exam.

That’s a pretty damn good perk.

Jonathan Merel (23:02)
It’s insane.

I’ll never forget how miserable that summer studying for the bar was.

My friends were out having the best time, and I was studying constantly.

Tyson Mutrux (23:28)
Did you do Barbri back then?

Jonathan Merel (23:31)
Yes.

Richard Conviser, one of the people behind Barbri, was actually my professor.

Back then, you had to physically go in the morning and then study in the afternoon.

I can’t imagine doing it entirely online at your own pace.

I needed the regimen.

Tyson Mutrux (24:10)
Same.

I don’t know if I could sit down and do another test like that now.

The bar exam itself is changing too.

You’ve got the Uniform Bar Exam, and now states are starting to adopt the NextGen exam.

The whole profession is changing.

Tyson Mutrux (25:00)
You’re in Chicago, which is a massive market.

How do you differentiate yourself?

Jonathan Merel (25:09)
You have to distinguish yourself.

Chicago is a huge city, but in some ways it feels like a small community.

People know each other.

If you do good work, market yourself the right way, and continue to build, you develop a reputation.

There are probably only a handful of family law firms in Chicago with 20 or more lawyers.

Once you become one of those, you’re at the top of the game in that market.

Family law itself is a pretty small community.

Your reputation matters with clients, but it also matters with other attorneys and judges.

If you’re new to it, you have to learn the ropes and establish yourself.

Tyson Mutrux (29:24)
Let me ask you a loaded question.

If you need to hire a divorce attorney, do you want the bulldog or do you want the fox?

Jonathan Merel (29:34)
I think you need the perfect combination of both.

You want someone who can be aggressive, but who uses that aggression to get you into a position to settle your case.

If you hire a bulldog who just runs through every wall and turns your divorce into World War III, they’re not really helping you.

They’re costing you more money.

There are sensitive issues involving children.

You can piss off judges.

There’s a time and place to be the biggest asshole out there. We can all do that.

But you have to do it for a purpose.

You do it when it furthers your client’s interests.

Creating more issues, more messes, more fees, more stress, and more time just for the sake of being aggressive doesn’t help anyone.

Tyson Mutrux (30:42)
Clients sometimes come in wanting that bulldog.

How do you set expectations at the beginning so it doesn’t become a problem later?

Jonathan Merel (30:52)
I’m a straight shooter.

I tell them how it is.

If they don’t like what I have to say, fine.

I can be the biggest asshole you’ve ever met if I need to be, but I’m only going to use that when it benefits you.

I like the phrase “tactically aggressive.”

I can get super aggressive and use it to hopefully put your case in a position where it settles on favorable terms instead of going to trial, wasting tons of money, and having a stranger make decisions about your life.

Sometimes people want a lawyer who will just tell them what they want to hear.

I’ve had people come in where somebody is clearly going to pay alimony for the next 20 years.

Their spouse hasn’t worked in 20 years. They’re making millions of dollars.

I’m going to tell them, “You’re paying alimony. I’m sorry.”

They can go find another lawyer who says, “I’ll make sure you never pay alimony.”

They’re full of shit.

There are plenty of lawyers who overpromise and underdeliver.

At the end, the client walks away thinking, “I should have listened to the guy who told me the truth.”

Tyson Mutrux (33:02)
You started your firm around 2009.

Before that, you worked for another family law firm for several years.

Tell me about that experience.

Jonathan Merel (33:14)
It was my first job after passing the bar.

There were probably five or six lawyers.

At first, I learned a ton. I was a sponge.

Eventually, I started bringing in cases of my own and thinking about partnership.

Am I going to be offered partnership?

Do I even want to be a partner here?

Over time, I became really unhappy.

I felt underappreciated.

I was coming in at six in the morning. I was the last person to leave. I was outbilling every other associate by hundreds of hours a year.

I didn’t necessarily need pats on the back, but sometimes it feels good to know you’re appreciated.

I wasn’t seeing it through compensation either.

Nobody was really saying, “We’re lucky to have you. Here’s what your future looks like.”

For about two years toward the end, I knew I was eventually going to leave.

I started taking mental notes about what I liked and didn’t like, and how I wanted my firm to be different.

Eventually, I went out on my own.

I took my law clerk with me, and she’s now the managing partner at my firm.

I used everything I’d learned about practicing law, but also everything I had learned about how I did and didn’t want to run a firm.

I wanted employees to know I appreciated them.

I wanted to reward them for their hard work.

I wanted to create a better environment and a real culture instead of having a bunch of people show up, bill hours, and leave.

I wanted people to enjoy coming to work and enjoy the people they worked with.

Tyson Mutrux (35:52)
What was the breaking point?

Jonathan Merel (35:58)
Unfortunately, I think it came down to money.

I was always the person who had to ask to talk about compensation.

That’s completely opposite from how I run my firm now.

We have reviews. I try to stay ahead of raises and compensation increases.

I don’t want someone to feel the way I felt.

They also never really talked about partnership.

I think that’s something young lawyers need to hear.

“You’re doing these things right. These are the things you need to work on. Here’s what you need to do if partnership is your goal.”

That kind of communication matters from a firm leader.

I never had it.

Eventually, it left a bad taste in my mouth, and I was out.

Tyson Mutrux (37:08)
Do you have a written plan for associates showing them how they can become partners?

Jonathan Merel (37:15)
We have guidelines.

It’s ultimately discretionary, but if people are doing the right things, showing loyalty to the firm, helping bring in business, mentoring lawyers below them, treating staff well, and really buying into what we do, chances are they’re going to become a partner.

And they know that because I tell them.

Tyson Mutrux (37:50)
Do you ever look back at something your old firm did that you hated and then realize, after becoming an owner, that maybe they were right?

Jonathan Merel (38:00)
It’s always different when you’re the person writing the paycheck.

When you’re working for someone else, you don’t understand the other side.

There might be a payroll where you’re the person who doesn’t get paid because everyone else gets paid first.

You’re staying up thinking about rent, expenses, and a million other things.

You see yourself in a vacuum when you’re an employee.

Once you become an owner, you understand and appreciate that side more.

It didn’t override how I felt about how I was treated, but wearing the owner hat is completely different.

Tyson Mutrux (38:55)
Looking back, are you happy you left?

If they had offered you partnership, would you have stayed?

Jonathan Merel (39:03)
I would never have stayed.

Even if they had offered me partnership, I wouldn’t change a thing.

I always knew I wanted to start my own firm.

I knew I could do it differently and better.

That firm eventually imploded, so thankfully I didn’t stay.

I love what I do now.

I love looking out for my employees and being their biggest fan.

My role has evolved.

I’m still working with clients, but I’m not in court as much.

I’m more focused on building and growing the business.

Tyson Mutrux (39:55)
What do you think has been the key to the firm’s growth?

Jonathan Merel (40:00)
Hiring good people.

Marketing the right way.

Rewarding your people.

Creating a good culture and providing a good work environment.

The most important piece is your people.

I would not be where I am, and the firm would not be where it is, without the people who work for me, their loyalty, and their dedication.

Good people translate into good results for clients and good legal work.

If you get those things right, it’s a recipe for success.

Tyson Mutrux (40:48)
You seem like you’d be a fun boss.

Jonathan Merel (40:53)
I think I’m considered a fun boss.

I’m always trying to make people smile and laugh.

When I need to put my foot down, I put my foot down.

It’s finding that mix.

You want to be loved, but maybe feared a little bit too.

I definitely don’t want to be feared more than I’m loved.

I try to make it fun because this is a serious business.

We deal with emotional situations and clients going through horrible things.

Especially with younger lawyers, it’s easy for them to get caught up in the case and almost treat it like it’s their own family.

Sometimes I have to tell them, “Take a step back. This is not your family. We’re here to do a job and help our client through this, but we cannot have the same emotional connection they have.”

Tyson Mutrux (42:02)
Have you ever thought about offering therapy services to your associates or staff to help them avoid carrying all of that?

Jonathan Merel (42:12)
Absolutely.

I encourage every employee to see a therapist.

If the job is getting to be too much, tell me.

Take a breather.

Take a vacation.

We’re generous with PTO. If somebody needs a day to get away, I’m all for it.

Family law is hard.

People are always fighting.

You get calls in the middle of the night and emails at five in the morning asking why you haven’t responded.

Even when you do a great job, there’s still something sad at the end of it.

A marriage ended.

Someone doesn’t see their kids all the time.

It’s hard.

Jonathan Merel (42:44)
That actually ties into something we do at our firm.

We have an in-house divorce coach.

I think we may be one of the only firms doing it.

I’d been looking for someone for a couple of years because we’ve always tried to be progressive and focus on the client experience.

Think about what happens when someone comes into a family law firm for the first time.

Their life is in shambles.

Something crazy happened, or their marriage has been deteriorating for years.

They’re a mess.

Then immediately we’re saying, “We need your financial affidavit. We need tax returns. We need bank statements.”

Their head is spinning.

Sometimes one spouse has never dealt with the finances at all.

There is so much happening, and the normal legal process has almost no concern for the mental and emotional toll the client is experiencing.

I wanted someone who could be the liaison between us and the client for that side of the process.

So we hired an amazing divorce coach who is trained in domestic violence.

She can be almost like a therapist for clients while being part of our team.

Tyson Mutrux (44:50)
That has to help the lawyers too.

Jonathan Merel (44:54)
Absolutely.

Clients want to talk to someone who has experience dealing with the emotional side of divorce.

Attorneys don’t necessarily have that training.

Our coach can work with the client and also come back to us and say, “This client is really struggling. Here are some things you should be thinking about.”

Clients love talking to her.

It takes a load off our plate, and it’s been a great addition to the firm.

Tyson Mutrux (45:34)
I interviewed someone who had a separate divorce coaching company outside of his family law firm.

Have you ever dealt with an external coach like that?

Jonathan Merel (45:44)
Our coach is an employee of the firm, but people can also hire her separately.

We’ve had people contact us and say, “I just want to hire Christina.”

Her name is Christina Lindsay.

She’s not an attorney. She’s a certified divorce coach and trained in domestic violence.

The certification teaches you the ins and outs of the divorce process, discovery, litigation, some law, and also the emotional coaching side of helping people through divorce.

I think more firms will eventually have something like this.

It’s a great resource for clients and a great resource for lawyers.

We want to talk to our clients, but having an attorney spend an hour on the phone while someone cries is not necessarily the best use of the attorney’s time.

A divorce coach is better equipped to handle that part.

Tyson Mutrux (47:05)
Do you bill for her time?

Jonathan Merel (47:08)
Yes, at a reduced rate.

We also offer an initial free consultation with her for new clients.

They don’t have to use her, but a lot of clients choose to check in every couple of weeks for 20 or 30 minutes.

They know they have somebody to talk to who is also part of the legal team.

It works really well.

Tyson Mutrux (47:33)
You’ve mentioned culture a few times.

What makes a good culture?

Jonathan Merel (47:40)
A good culture is one where people actually want to go to work.

I think some of that was lost after COVID because so many people stopped going into offices.

While other firms were reducing office space, I doubled down.

I wanted to build a place where people wanted to come to work.

We have meditation rooms.

We have a workout room.

We have Zoom courtrooms.

We have collaborative spaces.

We have a lounge and a bar.

It’s a modern twist on what people expect a law firm to look like.

But it also creates a place where people can meet and connect.

Culture doesn’t mean everyone has to be best friends.

But if you create camaraderie, do things together, give people opportunities to get to know each other, and have good leaders teaching younger employees the values you care about, you start creating something meaningful.

Tyson Mutrux (49:38)
The skeptical person could look at all those office amenities and say, “He just built all of that to keep people in the office longer.”

What do you say to that?

Jonathan Merel (49:50)
It’s not true.

We don’t have crazy billable-hour requirements.

We promote work-life balance.

I just want a good place for people to come to work.

They don’t have to stay all night.

They don’t have to come in at the crack of dawn.

We have work-from-home components too.

Obviously, if you’re a lawyer, sometimes you have to work longer than you want to because things have to get done.

That comes with the job.

But the goal is simply to provide the right place to work.

Tyson Mutrux (50:42)
You’ve also got a bar in the office.

I worked at an injury firm where we had a four o’clock rule.

At four o’clock, you could grab a beer from the fridge and have one at your desk.

One of our associates recently asked me, “Then you drove home?”

I realized that, as an injury lawyer, I had never even thought about that.

Do you ever worry about that?

Jonathan Merel (51:07)
We usually open the bar for certain occasions. It’s not just a free-for-all.

If a couple of lawyers want to have a beer in the office, I’m all for it.

At the end of the day, everyone has to be a responsible adult.

We’re obviously not promoting anybody breaking the law.

Tyson Mutrux (51:37)
You have a managing partner, Melissa.

She was actually the law clerk you brought with you from the previous firm.

When did you decide she was going to become managing partner?

Jonathan Merel (51:49)
Melissa has been the glue of the firm.

She’s an amazing attorney and an amazing person to have by my side.

When I was at the old firm, I had been begging them to give me a law clerk because I was doing everything myself.

They finally agreed, and I hired her.

I could tell almost immediately that she was great.

When I decided to leave, I told her, “Look, I understand if you want to stay. This is an established law firm, and I’m about to start my own firm in some crappy little office. But I’d love to have you come with me.”

She said, “I’m with you.”

She was basically my Jerry Maguire moment.

She came with me, passed the bar a year later, and became our first associate.

Now we have more than 20 lawyers, and she’s been an integral part of that growth.

She’s an amazing lawyer.

She’s great at management, bringing in business, mentoring, and setting the tone for how things should be done.

She earned that title.

Tyson Mutrux (53:38)
What does she do that you don’t do?

Jonathan Merel (53:42)
She handles more of the day-to-day management.

She’s a control freak, in a good way. Sorry, Melissa.

There are still tasks she does that she was doing when she was basically the only person here because she has a hard time letting go of them.

I call her my work wife.

She’s been the constant in my career.

She manages caseloads, hours, and the day-to-day stuff.

She’s more in the trenches.

I’ve moved more into the CEO role where I’m looking at growing the business.

Tyson Mutrux (54:32)
Who gets the final say on an issue?

Jonathan Merel (54:37)
On the business side, the buck ultimately stops with me.

But when we’re talking about how we run the firm, technology we want to adopt, billable hours, or things like that, we bring partners into the conversation.

We have committees throughout the firm because we want people involved.

With management and hiring, Melissa is heavily involved, and I bring in other partners too.

In partner meetings, I’m asking things like, “Do we need to target a certain area? Do we need another position? How is everyone’s workload?”

It’s collaborative.

Tyson Mutrux (56:11)
When someone becomes a partner, do they have an ownership stake in the firm?

Jonathan Merel (56:17)
No.

They’re partners, but they don’t currently have equity.

Tyson Mutrux (56:22)
Would you ever give up equity?

Jonathan Merel (56:27)
I think I would.

The timing has to be right.

Ultimately, I want to leave the firm to somebody.

Who better than the people who have worked their asses off for me and for this firm?

That’s the plan.

I just have to figure out how to do it.

Tyson Mutrux (57:02)
It’s one of those sticky topics.

People hear “equity” and immediately think it sounds great.

But they don’t always understand what’s involved.

Jonathan Merel (57:13)
Exactly.

Equity is not always more money and more profit.

It’s more responsibility.

There’s a cost to it.

It’s not all sunshine and rainbows running a law firm.

There are nights when you’re awake thinking about things and tossing and turning.

Employees work hard, but they get their salary.

They get commissions on cases they originate.

They get bonuses.

They don’t have to think about everything the owner has to think about.

I understand why people want equity, but sometimes people want something before they understand all the strings attached.

There are situations where partners have to get on an emergency call and say, “We each need to put $50,000 into the firm because we have to keep it going.”

That’s reality.

Tyson Mutrux (58:25)
That’s something people don’t think about.

Taking money out of your own account to pay firm expenses.

Jonathan Merel (58:32)
Exactly.

There’s exposure.

There’s liability.

If the firm gets sued, who is paying the deductible?

You’ve got malpractice insurance, rent, health insurance, 401(k)s, profit sharing.

You name it.

People like getting money from the business.

I’m not sure they always like paying money into the business.

Tyson Mutrux (59:30)
Family law malpractice can be expensive too.

Jonathan Merel (59:34)
Thankfully, we’ve done good work and haven’t had major claims.

I had one crazy pro se litigant sue me during my first 15 years. It was dismissed.

Then in the last year, I had two more clients sue me, and both claims were dismissed.

But I know people in this business who have made major mistakes, and that can really increase your premiums.

Family law is emotional.

If somebody feels like they got the short end of the stick, sometimes the reaction is, “Let’s sue somebody.”

Tyson Mutrux (60:32)
I really respect family law attorneys because you have to know so many different areas.

You have family law, estate planning issues, courts, taxes.

Everything gets wrapped into it.

Jonathan Merel (60:45)
You have to learn a lot, which is why the learning curve for young family lawyers is tough.

A lot of these things you eventually learn through life experience.

Mortgages.

Taxes.

Credit cards.

Children.

Being a parent.

But when you’re fresh out of law school, you may not own property.

You probably haven’t had complicated income tax filings.

You may not be married.

You probably don’t have kids.

Then suddenly you’re immersed in all of those concepts.

As you get more life experience, some of it starts to make more sense naturally.

Tyson Mutrux (61:48)
Your dad was a criminal defense attorney.

What do you think you learned from watching him practice?

Jonathan Merel (61:56)
That I didn’t want to do criminal law.

It’s stressful.

I remember him doing a murder trial and being incredibly nervous.

I understand why defendants need good counsel, but sometimes you are representing some very bad people.

There is so much on the line when you’re talking about somebody’s freedom.

Tyson Mutrux (62:28)
I did criminal defense for a while, and I was way more stressed during criminal trials than injury trials.

In injury cases, ultimately it’s money.

In criminal cases, the person is either walking out one door or going through another door.

That weighs on you differently.

Jonathan Merel (62:50)
Absolutely.

And sometimes you don’t really know.

If somebody gets convicted and didn’t do it, that’s another level of weight on your conscience.

Tyson Mutrux (63:22)
Things seem to be going really well for you now.

Was there ever a point owning the firm where you thought, “I don’t know if we’re going to make it”?

Jonathan Merel (63:34)
Every day.

I think if you don’t have some of that “holy shit” mentality, it can actually hold you back.

Fear of failure motivates me.

It makes me get up and start working at five in the morning.

It keeps work on my mind, for better or worse.

To be a successful business owner, I think you have to maintain a little bit of that feeling that this thing could go under.

If you think everything is smooth and start kicking your feet up, you take things for granted.

That’s when things can turn.

I always want to be working.

I want my employees to know I’m working and setting a good example.

You never completely feel satisfied because there’s always more to be done.

Tyson Mutrux (64:45)
When you started the firm, you immediately had someone else you had to pay.

Was there ever a moment where you thought you might need another job?

Jonathan Merel (64:56)
I was freaking out.

I started the firm in 2009 during a horrible recession.

My daughter was about to be born.

A lot of people questioned the timing.

But I couldn’t take where I was anymore.

At first, I was only paying a law clerk hourly.

But every time I hire someone new, even today, I worry about whether I can afford to pay them.

That mindset makes you work harder to make sure everyone is taken care of.

I remember hiring the first associate and thinking, “Can I afford this salary?”

Then, “Can I afford a paralegal?”

Then another associate.

Seventeen and a half years later, I still think about those things.

Tyson Mutrux (65:58)
If you could go back to 2009 and give yourself advice, what would you say?

Jonathan Merel (66:05)
I honestly wouldn’t do that much differently.

I’ve made mistakes.

I’ve made bad hires.

I’ve gotten into marketing contracts that handcuffed me for a while.

But that’s part of running a business.

You have to take risks.

Calculated risks, not reckless risks.

Every business owner has trials and tribulations.

You learn from mistakes.

You learn how to treat employees.

You learn how to say no.

Saying no is a huge skill.

When you’re younger, it’s harder to say no, so you get stuck doing things you don’t really want to do and clog up your schedule.

Those are lessons you have to learn through trial and error.

Tyson Mutrux (66:35)
What’s something you think you should stop doing that you’re still doing?

Jonathan Merel (66:43)
Taking calls at 10:30 or 11 at night.

Tyson Mutrux (66:48)
Are you out of your mind?

Do your clients have your cell phone?

Jonathan Merel (66:54)
Yes.

I’m probably the only lawyer in my office who gives my cell phone number to every client.

I don’t know any differently.

My brain is always going a mile a minute.

If I’m watching TV and a client texts me, I respond.

I should set more boundaries.

Last night, I was talking to a client at 10:30.

In my head I’m thinking, “Why the hell are you calling me right now?”

But then I answer, “Hey, what’s going on?”

I don’t think it’s healthy.

There’s really no reason I should be responding to texts, calls, or emails after eight o’clock unless it’s an emergency.

But at the same time, maybe some of that is what drives the success of the firm.

Tyson Mutrux (68:05)
I used to think that was what you had to do too.

Eventually I learned to turn it off.

We’ve also had attorneys come in where I’ve had to fight the urge to expect them to do everything the way I did it.

Sometimes former solos come in with really unreasonable expectations for staff.

You have to ratchet that back.

You don’t text a paralegal at 10:30 at night because you suddenly need something.

Jonathan Merel (68:38)
That’s a big thing for us too.

We’ve had people come from other firms where they relied heavily on paralegals and admins and expected those people to do everything for them.

I don’t think that’s right.

Sometimes you have to bring them down to earth and say, “I don’t know how things worked over there, but we have boundaries here.”

Support staff need those boundaries.

No one should be treated better than those people.

They’re the nuts and bolts of the firm.

I make sure they’re treated as well as anybody.

Tyson Mutrux (69:30)
I worked at a firm where the process was so strange.

You’d generate a document, then an assistant had to print it, put it somewhere, then you’d walk over and sign it.

I kept thinking, “How is this faster than just doing it myself?”

Jonathan Merel (69:51)
I’ve always had that mentality.

If I can do it myself and be done with it, I’d rather do that.

I think some lawyers are taught that they should rely on other people for everything.

But there have to be boundaries, especially when it comes to support staff.

Tyson Mutrux (70:47)
Last question.

What do you ultimately want from your firm?

When you eventually hang it up, what do you want this to have created?

Jonathan Merel (70:58)
I want to provide a good career for the people who work for me.

I want them to be able to say, “I love the place I work. I’ve grown as a lawyer. I’ve grown as a person. I’ve grown financially. I’ve become financially secure and built a nice nest egg for myself and my family.”

Seeing the success of the people who work for me is more fulfilling than my own success.

If I can provide the vehicle for my employees to reach levels of success they maybe never even dreamed of, that makes me beyond happy.

Tyson Mutrux (71:43)
I like that answer.

Thanks, Jonathan. This was great.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

What if the biggest advantage your law firm has in the AI era isn’t better technology, but being more human?

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux is joined by Ryan Webber for a conversation about what an AI-powered law firm can realistically look like today. They explore where AI can eliminate tedious behind-the-scenes work, why fully AI-native firms may not be as close as some people claim, and how automation can actually create more room for meaningful client experiences.

Tyson and Ryan also dig into the growing opportunity for law firms to stand out through personal branding, memorable in-person experiences, thoughtful gestures, and the kind of genuine connection AI can’t replicate.

The goal isn’t to choose between AI and people. It’s to use AI where it makes sense so you have more time for the work only humans can do.

What You’ll Learn

  • Why Tyson believes fully AI-native law firms still aren’t realistic for most practice areas.
  • How Ryan sees AI potentially handling up to 80% of the behind-the-scenes work in a law firm.
  • Why AI-generated marketing still needs a human editor to make it sound and feel like you.
  • How going more “analog” could become a competitive advantage as firms become increasingly digital.
  • Why personal branding can help lawyers become the person clients actively seek out instead of relying entirely on SEO.
  • How small, memorable touches can create stronger relationships with clients, employees, and prospects.
  • Why the real opportunity may be using AI to eliminate mundane work so your team can spend more time creating human experiences.
  • How law firms can use automation on the back end while making the front-end client experience even more personal.

Timestamps

00:00 — Can a law firm really become completely AI-native?
02:42 — Could AI handle 80% of the work behind the scenes?
03:43 — Why AI-generated marketing still needs a human touch
05:02 — How much of the general public is actually using AI?
09:21 — The “analog” opportunity law firms may be overlooking
10:19 — Why personalized gifts can outperform traditional marketing
12:05 — Creating memorable experiences for employees
14:23 — Can AI actually capture someone’s personal brand?
17:23 — Building a brand people search for instead of relying on SEO
21:11 — Why people still crave real-world, human interaction
21:55 — Using AI to eliminate mundane work and create more time for people
24:15 — AI on the back end, human connection on the front end
25:30 — Turning an ordinary law firm visit into an experience

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:00)
Welcome back to Maximum Lawyer Live.

What I want to talk about today is something I think is really interesting because there’s been a lot of talk about completely AI-native law firms. People are saying they’re doing them.

I don’t think they’re fully possible right now.

Unless you have a practice that is 100% transactional, where everything happens remotely online, I just don’t think we’re there yet.

I’ll give you an example.

I had a client in the office yesterday who was clearly on some drugs. He was sweating profusely, and at one point he became completely unresponsive.

What does AI do in that situation?

We had to call the paramedics. They had to come get him.

There are things like that that are going to make our jobs somewhat secure.

But I’ve got my buddy Ryan Webber joining me, so let’s bring him on and talk about this a little bit.

Ryan, what’s up, dude? How are you doing?

Ryan Webber (01:41)
What’s going on?

I’m just getting back from vacation. We were gone for four days, so it’s weird coming back.

Tyson Mutrux (01:48)
What did you all do? Where’d you go?

Ryan Webber (01:52)
We just went to the mountains.

But I don’t vacation very well. So I get back and I’m like, well, I’m just going to keep procrastinating. Why start working?

Tyson’s on here. Let’s hang out.

Tyson Mutrux (02:05)
Let’s do it.

I’m curious what your thoughts are on this.

We’ve been prepping for MaxLawCon because the AI workshop is going to be on day two, and it’s going to be freaking amazing. If people don’t have their tickets, they need to get them because day two alone is going to be worth it.

But with what you all do, do you think you could make it completely AI-native?

Basically, no human interaction. Do you think that’s possible?

Ryan Webber (02:42)
No.

We still have to do physical signings with estate planning and real estate closings.

But I think probably 80% of the behind-the-scenes work could be done with AI.

Then the other 20% becomes managing the robots.

At some point, I think our best paralegals are going to become robot managers. They’re going to be making sure everything is being done correctly.

Tyson Mutrux (03:12)
Yeah, I completely agree with that.

There’s been so much talk about AI-native law firms, and you know me. I’m one of the biggest proponents of AI. I think it’s a great thing, and it’s streamlining a lot for us.

But a lot of this talk about completely AI-native firms is bullcrap.

I think it’s people talking more than anything else.

Ryan Webber (03:43)
I feel the same way about marketing.

A lot of people are trying to use Claude to edit all their videos, completely come up with their hooks, write their emails, and do everything else.

And while it’s good, the people who still physically write their emails are better.

AI gets you about 80% of the way there, and then you have to become an extreme editor to actually make it sound like you.

I think a lot of the ideas can start with AI.

It’s the same thing with law. AI becomes your first-year associate giving you the draft. Then you go in and make it really good.

A lot of people are just putting out whatever AI gives them, and people don’t like that.

Unfortunately, lawyers are already not very well-liked.

People just don’t like lawyers for some reason.

AI is kind of the same way.

There are a lot of early adopters who love it, but if you ask the general public, they don’t necessarily like AI. They don’t want everything to be AI.

They want to talk to a human. They want to interact with a human.

Tyson Mutrux (05:02)
Yeah.

I think there’s a really large portion of the population that doesn’t use AI at all, or they’re using it without even realizing they’re using it.

Over the holidays, I was talking with my family.

My family is very blue-collar.

AI is not something we talk about because they don’t really use it.

My dad’s a mechanic. He’s retired now, but he wasn’t sitting there using AI agents.

Ryan Webber (05:49)
My dad is retiring in January. Same thing.

Tyson Mutrux (05:51)
Exactly.

I do think there’s a place for AI with mechanics because vehicles are becoming computerized systems.

At some point, especially as more cars become like Teslas, AI is going to be used more and more.

You’ve got a Rivian, right?

Ryan Webber (06:17)
I have a Rivian. I’m close. It’s like a step down.

Tyson Mutrux (06:21)
Our vehicles are basically computers.

There’s already AI being used in Teslas, and I assume Rivian is using it too.

Even with regular internal-combustion-engine vehicles, mechanics are plugging them into computers to diagnose problems now.

So AI is going to work its way into that.

But most people still aren’t using it in the way we are. They’re not using AI agents.

Ryan Webber (06:58)
Have you seen the Slate?

Tyson Mutrux (07:00)
The Slate?

Ryan Webber (07:03)
The truck.

Tyson Mutrux (07:04)
Yeah, yeah. The truck.

Ryan Webber (07:07)
That reminds me of what you’re talking about with mechanics.

It’s basically this boxy electric truck that everybody can get, and then you customize it.

They’re trying to get the lowest price with the maximum capacity they can.

Tyson Mutrux (07:23)
It’s such an interesting vehicle.

The base model is what, around $20,000?

Ryan Webber (07:32)
Something like that. $24,950.

Tyson Mutrux (07:36)
Okay, $24,950.

And then you can customize everything.

You can change the colors, the seat configurations, all of it.

It’s basically like a Lego set.

You can turn it into an SUV. You can make it a truck. There are all these different options.

I think it’s a really cool idea.

Would you buy one?

Ryan Webber (08:07)
Probably.

Tyson Mutrux (08:09)
Really?

For $24,000, that is a steal.

Ryan Webber (08:14)
Why not?

It’s tiny, and I wouldn’t feel bad if I had to haul things around in it.

If it’s raining outside, I’d drive that. I’m not going to worry about ruining anything.

Tyson Mutrux (08:30)
I think a lot of people assume they’re going to get you on the modifications.

But the CEO has said that’s not really the idea.

The modifications are supposed to be pretty inexpensive compared to what regular vehicle parts cost.

That’s pretty cool.

Ryan Webber (09:21)
I was listening to a podcast about it, and I think the most expensive version you can build is around $40,000.

That’s with everything added to it.

They’re intentionally trying to keep the whole thing super simple and basic.

And it makes me wonder if there’s something there for law firms.

Everyone is so digital now. I’m extremely digital.

But I think there’s an analog play here.

What is the analog play that combats AI?

I love using AI on the back end to optimize the efficiency of a law firm.

But on the front end, there’s an analog opportunity that could make you stand out from everybody else because the big firms don’t want to touch analog.

Tyson Mutrux (10:02)
Do you have any ideas?

Ryan Webber (10:08)
I was listening to the My First Million podcast, which I love.

Second favorite podcast behind the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, of course.

Tyson Mutrux (10:14)
Of course.

My First Million is a great podcast.

Ryan Webber (10:19)
They were talking about Hampton, which is a small-group community for entrepreneurs running larger businesses.

One of the best things they did was hire someone to identify around 100 potential members who would be great fits for Hampton.

Then they customized a gift for every single person.

They would research the person, look through their social media, find something meaningful to them, and send them a personalized gift with a handwritten card.

Maybe someone talks about spending time at the lake, so you send them something related to that.

You mentioned Tesla, so maybe they send you a Tesla accessory.

Something that actually means something to that person.

Usually, they were spending less than $100.

And they said it produced the highest ROI of almost anything they were doing.

They’re spending huge amounts on advertising, podcasts, and everything else.

But this physical, memorable thing had the highest ROI.

Tyson Mutrux (11:28)
That’s interesting because we do something very similar with our employees.

Let’s say we’re in the middle of a huddle and somebody says something memorable.

I have an Etsy store where I can make different things, so I’ll go in and create something based on what they said and send it to them.

They love it.

They’ll have the mugs sitting there on camera all the time.

It might be a mug, T-shirt, hoodie, or hat.

I really like that idea because it’s something you can actually touch.

Ryan Webber (12:05)
We do that for our employees too.

We make merch instead of selling merch.

I try to make cool stuff that I would actually wear, and then we give it to the employees.

It’s one of the perks of working here.

Every two or three months, you’re going to get a cool shirt, hat, or something else.

And it’s not crappy promotional stuff. It’s stuff I actually want to wear.

Tyson Mutrux (12:26)
You’re wearing one of those cool hats now.

I’ve always thought that was a really cool hat.

You always have really cool swag.

You and Brooks.

Brooks does too.

Ryan Webber (12:34)
Brooks’ branding is my favorite.

I basically ripped it off for my website.

It’s pretty much a carbon copy because I looked at his branding and thought, this is awesome. This is exactly what I want.

Tyson Mutrux (12:46)
Hold on. Let’s look at this.

WebberMarketing.com, right?

Ryan Webber (12:49)
Yep.

Same colors. Same fonts.

Tyson Mutrux (12:51)
The colors are different though, right?

Ryan Webber (13:01)
No.

Tyson Mutrux (13:03)
I thought his new brand was black and white.

Ryan Webber (13:06)
It’s a dark green and cream, and then orange is the accent.

Tyson Mutrux (13:11)
Is it Derrick Law Office?

Ryan Webber (13:15)
Derrick Law Office dot com.

You were right.

Tyson Mutrux (13:29)
There we go.

Okay, I see the green. There’s the orange.

I love his logo. I think that’s a really cool logo.

Ryan Webber (13:47)
He got that from a really expensive designer in Charleston.

When Brooks was in Charleston, he liked the guy and liked his work.

Brooks basically said, “I’ll never tell my wife how much I spent on this logo package, but I’ll tell you.”

When he told me the number, I said, that is way too much money.

But it’s so good.

He also has probably 15 or 20 little ancillary logos that most people have never even seen.

I have all of them, and they’re super cool.

He even has beer cans designed as Brooks Derrick Law Office.

Tyson Mutrux (14:23)
That’s cool.

Let’s stay on this for a second because it ties back into this conversation about AI-native law firms.

Do you think AI could capture Brooks the way this website has captured Brooks?

Brooks is such a genuine human being.

The website, the photographs, everything about it feels like him.

I just think that’s really hard for AI to capture.

Ryan Webber (14:55)
I actually took those photos.

Both of them.

Tyson Mutrux (14:59)
Then the photographer was amazing.

It’s just really hard for AI to capture that.

Ryan Webber (15:10)
You see me?

Tyson Mutrux (15:11)
There he is.

Ryan Webber (15:12)
The guy settling his case over there?

Tyson Mutrux (15:14)
No, this is Jeremy Webber.

Look at this.

This is so Brooks.

It’s really good.

Ryan Webber (15:22)
I was so excited to take these because I was like, dude, we’re just going to make you look cool.

Which he already is, so it’s not very hard.

Tyson Mutrux (15:30)
Explain this to someone who is not a photographer.

How do you capture that?

It’s not just the picture.

He’s standing there. He’s a good-looking guy. He’s dressed well. He’s got this cool, rustic look.

But there’s a certain color and feel to the photos.

Is there a filter or something?

Ryan Webber (15:56)
It’s a camera, Tyson.

I don’t have a filter.

Tyson Mutrux (16:01)
I don’t know how any of this stuff works.

Ryan Webber (16:03)
When you’re using an actual camera, you shoot in RAW.

That gives you much more color depth.

So I have 16-bit color depth, which means I can adjust the colors a ton.

Then you ask yourself, what is this person’s style?

Brooks likes photography himself.

He’s very filmic. Kind of ’80s, ’90s, rugged, almost blue-collar.

He’s a very down-to-earth guy.

So we try to edit the photos in a way that matches that.

It also helps that Brooks looks the way he does.

I’ll send stuff to one of my friends who also works in video and say, “Look what we just did.”

And he’ll say, “Is this the ridiculously good-looking lawyer guy?”

I’m like, sure is.

Tyson Mutrux (16:57)
This has turned into the Brooks show.

I can’t wait for him to listen to this and hear us bragging about how good-looking he is.

Ryan Webber (17:06)
He’s going to send it to his wife and say, “Here you go.”

Tyson Mutrux (17:09)
As he should.

Ryan Webber (17:23)
All of the website and photography is meant to capture Brooks and who he actually is.

That’s how he stands out against the big firms in Charleston and Columbia that he competes with.

He’s your local, hometown attorney.

That’s what we want it to feel like.

We don’t need him walking around in front of a courthouse pretending to be some big-city lawyer.

He’s photographed in front of his old Toyota. That’s who he is. That’s what people around town know him for.

And it works really well.

I was talking with him a couple months ago.

Two years ago, most of his traffic was probably coming through his website, Google reviews, and things like that.

Now it has shifted.

A majority of his business is coming through what I call personal branding.

People are actively searching for him.

He’s getting more referrals and more people specifically seeking him out instead of finding him through SEO.

And he likes that better.

He’s built his name instead of hoping the Google gods put him in front of the right person.

Tyson Mutrux (18:39)
You were talking about analog earlier.

You just bought a Jeep, right?

What’s the story with the Jeep?

Ryan Webber (18:48)
The person doing the paperwork didn’t notarize the title correctly.

It was a consignment vehicle, which is pretty common with vintage vehicles.

The seller is in Kentucky.

They did a DocuSign but didn’t do electronic notarization correctly. Then the paperwork was printed and notarized afterward.

I’m a notary, so I knew that wasn’t right.

But I didn’t catch it when I bought it because I assumed someone who does this all day knew how to do it correctly.

I took the paperwork in to register the vehicle, and they told me it was wrong.

So I called the dealership.

Now everything had to be physically sent back to the woman who sold the Jeep in Kentucky.

It’s been almost three weeks, and I still haven’t been able to register it.

I’m not happy about it.

Tyson Mutrux (19:51)
I feel your pain.

We had something similar happen years ago.

We bought a vehicle, and the dealership put the wrong finance company on the paperwork.

Nobody caught it.

It was all filed with the state, and then we couldn’t properly register the vehicle.

Ryan Webber (20:17)
They still can’t spell my LLC correctly because apparently no one knows how to spell the word “forty.”

Tyson Mutrux (20:29)
Because they had put the wrong finance company on our paperwork, we couldn’t get the vehicle registered.

I got pulled over so many times because my plates were expired and there was nothing I could do about it.

It was a disaster.

Eventually, I took this massive packet of everything I had collected and mailed the whole thing to the state.

Tags eventually showed up in the mail.

Someone must have looked at the packet and thought, poor guy. Just give him the tags.

Ryan Webber (20:57)
I don’t even have a tag.

If I had some random plates lying around, I’d probably throw them on there because I’m only driving the thing three miles around town.

Tyson Mutrux (21:11)
Going back to the analog thing, I do think there’s this desire for people to be around each other.

They want to be in person.

They want to touch things.

I think you’re right about that.

At the same time, I’ll admit I have a strong desire to go AI-native.

I would love to do it.

But there’s this other side of me that wants to use all of that technology specifically so I can do more things in real life.

I feel like I’m getting pulled in two different directions.

Ryan Webber (21:55)
I feel the exact same way.

My goal is to maximize the efficiency of the mundane work.

If AI could correctly edit videos for me and I never had to edit another video again, or even if I only had to spend 10% of the time doing it, I would be so happy.

But what would I do with that extra time?

I’d spend more time with people.

I’d do more physical things.

There’s nothing more exciting to me than buying someone dinner or randomly getting someone a present when there’s absolutely no reason you should be buying them a present.

We have a neighbor who’s a single mom with two kids. We love them. We hang out with them all the time.

I love being able to say, “Hey, I bought you this.”

Tyson Mutrux (22:41)
Amy had a great idea a few weeks ago.

We were at the store and she said, “Let’s get these friends some flowers.”

So we bought flowers for a couple we go out to dinner with regularly.

We didn’t even stop to say hi.

We dropped them on the doorstep, left, and texted them, “Hey, check your doorstep.”

It was great.

I completely understand what you mean.

Ryan Webber (23:09)
We did something similar at a restaurant a couple months ago.

We went out just to have dessert.

All the tables were full, so we sat at a six-person table with another couple.

It was me, my wife, and our four-year-old daughter.

The other couple was eating dinner, and we could hear them talking about the desserts.

They were saying, “That sounds good. Maybe we should get that.”

When we ordered ours, I told the waitress, whatever they want for dessert, bring it to them and put it on our bill.

So the waitress brought them dessert.

They said, “We didn’t order this.”

And I said, “No, you’re getting dessert.”

That kind of stuff is the coolest thing ever to me.

That’s what I like spending money on.

And if we create more efficiency in the office, we can do more things like that.

Tyson Mutrux (24:02)
I completely agree.

But that brings us back to the question.

Does it actually make sense to go completely AI-native if people still want these interactions?

Ryan Webber (24:15)
I think you use AI on the back end where human connection isn’t necessary.

Take real estate closings.

There are a ton of things that need to happen that don’t require a human connection.

Someone just needs the HOA dues checked.

There doesn’t need to be a person manually doing that.

Let AI handle those things.

Then we can make the actual closing experience in the office way better.

Electronic closings are coming to North Carolina, and we’re one of the slower states to adopt them.

But most of our clients still want to come in and sign in person.

So we were talking while we were in the mountains and said, why don’t we build a coffee cart at the office?

When people come in, they can make really good coffee.

We could have recipes sitting there.

Before they even walk into our office, there’s this whole coffee setup.

It becomes a perk for our staff too.

We could have actual to-go cups with logos, but instead of putting the law firm logo on them, we’d create an entirely separate coffee brand.

It would create this little moment that makes going to a law firm more analog and more interesting.

Tyson Mutrux (25:30)
I like that idea.

It sounds like a mess waiting to happen, but you’ll have a process for cleaning it up.

It’ll be fine.

Ryan Webber (25:39)
We have around 17 people working in the office.

Every single one of them drinks coffee.

So it would also be a massive employee perk to have really good coffee in the office.

Tyson Mutrux (25:52)
You have to make it an espresso machine though.

You can’t go cheap on it.

Ryan Webber (25:59)
No.

It’ll probably turn into a $5,000 endeavor by the time we do the cart, espresso machine, nugget ice maker, and everything else.

Tyson Mutrux (26:14)
Nugget ice is an absolute necessity.

We bought an ice maker specifically for nugget ice.

You’ve either got to have one of those or go to Sonic and buy it.

All right, man.

I better run. I’ve got a huddle in a few minutes.

Any last words?

Ryan Webber (26:34)
I have no last words.

I was just excited to see your face and procrastinate another 30 minutes after vacation.

I appreciate you delaying my work.

Tyson Mutrux (26:43)
You’re welcome.

Thanks for joining me.

Hopefully you’re not in trouble with Tiffany because you were supposed to be working.

I’ll talk to you later.

See you, man.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson sits down with Wouter IJgosse, founder of DecisionVault, to talk about one of the biggest hidden time drains inside law firms: collecting client information.

Wouter shares how watching his wife manage an estate planning client with 37 beneficiaries exposed just how inefficient traditional intake can be. From information scattered across PDFs, emails, and meeting notes to endless copy-and-paste work, they break down how better workflows can save time, reduce errors, and create a smoother client experience.

They also dig into where AI actually helps, where the hype falls short, why all-in-one legal software may not be the answer, and how law firms can start thinking more like product companies when building their systems.

Listen in to hear how Wouter is rethinking client intake, AI, and legal tech to create better workflows for both law firms and their clients.

What You’ll Learn

  • How a client with 37 beneficiaries exposed major inefficiencies in traditional legal intake.
  • Why integrations do not solve the problem if your firm cannot collect structured client data in the first place.
  • Where AI can actually improve law firm workflows and where it may create more work.
  • Why Wouter believes the “all-in-one” software platform is often the wrong goal.
  • How better client data can reduce double entry, errors, and time spent chasing information.
  • Why AI still needs humans to create the instructions, guardrails, and final review.

Timestamps

00:00 — How 37 beneficiaries led to the idea behind DecisionVault

04:00 — The legal workflows lawyers accept simply because “that’s how it’s done”

06:30 — How AI is speeding up software development and product experimentation

10:45 — The problem with trying to build an all-in-one legal platform

15:30 — What DecisionVault actually does for law firms and their clients

21:40 — Why intake is really a client experience, data, and workflow problem

23:35 — Automating client follow-up and reducing the need to chase information

29:25 — What’s next for DecisionVault, including family law and AI workflows

32:10 — Why AI-powered intake can sometimes be slower than a traditional form

34:20 — Using AI to extract information from documents and handwritten forms

37:00 — Automating estate planning diagrams and reducing manual data entry

39:50 — The future of AI, legal software, and human judgment

Connect with Wouter IJgosse:

Linkedin

Facebook

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:00)
Today's guest is Wouter IJgosse, the founder of DecisionVault.

Wouter got into legal tech after watching his wife, who's an estate planning attorney, struggle through a client matter that made him think, there has to be a better way. I know a lot of us have had that same feeling before.

So today we're talking about reducing friction, creating a better client experience, where AI fits into client intake, and what every law firm can learn from thinking more like a product company.

Before we jump in, Wouter and the DecisionVault team will be joining us this October at MaxLawCon as one of our premier sponsors. So if you're coming to Atlanta in October, make sure you stop by and meet with them.

I can tell you, I just had a brief little conversation beforehand, and I can already tell Wouter's awesome. So I can't wait to actually interview him.

Wouter, welcome to the show.

Wouter IJgosse (00:46)
Yeah, thank you.

Tyson Mutrux (00:48)
Okay, so lots and lots of questions for you, but I don't actually want to start with the software just yet. We can talk about it. We have plenty of time. People can ask you about that out at MaxLawCon.

But I want to start with the story. I think the story part's important.

Your wife is an estate planning attorney, and one of her clients wanted to name 37 beneficiaries, which, I'm a personal injury attorney, but that sounds like a ton.

So walk me through that day. What did you see that made you think, man, this is crazy. There's got to be a better way to do this?

Wouter IJgosse (01:24)
Yeah, so it was kind of around the pandemic, and she had just shifted her practice to estate planning. One of the first cases that she took on was a single client who wanted to nominate 37 beneficiaries.

I've told the story in front of a live audience of estate planners, and you see a collective shrug go through the audience because everybody's like, man, that's painful.

Obviously, we can joke about it, but we need to build the plan that the client wants. That's a given.

But what this did was expose some of the inefficiencies in the process of an estate planning practice.

Across the board, one portion of practitioners drafts with their own templates, and another portion drafts with tools like Interactive Legal, WealthCounsel, or one of the other drafting platforms.

Those drafting platforms really help draft the trust, the ancillary documents, everything. But what they don't help with is, when a client wants 37 beneficiaries, getting all those names, gathering that information from the client, and then getting it into the software.

What this turned into was some of those folks living in a fillable PDF my wife was using. Some of that information lived in her meeting notes, and then a bunch more lived in back-and-forth emails with the client.

When it was time to draft, all of that had to be manually entered into her drafting platform to produce these documents.

Initially, I looked at that and thought, yeah, there must be a better way. But coming from a software background, I'd rather start with something off the shelf, so I tried all the different platforms at the time.

What I found was that while they have integrations, the real limitation was that the intake forms weren't smart enough to gather all this information to begin with.

The fact that there's an integration doesn't do anything for you if you cannot gather the information. You can't sync it over, so you still end up having to retype it.

That's where I started experimenting, working with a small group of estate planners and doing some proof of concepts. That got me into, okay, there is something here. Let's dive deeper.

Tyson Mutrux (03:55)
I always like when there's someone with an outside perspective who's able to jump in and look at things from a different viewpoint.

You're not a lawyer. You came from product management and sort of an engineering background.

What problems did you immediately see that we lawyers simply accept as, "That's just the way it's done"?

You talked about the data part of it. Was there anything else where you were thinking, why do you do things that way? That seems kind of silly.

Wouter IJgosse (04:26)
Yeah. When I tried to use, let's say, Clio, I tried to use Clio's intake forms and they didn't work. You cannot gather that many contacts. You cannot really do financial intake with them.

But when I talked to attorneys, a significant portion had the view of, "Well, I couldn't figure it out, but all the others must have figured it out. I'm just not tech savvy enough."

That's a funny take.

Other than that, some of it is enabling technology. As an example from a very different angle, once AI can talk, now AI can pick up your phone.

Before there's technology that can do those things, it's hard to even imagine it. Who's going to pick up the phone? We need a human for that, right?

There was a little bit of the same thing as I started experimenting and building some of the initial versions of this software. More became possible.

Then you layer on the next pieces. Let's gather financial information.

I built an initial version doing contact intake, uploading files, and asking other questions of the client. Then all the pilot users were like, "Yeah, but what about financial intake? Because that's really painful too."

Tyson Mutrux (05:56)
Sure. Intake in general can be pretty painful. Automating it is a step above what we're so used to.

With your background, how are you using AI now to help advance the tools you're creating?

I'm imagining that someone like you, who knows your way around code, is probably using AI quite a bit. It's allowing you to run where before you were probably just walking.

Wouter IJgosse (06:29)
Yeah. We're a software company, so we use it heavily to help with research into the tool. How is it built? Make a plan. Let's see what it's doing.

We're incrementally improving the software much faster than we were able to before because AI can help speed-run through our planning.

If I want to fix a small bug, I can dive in, but it's going to take me a minute to figure out how it worked again and what thing is calling what other thing.

AI can run through that, give me the three lines it wants to change, and with the background of knowing the tool and how it's built, I can see, yeah, that's fine. Go.

So it's speeding that up.

I've also done some experimentation with what kinds of AI features make sense to plug into this product.

There's a little bit of a debate between, do you use the AI that's outside to talk to the tool, or are we building an AI thing inside of the tool?

I haven't watched the replay yet, but Lawmatics recently did a demonstration of their new Merlin AI. They went down the path of putting AI into the tool and helping with getting more leads and selling to them.

I haven't quite figured out yet where we're going to engage with that, but that's more about using AI inside the product features.

Tyson Mutrux (08:08)
That is such a big decision.

Do I put it inside the AI, or do I put it through something like MCP and put it inside Claude? How do you do this?

You're almost predicting the way people are going to work in the next five years. That's what you're having to do.

That's a really, really tough decision. I don't know the answer to that.

Wouter IJgosse (08:32)
I think, at this point, it's probably both.

Tyson Mutrux (08:35)
Yeah.

Wouter IJgosse (08:35)
Because the builders and the people who are running experiments want to hook it up to their other AI workflows, and that probably makes sense.

You have things like MCP and APIs and all the connectivity to the outside world that an AI can hook into.

A small portion of the lawyer landscape will be able to do that and want to engage with that.

But what I think will happen is software vendors like ourselves will look at what people are building with this and say, great, let's take that and now do something internally.

For the tooling that Lawmatics, for instance, was building and releasing, it makes a ton of sense to put that inside the product.

For a tool like ours, it's more about connectivity. We're sitting between the other tools. We have about 25 different integrations, so we sit between all the different tools people use.

Some people use one of the big drafting platforms and Clio, which is a very common, straightforward approach, and we sync into that.

Others draft with their own templates, but they're happy to do the data gathering in a nice, structured way through our tools.

There are many different flavors.

The tooling is becoming very capable. Then it's really about, what kinds of workflows do you want to build?

The overtime aspect is interesting too because there's all this hype around the "SaaS apocalypse" and, "I can just ask Claude to build me HubSpot."

Yeah, sure. Maybe. I don't think so, but maybe.

But next week, one month from now, or two months from now, who's going to support that thing and make sure it keeps running?

It's probably worth it to just pay a couple hundred bucks and be done with that part, and only build the piece that's your IP around how your firm runs and how you build those workflows.

Tyson Mutrux (10:29)
Mm-hmm.

Wouter IJgosse (10:29)
You don't want to have to support all the different pieces of software.

Tyson Mutrux (10:40)
Sure.

I'm curious, how tempted are you?

You're in this in-between space. You see this thing built over here by Lawmatics and this thing built over here by another company.

How tempting is it, because you do have that expertise, to just go out and build this universal thing that fits everything?

Is that ever tempting to you?

Wouter IJgosse (11:05)
It's the siren song of the all-in-one.

It doesn't exist.

Well, it exists in some legal verticals.

To some extent, bankruptcy and immigration are examples where the information you need from a potential new client directly maps onto forms you need to file. You can have some mini case management system around it.

There are a couple of tools that do that entire chain, and that makes sense. You might still need something for marketing and sales, but it covers it pretty well.

In general, though, it's not a good idea to try to be the be-all, end-all, at least not from a software vendor perspective. It makes more sense to have good integrations.

Now, with some of the AI tooling that's coming out, it's becoming possible for people to skip a couple of tools.

But that's where it becomes important to say, okay, what do we focus on?

With DecisionVault, we're really good at gathering information from clients. Specifically, who are the contacts in this person's life? What are their assets and financials? What files do you need? What questions do they need to answer?

We're heavily focused on estate planning, but we're doing some experimentation now with family law.

The types of law that have to do with people and money are where we're targeting.

Then the question is, how do we have the tool do more?

Instead of saying, "We have smart forms and we integrate," it's, "Yeah, that's great. What can you do for me so I don't have to log in every day to figure out whether this client filled something in? What's the next step?"

That's where we're focusing with some AI and some things that are AI-inspired.

Some of those functionalities are much more rule-based. Did they fill it in? Let's follow up again.

You don't need AI for that. It just makes it expensive.

Tyson Mutrux (13:20)
Whenever you have a customer who's like, "Hey, I want this feature," and I bet you get this all the time, how do you filter those out?

How do you decide which ones should be applied and which ones should be skipped?

I'm sure that's got to be tough because you might have a customer who really wants this feature, but it may only apply to five percent of all users.

So it may not make sense to do it, but that might also mean you lose that customer.

How do you balance all that?

Wouter IJgosse (13:51)
Yeah, that's the art and science of product management.

Tyson Mutrux (13:55)
Sure.

Wouter IJgosse (13:55)
Who do you want to be?

Pretty early on, I drew the line that we're not going to be a case management system.

I don't want tasks. I don't want billing. I don't want time tracking. All of that belongs in a case management system.

In a way, some people are using DecisionVault as a mini CRM because it shows your list of clients and your open matters.

Okay, fine. They use it that way.

But I don't really want to compete and enter the arena where you have MyCase and Clio and all these big guys fighting it out. We don't need to go there.

We do something very unique that none of their intake forms can compete with. They're not at the same level.

I also don't really want to get into document automation.

We do a little bit now, but it's really a mail merge. If you want to do anything with conditional logic, formatting, or whatever, go buy something like Gavel or HotDocs or one of those tools we'll have integrations with.

But if you just want to fold some names into a Colorado statutory power of attorney form, great, we do that. You don't have to buy another piece of software.

There are a couple of these edges to the product.

Now we're focused on workflows and supporting those workflows, making sure the tool can help drive work forward rather than the paralegal having to keep a list of, "What do I still need to get from this client?"

Tyson Mutrux (15:28)
All right, I've worked around the edges of this enough now. Let's jump into what DecisionVault actually is.

Tell people what it is.

We've danced around it a little bit, but make your pitch. What is DecisionVault for estate planning attorneys and, eventually, family law?

Wouter IJgosse (15:48)
Yeah, we'll get into family law. We're not quite there yet, but it's coming.

DecisionVault helps with gathering information from clients.

The term "intake" is really broad. It goes from the first interaction with the client up to signing, or wherever you draw the line.

I read your book in the last couple of days. You were talking about intake and then needing to close, so I guess that whole piece is intake.

Tyson Mutrux (16:10)
Nice. Thanks.

Wouter IJgosse (16:11)
So I guess that's all part of intake.

Tyson Mutrux (16:16)
Well, it could be.

It's funny, for personal injury, sometimes our intake isn't just intake. We're still collecting things all the way through litigation too.

It's interesting how it can extend depending on what they give you and when you need it.

But most people consider intake to be from the moment they contact your office up to the point where they sign.

Wouter IJgosse (16:26)
Bingo.

Tyson Mutrux (16:26)
That's generally the way people view it.

Wouter IJgosse (16:40)
We don't really get involved in that initial piece.

If you want to run ads and get a lead, great. You can do that somewhere else.

What DecisionVault is really good at is the client data gathering.

As you said, it doesn't stop right before you meet with the client.

We have an online portal and questionnaire-type tool. You can build out multiple questionnaires for your different practice areas.

The tool is really good at gathering all the contacts. It does comprehensive intake of the client's financials and lets them answer other questions.

Then you can go and have a meeting with the client.

But what happens, just like you said with personal injury, is that you still need more stuff.

Guess what? In estate planning, you still need more stuff too.

Across the board, generally every intake form, from Clio Grow to MyCase or whatever, stops before you meet with the client for the first time.

It doesn't really work because some clients fill in a lot and other clients fill in a little. There doesn't seem to be any way in the world to move one closer to the other.

The attorney, especially in estate planning, sits down with the client, talks through their situation and what the plan design is going to be, and then you need homework.

I need this document. I need this deed. I need these other three relatives you talked about. I need their names, dates of birth, and emails.

There isn't really a good way when you're using off-the-shelf questionnaires and intake forms to send it back out and get more information.

DecisionVault helps with client data gathering across the lifecycle of the case.

You can even lock the client out when you go draft an estate plan because you don't want them messing around with it then.

Tyson Mutrux (18:35)
Sure. Yeah.

Wouter IJgosse (18:37)
That's the client perspective: gathering the information.

On the back end, you can push a button and sync it into your other legal tools.

That includes drafting platforms like WealthCounsel, Interactive Legal, and other platforms, as well as the well-known case management systems and a bunch of document automation tools.

Then there are things like APIs, Zapier, and potentially soon things like MCP. We're experimenting there.

On the client side, it's a much nicer experience than the alternatives: a fillable PDF, a case management form that feels clunky and can't gather all the information, or just having the paralegal do it over the phone or on paper.

It looks better for the client, and it makes the practice seem more tech-forward.

On the law firm side, it saves a ton of time.

We have a nice asset sheet that comes out in Excel. That's always a huge selling point with the paralegals.

The contacts will sync to the drafting platform, and there are a bunch of different ways we slice and dice the data.

We also have some tooling that helps the attorney prepare for the meeting. You can build a meeting template, pull in information from the questionnaire, and design it so you can either pull it up on your screen or print it before you walk into a client meeting.

Everything is there to document how we're going to draft this person's plan.

We build these stepping stones and follow-up steps that build on the questionnaire and the information.

Tyson Mutrux (20:19)
There's this diagram on your website that I really like.

It has DecisionVault at the beginning, and it's almost like the place where all that information flows into.

From there, it flows into the CRM, the case management system, and then into the drafting platform.

I think that's a good way of visualizing it because this is one of those things that's hard for people to visualize.

That's why the diagram is perfect.

It's sort of a filter, or maybe a funnel, where everything goes through it and then gets sorted.

Okay, this information goes here. Maybe this information goes here, here, and here.

You don't necessarily need this information in the CRM, but you need it in the case management system. You need this information in the drafting platform, but not necessarily in the case management system.

It's a really cool sorting system.

Where do you think the whole intake issue lands?

Is collecting information really an intake problem, or is it more of a user experience problem?

Does that make sense?

Wouter IJgosse (21:42)
It's both of those things and a bit of a workflow problem.

When I'm reading through your book, it talks about getting the decision maker out of all these things and above it so they don't have this founder gravity and can enable folks to do their work.

Great. How are they going to do their work? What does that work entail?

If you want to add more automation to the practice, what you'll find in practices such as estate planning, probate, and probably also family law, is that information about the client is pivotal.

If that information isn't structured in a way where it can easily flow from one system to another, it'll inhibit a lot of the automations you might want to build.

If I automatically email a fillable PDF to the client, that's great. It saves 30 seconds.

But then it comes back and I have to read it or copy and paste it over. That can take two hours to put into one system and then another system.

Client data is really a core piece of any kind of automation you're going to build in several of these practice areas.

It makes it possible to do more work with the same workforce and make the paralegals' work more enjoyable because they're focused on things that touch the client instead of copy-pasting things into another tool.

Tyson Mutrux (23:13)
Completely.

Double data entry is one of those things that just kills you.

You get things wrong, it increases errors, and it kills productivity.

What does DecisionVault do to help with chasing down information or the follow-up process?

Wouter IJgosse (23:37)
That's a new thing we've been investing in and started rolling out with some beta firms.

We realized that we're trying to stay away from CRM features, but having some kind of step-by-step set of stages that a matter goes through probably makes sense.

We've added something like that. It's not fully visible yet for everyone, but there are a bunch of firms that have access to it.

Now that we know what stages a matter goes through, we know whether we're in the invite stage and need to follow up with a client to get started, whether we're waiting for the meeting to happen, or whether we're in the homework stage.

We've been building functionality to say, okay, I need these two files and this data point.

Then the software will periodically email the client and follow up with them.

It can also give them a button if the client is annoyed and doesn't want to do it that way, and then report back to the firm that this client doesn't want to do it this way and you should follow up manually.

What we realized was that it was hard for firms to really follow whether someone had uploaded a particular file or entered the information.

First, make that visible on the matter.

Then we're going a step further and automatically following up once the firm selects what information they still need.

That starts driving everything forward.

It's like, when does the power company know your power is out? When you call them and tell them your power is out.

We're making it more automated.

Once we hook things like that into APIs and MCP, it becomes a very interesting mix.

We go through certain stages in DecisionVault, and that can flow out to other tools.

For instance, it could trigger that a matter is ready for drafting because we have all the information now.

That can go out to other tools.

Then you can start doing really interesting things with the information and hook the tool into even more workflows.

Tyson Mutrux (25:43)
It's interesting that you said you aren't a CRM because it reminds me a lot of Calendly.

Calendly isn't a CRM either. It's got a very specific thing that it does, but it has to have some CRM-like features, where you have the follow-up about the upcoming appointment and then the follow-up after the appointment if you add those things.

It's cool that you're starting to build those things in because I think that's something people will want, even though you're not a CRM platform.

The best place for those activities to come from would be DecisionVault as opposed to a dedicated CRM because that's the thing doing the work. That's the thing collecting the information.

I think it's a brilliant move.

I'm curious, how does it look from the client side?

The client gets the form or whatever communication they receive. What does it look like on the attorney side or the law firm side?

Is it like a client portal?

How does the client side look compared to the law firm side?

Wouter IJgosse (26:43)
The law firm owner side, or really the firm staff side, looks like your regular dashboard-type tool.

I have matters. I have client users. I can open a matter and get to all these different functionalities that I need.

The client side is much more focused.

You're in your questionnaire. Once you've finished it, you might get to a menu where it lists multiple questionnaires if you have access to more than one.

Maybe they've been doing estate planning with this attorney, and a couple of months later somebody passes away in the family, so they can do a probate case through the system as well. They have access to both.

For the firm staff, it looks like your regular software-as-a-service tool.

The client side is much more focused on, "Hey, this is the information we need from you."

One thing we plugged in a year or so ago was moving away from passwords.

Now it defaults to the client putting in their email. They get a link emailed to them, click the link, and it logs them in.

Clients would get confused: "Where's my password? I have to create another password."

Then, like everything around this tool, we have the opposite case where clients complain, "I need a password and I need two-factor authentication."

That's fine. We support those things too.

But the baseline is just put in an email and it logs you in.

We've had law firms complain, "Yeah, but I also use the MyCase portal, and now the client has two logins."

No, they don't. They just put in their email address and they're good to go.

Tyson Mutrux (28:27)
I actually like that.

I don't know if you're familiar with OnePager. They've since closed down, I think, but OnePager was really cool.

It was the same type of thing where I could send this one-page site to a client, and it would save whatever activity they were doing on it.

Let's say you had a checklist you wanted to send to a client for things to do.

Wouter IJgosse (28:47)
Yeah.

Tyson Mutrux (28:47)
They could do this thing, check it off, do this thing, check it off, watch videos on it.

The way they accessed it was through their email. There was no password.

I really like that.

You don't see a lot of platforms where you just use your email and then get a link emailed to you.

It saves a lot of headaches with passwords, so I think that's a really smart idea.

What plans do you have for DecisionVault that you can talk about?

Maybe there are some things you can't talk about yet, but I'm sure you probably have a roadmap.

What are some things on that roadmap that are coming up?

Wouter IJgosse (29:26)
We're interviewing a number of firms.

Some of our existing subscribers, like I mentioned, also do family law.

We have existing subscribers who do some estate planning and some family law, and we've gotten to the point where we have several mockups we're putting in front of them.

That's getting more concrete toward having a family law MVP.

I know some firms have been using DecisionVault for family law, but the honest look at it right now is that we're missing some of the information.

We're pretty close, especially on the financials.

But there are fields missing like, "Do you consider this a marital asset or not? Why? When did you acquire this?" Or, for each child, what's the five-year address history?

We have a lot of it. We're just missing that final 20 percent that would really make it helpful for family law.

Family law is definitely something we'll start going into during the rest of the year.

The second piece is thinking more toward workflows and how we can support the firm.

Instead of being a smart database, it's a tool that has information and does stuff for you.

That's the step we're taking.

That involves things like automatically following up with clients on missing data points, and there are some more ideas we have there.

I wrote all the code up until about a year and a half ago.

Over the last year, I've really been building out the product team, delivery team, and engineering team.

Now I have more free time because I'm not spending all of my time in the code, so I can explore.

Where do we fit in with these AI tools? What can I make happen?

I've done a bunch of technical proofs of concept.

That's where the technical angle is helpful. Okay, we'll spin this up and see where it ends up.

Some of the stuff you see, like the ABA had an article about the AI-native estate planning practice.

It was a great story, but it didn't hold any water because I tried it.

We have a questionnaire. What if I could just talk to ChatGPT and answer it all?

What I found was, man, that takes even longer than clicking through the form.

It's really boring and annoying.

Tyson Mutrux (32:08)
Really? Really?

That's interesting. Wow.

Wouter IJgosse (32:12)
Think about it.

If AI is going to ask you one question at a time for radio buttons, for instance, that's a lot of waiting on tokens and whatever.

I can just click, click, click, click, click, click, click, and I'm on to the next screen.

The thing that does help is writing out names and addresses and all of that. That's maybe okay.

But it just feels endless when you turn it into a chat conversation.

I also tried things with voice.

I have the perfect name to test this out. It will butcher my name seven ways on Sunday.

That's the other piece.

You hear things like, AI will interview them over the phone and figure out what question comes next.

Great.

If you let AI figure out what question comes next, you end up with some amorphous blob of information that's not structured and will not go into the tools you need next to draft these people's plans.

A lot of the AI stuff is, "Let's do AI drafting."

Great. If I let AI draft an 80-page estate plan, now I have to go review an 80-page estate plan to see what it's done.

Tyson Mutrux (33:21)
Sure, yeah.

Wouter IJgosse (33:22)
Right.

Some of these things have good sound bites, and I'm sure there will be applications that work out.

But they don't quite make it just yet when you try to actually apply some of them.

Tyson Mutrux (33:36)
For people listening, I'll embarrass myself a little bit.

Beforehand, I was asking you how to pronounce your name because I wanted to take a shot at it before you told me.

My guess was "Vuter Ishgase," I think is what I said.

I got the V part right, which I was proud of, but I got the rest of it completely wrong.

So you're completely right.

I actually don't want to shift gears yet because I want to ask you something about documents.

I have an idea for you, and you may not like it, but I'll give you the idea.

Whenever you're collecting the data, people are uploading documents at some point. Is that fair?

Wouter IJgosse (34:18)
Yes. Yes.

Tyson Mutrux (34:19)
Okay.

What I thought would be kind of cool is if you front-load the document upload part of this as an option, where it then uses AI to extract the information and autofill some of the things.

The person would still have to click a check mark to accept it or an X to not accept it and then type in their own answer.

It's a very basic idea, and you may have already thought through it, but I figured I'd throw that out there.

Wouter IJgosse (34:44)
Yeah, it's on our list of AI functionality to look into.

If I think through the platform as jobs to be done, the thing that it does really well is data entry. That's the job.

Either the paralegal sits there and writes it out, or the client sits there and types it in.

Obviously, the law firm has then outsourced it to the client, so we want to make sure the client wants to fill it in.

That's on our list of AI applications to explore.

Can we make it easier on the client?

Can we let them upload a financial statement and parse that into our structure already?

Or upload a prior trust and pull the names of the people out of there?

That's definitely something in our awareness.

Another one that we're closer on, because we have a technical proof of concept, is dealing with people who are unwilling or unable to do this on a computer.

For some law firms, 15 or 20 percent of folks want to do something on a piece of paper.

Great. Let's let them fill it out on paper, scan it in, and then have AI read it and fill in a DecisionVault questionnaire.

That's something we have working as a proof of concept, but we want to make sure it actually works at scale.

Tyson Mutrux (36:08)
Are you going to use something like a QR code or barcode when it scans in?

There's an AI case management system, and the name is escaping me, but when they request medical records and those records come back, there's a cover sheet.

They scan it in, it hits the barcode, and it automatically puts it in the file.

Are you going to do anything like that, or is that one of those things you're not going to mess around with?

Wouter IJgosse (36:36)
Yeah, we're still in the testing phase.

Something like that, yeah.

Tyson Mutrux (36:41)
Gotcha. Very cool.

I do want to shift gears here because I don't think you've mentioned this yet.

I've got it on my screen now for people who are just listening. This is the PowerPoint part of it, or diagrams, I'm sorry.

It says, "DecisionVault can help populate your PowerPoint diagrams with information gathered on the questionnaire."

What is this? This is kind of cool.

Wouter IJgosse (37:05)
About two years ago, at one of the conferences, the diagramming piece was all the rage.

You still see this in some of the tools that are out there.

Some tools are focused on estate planners and maybe a little bit on financial planners as well, letting them do estate planning.

Where that lands in terms of what's allowed, I'll leave that up to the group to decide.

A lot of those tools can load in estate plans and then visualize them.

People came to us and said, "Can you make me a diagram?"

The problem with those diagrams is that it's pretty easy to let AI figure it out and make you an image.

But if you have an image, you cannot edit an image.

Some estate planners have PowerPoints they use to explain to the client how the plan is supposed to work.

When this person dies, when that person dies, the assets go into this structure or this trust, et cetera.

What we did was say, hey, we can take your PowerPoint template with some placeholder values in there and do the kind of mail merge I was talking about earlier.

We do that in PowerPoint, and we do that in Word.

You can put the names of the client into that PowerPoint.

Again, it saves 20 minutes of the paralegal copy-pasting the client names and trust names, hopefully into the right spots.

It's very embarrassing if you have a diagram that has a prior client's information or a typo.

That's what the diagramming feature is.

There's no fancy AI with that.

It's really just taking your current templates.

This is relevant for some firms and not all firms, but there are plenty of firms that have their PowerPoint format.

You can build one template with two children, three children, four children, the different slides, and then fill that in with information.

Then you edit from there because it's PowerPoint.

You can drag things around and add to it because every estate plan will be a little different for each client.

Tyson Mutrux (39:21)
Very cool.

That's one of those things you hadn't mentioned, but I wanted to make sure we mentioned it because it seemed pretty cool.

DecisionVault is one of the premier sponsors at MaxLawCon this year, and I know you and your team are going to be there.

If someone stops by the booth at MaxLawCon, what kinds of conversations do you hope to have with people?

I think some people are a little hesitant to stop by some booths.

What sorts of conversations do you want to have with people out there?

Wouter IJgosse (39:52)
Obviously, I'd love to see the estate planners.

By then it's October, so we probably will have more to say about family law and how we might be able to help.

But I'd love to learn more about how people are incorporating AI into that flow.

What are the limitations? What things are working well? What limitations are they running into?

Piecing the tooling together is becoming a very interesting part.

I'm the perpetual product guy, so every solution will inevitably find its way back to product.

It's a little unclear where this will go, but one plausible direction is that most of the tools are becoming tools that can be used for a specific person.

People may spend part of their day chatting away with their tools or just having agents run stuff.

I don't think it gets to, "It just runs itself and we don't need the humans anymore."

That story was having a moment six months ago. I don't think that's working out that well.

Even when we run benchmarks and look at how good AI is, when you run that benchmark, they spend so much time building up all the instructions.

And guess who does that?

The human.

Then AI does its work, and then you review it again.

It becomes this sort of sandwich where AI definitely goes faster, goes deeper, and can more cheaply do the work, but the human element is still super important.

You need to prompt it the right way, set up the guardrails the right way, and give it some of the tools.

Claude could call out to DecisionVault and ask DecisionVault to reach out to a client and invite them to start the questionnaire.

DecisionVault can follow up to make sure the client has filled in the questionnaire.

Claude can check back to see, has this happened? Where are we with this?

Those interactions are definitely what we're playing with and trying to figure out where we fit in and how we can connect.

Tyson Mutrux (42:10)
I love the way you think about things.

That's very cool. I feel like I think about things the same way.

You can check out DecisionVault.com if you're interested.

DecisionVault.com, Facebook.com/DecisionVault, and you're also on LinkedIn at LinkedIn.com/company/DecisionVault.

If people want to reach out to you, what's the best way of getting in touch with you? Social media? Email?

Wouter IJgosse (42:35)
Yeah, I would say [email protected].

Tyson Mutrux (42:39)
Very good.

If you have any questions about DecisionVault, check them out at DecisionVault.com or [email protected].

Great to have you on. I can't wait to see you out in Atlanta.

Hopefully everyone listening will join us at MaxLawCon in Atlanta and make sure they stop by your booth.

Really appreciate it.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux sits down with Maximum Lawyer Association member Jeremy Danilson for an unscripted conversation about AI, consistency, entrepreneurship, and what it actually takes to keep growing as a law firm owner.

Jeremy shares how he is using AI not just to complete tasks, but to teach himself how different parts of his business work. After building an interactive course around his own advertising data, he uncovered issues between Google Ads and HubSpot that helped him ask better questions of his marketing vendor and improve performance.

Tyson and Jeremy also dig into the limits of AI and why law firm owners still need to understand enough to question the answers they are getting. Tyson shares his own experience using AI during the launch of Founder Optional and what happened when too much of the thinking was handed over to the technology.

The conversation then turns to Jeremy’s path from professional golf to law firm ownership. He shares how taking a chance on himself, losing the one client his firm depended on, and choosing to keep building helped shape the business he has today.

At the center of it all is consistency. Jeremy explains why he believes self-confidence comes from keeping promises to yourself and how years of simply showing up, learning from other firm owners, and taking the next small step helped transform his firm.

It’s a conversation about betting on yourself, using AI without outsourcing your thinking, and recognizing that success is often less about one massive breakthrough and more about consistently doing the right things long enough for them to work.

Listen in to hear how Jeremy’s approach to learning, risk, and consistency has shaped the way he builds his law firm.

What You’ll Learn

  • How Jeremy uses AI to better understand and improve his firm’s marketing.
  • Why AI should support your thinking instead of replacing it.
  • What Jeremy’s professional golf career taught him about risk and betting on himself.
  • How losing his biggest client forced him to truly build a law firm.
  • Why Jeremy believes self-confidence is built by keeping promises to yourself.

Timestamps

00:00 — Bringing back unscripted Maximum Lawyer conversations

04:00 — Using AI to learn, analyze ads, and ask better questions

09:00 — Where AI falls short and why human judgment still matters

14:00 — Founder Optional, fear of judgment, and defining success

19:00 — Professional golf, risk, and learning to bet on yourself

24:00 — Losing a major client, building a real firm, and the power of consistency

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:06)
Welcome back to Maximum Lawyer Live. I'm here with my good buddy Jeremy. How you doing, dude?

Jeremy Danielson (00:12)
Good. How are you?

Tyson Mutrux (00:14)
Good. We're doing something a little bit different where we're just going to bring on, kind of like Jimmy and I used to, some Association members. This is your idea, so just so people know, I got a message from Jeremy last week, maybe, suggesting that we bring on some Association members.

You mentioned kind of like back in the day, whenever it was just me and Jimmy on Saturday morning, just chit-chatting. So it'd be Wednesday morning chit-chat with Association members.

I don't know. Maybe we'll just call it Chit Chat. Maybe we'll change the name of the show to Maximum Lawyer Chit Chat instead of Live. But how you doing?

Jeremy Danielson (00:51)
Good. Yeah, I sent this thought last week. Well, I've been thinking about it for a little while.

What brought me to the group was the genuine and honest conversations that you and Jim had at the very beginning, and then what I was able to experience when I go to the masterminds.

The more we can do things like that, I get a lot of value out of it, and I think other members do too. I love learning what other members are doing, so the more we can hear from everybody, the better.

Tyson Mutrux (01:24)
Yeah, I think some of my favorite moments have been on those Saturday morning shows because it's not scripted, right? There's no prep for it. You're just talking.

Jim and I actually had lunch yesterday. We were just chit-chatting for a while, and then I showed him my Tesla. I took him on a ride.

It was so funny. He did the thing that people do whenever they're driving a vehicle that has some capabilities of self-driving. He's like, "Yeah, my Cadillac does that."

I was like, "No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't."

He recorded it. He was like, "Oh my gosh." I did all the functions. I did Grok. I parked the car in a really tight corner behind his building, and I used Summon to summon the vehicle. It performed very well. It came around.

It was so crazy. He was so surprised.

Jeremy Danielson (02:19)
I think there are so many people who don't know that capability exists yet to the level it does.

Tyson Mutrux (02:27)
That's the thing. I told him, before I took him downstairs and we went for a ride, "I promise you, what I'm telling you right now, you're not believing."

I said, "I know the exact same mindset you're in because I was in the same mindset whenever Jeremy Danielson told me about it."

I didn't believe him. Then the next week I did a test drive, and the week after that I bought a car. Then I bought another one a month later. So it is that big of a difference.

Jeremy Danielson (03:02)
The fastest sales cycle ever.

Tyson Mutrux (03:05)
Completely.

What's new with you, though? Just so people know, when we do this, if you're not familiar with it, we just chit-chat. Sometimes gems come up. Sometimes we're just chit-chatting. That's how this is going to go.

You did not send me a list of topics or questions.

Jeremy Danielson (03:27)
Not at all.

I did a fun thing on Sunday. Fun in the context of work. I think it was a week and a half ago now.

With ads, we keep working to try to improve our ads and figure out how to target the audience we want to target more effectively. I need to learn about ads so I can hold my vendors accountable.

So I went to Claude. That's one of the AIs I use. I asked it to create an interactive educational experience for me about Meta and Google Ads, but to use my data to teach me in the course.

It built the entire course. Six different modules with my data because my ads are connected to it.

After six different modules, it uncovered several different things for me to ask my vendors about.

I learned that Google Ads was sending data to HubSpot, but HubSpot was not effectively sending good conversion data back to Google. So we weren't telling Google what signals were effective conversions.

That only got uncovered because of this interactive educational experience I had it build for me.

Tyson Mutrux (04:35)
That's so cool.

Real quick, you keep tapping the desk, and I'm sure the people listening to this are like, "What the heck is going on?"

He's very excited with his hands, if you're listening to this. I just wanted to let you know because you probably didn't realize it.

I think what's really interesting about you is that you use AI, I don't know if it's mostly for education, but you use it to educate yourself probably more than anybody I know.

Here's the difference between the way I use it and the way you use it, for the most part.

I know you use it to build things. I mostly just say, "Go do this thing," or, "Go analyze this thing and then tell me what needs to change."

If I had the same situation you have, I would have it go analyze the stuff and then give me instructions on what to tell my vendor to fix.

Whereas you educate yourself with it. You say, "Teach me all these things," and then you engross yourself in the topic.

Is that fair?

Jeremy Danielson (05:39)
To some degree.

I think some of the output it was giving me during this experiment was amazing. It said, "Well, A, B and C need to happen, and tell your vendor to go do this."

I have a really good relationship with this specific vendor, and I wanted to protect that.

So I had Claude help me. I said, "Rephrase all of this, but in the context of questions, because I want to protect that relationship and I don't want to attack them."

So I just asked some questions, some of which I now knew the answer to.

Those are my favorite kinds of questions to ask people, when I already know the answer.

I was very happy with the response that I got. Several of the things, they went in, they agreed, and they fixed right away. One or two of them they pushed back on and explained why.

We're making progress faster because of how I used AI that day.

Tyson Mutrux (06:38)
It's interesting. I had this thought yesterday because sometimes we do delegate the thinking to AI.

We did the book launch yesterday for Founder Optional.

Jeremy Danielson (06:50)
Congratulations.

Tyson Mutrux (06:52)
Thank you. Appreciate that.

It was interesting because we were using AI. We were using ChatGPT to help us with the launch, and it was given certain instructions.

It advised us on which categories to put the book in. I guess, like any other author, we want to be number one. We want to be on the top of whatever list.

It was interesting because it did not do a good job of telling us which categories to be in. It told us the wrong categories, in my opinion.

I think it's because we had delegated that thinking.

Someone who had expertise in that area would have been like, "No. Don't do that. That's not a good idea. Put it in these categories over here so you can hit these targets," yada, yada, yada.

It's the same thing with the ads and your vendor.

I don't really know why. I can't tell you why humans can figure that part out better.

You know what I mean? Why is it that the humans would be able to figure that out, whereas you would think AI has the experience? Not because it's done it, but because it's absorbed all this information from the internet and everywhere else.

Why can't it figure that part out?

Jeremy Danielson (08:04)
Wouldn't it just be context?

Context is king, but the human in that case has more and broader context than the AI, or than you had given the AI for that question.

Tyson Mutrux (08:20)
Maybe. It could be completely that.

Becca was prompting it, so I don't know how she prompted it. It could have been the context.

That being said, it knows everything we do. It knows what our jobs are. It knows all this information. So I guess, why wouldn't it have the context?

Jeremy Danielson (08:44)
When I say context, I'm also thinking experience.

The human in this situation has helped dozens or hundreds of authors with different kinds of subject matters.

They've spent the time, and they've also seen the backend and the performance after the book launch in those different categories.

I don't know if AI has that breadth of experience from pre- to post-book launch for the different types of areas.

Maybe.

Tyson Mutrux (09:20)
Here's where I push back on that.

What you're saying makes sense, but I saw something last week that over 50% of books that have been put out have AI slop in them now.

Jeremy Danielson (09:34)
Not surprised.

Tyson Mutrux (09:36)
Yeah. So I do think it has a lot of experience.

I've also seen a massive increase in legal books. I was just kind of seeing, okay, what's on the list?

I was like, "Oh my gosh, there's a lot."

It used to be, what was that Carolyn Elefant book? Solo by Choice. It was one of the big ones. Then there was that big blue book, How to Build a Law Firm, or whatever it was called.

Those were the books.

Now there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of them out there.

I don't know. I don't know the answer.

Jeremy Danielson (10:17)
You put all of this time and effort into writing this book. How do you define success now that it's live and launched?

I did buy my Kindle copy yesterday from the email.

Tyson Mutrux (10:30)
Thank you.

We have a launch sale. It's only two dollars. We made it really, really cheap for the launch.

To me, success was getting it done.

I know that sounds like a really weird answer, maybe, because I didn't set out to write that book.

The book I set out to write was a different book. Then this idea came out of that one, and I was like, "Oh."

So I set that aside. That other book, which I don't want to mention the title of here—I mentioned the title in Chicago—but I'm not going to mention the title here because I don't want anybody to steal it.

That was a really, really big book. It's a really big project that I've set aside for a little bit just so I can clear my mind and then come back to it. It ended up being a massive, massive project.

This book was like, "Okay, I can easily get this one done, probably."

The idea is pretty simple. It was based on gravity.

So let's write this book. I just wanted to get it done.

I've always wanted to write a book. I'd never written a book.

So success was just getting it done.

Have you ever written one?

Jeremy Danielson (11:51)
No.

Tyson Mutrux (11:53)
It is this thing that eats at you and eats at you and eats at you.

You go back and you pick at it, and you pick at it, and you change it, and you change this.

"Okay, so I have this many. I've got 26 chapters now. Let's go down to 18 chapters."

"I don't like the wording of that one."

It's funny, I probably changed chapter one 20 times. Over and over.

So just getting it done was a success.

Jeremy Danielson (12:24)
Is there any parallel to the conversations you have with other firm owners about starting to create videos, where success is just starting to do it and creating that consistent habit?

Tyson Mutrux (12:39)
Yeah. I think there are probably a lot of parallels.

I very much was concerned about how I would be judged on the page and how people would read it. That was a massive concern of mine.

Becca was like, "I need the book. I need the book. I need the book."

And I'm like, "I'm just not comfortable with it yet. I'm not comfortable with it yet. I just want to change it."

I think it's a great example because a lot of people hesitate because of how they're going to look on the screen.

Most people don't care.

I was really concerned about how I was going to look on the page, and most people probably won't care either. That's my guess.

Jeremy Danielson (13:27)
The coaches tell us not to look at your metrics or your subscribers or your followers for the first six or 12 months.

You just have to build a habit and create the videos, and all of that stuff comes down the road.

Tyson Mutrux (13:45)
Maybe. Yeah.

It's funny you say that because I've not looked at the numbers.

I know Becca has been looking at the numbers, and that's the only reason why it came up yesterday with the rankings and the categories.

We were not in any legal categories yesterday. So I was going against the Malcolm Gladwells of the world.

Okay, I'm not even in the same atmosphere as him.

But it's funny you say that about the videos because I noticed a few months ago we were oddly seeing a decrease in our YouTube numbers.

Our podcast numbers have stayed steady. They've been steadily increasing.

But I was like, "Why are our YouTube numbers..." I was getting frustrated every day just looking at it. Every day, down, down.

I'm like, "What is the bottom of this? This is crazy."

Then I set it aside.

I looked at it yesterday and our numbers are back up.

So I'm just going to ignore it. I'm not going to look at the numbers anymore. I'm just going to focus on the show. That's it.

Jeremy Danielson (14:54)
Do the activities or the behaviors that you know will lead to success.

Whether it's making videos, whether it's working out, whether it's eating right, you may not get the feedback you want in the moment.

But you know that if you're doing the right behaviors, down the road you'll get the results you're looking for.

Tyson Mutrux (15:14)
Yeah.

So let me ask you about this.

Were you considered a pro golfer, technically?

Jeremy Danielson (15:21)
Yes. I had to get my amateur status back. Yes.

Tyson Mutrux (15:26)
Okay. So to me, that takes a lot of discipline to do all that.

I wonder—you do the cold plunges, you do your workouts, you do all those things now. You're very focused.

Were you that focused back then?

Jeremy Danielson (15:47)
It was different.

Not in my health. Actually, my health journey probably didn't start until I was like 35.

My work ethic for practicing golf was that intense, though.

I would get up—I got made fun of for this in college—I would get up and stretch for 30 minutes every morning before I went to the golf course.

It got to the point where, if I didn't wake up and stretch, my body hurt.

I don't do that now.

But I would practice for hours upon hours a day.

I think it was more of a passion. That's where I wanted to be, and I liked the pursuit of trying to get better at this thing.

That's where I put my energy.

It never felt like work. It was never hard to do. It's just where I wanted to be.

Tyson Mutrux (16:40)
So if you were to go back and do that again, would you have done anything differently when it comes to what you focused on?

Right now, you know the things to dial in to make sure you're fully healthy, you're good to go, and you know what success looks like for you.

If you look back at the golfing days, would you have done anything differently?

Jeremy Danielson (17:05)
I have to say yes because I frankly think I'm a better golfer now than I was then.

But I think it's the life experiences and the mindset that I have now.

I can put myself in the right state of mind when I'm on the golf course, and I understand where golf fits into my whole life.

I'm not trying to pay my rent based upon how this round of golf goes anymore.

That's a different mindset.

That's really hard when you're living in Orlando, Florida, saying, "I've got to play well today because I've got to pay rent."

That takes golf from being fun to not fun really fast.

But the perspective that I've built—having kids, having a family, being married—makes golf a lot easier mentally now than it was back then.

Tyson Mutrux (17:58)
So were you on the 12th hole thinking, "Oh my gosh, I've got to turn this around, otherwise I'm not going to pay rent"?

Was that actually going through your mind?

Jeremy Danielson (18:12)
It was never that intense because my lifetime as a professional golfer was so short. Probably a year and a half.

I had some investor money to start with when I went down there, and that disappeared pretty quickly.

Because professional golf, honestly, at the time on those mini tours, it's organized gambling.

Everyone basically throws a thousand dollars into the pot when you show up to an event.

You've got 140 guys. You play.

Sixty guys make the cut. Forty guys make their money back. Twenty guys probably make a profit out of the 140 who threw money in.

That's all it is on the mini tours.

It's day by day, and it's a grind.

What I learned really quickly is that I hit the ball well enough to play out there, but chipping and putting? Those guys were so much better.

That's what separated them from everybody else.

Tyson Mutrux (19:18)
Interesting.

Okay, so the legalized gambling—

Jeremy Danielson (19:24)
I don't know if it was legal, but it was organized.

Tyson Mutrux (19:28)
You did say organized. I said legalized.

Organized gambling.

So is that why you feel like you were comfortable starting your own firm? Because you're willing to take on that risk?

Or was it something else?

Jeremy Danielson (19:49)
I've always been comfortable betting on myself.

If success is defined by my own effort, I know I'll give the effort, and I'll do the things it takes to be successful.

If I fail, I can look at myself and say, "What do I need to do differently to be successful?"

I've just always been comfortable with that.

When my success depends upon someone else's effort, that's really hard for me.

So whether it's golf, whether it's starting my own firm, whether it's my health, those all depend upon me taking the next step.

Tyson Mutrux (20:31)
So what do you think was different?

I feel like you've had pretty massive success over the last couple of years.

What was different in the last few years compared to the first seven years?

You've been doing it 10 years, right?

Jeremy Danielson (20:48)
Yeah.

Tyson Mutrux (20:49)
So let's say those first seven or eight years.

What was different about Jeremy then versus Jeremy now?

Jeremy Danielson (20:59)
I would say those first four years, I had one referral source and I wasn't really building a firm.

The last six or so, I actually started to build a law firm with a team. I wanted to grow something and diversify referral sources.

I think it was probably building self-confidence.

Something I like to say to my boys—they know the answer to this now—is, "How do you build self-confidence?"

You keep promises that you make to yourself.

The more promises I make and keep to myself, including showing up on Monday and Friday calls here, the more consistent I am.

The progress comes from that consistency.

It's not any one big thing I do.

It's just: keep showing up. Keep working diligently. Keep trying to do one thing.

I've been doing that now for at least three years with this group specifically.

Before I came to MaxLaw, I had never hired my first associate.

That's where the growth has come from—the consistent effort, day by day, week by week, learning from others, learning from you and Jim, going to masterminds, just plugging away a little bit at a time.

I think consistency is the key to success in anything.

It's not one big effort today. It's just a little bit at a time.

Tyson Mutrux (22:13)
Jim and I were talking about you yesterday, about how consistently you show up.

A lot of times, it is just consistently showing up and doing the thing.

Let's go back to you. Let's stay on you for a second.

When I look at those first years, I picture you having this one client. You're not having to hustle because you've got the one big client.

Were you just coasting back then?

Jeremy Danielson (22:42)
I was hustling doing all of the legal work.

It started out as just me doing everything.

Answering the phone, doing the meetings, doing the document prep, doing the closings.

It was just me.

I was trying to do all of the things and build systems as I was doing it.

I was also learning the subject matter because I was a baby attorney. I had to learn how to do the legal work.

The best lesson I ever learned was when that one client fired me and went to somebody else.

Sarah and I had a decision to make at that point.

Do I want to go get a job, or do we want to actually build a law firm?

That was an awesome crossroads for us.

We chose the harder thing, like we tend to always do.

But we had to actually start building a firm, have multiple clients, and be independent.

I had the four or five years of experience. I knew how to do the thing now, so I could try to build a business.

Maybe those first four or five years were everybody else's big-firm experience before they go start their own firm.

I had to learn how to do the thing before I could build the firm.

Tyson Mutrux (23:56)
How did you talk your way into this big client whenever you didn't really know what you were doing?

Jeremy Danielson (24:04)
Oh, God.

I think I was going to be a client of theirs.

We had to sell a home when I was let go from my first job out of law school.

We wanted to keep as much of our equity as possible, so we talked to them.

They said, "You're an attorney. We're actually needing an attorney. Let's talk about this."

At that crossroads, I had this job offer where there was no salary. It was just a referral source.

"If you start your own firm, you have this."

Or I had a corporate counsel offer for a large brokerage with a corner office, benefits, and a window.

I took the hard thing with no guarantee.

Tyson Mutrux (24:46)
You took the more rewarding thing.

Jeremy Danielson (24:50)
Yeah. I absolutely took the more rewarding thing.

It's been a ride.

Tyson Mutrux (24:57)
Did you have to sell the house?

Jeremy Danielson (25:00)
We did sell that house.

And thank God we did.

Have you ever seen the movie The Money Pit?

Tyson Mutrux (25:08)
Yeah.

Jeremy Danielson (25:10)
It's that house.

That was the first house I ever bought, and it was so bad.

At different times, I had a wrestling match with the sump pump. That's a story for another time.

We found piping outside that had been duct-taped multiple times to keep it together by a previous owner.

The shed had been destroyed once and duct-taped and screwed back together.

That house needed to not be ours anymore.

Tyson Mutrux (25:37)
That's probably a good idea.

It ended up being a blessing, getting let go.

We've never really talked about getting let go.

Was it an economic thing where the economy wasn't doing well and the firm wasn't doing well? What was that story?

Jeremy Danielson (25:59)
It wasn't a firm.

It was a startup commercial real estate company that was trying to convince the market to use brokerage commissions differently in commercial real estate purchases.

They never got their marketing message figured out to where they could gain any traction.

When I joined that company, they had dreams of expanding regionally and nationally.

After two years, it never happened.

So it really didn't make sense for them to need an attorney or in-house counsel, and they actually just broke up. The company kind of dissolved.

That was actually really good for me too, because I wouldn't be here if I didn't get let go then.

Tyson Mutrux (26:42)
I'm assuming you also got to give them insights into maybe how to think about the industry differently.

Because the way you think is different than, I'd say, most lawyers. We've had some pretty deep conversations.

Jeremy Danielson (26:57)
I absolutely did.

I got to spend two years trying to build somebody else's company—working on systems, processes, tools, software.

I had no experience with it, but I was allowed to tinker for two years and get paid to do it, to be honest.

That's probably what led me into making the decision to start my own firm instead of taking the in-house counsel position.

I thought, "Well, I spent two years tinkering on somebody else's company. Let's go do this for myself with this thing now."

And now I just get to tinker a lot more all the time.

Tyson Mutrux (27:36)
It's a pretty cool story too.

You were involved in a startup, and it was in the real estate industry. It all kind of ties in well.

All right, we have three minutes left. Anything else you want to talk about in the last few minutes?

Jeremy Danielson (27:53)
I got a cool piece of mail yesterday.

Tyson Mutrux (27:57)
Okay.

Jeremy Danielson (27:58)
I didn't know this was coming.

I got nominated for an award at MaxLawCon.

Tyson Mutrux (28:04)
You did? Oh my gosh. I had no idea.

Jeremy Danielson (28:08)
The Trailblazer Award.

I don't know exactly what that is, but I had forgotten about that piece.

That's going to be pretty fun. I'm looking forward to going to Atlanta.

Tyson Mutrux (28:20)
I love hearing that people are getting the letters and sending text messages or telling me just now.

It's really cool because people got nominated, and we picked the top three.

It's going to be awesome.

I'm trying to get Becca, for the Maximum Lawyer of the Year Award—which is the top award—a crown and a cape.

She's not so convinced.

Jeremy Danielson (28:44)
A crown and a cape?

Tyson Mutrux (28:46)
I want a crown and a cape for Maximum Lawyer of the Year. Like a superhero almost, but with a crown.

Jeremy Danielson (28:54)
I'm going to send you a picture of a guy with a cape because I took the boys to Minneapolis for SummerSlam on Saturday, which is a whole other story for the next time we see each other.

This guy has a cape on, and we got a picture taken with him.

So you can dress the winner up like this for the award.

Tyson Mutrux (29:12)
Okay.

The other option is, you know those little things that the Ninja Turtles wore around their eyes?

Jeremy Danielson (29:18)
Oh yeah, headbands.

Tyson Mutrux (29:20)
Yeah, headbands with the eye holes. That would be awesome too.

Which Ninja Turtle would you be?

Jeremy Danielson (29:27)
Oh, I'd be Leonardo.

I like Raphael too, but he had the nunchucks, right?

Tyson Mutrux (29:34)
Michelangelo had the nunchucks.

Jeremy Danielson (29:37)
Okay.

Tyson Mutrux (29:38)
Raphael had the sais, and then Leonardo had the swords.

Jeremy Danielson (29:45)
Okay. Donatello?

Tyson Mutrux (29:47)
Donatello had the stick, the bo staff.

Jeremy Danielson (29:51)
Okay. Well done.

Tyson Mutrux (29:53)
Yeah. I love Turtles.

All right, dude. I gotta go. Have a great day. Thanks for doing this. Appreciate it, man.

Jeremy Danielson (30:01)
Have a good week.

Tyson Mutrux (30:03)
You too. Bye.

Jeremy Danielson (30:05)
Bye.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux sits down with Janice Dantes, founder of Pinay Law, for a conversation about building a law firm around community, identity, resilience, and the willingness to keep learning as you grow.

Janice shares why she intentionally removed her own name from her firm and how separating her personal identity from the business helped her look at the numbers more objectively. She also explains how she found a unique niche serving the Filipino community through divorce and family law.

She also opens up about one of the hardest moments in her entrepreneurial journey: being scammed out of $50,000 while other parts of the firm were struggling at the same time. Instead of shutting down, Janice kept her team, took risks, hired for growth, got back out into the community, and rebuilt the firm stronger.

Tyson and Janice also dig into money mindset, learning how to charge what your work is worth, the difference between scarcity and abundance, investing in your health, and building a business that gives you the freedom to actually enjoy the life you are creating.

It’s a conversation about getting knocked down, figuring out what isn’t working, asking for help, and continuing to build anyway.

Listen in to hear how Janice turned some of the toughest moments in her law firm into the lessons that helped her grow.

What You’ll Learn

  • Why Janice removed her own name from her law firm—and how it changed the way she viewed the business.
  • How identifying an underserved community can create a powerful law firm niche.
  • Why grassroots relationships have been so important to Pinay Law’s growth.
  • How Janice recovered after losing $50,000 to a sophisticated scam.
  • Why she chose to keep investing in the business even when cash was tight.
  • How scarcity around money can affect pricing, spending, and business decisions.
  • Why physical health and discipline can have a direct impact on your performance as a law firm owner.
  • How Janice thinks about building a firm that provides both financial opportunity and personal freedom.
  • Why generosity remains one of the principles she wants guiding her growth.

Timestamps

00:00 — Why Janice took her name off her law firm

07:00 — Building a niche around the Filipino community

15:00 — Growing through grassroots marketing and relationships

24:00 — Getting comfortable showing up on social media

31:00 — Building a law firm that creates more freedom

38:00 — How improving her health made her a better lawyer

46:00 — Money mindset, scarcity, and learning to charge your worth

54:00 — Losing $50K to a scam and rebuilding the firm stronger

Connect with Janice: 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pinaylaw

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JDsquared

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:06)
 So Janice, welcome to the show. Really appreciate you being here. Welcome to Chicago. It's a beautiful city. I love it. It's one of my favorite cities, if not my favorite. It's really cool.

Janice Dantes (00:19)
 It's a great city. It's the winters that make it tough.

Tyson Mutrux (00:24)
 But we have a day like today. It's 90 degrees right now, it's June, and it's really humid. So I can't imagine the winters are much worse than this.

Janice Dantes (00:35)
 You'd be surprised.

Tyson Mutrux (00:38)
 I did have my 21st birthday in February in Chicago, and it was really cold and miserable, so I get it. But it's a great city. It's very vibrant, which is pretty cool.

Janice Dantes (00:54)
 It is. I consider it a small big city. It has that Midwestern feel, but it's still very cosmopolitan.

Tyson Mutrux (01:06)
 Yeah, I could see that. I have a question I'll start with. So you started Pinay Law, right? Did I say that right?

Janice Dantes (01:17)
 Pinay Law.

Tyson Mutrux (01:19)
 Pinay. Okay. And Pinay means Filipino woman?

Janice Dantes (01:24)
 Right.

Tyson Mutrux (01:26)
 This is where I wanted to get because you didn't name it after yourself. Why did you call it that?

Janice Dantes (01:37)
 That's partly why, but there was actually a rationale behind it. When I was starting my firm, it was called the Law Office of Janice Dantes.

When I would look at my finances or the numbers and they weren't good, I judged myself. Then I would avoid the numbers because I viewed them as a direct reflection of how I was doing.

I tied my value to my company because it was named after me.

When I changed the name, I could say, "No, I'm an employee of Pinay Law."

Janice Dantes (02:13)
 It didn't have my name anymore, so I was able to examine the numbers and reports without the judgment because I didn't see my name staring back at me.

Tyson Mutrux (02:28)
 What a smart and fascinating thing you did. Did you completely change it or did you make it a DBA?

Janice Dantes (02:36)
 A DBA.

Tyson Mutrux (02:38)
 It's still such a smart way of looking at it.

Janice Dantes (02:43)
 I had to do little tricks like that because you can't just avoid things. You can't say, "I'm going to avoid my numbers because I don't want to judge myself."

So I thought, what can I do to make it not stare me in the face?

I changed the name of the firm. It's still me, but it's not me.

Tyson Mutrux (03:05)
 Have you always been that self-aware?

Janice Dantes (03:09)
 I don't think so. I've done a few coaching programs, and they've all told me I'm coachable. I didn't know there were people who weren't coachable, but there definitely are.

I didn't come from a family of lawyers. I never even worked in another law firm aside from my own.

So in order for me to learn, I basically had to remove the ego, remove the pride, ask for help when I needed it, and be okay exposing what I was weak at.

Tyson Mutrux (03:39)
 You have a really interesting background. Are you from the Philippines, or are your parents from the Philippines?

Janice Dantes (03:47)
 I was born there.

Tyson Mutrux (03:49)
 Okay, so you're from the Philippines.

Janice Dantes (03:53)
 Yes. I was born at Clark Air Force Base because my dad was in the service. I was there for the first three years of my life, so I don't really have a lot of memories.

But the culture is there. My mom still lives with me. She still cooks all the food.

And I speak the language. I didn't for a long time, but my job actually taught me how to speak it to a pretty high level of fluency.

Tyson Mutrux (04:24)
 And it's Filipino Independence Week, right?

Janice Dantes (04:28)
 Yeah. Philippine Independence Day is June 12th.

Tyson Mutrux (04:36)
 I feel like Filipino food is having its moment in the sun. What is Filipino food? Because I don't think I've ever had Filipino food.

Janice Dantes (04:47)
 If you see those purple ube things, there's purple everything now. Ube is very Filipino. It's kind of our version of a sweet potato. You can eat it savory or sweet.

Now it's everywhere. When I was growing up, it was weird.

Bubble tea was weird. We call it sago. Now it's everywhere.

Then we have lumpia, which is like a small egg roll or spring roll, and pancit.

Tyson Mutrux (05:24)
 What's pancit?

Janice Dantes (05:26)
 It's kind of like the Filipino version of pad Thai.

Tyson Mutrux (05:31)
 I love pad Thai. Okay, I'm sold.

So you have a really interesting niche, and your target market is also very specific. Talk about that a little bit.

Janice Dantes (05:45)
 I'm Filipino, and when I came into the office suite where I work, these were lawyers who had been practicing 30, 35, 40 years.

They told me, "You're the first Filipino lawyer I've ever met."

I thought that was really surprising.

A lot of Filipinos are nurses or work in the medical field. The ones who do go to law school often work in corporate environments or big firms. Not many are entrepreneurs like me.

So I started the firm, and my niche really became serving our community, specifically in divorce.

Janice Dantes (06:27)
 I got all this business advice from non-business people saying, "Why are you doing divorce? You should do immigration."

There are a lot of Filipino lawyers who do immigration. There aren't many who do divorce.

And divorce is illegal in the Philippines.

Tyson Mutrux (06:43)
 That was really interesting when I was looking at your background because I didn't know that.

So when you get married in the Philippines, you're married?

Janice Dantes (06:54)
 Right. If it doesn't work out, you're still married. It really is till death do you part.

Concepts like divorce don't exist the same way there.

Tyson Mutrux (07:05)
 What if one spouse is abusive? You still can't just get out of it?

Janice Dantes (07:11)
 Not through divorce in the way we think about it here.

Sometimes someone just leaves and lives somewhere else, but they're still married.

It creates strange situations. Someone might be married, separate, then have children with somebody else, but legally the original marriage still exists.

Then you have inheritance issues and other complications.

Tyson Mutrux (07:40)
 So let's say you're married, it doesn't work out, you leave and have kids with another woman. That new girlfriend can never marry you?

Janice Dantes (07:50)
 That's right.

There are some situations where a foreign divorce can be recognized. A lot of Filipinos come here and eventually discover, "I can get divorced here."

Maybe they're green card holders or American citizens by then. They can divorce here and sometimes have that divorce recognized in the Philippines.

Tyson Mutrux (08:15)
 How did all of that influence you wanting to build the firm around divorce?

Janice Dantes (08:22)
 What I found was that there weren't resources or information.

There's not even really a Filipino word for divorce because it doesn't exist there in the same way.

When people have marital problems, a lot of times their resource is the church. They pray about it or talk to friends.

I wanted Filipinos who came here to know they had options.

If they live here, they may be able to get divorced here even if they were married in the Philippines.

Janice Dantes (08:55)
 Some of the biggest things we handle are people who were married in the Philippines and want to build a new life in America.

They come here, maybe meet somebody new, and discover, "You mean I don't have to just be boyfriend and girlfriend with this person forever? I can divorce my spouse back home and eventually remarry?"

It can be life-changing.

Tyson Mutrux (09:19)
 Let me ask you a fairly direct question. Does the Filipino community somewhat look down on what you do, or is it more relief because you're helping people who feel trapped?

Janice Dantes (09:32)
 I think it's more relief. Like, "Thank God there's somebody."

I joke a lot. Most Filipinos joke a lot.

I tell people, "When I'm in church, tell them I'm a real estate attorney."

But I'm synonymous with divorce.

I actually thought about putting my office near our community center and decided against it because if you're seen going into my office, people are probably going to assume you're getting divorced.

Tyson Mutrux (10:06)
 That's actually really smart.

Janice Dantes (10:09)
 There's gossip in close communities. I didn't want somebody saying, "Hey, I saw so-and-so going into the divorce lawyer's office."

So I put the office downtown in a big building. Nobody knows who you're there to see.

Tyson Mutrux (10:30)
 Did you experiment with other practice areas targeting the Filipino community?

Janice Dantes (10:37)
 Definitely.

I still tell every Filipino, if you need anything, call me. If I can't help you, I can connect you with somebody who can.

When you first start a firm, you do everything.

I did food inspection tickets, utility issues, real estate matters, all kinds of things.

Then you start learning what your community actually needs.

Tyson Mutrux (11:02)
 Did you start your firm straight out of law school or did you work somewhere first?

Janice Dantes (11:08)
 Basically straight away.

I've never really worked at another law firm.

People ask me what my old firm was like, and I'm like, "This is the old firm. It's the same one."

Tyson Mutrux (11:24)
 Did you know from the beginning you wanted to do divorce?

Janice Dantes (11:29)
 I don't think anybody grows up saying, "You know what? I want to be a divorce lawyer."

It finds you.

Looking back now, it all makes sense.

But when I was going into college, I thought I was going to be a doctor because almost everybody in my family was in the medical field.

I was the first lawyer in my family.

Tyson Mutrux (11:59)
 You paved the way.

Janice Dantes (12:01)
 I did.

And honestly, I thought I was going to be an entertainment lawyer.

I wanted to work with celebrities and do music or copyright, something cool like that.

I took all these entertainment law classes.

Tyson Mutrux (12:21)
 Why did that interest you?

Janice Dantes (12:24)
 I'm what I call a frustrated musician.

I was a classically trained pianist. I sing.

I thought I could use those talents somehow.

And I grew up reading all those tabloid magazines. Now I'm a divorce lawyer and I basically live it.

People ask what it's like being a divorce lawyer and I'm like, "I don't have to watch TV."

The drama we see in real life is better than anything on Netflix.

Tyson Mutrux (12:59)
 Do you deal with conflicts often because the Filipino legal community is relatively small?

Janice Dantes (13:06)
 Not really.

It happens occasionally where a husband and wife both call, but divorce is still fairly uncommon in the community. There's still a stigma around it.

A lot of my divorces involve people who have been struggling for 20 years.

Tyson Mutrux (13:26)
 That has to be tough.

Janice Dantes (13:29)
 Sometimes you hear the story and think, "Wow. It's only now, after you've been cheated on ten times and he has children with three different women, that you're finally saying enough?"

People put up with a lot.

Tyson Mutrux (13:51)
 I was in Lowe's a few weeks ago and saw this clearly older couple. They were probably in their 80s.

The guy was in a scooter and asked his wife to grab something off the shelf. She said, "No, you don't need that, you idiot."

They were calling each other idiot and dumbass.

I'm standing there thinking, "Why are you all still married?"

There was nothing endearing about it.

I'm sure you see that where eventually there has to be a breaking point.

Janice Dantes (14:27)
 Absolutely.

Tyson Mutrux (14:29)
 When someone has been married 20 years and comes to you, do they usually come together or is it usually one spouse?

Janice Dantes (14:39)
 Usually one spouse.

A lot of times it's a woman who says, "This isn't working."

Then you hear the story. Maybe he's going to the Philippines every six months, seeing mistresses, has children there, and is spending all this money.

Eventually she'll say, "I'm done."

Then we approach the husband who's been cheating for decades and has children everywhere and he'll say, "I'm so hurt. I'm blindsided. Why does she suddenly want to divorce me?"

Tyson Mutrux (15:14)
 Because you're a dumbass.

Janice Dantes (15:16)
 Exactly.

And sometimes they still reconcile.

Tyson Mutrux (15:21)
 How often do you get all the way to the finish line and then they reconcile?

Janice Dantes (15:27)
 We had one person who was divorced for about 27 days and then they got back together.

Tyson Mutrux (15:35)
 What?

Janice Dantes (15:36)
 They filed a motion to vacate it and got back together.

I was like, "Well, you don't get a refund."

Tyson Mutrux (15:47)
 No kidding.

I once had a client when I did criminal defense. I got the case dismissed on a motion to suppress, and the client had the audacity to ask for the money back.

I'm like, "No. Just because we didn't go to trial doesn't mean you get your money back. I got you the result you wanted."

Tyson Mutrux (16:15)
 How do you market to the Filipino community?

Janice Dantes (16:20)
 It's very grassroots.

I go to picnics. I go to events. You invite people to your house. You go to church.

It's very organic.

Eventually, you're a little bit of a celebrity because there aren't many Filipino lawyers in the community who speak the language.

Janice Dantes (16:43)
 There's something interesting about it, too.

People like that I speak the language, but they also like that I went to school here and speak English without a foreign accent.

A lot of Filipinos, especially those with accents, have experienced discrimination.

So there's comfort in having a lawyer who understands the culture, speaks the language, and can also speak to a judge or opposing counsel the way they're accustomed to here.

Tyson Mutrux (17:14)
 And you have a Chicago accent.

Janice Dantes (17:17)
 I do.

Tyson Mutrux (17:18)
 You definitely do.

How long did it take you to become fluent?

Janice Dantes (17:24)
 I came here when I was three, so I was barely talking.

My grandmother lived with us, so I spoke a little, but I never went to school for it. I still can't really read or write it. I can speak it.

It probably took about five years of using it regularly to understand the idioms and jokes.

At first, people could hear an American accent when I spoke Filipino.

Tyson Mutrux (17:55)
 They were probably making fun of you behind the scenes.

Janice Dantes (17:58)
 They made fun of me to my face.

They'd say, "No, that's not how you say it."

But that's actually how I got better.

Tyson Mutrux (18:09)
 That's really cool because they're teaching you while you're developing a bond with them.

Janice Dantes (18:15)
 Exactly.

Now I'd like to learn some of the other dialects, too.

Tyson Mutrux (18:23)
 Do you ever run into spouses at church whose divorce you've handled?

Janice Dantes (18:29)
 I don't go to that particular church, but I've had situations where one spouse was seeing another parishioner and the other spouse still kept going to the church.

I'm like, "Can you maybe go to a different church? You're torturing yourself."

But in communities like the Filipino or Greek communities, your church matters. It's hard to just change that.

Tyson Mutrux (18:59)
 You don't only represent Filipinos, right?

Janice Dantes (19:02)
 No. We represent everyone.

Tyson Mutrux (19:05)
 How big is the Filipino population in Chicago?

Janice Dantes (19:10)
 I think it's several hundred thousand. It's a large community.

We have multiple Jollibees.

Tyson Mutrux (19:20)
 Jollibee is basically your McDonald's?

Janice Dantes (19:23)
 Yes. They have burgers, but it's really about the fried chicken.

We also have Seafood City, which is like our grocery store. People will come from out of state to shop because they don't have one in places like Indiana or Wisconsin.

Tyson Mutrux (19:49)
 Is there a Filipino neighborhood, like a Chinatown?

Janice Dantes (19:54)
 Not really. We're pretty spread out.

Tyson Mutrux (19:58)
 Are there other attorneys competing for that same niche?

Janice Dantes (20:03)
 Nobody really wants to do divorce in our community.

I've met a few Filipino attorneys who do it, and there's enough work to go around.

But a lot of lawyers would rather do something transactional.

We do have a Filipino lawyers association here with around 150 paid members, but a lot of them work in corporate environments or larger firms.

Tyson Mutrux (20:37)
 I watched some of your YouTube videos. How does YouTube fit into your marketing mix?

Janice Dantes (20:44)
 It doesn't.

I actually don't do a lot of social media.

I'm only now starting to put myself out there more because my employees keep telling me, "Janice, let's get you out there."

I have a fear of being judged.

Tyson Mutrux (21:06)
 Which is crazy because you have really good stage presence.

You'd do really well, especially with the niche you have.

Janice Dantes (21:14)
 I've tried, and then I watch myself and think, "God, I'm so robotic. I'm not natural."

But I have a new hire named Andrea who's basically said, "Janice, we're going to get you out there."

So we're starting to make plans for social media and getting my face and message out there.

Tyson Mutrux (21:42)
 I wonder if part of it is that you've grown so much through in-person marketing that you never really needed social media.

Janice Dantes (21:51)
 I think that's part of it.

I remember something my grandfather told me years ago.

I did the Police Memorial Run with my dad, and there were places where you could take pictures with police equipment.

I took a photo holding these huge semi-automatic weapons and put it on Facebook.

My grandfather said, "When you become a lawyer, I don't think you can really do that. You have to be careful about what you say."

And I thought maybe he was right.

So I came into my shell a little bit.

Tyson Mutrux (22:34)
 But now people want you to be authentic.

They want to know you're actually a human and not just this big, bad lawyer sitting in an ivory tower.

With your entertainment law interest and your music background, I could picture you doing really fun videos at the piano, singing, whatever.

Janice Dantes (22:56)
 That's actually where I started.

One of my business coaches said, "Why don't you put something out there that you feel confident doing and that you enjoy?"

I said, "Okay, I'll play piano."

I have a nice piano at home, so I started doing that.

Now I can't go to any event without having a piece prepared because if there's a piano, somebody will say, "Janice plays. Go play something."

Tyson Mutrux (23:29)
 You're the piano lawyer.

Janice Dantes (23:31)
 Exactly.

Tyson Mutrux (23:34)
 Have you seen the LockPickingLawyer?

People send this guy locks and he picks them. That's what he's known for.

You could be the piano lawyer.

Janice Dantes (23:48)
 There was actually a time when the business wasn't doing well and I thought, "I need another stream of revenue."

Then I thought, what do celebrities do when they need money?

They come out with a Christmas album.

So I literally thought about making an album of breakup songs.

Tyson Mutrux (24:13)
 This is brilliant.

You can do it year-round.

Christmas breakup songs. Valentine's Day breakup songs. You could release a whole Spotify album.

Janice Dantes (24:26)
 If you see some of my TikToks, I've been playing with BandLab.

I'll record something on piano, add drums and sing over it.

Then I look at it from the intellectual property side, too.

It's my arrangement. It's my music. It's my voice.

Tyson Mutrux (24:51)
 You are so much cooler than when you first walked in here.

So what's your long-term goal?

Do you want to grow the firm into something really big? Scale nationally? Keep it small?

Janice Dantes (25:07)
 That's why I call it Pinay Law Chicago.

Eventually, I could have Pinay Law London, Pinay Law Miami, Pinay Law LA.

I'd love for it to become a global brand.

And I want to do the fun stuff, too.

I'd love to write books and share my experiences.

I really love to travel.

That's one reason I'm a lawyer. I enjoy the work, but it also gives me the means and the freedom to live out these other dreams.

Tyson Mutrux (25:45)
 What hobbies do you have now?

Janice Dantes (25:48)
 I dabble in music. I'm the frustrated musician.

And I've gotten really into fitness.

My husband and I started this whole fitness journey, and I'm about 40 pounds lighter than I was last October.

Tyson Mutrux (26:06)
 Holy crap. What's the key?

Janice Dantes (26:09)
 People ask if I did GLP-1s. No.

I did it through diet and exercise, and it's mostly diet.

Eating well is not fun. It's actually pretty boring.

But it made me a better lawyer.

I don't have the same brain fog anymore. I have more energy.

I don't have to waste time deciding what I'm eating for lunch because everything is already pre-packed.

Janice Dantes (26:45)
 My husband got into it, too, and we work with a trainer.

Now I'm thinking, what other fitness things can I do?

We've joked about creating a channel called Lawyers With Abs.

We'd collect lawyers with abs and get their tips.

What do you eat when you're hungry? What are good snacks? How do you stay healthy while practicing law?

Tyson Mutrux (27:15)
 I might like Lawyers With Abs more than Piano Lawyer.

I got into fitness five or six years ago.

Hiring a trainer was a huge thing.

Changing my diet, drinking more water, cutting back on alcohol — all of those lifestyle changes matter.

Janice Dantes (27:38)
 Absolutely. It's a lifestyle change.

Tyson Mutrux (27:43)
 What made you decide you needed to change?

Janice Dantes (27:48)
 Honestly, we had a lot of friends who were passing away.

People our age, in their 40s.

Maybe as you get older, you're more aware of it, but my husband and I knew people getting sick and dying.

I can't control whether I'm eventually going to get sick, but I can control what goes into my body.

I can control whether I work out.

I can do the things doctors are always telling us to do.

And as lawyers, we have the means to invest in ourselves.

What am I hoarding all this money for?

Janice Dantes (28:30)
 The first two weeks were brutal.

I cut out sugar and started eating healthy, and I felt like an addict.

I was literally dreaming about chips and cupcakes.

I had headaches. I felt terrible.

Then it subsided and suddenly I thought, "Wow. I'm not tired. I'm not groggy."

I had mental clarity.

And that started helping the business.

I had the energy to say, "Let's fix this. Let's do this."

Investing in my health helped me on the business side.

Tyson Mutrux (29:08)
 You start learning all these little things about your body, too.

Like caffeine and adenosine.

If you drink caffeine immediately after waking up, it can contribute to that afternoon crash.

Once you start paying attention to your health, you almost learn how to game the system.

That's part of why I use a Whoop now.

You start gamifying things.

Janice Dantes (29:36)
 Exactly.

And it tests your discipline and your mental fortitude.

I use ChatGPT, and at one point I asked it, "How can I lose weight?"

It told me, "Apply the same discipline you use in your business to your fitness."

That hit me in the gut.

I'm succeeding in this area, but not this one. Why?

So I got a coach and started applying that same discipline.

Tyson Mutrux (30:08)
 There's another interesting part of discipline.

People make judgments based on what they see, whether those judgments are fair or not.

If someone looks healthy and in shape, people often assume that person is disciplined in other areas of life.

That can affect business.

That's not the main reason I do it.

I want to live longer and be healthy for my kids.

But there are business benefits, too.

Janice Dantes (30:42)
 And I want to be able to keep doing basic things as long as possible.

We handle probate matters, and you hear doctors talk about activities of daily living.

Can someone dress themselves? Feed themselves? Use the bathroom independently?

I'm thinking, "I want to be able to do those things for as long as possible."

Janice Dantes (31:07)
 My grandfather actually passed away a few years ago in a way my husband thought was the most epic way anyone could go.

My family was horrified.

He was in his 80s, in a hotel room with a woman much younger than him.

He'd taken a combination of alcohol and Viagra and ended up having a heart attack.

It happened in a small town in the Philippines, so everyone knew what happened.

My husband was like, "There is nothing wrong with that. How do we do the same thing?"

And my grandfather had biked there.

Tyson Mutrux (31:48)
 He biked there?

That's insane.

Was he still married?

Janice Dantes (31:55)
 No. My grandmother had already passed away.

But they were one of those couples where divorce was never really an avenue, so they had lived fairly separate lives.

Tyson Mutrux (32:12)
 Your husband's reaction sounds like every man's reaction to that story.

Janice Dantes (32:18)
 He says if he's in his casket, he wants to have abs and no shirt on.

Tyson Mutrux (32:26)
 I saw something recently about an 80-year-old breaking a record for the mile.

He was flying.

Could you imagine being 80 and still running like that?

That's what I want.

Janice Dantes (32:42)
 Same.

Tyson Mutrux (32:45)
 You have kids, right?

Janice Dantes (32:47)
 I have three.

Tyson Mutrux (32:50)
 Do you think about your health and your career in terms of setting an example for them?

Janice Dantes (32:58)
 I do.

I can be a little judgmental sometimes.

I'll meet people and think, "You're living life wrong."

I have this idea that if they couldn't make a movie about your life, you didn't do enough.

Tyson Mutrux (33:17)
 I like that.

Where does that come from?

Janice Dantes (33:21)
 I love true crime, documentaries and movies about people's lives.

Sometimes you watch and think, "What a remarkable story."

And if you live a life where there's no story at all, I'm like, "What are you doing?"

Tyson Mutrux (33:41)
 If your story ended tomorrow, what would the climax of your movie be?

Janice Dantes (33:47)
 I don't know about the climax, but if somebody made a movie about my life, I want it to be a remake of My Cousin Vinny, except with Filipinos.

I remember my first trial. My mom came.

There are definitely elements of that.

Tyson Mutrux (34:07)
 So is your husband Marisa Tomei in this version?

Janice Dantes (34:11)
 Kind of.

We have a slightly nontraditional marriage because I'm the breadwinning spouse.

His brother bought him a shirt that says "Trophy Husband."

I joke that they have Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and Real Housewives of Atlanta.

They need Real Househusbands of Chicago about husbands married to successful women.

Tyson Mutrux (34:41)
 You need to start that.

What's his name?

Janice Dantes (34:46)
 Ian.

And to be fair, he's a lawyer, too.

He has his own firm now.

Part of how that happened is that I didn't want to do estate planning anymore.

It's hard to balance that with litigation.

I told Ian, "I can find someone else to refer these cases to, or do you want to try them? There's no timeline. Do it part-time and see whether you like it."

Now he loves it.

Tyson Mutrux (35:20)
 Is it completely separate from your firm?

Janice Dantes (35:24)
 Totally separate.

Tyson Mutrux (35:26)
 How hard is it not to meddle in his business?

Janice Dantes (35:31)
 Very hard.

Sometimes I hurt his ego a little bit, but eventually he'll say, "Yeah, you're right."

I'm trying to guide him but let him find his own way.

We actually share office space.

One of our suitemates asked him, "Ian, why do you have the smaller office?"

He said, "Because my wife took the bigger one."

Tyson Mutrux (36:01)
 And his wife is crushing it.

There's nothing wrong with that.

What's his firm called?

Janice Dantes (36:08)
 Sharping Law.

His name is Ian Sharping, so his logo uses the I and S together and it looks like a dollar sign.

Tyson Mutrux (36:19)
 That's clever.

And Pinay means Filipino woman, right?

Janice Dantes (36:24)
 Right.

Pinoy generally means Filipino or Filipino man, and Pinay is the female version.

I actually tried to get Pinoy Law first, but it was already taken.

It's such a common term that I wasn't surprised.

I was more surprised Pinay wasn't taken.

Tyson Mutrux (36:49)
 We've been talking about a lot of different things.

What's something I should have asked you that I haven't?

Janice Dantes (36:58)
 Honestly, I just enjoy having good conversations.

But my new obsession — because lawyers always seem to have a new obsession — is money.

Not money in a hoarding way.

I'm interested in understanding how money works.

How do you use credit? How do you use debt?

I've watched tons of podcasts about business and money because it's something I didn't grow up talking about the way business owners talk about it.

Janice Dantes (37:31)
 I've done a lot of reflection on my own money psychology.

Do I have a scarcity mindset or an abundance mindset?

That's become really interesting to me.

Tyson Mutrux (37:46)
 Have you started implementing things like automatic payments, paying extra toward a mortgage, those little things that compound over time?

Janice Dantes (37:57)
 Yes.

I follow different people who talk about money.

I think there's something unique about being an immigrant.

Your parents come here with very little, and then in one generation you're suddenly in a profession where you can be a top earner.

Then you have to figure out, "Okay, what do I do with this? How do I make sure I'm not wasting it?"

Because I've done some crazy things with money.

Tyson Mutrux (38:32)
 Like what?

Janice Dantes (38:35)
 The first time I came into legitimate money, I basically MC Hammered it.

We had one really awesome year.

It was the first year where I thought, "Wow, I'm making lawyer money."

I spent about $90,000 on travel with my family.

I said, "We're staying at the nice hotel. We're living the life."

Not only did I spend all the money, I ended up with around $50,000 in credit card debt.

Tyson Mutrux (39:09)
 It happens fast.

Janice Dantes (39:11)
 Very fast.

Then I had to stop and recalibrate.

I got out of the debt, but I had to figure out how to still enjoy my life without going through this binge mentality.

They don't teach you this stuff.

Tyson Mutrux (39:33)
 I had a similar background in some ways.

I obviously didn't immigrate to the United States, but my parents didn't graduate from high school.

Money was always a big deal because we didn't have it.

I remember working at State Farm as a claims adjuster and thinking $35,000 a year was an incredible amount of money.

That mindset can become limiting because when you eventually earn more, you don't necessarily know how to think about it.

Tyson Mutrux (40:10)
 Did that ever show up in how you charged clients?

Did you undercharge because certain numbers seemed huge to you personally?

Janice Dantes (40:21)
 Absolutely.

The first divorce I ever handled, I charged around $500 because I didn't know what else to charge.

I regretted it about a week later.

But at the time, $500 felt like so much money because my first job out of college paid around $7.25 an hour.

Eventually you learn why lawyers charge what they charge.

Janice Dantes (40:52)
 My mom still thinks I'm broke.

She looks at what I spend on my trainer, the office, our properties and everything else and says, "There's no way. You must be broke. Do you need money?"

I'm like, "Mom, don't worry about it."

Tyson Mutrux (41:12)
 My dad used to do the same thing.

I'd say, "Dad, I'm doing okay."

I think it comes from that scarcity mindset.

They worked so hard for what they have that they're always trying to make sure you're okay.

Janice Dantes (41:30)
 Exactly.

When I left my job to start my practice, my mom now says, "See? I'm glad you started your practice. I'm glad I encouraged you."

That's not what happened.

She said, "Why would you quit your job? You have a 401(k). You have benefits."

She thought I was crazy.

Now I'm like, "Mom, we offer benefits."

Janice Dantes (42:00)
 After she and my dad got divorced, she was around 62 and didn't have benefits.

I told her, "I'll make you an employee. You'll get paid and have benefits until you're eligible for Medicare."

It ended up being a really good thing because she tore her Achilles and needed medical care.

Tyson Mutrux (42:25)
 How did she tear her Achilles?

Janice Dantes (42:28)
 She was climbing on something and fell.

She thought she'd sprained her ankle, but it never got better.

Eventually she found out she'd torn her Achilles.

Tyson Mutrux (42:44)
 Do you ever stop and think about how far you've come?

Do you ever pat yourself on the back?

Janice Dantes (42:53)
 Not really.

Part of that may be cultural.

I tell my husband, "I don't celebrate mediocrity."

It's a harsh way of looking at things.

He reminds me that I should be proud of myself.

He helps me celebrate the wins.

But I don't usually look backward and see how far I've come.

I'm always looking forward and thinking about how high the next mountain is.

Tyson Mutrux (43:26)
 You've probably reached the peak of several mountains already.

You just immediately look for the next one.

When you think about all the peaks you've climbed since starting the firm, which one are you most proud of?

Janice Dantes (43:43)
 The one I'm probably most proud of came from one of the lowest points in my business.

I got scammed out of $50,000.

Tyson Mutrux (43:54)
 Oh my God.

Janice Dantes (43:57)
 I've talked about the scam because I want people to understand it can happen to anybody.

These scammers pretended they were getting divorced.

They used a bad check involving what appeared to be a settlement.

It was during the pandemic. Everything was happening over Zoom. You weren't meeting everybody in person.

And I fell for it.

I remember feeling stupid.

I'm thinking, "I'm a lawyer. How did I get scammed out of $50,000?"

Janice Dantes (44:38)
 That's why I tell people these social engineering scams are sophisticated.

It can happen to anybody.

And that wasn't the only thing going wrong.

I had hired a marketing company that wasn't doing anything for the business.

Things were falling apart.

I was out of cash.

I had to max out my line of credit to try to keep things afloat.

Janice Dantes (45:09)
 We were taking risks.

"Let's try this. Maybe this will bring in business."

It didn't work.

Then we'd try something else.

That didn't work.

And it's $5,000 here, $5,000 there, just leaving the business.

Tyson Mutrux (45:29)
 And you kept everybody on?

Janice Dantes (45:32)
 I kept everybody.

At one point I told my finance guy, "I think we need to hire somebody."

He said, "We don't have any money. We're maxed out."

I said, "We need somebody who can help bring in cases."

So we did it.

We hired somebody.

We made different tweaks to the business.

And I started pounding the pavement.

Janice Dantes (46:04)
 I was everywhere.

Every day. Every night.

Slowly, we came back.

Now we've added two more people.

And all of that happened less than two years ago.

That's something I'm really proud of.

Tyson Mutrux (46:25)
 That's impressive.

Janice Dantes (46:28)
 My son actually gave me a different way of looking at that entire season.

I told him, "It sucked because everything bad happened at the exact same time."

He said, "But Mom, isn't that better?"

I said, "Why would that be better?"

He said, "Because then you just fix everything once and move on."

Tyson Mutrux (46:50)
 That's a wise kid.

Janice Dantes (46:53)
 He said, "If all the problems were spread out over time, you'd have to fix one problem, then another problem, then another."

Instead, I fixed everything at once.

And I thought, "Wow. That's actually a really smart way to look at it."

Tyson Mutrux (47:16)
 That's fantastic.

I want to go back to something because there's this connection between what you said about health, money and the business.

You talked about applying the same discipline you use in your business to your fitness.

Do you think learning that discipline in one area made it easier to tackle these other problems?

Janice Dantes (47:38)
 Absolutely.

Once you realize you can change something, it changes how you look at everything else.

Whether it's health, money or business, you stop looking at it as something that's just happening to you and start asking, "Okay, what can I control?"

That's what I had to do when everything was going wrong.

Tyson Mutrux (48:05)
 That's a big distinction.

You can sit there and say, "I got scammed. The marketing company failed. We don't have cash."

Or you can start asking what the next move is.

Janice Dantes (48:16)
 Right.

And sometimes the move looks crazy.

Hiring somebody when your finance person is telling you that you're out of money sounds crazy.

But I knew we needed someone who could help bring in cases.

At some point you have to trust yourself enough to make the decision and then do the work.

Tyson Mutrux (48:44)
 And you were literally out there pounding the pavement.

Janice Dantes (48:47)
 Everywhere.

That's always been one of my strengths.

I know how to show up in the community.

I know how to talk to people.

And when I needed to bring business in, I went back to that.

Tyson Mutrux (49:05)
 Which is interesting because earlier we were talking about social media.

Everybody feels like marketing has to be some incredibly complicated digital system.

But a huge part of your business came from relationships.

Janice Dantes (49:19)
 Absolutely.

It's relationships.

It's being present.

It's people knowing who you are and trusting that when they have a problem, they can call you.

That's hard to replicate if you're only thinking about marketing as an ad.

Tyson Mutrux (49:42)
 And because you have such a specific community, that trust probably compounds.

Janice Dantes (49:48)
 It does.

Especially when you're dealing with something like divorce where people may already be scared or embarrassed.

They don't want to explain every cultural detail to somebody.

They want someone who gets it.

Tyson Mutrux (50:09)
 That's really important.

And you've also built something bigger than just "I'm a divorce lawyer."

You're building Pinay Law as a brand that can exist beyond you.

Janice Dantes (50:21)
 That's the goal.

That's part of why removing my own name mattered.

I want the firm to be something bigger.

I want it to have its own identity.

Tyson Mutrux (50:34)
 And that's where the global vision comes in.

Chicago today, maybe Miami, LA, London later.

Janice Dantes (50:41)
 Exactly.

I don't know exactly what it'll look like, but I like having the bigger vision.

I want to keep building.

Tyson Mutrux (50:55)
 Do you think the money mindset work has changed the way you think about growth?

Janice Dantes (51:02)
 Definitely.

I'm much more intentional now.

There's a difference between making money and actually understanding money.

I had to learn that.

Just because you have a great year doesn't mean you should spend all of it.

Tyson Mutrux (51:26)
 The $90,000 travel year taught that pretty quickly.

Janice Dantes (51:29)
 Very quickly.

I don't regret traveling with my family.

Those memories matter.

But I had to learn how to enjoy those things without creating another financial problem for myself.

Tyson Mutrux (51:51)
 That's probably a struggle for a lot of law firm owners because income can change dramatically.

You go from not making much money to suddenly having a really strong year.

Nobody necessarily teaches you what to do next.

Janice Dantes (52:08)
 Exactly.

And if you come from a family where money wasn't talked about, you don't have a framework.

You're learning while you're doing it.

Tyson Mutrux (52:22)
 And sometimes learning with very expensive lessons.

Janice Dantes (52:26)
 Very expensive lessons.

Tyson Mutrux (52:30)
 Between the credit card debt and the scam, you've had some serious tuition.

Janice Dantes (52:35)
 That's one way to put it.

But I learned from it.

That's the important part.

Tyson Mutrux (52:47)
 Do you think you're better at celebrating wins now?

You said your husband helps you with that.

Janice Dantes (52:55)
 I'm trying.

It's still hard.

My instinct is always to look at what's next.

But I'm getting better at recognizing that something was difficult and saying, "Okay, we actually did that."

Tyson Mutrux (53:16)
 You should.

Going from being scammed out of $50,000, maxing out your line of credit and struggling for cash to adding employees less than two years later — that's not mediocrity.

Janice Dantes (53:28)
 That's fair.

Tyson Mutrux (53:32)
 I'll give you that one.

Janice Dantes (53:34)
 I'll take it.

Tyson Mutrux (53:38)
 There's something else I like about what your son told you.

Everything went wrong at once, so you fixed it at once.

There's actually something freeing about that.

Janice Dantes (53:49)
 There is.

At the time it felt terrible.

But looking back, it forced me to confront everything.

The finances.

The marketing.

The staffing.

My own decision-making.

All of it.

Tyson Mutrux (54:14)
 And that probably created the stronger firm you're running now.

Janice Dantes (54:19)
 It did.

I wouldn't choose to go through it again.

But I know I'm better because I went through it.

Tyson Mutrux (54:30)
 That's usually how these things work.

Nobody wants the lesson before they need it.

Then you get through it and think, "Okay, now I understand."

Janice Dantes (54:43)
 Exactly.

Tyson Mutrux (54:47)
 All right. The last question I want to ask comes from something one of our employees did during our morning huddles.

Every once in a while, we'll have an employee run the huddle.

One of our employees, Bella, had everybody turn their cameras off and think about one piece of advice they wanted to give themselves.

Something they could write down, keep on their desk and look back at a week from now, two weeks from now, three months from now.

Tyson Mutrux (55:28)
 So when you think about that next peak you want to reach — not perfection, because perfection is asking too much — but that goal you're moving toward, what advice would you give yourself that could help you get there?

Janice Dantes (55:48)
 That's deep.

For me, it would be: never be afraid to give.

Give what you can.

Never be afraid to give or help somebody else because it always comes back.

My mom used to tell me that.

She'd say, "No, it always comes back when you give."

Janice Dantes (56:16)
 And I don't know exactly why, but I've seen it happen.

I've met people who aren't generous at all, and they never seem to get very far.

Then you meet people who are incredibly generous.

They're always giving.

They're always helping.

And somehow it comes back tenfold.

Tyson Mutrux (56:39)
 Do you think that's part of how you've built the business, too?

Because so much of what you've described is community.

Janice Dantes (56:48)
 Absolutely.

I don't want to be here just collecting things for myself.

I want to contribute.

Whether that's helping clients, helping somebody in the community, helping another lawyer — whatever it is.

That's important to me.

Tyson Mutrux (57:10)
 And that probably ties back to your mom and the immigrant experience we talked about earlier.

People helping each other.

Janice Dantes (57:19)
 Definitely.

You remember who helped you.

And when you're in a position to do the same thing for somebody else, you should.

Tyson Mutrux (57:33)
 That's good advice.

Especially for lawyers, because it's easy to become obsessed with the numbers.

How much revenue did we make? How many cases did we sign? How much did we grow?

Those things matter, but they're not the whole thing.

Janice Dantes (57:50)
 Exactly.

I want to make money.

I'm obviously interested in money.

But that's not the point of all of this.

I want to have the freedom to live my life.

I want to help people.

I want to travel.

I want to create things.

I want to leave something behind.

Tyson Mutrux (58:14)
 Maybe something worthy of a movie.

Janice Dantes (58:17)
 Exactly.

If they can't make a movie about it, I didn't do enough.

Tyson Mutrux (58:23)
 And apparently we're getting the piano album, Lawyers With Abs, Real Househusbands of Chicago and Pinay Law London.

You've got plenty of material.

Janice Dantes (58:35)
 I've got a lot of plans.

Tyson Mutrux (58:38)
 I love it.

But that final point about generosity is really good.

You're not here just to collect for yourself.

Janice Dantes (58:49)
 Right.

I want to always remember that.

I'm here to contribute to the world and to give.

I want to make sure I'm leaving this world a better place than it was before I came into it.

Tyson Mutrux (59:09)
 That's really good advice.

Happy birthday again.

I really enjoyed this conversation.

Janice Dantes (59:17)
 Thank you.

Tyson Mutrux (59:19)
 And next time, we're getting into why they call you Apple because I still want to figure that one out.

Thank you for doing this. I really appreciate it.

Janice Dantes (59:32)
 Thank you. I appreciate it.

Tyson Mutrux (59:37)
 All right, everybody. Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

What if your law firm’s case management system was designed to be as engaging as Duolingo or TikTok?

In this episode, Tyson breaks down an experiment he is currently testing inside his own law firm: using the psychology behind habit-forming apps to make everyday work more engaging.

Tyson shares how his firm is building features like daily streaks, personalized quests, team wins, badges, rewards, and even mini games directly into its case management system. But the goal is not to make employees addicted to work. Instead, Tyson explains how these same behavioral principles can be used with intentional guardrails to help employees know what to work on, recognize progress, and make completing important tasks a little more enjoyable.

In this episode, we dive into:

  • Why Tyson decided to gamify his law firm’s case management system
  • The four-part “hook model” behind many habit-forming products
  • How variable rewards keep people coming back to apps like TikTok and Instagram
  • Using AI to create a personalized daily list of important tasks
  • Why Tyson built streaks—and “streak freezes”—into his firm’s system
  • How automated recognition can celebrate employee wins without creating unhealthy competition
  • Why Tyson is hesitant to use traditional employee leaderboards
  • The importance of giving productivity systems an actual finish line
  • How to use behavioral psychology without encouraging employees to work constantly
  • Why Tyson built a “kill switch” into the system in case gamification creates unintended consequences

Tyson also explains how the firm’s new “Daily Run” identifies important work from each employee’s real task queue, including client communication, overdue tasks, and upcoming deadlines. Once employees complete their most important work, they can earn rewards and maintain their streak while still having a clear stopping point for the day.

Timestamps

00:00 — Why Tyson is making his case management system more addictive
03:00 — The psychology behind habit-forming platforms
05:00 — Why law firms are competing with social media for employee attention
07:00 — Building streaks and rewards into everyday work
09:00 — The five hooks law firms can borrow from social media
10:00 — Using AI to create a personalized Daily Run
14:00 — Tracking work and employee activity inside the firm
16:00 — Variable rewards tied to real accomplishments
19:00 — Streaks, loss aversion, and giving employees grace
21:00 — Social validation without ranking employees
24:00 — Why every productivity system needs a finish line
26:00 — Building guardrails and a kill switch into gamification

If you are looking for ways to get your team more engaged with the systems your firm already uses, this episode offers a fascinating look at how behavioral psychology, AI, and gamification could change the way work gets done inside a law firm.

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:00)
Welcome back to Maximum Lawyer Live. I'm Tyson Mutrux. Today I've got an interesting one for you because this is from something I'm working on right now for the firm. I started something this week that sounds a little bit terrible out loud, so just stay with me. I am deliberately testing out making our firm's case management system more addictive. I know that sounds kind of crazy.

Tyson Mutrux (00:20)
But we've been studying how TikTok, Instagram, even Duolingo—how those different platforms hook people. And what we've done is we've built those same mechanics into the case management system. Now, it's not active for all users yet. It's only being tested out a little bit at the moment, but we've built those same mechanics into the case management system.

Tyson Mutrux (00:40)
And I will tell you, I'm hoping that it's effective, but I've been very, very careful whenever we're building this out to make it clear that we want this to be done in a healthy way. So if it in any way would harm someone, we don't want that to happen, obviously. So yes, we've gamified our system a little bit. I've built literal games into the system.

Tyson Mutrux (01:04)
Okay, they're very basic games, but you hit these rewards, you play a game, right? So it's kind of an interesting thing where you get rewarded. And it's going to become more advanced as things go. But it's really kind of interesting, and I want to talk about that a little bit versus—or really in addition to—the principles that are used by the social media platforms.

Tyson Mutrux (01:27)
And I do think we can do this in a healthy way because there's obviously some tension here. "Addictive" is not a term usually used in the same sentence as "healthy," but there is that tension between addictive and healthy that we're trying to balance a little bit.

Tyson Mutrux (01:47)
Because the way I'm looking at this is I want the work to be more enjoyable. If you think about it that way, I really want the work to be more enjoyable for people so that they want to keep doing it. That's the idea. Make work less like work and more like fun, in a way. Okay, so let's go through some of these tactics, some of these different models that are used by these different platforms.

Tyson Mutrux (02:13)
The first one I was talking about is the Hook Model, where every habit-forming product runs the same four-step loop. You've got the trigger, action, variable reward, and then the investment. And that loop repeats until that response becomes automatic. It's like an automatic response, I guess, as a way of putting it.

Tyson Mutrux (02:36)
And that's really what everything hangs on for social media. You've got that trigger, action, reward, and then investment. And they make it very clear that it's a variable reward. It's not always the same reward. It's a different reward. Then you've got the slot machine in your pocket, right? Your cell phone. That variable reward is really the whole trick behind everything.

Tyson Mutrux (03:00)
And this is from B.F. Skinner. It's called intermittent reinforcement, where you don't know what's in the feed until you pull it. That uncertainty is what makes checking compulsive. So a big part of it is that it's variable. Every time you open it, it's different. And so I've made what we're calling our "addictive screen" different from the dashboard.

Tyson Mutrux (03:21)
That's one way I've tried to make it a little bit healthier. If people want something more consistent, just go to the dashboard and see things. That's fine. You want more consistency in your dashboard. You don't want it to be variable. But the other screen—let's just call it the addictive screen for now—you don't see the same thing each time. It also has a live feed of things, like wins and stuff.

Tyson Mutrux (03:51)
You can win prizes. You can win badges. You've got the game. You've got your top three for the day. You've got things like that built into it automatically, and I guess we're growing it. There's also a quiet button, too, which I kind of like. If you don't want all the noise and you want to be on that screen, you can quiet the noise. Like I said, we want to make this thing healthy while also making it fun and something that's effective.

Tyson Mutrux (04:22)
A really interesting part of this is, I don't know if you remember this from around 2017, but Sean Parker admitted that they'd created this social media validation feedback loop where it really exploits the vulnerability of humans, right? And they understood this. They understood this from the beginning. That's why so many people got angry when it came out that they were intentionally making it addictive.

Tyson Mutrux (04:45)
That's why I want to talk about this, because I think it can be used in a healthier manner. You do have to be careful with this because there have been some regrets since then. It's been described as behavioral cocaine. There can be negatives to this. I don't want this to become something where people want to check their phones at all times just to see what's going on with work.

Tyson Mutrux (05:13)
Like when they're on vacation. I don't want that. And this is interesting because our book comes out this week, Founder Optional. The major premise of the book is to make yourself optional. That's the main premise. There's a section in there where I talk about how a lot of people say they take vacations, but they're checking their phones just hours after actually getting to their destination.

Tyson Mutrux (05:38)
That's not what I'm wanting here. I don't want that. Maybe we can even build in something like a vacation button where they can't access it or something. We might do things like that. The sky's the limit for this, it really is. But you have to be really, really careful with it because I really do mean that it needs to be healthy. You have to be very conscious about this.

Tyson Mutrux (06:10)
And I know there are some people out there—not listening to our show, but maybe listening to other shows—who might take it that extra step. And I think you're playing with a hornet's nest, maybe, and I think that could be a problem. So be careful with what you're designing here.

Tyson Mutrux (06:32)
But here's another part of my thinking: your employees are on Instagram. They're on TikTok. They're on Facebook. They're on all these platforms, right? And those platforms are fighting for their attention—your employees' attention and your attention. The thing is, you can't opt out of this war. Your employees are already in it.

Tyson Mutrux (06:57)
So you have to do what you can to fight that addictiveness yourself. You've got to get into the fight. That's part of my thinking here, too. We're already fighting for attention. I guarantee your employees are on their phones throughout the day. I guarantee it. If you think they're not, you're blind as a bat. You're ignoring the obvious. You're crazy if you think they're not checking their phones throughout the day.

Tyson Mutrux (07:28)
So we're fighting that, too. We're combating that a little bit, too. We have to get into this fight, and you have to find a way of doing that. This is a fun little way that we're testing out, and from what I've played around with, I think it's actually going to be pretty effective. I think it's going to be fun.

Tyson Mutrux (07:59)
Because we've built in things like streaks. How many days is your streak? And then you have two misses—I can't remember what we call them actually. They're not called misses. You basically get a mulligan. You get a pass. You only have two of those a month. So if you miss a day of hitting your streak, you've still got that buffer.

Tyson Mutrux (08:32)
You have to hit your top three for the day, and if you skip more than two days, then basically you've lost the streak for the month. We found a way to keep them in the game when it comes to finishing their top three. Part of this, too, is that we could probably add a reward system where you get entered into a lottery to win something if you've hit your top three every single day, aside from the two that you're allowed to miss.

Tyson Mutrux (09:02)
I think that actually might be something we'll do. What I want you to do is take some of the things we're going to talk about here, take whatever ideas you can, and try to apply them in whatever way you can. I know some of you are using a platform that you didn't build. I understand that. But you can use these hooks in other ways and build them into what you're doing.

Tyson Mutrux (09:31)
Here are the five hooks that I want to talk about and some of the guardrails that you can use. These are the things I want you to steal. These are the things the social media platforms do. So here's the first hook: the trigger. Give them a reason to open it. That's the trigger in a nutshell. Give them a reason to open this tab. I'll call it the tab because that's what we have—it lives in a separate tab.

Tyson Mutrux (09:56)
With social media, their version is push notifications engineered for FOMO. That's what they're engineered for. They've got the red badges. That's why you're reminded by these platforms so often about notifications. If you're like me, I've got my notifications off, so I don't get the red dots. I've got those turned off. But I get reminded all the time, "Are you sure you don't want notifications?"

Tyson Mutrux (10:18)
You have these red badges that tell you someone tagged you, you've got a message, or someone commented on something you commented on. You've got all these things, right? Those notifications are the trigger. They've got that trigger to bring you back in. So what's our version? Every weekday morning, the system builds each person a short quest list.

Tyson Mutrux (10:46)
We call it the Daily Run. It's their little quest for the day, and it's built by AI. It looks at all their tasks and all the work that needs to be done. It pulls out what it thinks are three really important things they need to do that day, and it's pulled from that person's real queue.

Tyson Mutrux (11:08)
So maybe it's clients who haven't heard from us, overdue tasks, or today's deadlines. Opening the app answers a question every manager wakes up with—or really every employee wakes up with—which is, "What should I do first?" Boom. It's right there. It tells them, "Here's what I do first."

Tyson Mutrux (11:24)
Here's the guardrail you can use for that: the trigger needs to serve the user, not necessarily the metric. No manufactured urgency. No red dots for things that don't matter. The day's list is built from actual case needs.

Tyson Mutrux (11:51)
It's not fake stuff. This is actual, real stuff they're working on. That's the guardrail. It serves that particular user, and it serves the clients as well. The morning list also caps. You can have a bigger list if you want, but right now it caps at 10.

Tyson Mutrux (12:19)
What it tries to do is go with three. You can actually increase it to 10 if you want. I think we'll probably remove that and make it closer to five, but right now you can add up to 10. We want it at three. And if you've cleared your queue—let's say you have nothing in there—it says "Clear Queue." That's an earned day, and it gives you the day off. That's not likely to happen.

Tyson Mutrux (12:48)
You might think I'm crazy for that. You might think I'm absolutely nuts because we're very busy. But I think it gives them something to shoot for. If someone were to clear the queue, I'm all for them taking the day off. I am all for it. Is that going to happen every single day? No, no, no. That's not what it's going to be. But if people have cleared their queue and they're actively pushing for that and they're done? Deal.

Tyson Mutrux (13:17)
I'll give you the day off. That means you are hustling. You're totally hustling. Could some people game this? Maybe. I don't think they could. I really don't think they could. We've got tracking on everything. That's the great thing about building our own platform—we can track everything. It's pretty interesting. I have charts on every file.

Tyson Mutrux (13:46)
I can open a file, and there's a tab that only shows to admins that gives me user activity. I can tell you every single person who's touched a file. I pulled one up right now. I can see total actions on the file. I can look at all time, 30 days, the last seven days. I can tell you the number of actions taken on the file.

Tyson Mutrux (14:14)
I can tell you the total time the page has been open and by whom. I can see the last date of activity. It gives me the names. I can open each user and see the activity they've had on the file, the time they've spent on it, everything else. I can tell you the work type they've done. Have they added a note? Have they created something? Have they opened a document? Have they uploaded something? All of those things.

Tyson Mutrux (14:42)
And then I can see daily activity. I'm just giving you some of the Cliff Notes here, really, but we can track everything. So for someone to game it would be really hard without us knowing. They'd have to be cheating in some way, like checking things off without actually having done them. Good luck with that. But we have good people, and I don't expect that.

Tyson Mutrux (15:09)
Our employees do listen to this show, too, so they'll know. I'll know and they'll know. And I trust them. All right, let's get to the second hook. The first hook is trigger. The second hook—these are things I've already mentioned, but I'm going through them in more detail—is variable rewards. But these need to come from real work. Again, all of this needs to stem from real work.

Tyson Mutrux (15:32)
Here's the social media version. They've got the algorithmic feed—that's hard to say—a feed that's based on an algorithm. You never know what's next, so you keep pulling that lever. You keep updating and updating and updating, or you keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. You don't know what's going to be in it.

Tyson Mutrux (15:54)
You can't open any of those feeds and get the exact same feed. You can't. It's different every single time. That's the whole idea. Our version of this is a little different and, I think, a little healthier. It's got "This Week's Wins." There's a little panel down below that's like a feed. When someone sends a demand, gets an offer on a case, settles a case, or earns a badge, it shows up.

Tyson Mutrux (16:17)
You can earn badges in different ways. A card will appear automatically. It's not a post. You can react to it with an emoji—a heart, a thumbs-up, whatever it may be. You can definitely emoji it, which is kind of nice, but there aren't posts from people. The work itself is what generates the surprise.

Tyson Mutrux (16:47)
So instead of someone posting, the work that people are actually doing creates the post. They don't have to go brag on themselves, which is kind of what social media is—people mostly bragging on themselves. This is a little different because the system is bragging on the employee for the work they're doing. You open the app or open up the tab and find out, "Hey, my gosh, this teammate sent a four-million-dollar demand." Heck yeah, dude. That's awesome.

Tyson Mutrux (17:15)
You've got those things built into it. So that's hook number two. Let me get to the guardrail because I almost skipped it. I want to make sure we get through these last three because I've taken my time on the first two. The guardrail here is that the variability comes from reality, not from some algorithm.

Tyson Mutrux (17:42)
That's the difference. We're not trying to create some sort of engagement optimization from this, and we're not trying to rank what people see. That's a key difference. This is different from a slot machine. With a slot machine, you pull it and something randomly pops up. Ours is a little more predictable. So it's probably less addictive because of that. But here's the thing: I can play with it, test it out, see how it works, and then we can adjust from there.

Tyson Mutrux (18:05)
Okay, the third part of this is streaks and loss, but with some mercy built into it. That's the healthy part of it. The social media version is things like Snapchat streaks. Duolingo has the streak flame. You get that loss aversion. What we want to do is make sure people don't want to lose what they've built up.

Tyson Mutrux (18:33)
That's really the way of putting it. Duolingo's single most effective retention mechanic is that whole idea that people don't want to lose what they've built. That's their number one thing. Our version of this is finishing the Daily Run. When you finish your Daily Run, you build that streak. We have the streak in there, but it's only for weekdays. It's not for weekends.

Tyson Mutrux (18:57)
Everyone gets two freezes. That's what we call them—streak freezes. You get two a month. So if you miss a day, let's say you have a day off, you've got court and you're not on the app because you're traveling, or you've got a sick kid, then that freeze just burns silently. You can't even click on it. It's just there. Boop. It's gone.

Tyson Mutrux (19:28)
You've used your freeze. You have one fewer freeze. It's kind of like if you die in a video game and get a do-over. You don't lose your streak because you got the do-over. There's no guilt message that pops up. Nothing like, "You're about to lose everything." No notification. There's nothing like that built into it.

Tyson Mutrux (19:45)
So that's the guardrail. You've got the loss aversion, but it gets that mercy valve. That's our guardrail for this—to keep it a little healthier. So that's streaks and loss. Okay, hook four: social validation. Recognition without rankings is what we've got.

Tyson Mutrux (20:09)
The social media version is likes, follower counts, leaderboards, the social-validation feedback loop. You know, Sean Parker—the Facebook guy. Anyway, you've got followers, likes, all that kind of stuff. Our version is teammates can react to win cards with a small, fixed set of emojis.

Tyson Mutrux (20:38)
It's a limited set of emojis. We have four or five options, nothing major, kind of like the way Facebook does it. That's it. We don't have a bunch of them built in. There are no leaderboards, although I'm considering leaderboards. That's something I'm thinking about doing.

Tyson Mutrux (21:10)
But we don't have people ranked. Nothing like that. We didn't want to build that in. We're a little hesitant about doing that. If we did a leaderboard, I'd have to find a really creative way to do it.

Tyson Mutrux (21:26)
The case managers do more tasks than anybody else, but they also have more tasks assigned to them. So you can't base it on tasks alone. You've got to find another way of doing it. We'd have to get creative. Our guardrail for this right now is that we celebrate events and never rank people. That's the big thing right now—not ranking people.

Tyson Mutrux (21:59)
If we did it, we'd have to come up with some sort of creative way. This part is based on research called self-determination theory. Lasting motivation comes from autonomy, competence, and relatedness. I'm just reading straight from it here. Recognition feeds competence and relatedness. Rankings feed comparison.

Tyson Mutrux (22:22)
And in a small firm—I mean, we're 22 people, so we're still a small firm—a leaderboard really has one winner and you've got 21 losers, right? I don't know how I feel about that. That's not the greatest. So we'll see. If we did it, it'd have to be a fun thing, maybe a challenge or a one-off.

Tyson Mutrux (22:47)
Something else we've built in is our quarterly rock. It's built in there as a meter that pulls straight from the system. There's no manual entering into it. So you actually see it at all times as it's growing. If you've done something on a file, boop, it's added to it. It's pretty cool. That part's pretty neat.

Tyson Mutrux (23:23)
And then let's get to the last hook. The ending. The most radical feature is a finish line. The social media version is infinite scroll. That's Raskin's invention—and Raskin's regret. The feed never ends because an end is where you'd leave, right? You get to the end, you leave.

Tyson Mutrux (23:52)
Our version? Everything terminates. The Daily Run has a last quest. Finish it and the app says, "You're done for the day. See you tomorrow." That's what it says. That's sort of tongue-in-cheek. We may play with the wording a little bit. Again, we've not rolled this out to all employees yet.

Tyson Mutrux (24:21)
I don't know how I feel about that text yet. I don't really want people to leave for the day, but I also don't want them to feel like, "It says I can leave for the day, but now I've got to stay here." So that's one of those things we'll probably play with a little bit. But it will have a termination point where it just stops and doesn't keep trying to pull you back in.

Tyson Mutrux (24:50)
The wins panel shows one week, and there's no scroll back. You can't go back through the history on it. That's one of the ways we want to keep it limited. Even the reward mini game we built is limited. It's a 30-second fox runner. Like I said, it's really simple. You hit the space bar and it jumps over things. It's kind of fun.

Tyson Mutrux (25:19)
But you only get three attempts. You have three a day. Once you've hit your goal, once you've hit your top three for the day and finished your Daily Run, the game pops up. You can play it three times, and then it's done for the day. So we have these things where it's limited. You can do it so many times, and then you're done.

Tyson Mutrux (25:48)
So those are the five hooks. I'm sure you can find ways of adding these into your firms, even if you don't have your own platform built out. Just remember, you have to be really, really careful. We built a literal kill switch for this thing where, if we find that this isn't working, we turn it off. You have to find a way of having a kill switch.

Tyson Mutrux (26:18)
Be very, very careful about that. Be very careful if you're going to build a system like this. You want it to be a healthy system. You don't want it to be a system that's addictive in an unhealthy way. You just don't want that. So be very, very careful.

Tyson Mutrux (26:45)
But that's all I have for you today. Hopefully you got something from this episode. I'll report back once we roll this thing out live and once we get more feedback from our people.

Make sure you check out BeccasList.co for all the best vendors. Make sure you go to MaximumLawyer.com if you're interested in the Association. And don't forget about the conference in October. Go to MaxLawCon.com and get your tickets today.

See everybody. Have a great week.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

What if your law firm’s 401(k) is quietly costing you tens of thousands of dollars each year?

In this episode, Tyson talks with Paul Sippil, also known as the 401(k) Vigilante, about the hidden fees and confusing payment structures built into many retirement plans.

Paul explains how he reviews publicly available Form 5500 filings to determine what firms are paying for recordkeeping, administration, custodial services, and financial advice. He also shares why two firms with the same number of employees can pay drastically different fees simply because one plan has accumulated more assets.

In this episode, we dive into:

  • Why many firm owners do not know who their 401(k) advisor is, or what that advisor actually does
  • How asset-based fees can cause a successful firm to pay more without receiving additional service
  • Why Paul believes every retirement-plan provider should send a clear invoice
  • Which 401(k) fees may be negotiable or eliminated
  • How excessive fees can affect both law firm partners and employees
  • What attorneys should know about the ABA retirement program
  • The shocking story of a company that paid nearly $49,000 in commissions while its listed advisor had been dead since 2014

Paul also shares practical questions law firm owners can ask their providers to better understand their plans, uncover unnecessary costs, and determine whether they are actually receiving the services they are paying for.

Timestamps

01:14 — What a forensic 401(k) consultant does
04:34 — Why many owners do not know who their advisor is
09:28 — Why every provider should send an invoice
12:19 — The problem with asset-based fees
13:38 — Why nearly every 401(k) fee is negotiable
15:31 — How small law firms can pay up to $50,000 a year in fees
19:09 — The ABA retirement-plan option for law firms
24:11 — Making hidden participant fees visible
31:43 — Could AI disrupt the retirement-plan industry?
34:06 — The company paying an advisor who had been dead since 2014
41:45 — Alternative approaches to health insurance and employee benefits

If you own a law firm and have not reviewed your retirement-plan fees recently, this episode will help you understand what to look for, what questions to ask, and where your firm may be overpaying.

Connect with Paul

LinkedIn

Website

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:17)
All right, Paul, so you go by the four one K vigilante. I think that starting with the nickname is the great place to start. So what is that? What does that mean?

Paul Sippil (00:17)
Vigilante, I think, is a really good term because it describes someone that isn't willing to simply accept what the system presents. you sometimes have to take things into your own hands. Of course I mean legally. True. But not necessarily accepting the status quo. And everything I do and

Paul Sippil (00:46)
really it reflects the way I think, is very much in the spirit of challenging the way the system works and asking deeper questions and looking at patterns and taking both fifty thousand foot view and a granular view at the same time and not being able to say something is wrong and how could things be done better.

Tyson Mutrux (00:46)
So you you're big into the forensic side of the four a wake four one K

Tyson Mutrux (01:14)
Realm, I guess is what you'd call it. You you said you were talking about how the more accurate definition might be a little so we would talk about that because I want to give people an idea as to what you do. Sure, yeah.

Paul Sippil (01:14)
And it's not not the easiest thing to describe because there really isn't a category for this. I've been for the last several years trying to explain just what this category is, what exactly is, and I've often described myself also as a forensic 401k consultant and what does that really mean? A lot of people have heard of forensic accounting.

Paul Sippil (01:43)
And forensic accountants are often used in court for expert witness testimony, for business valuations whenever there's a dispute on certain facts or values of what a business is for divorce cases, and there's a clear market for forensic accountants. I also happen to be a CPA, recovering CPA, but forensic 401k consulting is not something anybody has ever talked about before. And I call it that because

Paul Sippil (02:09)
So much of what I do is based on reviewing publicly available tax filings and going through what's known as Form 5500 and looking at the entire makeup of the plan, the assets, the contributions, namely the service charges that show up. And this is how I know very quickly by looking at a 401k plan tax form, looking at both the employer and the employee contributions, the plan assets, and the service charges, namely in proportion, not to the asset so much.

Paul Sippil (02:39)
as in proportion to the number of participants, I can very quickly tell whether the services are commensurate with the level of work the or the fees charged for the services are actually commensurate with the level of work that's required.

Tyson Mutrux (02:39)
So let's say a company brings you in to to do what you do. Like what's the end goal? Is it to bring down costs or like what's the end goal of it?

Paul Sippil (02:39)
That's part of it, but it's a lot more than just bringing down costs.

Tyson Mutrux (02:39)
Okay.

Paul Sippil (02:39)
So we have to make sure

Paul Sippil (03:07)
To understand what these services are for and what would reasonable compensation actually be for these services. So to back up, just defining what the services are, which is a very rarely understood, are primarily known as record keeping, administration, and advisory services. And there's different types of advisors out there. And sometimes there are fees for what's called custodial services. Custodians are like Charles Schwab or Fidelity simply for holding the money if it's set up

Paul Sippil (03:36)
where there even is a custodian and on what's called group annuity plans there is no custodian. But it's primarily record keeping administration and advisory services. Nobody really knows what advisory services are because there's often an advisor that doesn't actually perform any services. The perception is the financial advisor is managing the account. However, these accounts are what's known as typically participant directed accounts. So if you ever had a 401k plan, you know typically you have 20, 30

Paul Sippil (04:05)
50, maybe a hundred funds to choose from, depending on the plan. And you just have to figure out which funds are best. The advisor doesn't make any buy sell decisions. The advisor doesn't control what you invest in. That's up to you. The advisor might help make a pool of twenty or thirty funds or so available, but it's not actually the advisor that's making those buy sell decisions. And in many cases, well over ninety percent of the participants don't even interact with the advisor.

Paul Sippil (04:34)
And don't even know that an advisor even exists.

Tyson Mutrux (04:34)
Well it's funny you say that because we have R four one K through Vanguard. I mean I don't know who our advisor is if we have one. Or if there is one. Yeah. So I have no idea who who it would be if there was one.

Paul Sippil (04:34)
Yes. And there's different ways advisors get paid. Now it's almost always automatically deducted from participants' accounts, regardless of whether or not the participants are even using the advisor's services or the owner, the plan sponsor, is even

Paul Sippil (04:59)
Using the advisor's services in terms of evaluating the other record keepers and administrators and custodians out there, and ensuring that their fees are reasonable and ensuring the advisors' fees are reasonable. Advisors don't send invoices, which is really crazy. So not only are they getting paid from participants' accounts, disclosing their fees not in dollars but in percentages, which is not a way to make employers more cost sensitive because

Paul Sippil (05:24)
Half a percent or one percent doesn't sound like much it's kind of brilliant because like I I know we just pay a set amount, it just comes out every single month, and I have zero idea what the fees are. No idea, no one really looks, nobody even understands there are fees, they don't know what reasonable fees are because if you don't even know what they are in the first place, how can you make reasonable comparisons?

Tyson Mutrux (05:24)
Sure. So what the advisor's actually supposed to do, and by the way, there are brokers who can only get paid a percentage of the account value

Paul Sippil (05:50)
Through these asset-based kickbacks known as commissions or sometimes called revenue sharing that are built into the cost of certain investments and not others. So there's a clear bias to only make certain funds available that ensure that the broker actually gets paid. The broker can only provide what's known as investment education, not actual advice. If you give me a hundred dollars, I tell you what to do.

Paul Sippil (06:15)
That's advice. If I sell you an investment and I get $100 in commissions, that's not advice. That's simply limiting me to providing what's known as educational services, not actually giving advice.

Tyson Mutrux (06:15)
So what the advisor should be doing is actually telling you what to invest in, telling the plan sponsor which funds to make available, helping you make distinctions between what's known as the Roth and traditional 401k. People think a Roth is an IRA, but a Roth has nothing to do with IRA or 401k.

Paul Sippil (06:44)
It simply means making contributions to a retirement account with after tax dollars, where you get the tax deduction or tax-free withdrawals on the back end and no tax deduction on the front end. That's what the advisor should be doing, along with helping people create a budget and helping determine how much to contribute, as well as using the retirement plan calculator on the record keepers website where you enter in all your data, your assets, the expected growth and inflation rate.

Paul Sippil (07:13)
And it spits out how much monthly income you'll have and it shows how much more or less monthly income you'll have as a result of, let's say, reducing or increasing your contributions. Advisors should ultimately be sitting down with participants on an individual basis and helping them make those decisions, but they almost never do. And the plan sponsor has no incentive to care if the services are being used because not only is the employer not paying for the services, but there's no invoice to reflect the participant fees.

Paul Sippil (07:41)
So there's no pain being felt. Kind of like people who don't have that pain mechanism where if you put your hand on a hot stove, the pain should be a warning because your hand is burning off. But imagine if you didn't feel pain and your hand was on a stove and you didn't even realize it was hot, you wouldn't even feel your hand burning. And that's not that bad of an analogy to not being able to feel the pain of the fees. So there's no incentive

Paul Sippil (08:04)
To reduce or negoti to negotiate or even eliminate the fees. You don't even have to pay an advisor, but people don't know that. There's also record keeping and administration fees. The record keeper, such as John Hancock, Fidelity Principal, simply keeps track of all the records, loans, provides a website, a customer service number for both the plan sponsor, the owner of the business, as well as the participants, should they have any questions about using the website. Then there's administration fees.

Paul Sippil (08:32)
Which have to do with preparing the tax form, known as Form 5500, as well as what's called discrimination testing, which are these stupid rules in place to ensure that the non-highly compensated employees are contributing enough in proportion to the highly compensated employees. If they don't, then you fail the tests and the highly comp compensated employees get what's called redemption checks at the end of the year. So they can't actually max out their contributions.

Paul Sippil (09:01)
unless there's sufficient participation amongst the non highly compensated employees or the employer makes a contribution on behalf of the employees like three percent, which is known as a safe harbor plan. So basically you have to pay a bunch of money to the employees just to make sure that the tests are being passed. I hope that wasn't too much information. No, it's a lot lots unpacked. I would say let me let me do this. Let's I'm gonna take a different approach. What would you say is your most

Paul Sippil (09:28)
Extreme view or extreme opinion on things. Well, that nobody should ever do business without sending an invoice, because nobody sends an invoice. The administrators sometimes send an invoice for some of their fees and they issue what's called a credit if they're receiving revenue sharing payments out of the funds. So if they're charging five hundred dollars and they received two hundred dollars in revenue sharing.

Paul Sippil (09:55)
Then they'll show a $200 credit, which makes it look like a discount. But it's not a discount. It just means that they're getting their fees somewhere else. And because nobody sends invoices, and because I've actually suggested to the Department of Labor, I've had conversations with them about changing their policies. And instead of mandating a fee disclosure document that nobody knows exists, or if they do know it exists, they don't understand, and it's not even clearly disclosing all the fees.

Paul Sippil (10:21)
Why don't you mandate invoices instead? And I don't love mandates, but that would be a more logical mandate. And voluntarily I would suggest that everyone send an invoice with a description of their services, which would change the entire industry overnight. I know it's not extreme to me, but other people think so.

Tyson Mutrux (10:21)
So let's say it's as you're a business owner, right? You're you're you're doing the three percent, you're you've got a four hundred one K that you o the you ha have for your business. We'll use law firms, right? Sure.

Tyson Mutrux (10:49)
So you got a law firm, you're running a a four one K, you're doing it through like what's one of the biggest companies that does four one Ks for other companies? well like principal or Fidelity or big record keeping. Let's use ph let's use Fidelity. So Fidelity, they're they're administering the four one K. Is that the right terminology? yeah, record keeping administering the four one K. so the law firm is not let's just call it Smith and Smith. Smith and Smith is they're never getting an invoice, it's just getting, you know, they're paying every single month what they're paying

Tyson Mutrux (11:19)
The employees are contributing what they're contributing. I guess in that situation, there's never are you suggesting that the business, the law firm Smith and Smith should reach out to Fidelity, or are you saying Fidelity needs to start d sending invoices to the law firm? I'm actually suggesting both. And let me add something, and this is especially relevant for law firms.

Paul Sippil (11:19)
Fidelity typically earns its money through asset based fees, specifically

Paul Sippil (11:48)
Kickbacks known as revenue sharing payments built into the cost of certain funds and not others. Sometimes they can simply assess what's called an asset charge where they don't get kickbacks, but it's still a percentage of the account. Many law firms have lots of money because law firms are there's lots of profitable law firms out there and lots of law firms have been around a while. Imagine a law firm with 20 participants with $1 million versus another law firm with 20 participants and $5 million.

Tyson Mutrux (11:48)
Which one requires more work?

Paul Sippil (12:19)
Probably the I would assume the five million, but may I'm I'm guessing you're gonna tell me the one million dollar one? Neither. There isn't more work. the same amount of work.

Tyson Mutrux (12:19)
Okay.

Paul Sippil (12:19)
Because twenty participants is what drives the work, not the assets. The assets have no bearing whatsoever on the level of services required. So it would be foolish for any company, law firm or any kind of business, to enter into an arrangement and

Paul Sippil (12:45)
Where the service charges are based on a percentage of the total account value if there is a significant account value and if there are significant contributions. You don't want to be charged based on five million and essentially paying a huge penalty for your own success when there are other very comparable and reputable companies who charge based on not the assets, but on the number of participants.

Tyson Mutrux (13:11)
Stay on this for a second because this is really this is really important. Okay. So Smith and Smith, so they've they've contracted with Fidelity.

Paul Sippil (13:11)
Yes.

Tyson Mutrux (13:11)
I guess this is like kind of like a two part question. based on that. So we we don't want to be paying them a a percentage of the overall assets, right? Can I negotiate that with Fidelity or if I i is my only option to go with another company?

Paul Sippil (13:11)
Both.

Tyson Mutrux (13:11)
Okay.

Paul Sippil (13:11)
You can go with another company.

Paul Sippil (13:38)
so no, it's not your only option. You absolutely can negotiate with Fidelity.

Tyson Mutrux (13:38)
Okay, because I did not know that.

Paul Sippil (13:38)
And that's one of the biggest points.

Tyson Mutrux (13:38)
So you stole my idea. That was a great point because I was gonna mention that. Or you actually helped me remember so I don't forget to mention, but every fee is negotiable. Every fee. Everything. And because people don't have an invoice, it doesn't occur to them to negotiate.

Paul Sippil (13:38)
Oftentimes you can negotiate a lower percentage.

Paul Sippil (14:05)
They might agree to a fixed fee structure, but their fees are still going to be based primarily on the assets. They're just going to go up as the assets go up. You can also negotiate with the advisor and you can eliminate the advisor's payment entirely if you're not using an advisor. And it's actually much more dangerous from a fiduciary liability standpoint to pay exorbitant fees to an advisor whose services are not or are hardly being used by participants because then you're passing on excessive fees to participants.

Paul Sippil (14:35)
Than not having an advisor at all, because the question often is don't I need an advisor helping me? Well, yes, if they're actually doing something, but you want to document the services they're performing and you want to make sure that the fees are reasonable. But having no advisor at all is actually much less precarious than having an advisor that's overcharging the participants for services that are hardly being used and not being documented. It's really interesting.

Tyson Mutrux (14:35)
Okay, so I mean, how much money are we talking? Are we talking about a significant amount of money? Okay, so let's say on the five million. Let's say that on the five million,

Tyson Mutrux (15:05)
If if we go from n having not negotiated anything to to negotiate like how much money are we saving a year?

Paul Sippil (15:05)
Well, there's many instances where there's plans I've seen and I actually have an Excel spreadsheet that I've documented.

Tyson Mutrux (15:05)
As a CPA, I would expect nothing else. Nothing else.

Paul Sippil (15:05)
I'm proud of this Excel spreadsheet because I've gone through tens of thousands of 5500 forms, the form file with the Department of Labor, and I have documentation going all the way back to 2009.

Paul Sippil (15:31)
Because these tax forms are matters of public record. And this is how I got into the business due to a conversation with one of my colleagues who told me you could look up the tax forms online.

Tyson Mutrux (15:31)
Wow.

Paul Sippil (15:31)
And I started documenting everything. And there are law firms with 10 or 20 people who are passing on expenses upwards of fifty thousand dollars per year. And here's the worst the most egregious example. I've even gotten to the most interesting part.

Tyson Mutrux (15:31)
Yeah.

Paul Sippil (15:31)
Most of the partners

Paul Sippil (15:58)
have most of the money in the plan. And these fees are actually passed on in proportion to the account balances. So if 90% of the money is the partner's money, guess who's paying 90% of the fees? The partners. But it actually gets worse. It's more interesting than this because the fees passed on to participants are not tax deductible. And even if they were, they still wouldn't even be known to be deducted because you can't deduct something that you never knew existed in the first place. Because it's all just wrapped into everything. You can't deduct a percentage. You have to

Paul Sippil (16:27)
Give a number on your tax forum as to what you paid. So ultimately you have to get down to the dollars. But it gets even more interesting than this. These are tax-advantaged accounts.

Tyson Mutrux (16:27)
So you don't want any money coming out of tax advantaged accounts. And again, you don't even get a tax deduction. And again, the partners are paying all the fees almost all personally anyway.

Paul Sippil (16:27)
Wouldn't it be better if they did, to your prior point in question, actually demand that both Fidelity or

Paul Sippil (16:54)
whoever provider they have as a record keeper and administrator and the financial advisor actually send them a bill. Not only would they be able to get a business tax deduction like they would any other business expense, because business expenses are deductible, but they would save everybody else significant amounts of money, make their plan more competitive. And I could even quantify the savings through a Department of Labor example showing how 1% additional in additional fees actually cost

Paul Sippil (17:19)
A participant with a small balance, about sixty-four thousand dollars over their investment lifetime over a thirty year period from thirty-five to sixty-five, ages thirty-five to sixty-five, which is about twenty-eight percent of the balance. But the law firm also would naturally be more sensitive to the cost because when you get a bill, you're naturally gonna scrutinize it more than when you have a fee deducted from the accounts without seeing an invoice and

Paul Sippil (17:44)
You would be much better off from a fiduciary liability standpoint to the extent that there are zero fees passed on to participants because there's essentially almost no liability when there's almost no fees. Not zero, but you would significantly mitigate it.

Tyson Mutrux (17:44)
So you say the form five fifty or fifty-five hundred?

Paul Sippil (17:44)
Five five hundred.

Tyson Mutrux (17:44)
Okay, form f it on the fifty-five hundred, it's not even separated by fees and everything like it was just one number, basically.

Paul Sippil (17:44)
Well, there's two several different line items. One of them is line

Paul Sippil (18:11)
8F on the short form and it's Schedule C on forms where there's over a hundred participants, where it shows the combined fees between the record keeper, custodian, administrator, and the financial advisor. So it's not it's not invoiced out. It's not broken down.

Tyson Mutrux (18:11)
Okay.

Paul Sippil (18:11)
It's not although the financial advisor's fees, if it's a broker, can show up on line ten E as commission payments. So sometimes you will or oftentimes you will see the broker's fees separately, but nobody

Paul Sippil (18:40)
Or very few people often look closely at that fifty five hundred form.

Tyson Mutrux (18:40)
So what I've done is send companies summaries going all the way back to two thousand nine.

Paul Sippil (18:40)
Here's your fees in two thousand nine, here's your fees, like showing them the dollars each year and the extreme escalation and how the number of participants often only increases a little bit or stays the same. And yet just because of the assets going up, I can show just by going through all the forms, which anyone can look up themselves but often don't, the

Paul Sippil (19:09)
Dollars paid out each year and that is extremely eye opening.

Tyson Mutrux (19:09)
Can you go retroactively and get your money back?

Paul Sippil (19:09)
No, you can't get your money back, but you can set it up in such a way so you if you're a law firm, you basically can avoid all those fees. This might be the most important part for any attorney that's listening to this, is the American Bar Association has a special program called the ABA retirement funds program.

Paul Sippil (19:33)
And if you set up what's called a self-directed brokerage account, which is an account where you can have literally any fund you want, you can avoid basically all of the advisory, record keeping, custodial, and administration fees, with the exception of non-recurring fees such as plan amendments, which are billed to the employer like a few hundred dollars a year, and something called cross-testing, which is a form

Paul Sippil (19:56)
Of disproportionately allocating the profit sharing contribution more to the highly compensated employees, which is very common amongst law firms, which is a separate one to $2,000 fee per year. But these fees are typically $40,000, $50 grand a year or more combined with the advisor and the record keeper and the administrator. It's administered by VoyA. And if you put your money in one of the core funds in the program, they have this revenue sharing built in.

Tyson Mutrux (19:56)
So you're stuck paying for those.

Paul Sippil (20:24)
Record keeping administration advisory services if you choose one of those limited funds. But if you put all of your money in the brokerage account, there are no advisory record keeping or administration fees. And if you have a financial advisor, that advisor has to bill the employer, which they should, and they can't make as much money that way, or they have to come to an individual agreement with each participant if they want to get money from their accounts, as opposed to 99% of the arrangements where the advisor gets an automatic fee.

Paul Sippil (20:53)
Based on a percentage that escalates from everyone's accounts, regardless of whether or not they even know that the advisor exists. The only restriction is you have to have a minimum of $2,500 in one of those core funds. And as of three years ago, the annual fee of $250,000, $250 per participant per year wa was waived that they otherwise would have had to pay if they set up a brokerage account. This is a

Paul Sippil (21:19)
Gold mine for law firms. I don't make any money off the program.

Tyson Mutrux (21:19)
Sure.

Paul Sippil (21:19)
I'm just letting attorneys know that they have that option. And every law firm, especially small law firms, if they understood how that program worked, should immediately take advantage of it.

Tyson Mutrux (21:19)
Okay. So I'm gonna ask you this question based on what you just said. how do you benefit from it then? I that's I'm very curious about that. I like what's how like where is your benefit? There's gotta be like something that you would get as the forensic.

Tyson Mutrux (21:47)
CPA.

Paul Sippil (21:47)
So I I nothing directly. It's brand awareness. I'm just being honest with people. And the question is, well, how do I benefit from being honest? Well, it's good for my reputation. It makes me feel good that all of my years of research and all of my work is actually being recognized. So there's I guess you call it an emotional benefit because when you work that hard to get information out there, you want people to actually take your advice.

Paul Sippil (22:15)
And of course, it's just good business. If any company out there wants to engage an advisor who actually sends invoices, who has a conversation about whether or not the employer would be better off paying the fees, and who charges in a way that's commensurate with the level of services provided, and goes further and takes the time to recommend administrators and record keepers and evaluates them not only in terms of services and technology, but also in terms of cost that's a fit based on the makeup of their.

Paul Sippil (22:45)
plan, then hey, they might want to talk to me. But sometimes what advi what companies do is just take my advice and use it to get a better arrangement with their existing providers like their advisor. Now I would wonder why they'd want to keep their advisor if they've been overcharging them all these years or if they've foregone the opportunity or didn't even tell them about the opportunity for the employer to pay the fees, which makes so much more sense for the reasons I stated. I'd be surprised if they would want to

Paul Sippil (23:13)
keep the advisor, but often they do. And then I'm happy that I help them get a better arrangement.

Tyson Mutrux (23:13)
Okay. So I'm gonna go back to something you said before. Let's say I do get an invoice. Let's say they they break it down for me. Sure. Is that tax deductible?

Paul Sippil (23:13)
Well, depending on what you mean, if you get it the invoice itself is just a means to show the fees. It's pretty much a receipt, essentially the the tax deduction has to do with whether or not the fees are paid by the participants.

Tyson Mutrux (23:13)
So you can't

Paul Sippil (23:42)
For individual participant fees, deduct those fees on your own return.

Tyson Mutrux (23:42)
What if it's broken down by what the cut it's cost the company?

Paul Sippil (23:42)
So now the company can deduct those fees if the company pays for it. Now, if the company is billed, you're n they they have to send you an invoice, so it'll be nice to get a description of services as well.

Tyson Mutrux (23:42)
Sure.

Paul Sippil (23:42)
But my major criticism is that it's even more important to get an invoice to show the fees and the dollar amounts for fees deducted from participants' accounts because that's where

Paul Sippil (24:11)
fees become so invisible because you don't see it when the employer isn't paying for it. And even though the fees aren't tax deductible at the participant level, if every plan sponsor who was passing fees on to the participants got an invoice with a s description of services where the advisor every single quarter would have to write that he or she did nothing because there might have been no participant interaction, then I think fees would go down drastically overnight because it would be in your face on a quarterly basis.

Paul Sippil (24:41)
And you couldn't avoid that whatever twenty, thirty thousand dollar annual fee or or ten, twenty thousand dollar quarterly fee that's being charged collectively or individually by the advisor and record keeper. Those are big numbers. And if you know that nobody's talking to the participants, or if you don't even know if the advisor services are being used, boy, it's kind of hard to keep looking at that ten thousand dollar quarterly fee and not asking the advisor what the heck is going on. What am I since I'm I mean

Tyson Mutrux (25:10)
This is all kind of blown my mind. I'm I'm I'm new to this topic. So what is something else I need to ask you about or that people should know? Cause I want to make sure because we don't like we're lawyers, we don't have the technical expertise. So sometimes we don't know the question that we need to ask. So what's another question you think I should ask you about this? Cause I wan I wanna make sure people get the most value. Cause I I sure you've already saved people thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars.

Tyson Mutrux (25:35)
like what what else should I be asking? there there's a lot more too.

Paul Sippil (25:35)
But those are I mean those are the main points, but there's some other areas that are important too, such as are there any restrictions on on the investments I can choose? And there's multiple layers to this. If you only have twenty or thirty funds available, then that's all you can pick from. But oftentimes there are thousands of other choices available for the owner and or the advisor to potentially add

Paul Sippil (26:04)
To the what's called the default fund lineup.

Tyson Mutrux (26:04)
And am I getting any kind of discount because there's some kind of proprietary fund?

Paul Sippil (26:04)
Like principal and fidelity have their own funds. are we getting a deal on other services because we're investing in principal or fidelities funds?

Tyson Mutrux (26:04)
What if I don't want to invest in principal or fidelities funds? Do I have other options to do so?

Paul Sippil (26:04)
And that's where this brokerage account gets in comes into play, where you can have

Paul Sippil (26:33)
basically unlimited fund choices, and this is fairly common amongst law firms.

Tyson Mutrux (26:33)
And if we do have this brokerage account, do I have to pay like a $100 or $200 annual fee? Sure, that's not doesn't sound like much, but that actually does add up over time.

Paul Sippil (26:33)
And how does this program in terms of like quality of service compare to the American Bar Association's program? That's a very high-end program. It's just for attorneys and for firms who service law firms who are also eligible.

Tyson Mutrux (27:00)
do we can we integrate with payroll very easily?

Paul Sippil (27:00)
And this is fairly common. There's something called 180 and 360 payroll integration. And from an administration standpoint, the more integrated that your record keeping system is with your payroll company, the easier it is for the plan to be administered.

Tyson Mutrux (27:00)
Sure, I bet. Yeah. Yeah. so those are other things.

Paul Sippil (27:00)
And then what exactly is the advisor's expertise?

Tyson Mutrux (27:00)
What exactly is the advisor doing? If if I think the advisor is managing everything for me.

Tyson Mutrux (27:31)
what does managing actually entail?

Paul Sippil (27:31)
And I'll add something to your point. Ted Benna, you might have heard the name, he's the inventor of the 401k.

Tyson Mutrux (27:31)
Is he the Vanguard guy or is the that's John Bogle. Yeah, that's right. Okay.

Paul Sippil (27:31)
Yes.

Tyson Mutrux (27:31)
Yeah. So John, so when people say first of all their plan is with Vanguard, what they might mean is that the plan has primarily Vanguard funds.

Paul Sippil (27:31)
But that doesn't mean that Vanguard is the record keeper and the administrator of the plan.

Paul Sippil (27:56)
So I always want to draw a distinction. But what Ted Benna said is exactly what I've said, which makes me feel a little better about all of the criticisms I've made, because if Ted Benna is making the same criticisms, and John Oliver did a whole video too on this. He's not quite as credible as Ted Benna, but you know still it was still interesting. But my point is that I feel I'm in pretty good company. What Ted Benna has said is that advisors need to get back to a fee for service model like accountants and attorneys.

Paul Sippil (28:24)
They're not doing an original piece of work, which is just bizarre and inefficient. They need to simply focus on helping people retire. And that fee for service model is exactly what I said regarding a fixed dollar fee, just like accounting firms and law firms oftentimes, unless you know they're working on contingency, for the most part, professional service providers send a bill and detail out a breakdown of their services. Now add something about accounting firms and law firms too.

Paul Sippil (28:52)
Accounting firms don't even know about the tax deduction they can get at the employer level because there are countless accounting firms I have come across where the majority of the money is the partner's money, so they are paying most of the fees anyway, out of participants' accounts in a tax-deferred or tax-advantaged account with non-tax deductible dollars, when they could have opted for a fee-for-service model just like their own services and paid at the employer level. And that really tells me something. If accounting firms don't even know they can do this, along with employee benefits law firms.

Paul Sippil (29:22)
That specialize in retirement plan let re legislation. I know this because I've seen their tax forms too. That shows you just how broken the industry truly is.

Tyson Mutrux (29:22)
I want to hear some more about your other controversial opinions. You got any anything else that's controversial? Because here's what's interesting is I don't I I can't imagine this. Is this a is that opinion a controversial opinion?

Paul Sippil (29:22)
Well, what is, I mean, capitalism, for example, is controversial and my mini book and it's free, so I'm not selling anything here. It's right on my website.

Tyson Mutrux (29:22)
Well how do people get it?

Tyson Mutrux (29:52)
Yeah, just go to Paulsippel, S-I-P-P-I-L dot com, because I think there's a Paulsippel with EL.com too, different Paul Sippel. and it's just a litany of information on my website, one of which is my blog and I've written all about the industry and the page is I believe it's called the missing market, I think. And and that's basically what is happening in the industry.

Paul Sippil (30:16)
It's not that we don't have enough regulations. In fact, it's just the opposite. And this is what might be controversial to people. It might sound like I'm a hardcore regulation guy where I want stricter rules. I don't even like mandates of invoices, but if we're gonna mandate something, it would be much better to mandate consistent invoices with dollars so people can experience the fees in real time as opposed to a fee disclosure document that not everyone knows exists and that isn't even disclosed in a way that people can understand.

Paul Sippil (30:45)
So the whole point about the fact that this is not a fully functioning market is that we need more transparency, and transparency is brought by competition and capitalism. And yet this whole industry evolved through tax engineering through a loophole that Ted Benna, the inventor of the 401k, discovered in the tax code, which makes this industry inherently irrational. but I think we need more awareness and competition, just like when you buy a cell phone or a car. I know nothing about cars.

Paul Sippil (31:13)
But I know how to look at the car fax report. I know how to look at the accident history and the mileage. And when I buy a used car, I know exactly if I everything's lined up it's all lined up. It's there's no negotiation anymore because the market has become so much more efficient. But you can't shop for a four one K plan that way 'cause it's way too confusing and convoluted. But it could be made much more simple if everybody just got an invoice.

Tyson Mutrux (31:13)
Yeah. I do wonder if it's something like like there's things like this with like AI that it's just it's bound to be disruptive.

Tyson Mutrux (31:43)
Dr disrupted in some way, you'd think, where like it's it's been done this way for decades, and you'd think with AI now, like people are gonna find ways of disrupting nobody can because they don't have enough data.

Paul Sippil (31:43)
But with my research and maybe someone listening that's smarter that with AI than me, and I've done some AI work analyzing all the conversations I had over the last 17 years, and it actually came with some inter came back with some interesting findings.

Tyson Mutrux (31:43)
Yeah no matter what I said to plan sponsors, no matter how I changed my approach, because I make a lot of cold calls.

Paul Sippil (32:13)
The reactions were always the same. Complete apathy, disengagement, and lack of interest. Because the structural incentives to care about the fees have never been there. You're a CFO of a company, whether or not the fees are excessive is not going to affect your job. It's not going to give you a pay increase. It's not going to affect the employer's bottom line. And it's not even going to get you in trouble because you have no invoice.

Paul Sippil (32:38)
to look at.

Tyson Mutrux (32:38)
So you can't say the CFO didn't look at the invoices because they were never sent an invoice in the first place.

Paul Sippil (32:38)
And because there's no pain being felt, and because the fees are not clearly shown to the participants and there's no context, which is just as important, even if you do see a two, three hundred dollar fee, which sometimes that does show up on a participant statement, if they even know to look, how do you know enough to know whether or not that should have been twenty dollars? So how can someone get upset when they don't have enough information or knowledge to know

Paul Sippil (33:08)
If that fee is even reasonable in the first place. So I would argue that the incentives to care are not there. And AI has shown that, along with the fact that I've categorized all the plans by industry. And I know for a fact that it's professional services firms that are most likely to pay excessive fees or let's say not have a fidelity bond, especially law firms and medical practices. That's interesting. especially lawyers, the ones that you feel like they should probably know the the most about this area, but they don't. That's that's interesting.

Tyson Mutrux (33:38)
so can people hire you to do this and to do the the negotiating or or is that something where you just are giving them the advice? no, that's a very good question.

Paul Sippil (33:38)
A lot of financial advisors will tout their services as including fee negotiation. I beg people to please do not pay me to do this. Please don't. Because it would be like it would be like robbery for me to accept a fee for there there is no skill to negotiating.

Tyson Mutrux (33:38)
What does negotiating entail?

Paul Sippil (34:06)
Calling and asking for a reduction.

Tyson Mutrux (34:06)
What else?

Paul Sippil (34:06)
No, that's it. And here's something even crazier. I d I didn't even mention this part. a as a quick story, I was talking just a few months ago to a plan sponsor who shelled out over forty nine thousand dollars in commission payments over a five year period from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty four. His record keeper was John Hancock, there was a separate administrator. So the plan sponsor is like the company, is that right?

Tyson Mutrux (34:06)
Yeah.

Paul Sippil (34:06)
When I say plan sponsor, I mean like the owner.

Paul Sippil (34:34)
the one who oversees the plan. Smith and Smith.

Tyson Mutrux (34:34)
Yeah. Yeah. Smith and Smith, let's call it. Okay.

Paul Sippil (34:34)
And this was a professional services company, only three employees. So and most of the money was the owner's money. He didn't even know he had an advisor.

Tyson Mutrux (34:34)
Okay. Like like ours. Like a lot of them. You don't even know if you have an advisor.

Paul Sippil (34:34)
But and the fact that there were forty nine thousand dollars in commissions over a five year period, most of which was paid by him with non-tax deductible dollars.

Paul Sippil (34:58)
was enough for him to want to know who the advisor was. So he called he had his HR director call the administrator of the plan. Remember I went over, you know, who the administrator is, and that's sometimes the same or sometimes the s a separate party from the record keeper. In this case it was separate. He called he had her call the administrator just to find out who the advisor was and they gave the advisor's name. And then she, the HR director, Googled the advisor's name because it was natural to want to know who this person was and learn that this advisor had actually been dead

Paul Sippil (35:27)
Since 2014.

Tyson Mutrux (35:27)
What?

Paul Sippil (35:27)
Now that isn't crazy. I don't know what is. Dead.

Tyson Mutrux (35:27)
What?

Paul Sippil (35:27)
Since 2014.

Tyson Mutrux (35:27)
So what happened is that the firm had probably been collecting the fees, but didn't bother to let the client know or give them a new rep because if the advisor had known or the a company had known that there was no advisor and they were alerted to that, they might have started demanding either a demanding services or

Tyson Mutrux (35:57)
From another advisor from the same firm, or they it might have occurred to them, which they did b due to my advice, that they could simply eliminate the advisor. So the firm had actually no incentive to perform any services.

Paul Sippil (35:57)
But if everybody at least if companies started voluntarily sending invoices, it would have a ripple effect where the Department of Labor could change its guidance, which are suggestions, but people take that guidance seriously.

Paul Sippil (36:25)
And if the market could solve this problem, which it could if it would if if people would just listen to these podcasts, sure. then the concern over having a really bad reputation in the marketplace and being the only one not to send invoices would force companies to actually start sending bills and then these situations would never occur. But this is not the only time where debt because people die.

Paul Sippil (36:50)
And people don't know they have advisors, so there's thousands of other examples, most likely, where debt advisors are collecting money.

Tyson Mutrux (36:50)
I don't know why you can't get a refund. That's crazy. Like especially because they signed a contract. Even if you have a debt advisor, well, well, what what one company did, and this was with they also had John Hancock, I pointed this out.

Paul Sippil (36:50)
This was an accounting firm that had been shelling out all this money in commissions over time. And they knew the advisor didn't do anything. They knew who he was. And it was like

Paul Sippil (37:18)
Well, over a hundred grand over a five year period. What they had the advisor do, they didn't get their money back, but they eliminated the commissions, but they just forced the advisor to work for free to work it off. that's that's smart.

Tyson Mutrux (37:18)
Now, you mentioned though about getting your money back. You're getting into potential topics like lawsuits.

Paul Sippil (37:18)
So the interesting thing about your question is that the lawsuits have taken place with the large companies where the fees aren't really that excessive, maybe an extra thirty dollars per year per person.

Paul Sippil (37:46)
But because there's hundreds of thousands of participants there and and way more assets, there's w far more money in it for the attorneys to make it worth their while, even though it really doesn't help the participants very much.

Tyson Mutrux (37:46)
Okay, ten years, thirty dollars with interest, a little over over three hundred dollars that you saved. All right, I mean I'll take it.

Paul Sippil (37:46)
But that's nothing compared to the amount of excessive fees charged by to participants in small plans where it might be up to five thousand dollars.

Paul Sippil (38:16)
Every year in excessive fees. 5,000 just in one year. They get charged excessively more per month than these c participants at big companies get charged excessively over, let's say, 10 years. That's so crazy. It is. And here's the crazy thing. I mean, there's a lot of crazy things we've been talking about. These plans are too small for any attorney to care enough, even though the benefit to the participants of getting their money back is.

Paul Sippil (38:43)
astronomically greater. So the only way to change the industry is to get the Department of Labor to take some of my suggestions and just have a grassroots campaign to raise awareness because literally the whole industry could change overnight if people would just take these suggestions. Everyone has the power to eliminate their advisor, negotiate lower advisory fees, and eliminate

Paul Sippil (39:07)
or excuse me, negotiate lower record keeping and administration fees or change providers to the ABA retirement funds program, or if you're not a law firm, use a low-cost provider that's pretty good, like a census or employee fiduciary, whose entire fee structure is a fixed fee per participant, with the small exception of a small percentage that employee fiduciary assesses for the custodial portion of.08% of the assets. And I'll add one other thing. It used to be point six percent.

Paul Sippil (39:35)
But because of these asinine fee disclosure regulations that took place in two thousand twelve, where you had to produce this convoluted, complicated document that a lot of people don't understand, employee fiduciary had to raise their fees to disclose what was already very clear on their website point six percent plus fifteen hundred dollars for the first thirty people, plus thirty dollars per participant for each additional participant, right on their website with big letters, pricing.

Paul Sippil (40:02)
Well, apparently the Department of Labor didn't think that was clear enough. So now employee fiduciary who waived the point six percent fee for plans below a million dollars, and by the way, they had a lot of plans below a million dollars.

Tyson Mutrux (40:02)
I bet I bet there's l yeah, a ton of them.

Paul Sippil (40:02)
In order to comply with the regulation, they had to charge more, and their way of charging more was no longer waiving that point zero six percent fee and raising that point six percent fee to point eight percent just to tell people what was already obvious.

Paul Sippil (40:31)
That I'm guessing they're probably making more money now because even if they're not charging under the the million or less, because they're gonna they're just getting it from the bigger companies.

Tyson Mutrux (40:31)
Yeah.

Paul Sippil (40:31)
Well, they only handle for small companies. because that's like their their niche is like the smaller plans. So the Department of Labor actively did harm to these small plans that already wanted to do business with employee fiduciary, who already had the most transparent practices in the industry.

Paul Sippil (41:00)
And then forced employee fiduciary to charge more to produce a document that was much less clear than the what they already produced on their website.

Tyson Mutrux (41:00)
Okay. Well let's shift gears. I wanna I want to hear I can't tease this before, but I want to know about another one of your controversial ideas or thoughts or opinions.

Tyson Mutrux (41:18)
Before we wrap up, because I wanted to is do you have something else you don't really talk about that much that is like more of a controversial topic or opinion? just general? Just generally, yeah. Outside of like When it comes to like like well, if you were gonna advise like a law firm about something when it comes to money, like see like from like a CPA standpoint, or from a forensic accounting standpoint, is there anything else you're like because like the 401k is very niche, like that's a very but like you you can save people a lot of money. Is there another area?

Tyson Mutrux (41:45)
That you can identify that you can save more money? Like I I'm just curious if there's something else we can Well, like on the for example, for sm like on the health insurance side, a lot of people don't know.

Paul Sippil (41:45)
Like I personally don't have health insurance. I have what's called a medical cost sharing program.

Tyson Mutrux (41:45)
Okay, is that one of those actually you explained what it is? I think I know what this is, but yeah, you explained what the Well, they used to be religious has to be religious based and it had to be a company that had been in business before n since before nineteen ninety nine because there was a mandate.

Paul Sippil (42:15)
But when that health insurance like like mandate got lifted, now all these different medical cost sharing programs pop up. And if you're a small business and you have people who are relatively young and healthy and you don't want to be pooled with a bunch of people, many of whom are are sick and require more medical care, that's actually a much more viable option.

Paul Sippil (42:34)
And they're not technically health insurance and it's scary to some people because it's not blue cross. But speaking of negotiation, like these companies will negotiate your medical bill, and it's all about direct pay. And this kind of ties into everything I've been talking about with 401k plans.

Tyson Mutrux (42:34)
Yeah.

Paul Sippil (42:34)
And a lot of the health insurance legislation about these pharmacy benefit managers and the demand for more transparency because of the opacity in the industry mirrors a lot of what I'm saying in the 401k plan industry.

Paul Sippil (43:00)
So I would say consider not even having health insurance. And for bigger law firms, what they also don't know, and I guess it it's not so much a controversial opinion with people stuff people don't know about, is that you can negotiate the broker's commissions and pay the broker a fixed fee. Hmm. Instead of oftentimes when the, you know, account gets larger, it's not always the best deal when the commissions become out of control.

Tyson Mutrux (43:00)
Yeah, we pay an astronomical amount of money in health insurance and

Tyson Mutrux (43:30)
For a while I've considered, okay, with as much as we spend, would it make more sense for us to put us put this money into some sort of financial product and then and we just pay for people's medical? Like if people just came to and I I d I've not looked into this enough, but I do wonder if like does that make more sense because with how much money we spend?

Paul Sippil (43:30)
Possibly, yes. And p some companies do this and there's a whole book on this and it's kind of controversial. so now I thought of something else.

Tyson Mutrux (43:30)
Nice. And this was written several years ago.

Paul Sippil (43:57)
And it's a company called Zane Benefits that administers it. I forgot the name of the book, but it'll come it'll come to me. And it's controversial about whether or not the individual policies are actually tax deductible if the company instead of has a group policy actually pays separately for indiv everyone's individual policy.

Tyson Mutrux (43:57)
Okay.

Paul Sippil (43:57)
Or potentially the company could do a cost-benefit analysis and just give everyone an extra five thousand in salary and just have them buy

Paul Sippil (44:25)
the individual policy on the open marketplace. But through this company, I don't know if they still do it because it's kind of murky as to w like in terms of the legality of whether or not the employer can get a tax deduction for buying the individual policies and this company will help make that happen, basically.

Tyson Mutrux (44:25)
Why would they do it that way as opposed to doing a group plan?

Paul Sippil (44:25)
Because it can come out as less expensive when you take

Paul Sippil (44:49)
Depending on the kind of group and the ages and the health history, I believe, and this is not my complete area of expertise, sure. Taking the individual tax deduction into account, which is really what puts it over the top, that that becomes a more economical arrangement for certain businesses than the traditional group health insurance plan.

Tyson Mutrux (44:49)
Interesting.

Tyson Mutrux (45:18)
We pay fifty percent is what we pay. We don't pay a hundred percent of health insurance. And w we've had some employees be like, Well, it's cheaper if I go get it through the marketplace, which I was like always surprised by. So it happens sometimes, every once in a while, where sometimes an employee will get it for cheaper. So they'll just do their own thing. And and I think the majority of the people though still go through the firm plan. But every once in a while we do have someone but it I guess I wouldn't be surprised though if you did price it. Yeah. Which it that's kind of insane though, that it

Tyson Mutrux (45:48)
'Cause with how much we spend, you'd think that we would get a better deal.

Paul Sippil (45:48)
You think it'd be better as a group, but I think it's because if if you're willing to push it and take the tax deduction, which is murky as to there's different opinions as to whether or not that's tax deductible, and I think that's what makes it worthwhile. Is some people say it's like a loophole in the tax code. But the real radical suggestion is scrap the health insurance altogether and opt for a group. You don't have to do it individually, I do it individually, a group medical cost sharing program, or at least explore

Paul Sippil (46:18)
that possibility and it works especially well for those with a younger employee population.

Tyson Mutrux (46:18)
Is is that better because it's cheaper or is it are there other benefits to that?

Paul Sippil (46:18)
Well, it's better y yeah, it will be it will be cheaper if it's a young population where I mean, you know, if you're being pooled in a group where the average person is older and unhealthier than you are and you got a group of thirty year olds, then you know, mathematically it should be cheaper.

Paul Sippil (46:46)
But the other thing is there's no networks. So and nobody would have to get rid of their doctor. This isn't this isn't even insurance. It's not an HMO.

Tyson Mutrux (46:46)
Yeah. You just get reimbursed. So they pay out of pocket and then they get reimbursed. That's Yeah. Yeah. How is that different from like an MSA? We've never had an MSA. We just had health insurance. But like how's that different? How's the the cost sharing different from an MSA? I'm not that f I'm not particularly familiar with MSAs. Okay. but

Paul Sippil (47:14)
If MSA is technically like part of an insurance program, I mean this isn't technically insurance.

Tyson Mutrux (47:14)
Gotcha.

Paul Sippil (47:14)
Cost sharing, even though they operate similarly, it's not actually insurance. And then you have what they do is they negotiate your medical bills.

Tyson Mutrux (47:14)
Got it. Help you yeah. All right, before we wrap things up, how do people get into if they want to reach out to you, ask your qu ask you questions, how would they do that? Sure. Just go to my website, P-A-U-L-S-I-P-P-I-L dot com, paulsiple.com

Paul Sippil (47:42)
My email, my numbers on there. I have a YouTube channel. You just literally type my name into YouTube. There's and there's some videos on my site. I have a bunch of YouTube clips with me ranting about all the problems in the retirement industry.

Tyson Mutrux (47:42)
Nice. Okay. any other any controversial thing you want to end on when it comes to the retirement industry? I guess I'll just say do not assume that this industry is under regulated.

Paul Sippil (47:42)
In fact, this industry is already

Paul Sippil (48:09)
Heavily regulated. So if nothing else, start questioning your assumptions about what centrally imposed regulations actually do and the consequences that result.

Tyson Mutrux (48:09)
Good advice. Thank you, Paul. Thanks for doing this. Appreciate it.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

What does stepping away from a jiu-jitsu gym have to do with building a better law firm?

More than you might think.

In this episode of Maximum Lawyer Live, Tyson Mutrux shares an unexpected lesson from taking time away from jiu-jitsu and how the sense of community, belonging, and genuine human connection he experienced applies directly to client relationships.

Tyson explores why clients don't stay because of legal skill alone, they stay because of how your firm makes them feel. He breaks down practical ways law firm owners can create deeper trust, build authentic client connections, and transform their firm from a transactional service into a community people genuinely want to be part of.

If you're looking for ways to improve client experience, increase referrals, and build a firm people can't stop talking about, this episode is full of actionable ideas you can implement immediately.

What You'll Learn

  • Why legal skill alone isn't enough to build lifelong clients.
  • The difference between client loyalty and client belonging.
  • How to create stronger emotional connections with clients.
  • Simple systems that make clients feel seen, remembered, and cared for.
  • Why small commitments build massive trust over time.
  • How to engineer authentic connection without being manipulative.
  • Ways to turn your law firm into a community instead of just a service.

Highlights

00:00 – Why stepping away from jiu-jitsu sparked a new perspective on law firms
03:15 – The psychology behind belonging and why community matters
08:45 – Why clients stay because of how your firm makes them feel, not just your legal skills
13:20 – Loyalty vs. belonging: the mindset shift every law firm owner should make
17:45 – Practical ways to create deeper client relationships through shared experiences
22:10 – Small systems that build trust and keep clients engaged throughout their case
27:30 – How to create a law firm that feels more like a community than a service

🎟️ Get your MaxLawCon tickets: maxlawcon.com

🔍 Vet your vendors: beccaslist.co

Maximum Lawyer helps law firm owners build businesses, not jobs.

Resources:

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:36) All right, we are live. Welcome back to Maximum Lawyer Live. Today we've got I think a good one for you. It's a little bit of a a weird one, honestly, kind of like last time, where it starts somewhere completely random and then somehow we land the plane on something useful for your firm. That's that's just kind of how my brain works, so bear with me. This one's probably gonna run a little long too, so settle in.

Tyson Mutrux (01:02) So this weekend I was cleaning out the garage, which, if you know me, you know I do not enjoy doing. Like I I put this off for I don't know, it's embarrassing, months, probably like four or five months. And I found this old box of like handwritten thank you cards. Like actual cards, paper cards, from clients. Some of these are from I don't even know, eight, nine years ago maybe.

Tyson Mutrux (01:28) And I I sat down on like an old cooler in the garage and just started reading through them. Which was not the plan. The plan was to throw stuff away. And instead I'm sitting there for like forty five minutes just reading these things.

Tyson Mutrux (01:43) And what struck me, and this is what got me thinking about this whole episode, is that almost none of them, and I mean almost none of them, mentioned like the actual outcome of the case. Like you would think, right, a thank you card from a client, they'd be like, hey, thanks for winning my case, or thanks for getting me this settlement, whatever. That's that's what I expected to see. That's not what was in there.

Tyson Mutrux (02:09) What was in there was stuff like, thank you for always calling me back. Thank you for explaining things to me like I was a person and not just a case number. One of them, I'm not kidding, one of them said thank you for remembering my dog's name. Like that was the thing they wrote down. Not the money. Not the case. My dog's name.

Tyson Mutrux (02:33) And it it really it kind of stopped me in my tracks a little bit, because I think we as attorneys, we we get so caught up in like the result, the result, the result, like that's that's the thing we think we're being graded on. And to some degree we are, don't get me wrong, results matter, I'm not saying they don't. But that's that's not actually what sticks with people. That's not what they remember two, three, four years down the road when their friend gets in a wreck and says hey, who should I call.

Tyson Mutrux (03:02) So I started thinking, okay, like, why is that? Why is it the little stuff that sticks and not the big stuff? And I think it's because the big stuff, the outcome, that's kind of expected, right? Like that's that's the job. You hired an attorney to get you a good outcome, so when you get one, it's almost like, well, yeah, that's what I paid for. It doesn't feel like a gift. It feels like a transaction that went the way it was supposed to.

Tyson Mutrux (03:28) But the little stuff, the stuff that wasn't required of us, the stuff we didn't have to do, that's the stuff that feels like a gift. That's the stuff that actually creates the emotional memory. And I think that's such an important distinction for how we run our firms.

Tyson Mutrux (03:44) So let me give you kind of a a real world example of this from our shop. We've got, I've mentioned this before I think, we've got this thing on our intake sheet where we just ask random personal questions. Like what's your dog's name, do you have kids, what do you do for fun, stuff that has zero, and I mean zero, relevance to the actual legal matter. And for a long time I I think some of our team probably thought that was kind of a a a waste of time on the intake call. Like why are we asking about somebody's golden retriever when we should be getting the facts of the accident.

Tyson Mutrux (04:16) But here's the thing. Every single client that's ever come through and been like, wow, y'all really care about me, this doesn't feel like just a law firm, it's because somebody remembered that little detail and brought it back up later. That's it. That's the whole trick. It's not complicated. It's just remembering, and then actually using it.

Tyson Mutrux (04:36) And look, I know, I know some of you are thinking, Tyson, that's that's easy for you to say, you've got a team, you've got a a a a system built for this. And yeah, fair, that's that's true, we do. But it didn't start as some big fancy system. It started as literally one person on our team just deciding on their own to jot a note at the bottom of the file. That was it. That's that's the whole origin story. One person decided to care a little bit more than what was required, and then we just built processes around copying that behavior.

Tyson Mutrux (05:08) Actually, let me tell that story properly, because I don't think I've ever fully told it on here. Her name's Sarah, she was one of our first hires way back, and she just started doing this on her own. Nobody told her to. She'd write little notes at the bottom of the intake, and then when she'd call the client back with an update, she'd open with, hey, how'd Bailey's vet appointment go, or whatever it was. And clients would just light up. Like you could hear it change the whole call.

Tyson Mutrux (05:38) And I remember one of the other intake people came to me and was kind of half complaining, half impressed, and said, Sarah's calls take twice as long as everybody else's. And my first reaction, honestly, was, well, that's a a a a problem, we need her to be more efficient. And then I actually looked at her numbers. Her sign up rate was the highest on the team. Not close. It wasn't even close.

Tyson Mutrux (06:04) So instead of telling her to speed up, we asked her to train everybody else on what she was doing. And that's that's literally the origin of a whole piece of our onboarding now. It came from one person deciding to care a little more than what the job description technically required.

Tyson Mutrux (06:22) So if you're a solo, if you're a small firm and you're listening to this going, well I don't have the resources for some elaborate client experience program, you don't need one. You need a sticky note. You need a spot in your case management software where you jot down, hey, this client's daughter plays travel soccer, this client just had a baby, this client's going through a a a rough divorce on top of everything else. Just write it down. And then when you talk to them next, bring it up.

Tyson Mutrux (06:50) I promise you, I promise you, that is more powerful than almost anything else you could spend money on this year. More powerful than a rebrand. More powerful than another Google Ads campaign. It's it's free, honestly, other than just the discipline to actually do it.

Tyson Mutrux (07:07) Okay, so here's the other piece of this I want to touch on, because it it kind of ties back to something I've talked about before on here, this idea of small commitments building trust. Because I think there's a there's a version of this that happens over the life of the case too, not just at intake. Like every touchpoint is an opportunity to either build that trust or kind of chip away at it a little bit.

Tyson Mutrux (07:33) So think about like, every time you tell a client, hey I'm gonna call you Friday with an update, and then Friday comes and goes and nobody calls. That's a chip. That's a small little chip in the trust. Doesn't feel like a big deal in the moment, but it adds up. And then on the flip side, every time you say I'm gonna call you Friday, and you actually call, even if the update is nothing new, hey, just wanted to let you know we're still waiting on records, nothing's changed, that's a deposit. That's you putting something back into the account.

Tyson Mutrux (08:03) And I think the firms that really win at this, the ones that get the referrals, the ones that get the five star reviews, the ones that get somebody's dog's name written on a thank you card years later, they're just the ones that are consistently making more deposits than withdrawals. That's that's really the whole game when you boil it all the way down.

Tyson Mutrux (08:24) There's there's another thing that box got me thinking about too, and I I almost didn't bring this up but I think it's worth it. A good chunk of those cards, probably a third of them honestly, weren't even from the actual client. They were from like the client's mom, or their sister, or one time it was a a a client's neighbor who drove them to appointments. And that stopped me for a second too, because it it it reminded me that the person who hires you is is almost never the only person paying attention to how you treat them.

Tyson Mutrux (08:56) Like there's this whole audience around every single client that's watching how this plays out. Their spouse is watching. Their kids are watching. Whoever's driving them to their doctor's appointments because they can't drive themselves, they're watching too. And every one of those people is a potential referral down the road, or a potential one star review down the road, depending on how you handle things.

Tyson Mutrux (09:18) So I think there's this lesson in there of like, don't just think about the client experience for the named client on the file. Think about the experience for the whole orbit around that person. Because that mom who drove her son to three depositions, she's the one who's gonna be at Thanksgiving telling everybody in the family who to call if something happens to them.

Tyson Mutrux (09:40) And this actually connects to something else, a a a case that comes to mind. We had this older gentleman, client of ours from years back, and his son had actually been the one that found us, called us, set up the whole thing, because dad wasn't real comfortable on the phone. And the whole case, we made sure to loop the son in on every update too, even though he wasn't technically the client, just cc'd him, kept him in the loop, answered his questions same as we would the client's.

Tyson Mutrux (10:08) Case wraps up, everybody's happy, and I honestly kind of forgot about it. And then like two years later we get a call, and it's the son, and this time it's not for his dad, it's for himself, he'd gotten hurt at work. And when we asked him, hey, how'd you hear about us, he said, y'all treated my dad's case like it mattered to y'all too, not just my dad. That stuck with me. That's that's a client we got two years later because of how we treated somebody who wasn't even technically our client.

Tyson Mutrux (10:38) Okay, one more thing on this and then I promise I'll get us to the wrap up. I had somebody on our team ask me a really good question after I told them about this box of cards. They asked, well, how do you know if you're doing enough of this stuff, like how do you actually measure it. And honestly, my first answer was kind of a a a cop out, I said, well, you just kind of feel it. But that's that's not a real answer, that's not something you can actually build a system around.

Tyson Mutrux (11:08) So here's what I've landed on since then. Once a quarter, go pull five closed files at random. Doesn't matter which five, just random. And go read the notes on those files like a stranger would read them. Not like the attorney who worked it, read it like you're the client. And ask yourself, does this read like somebody who genuinely cared about me, or does this read like a a a a a checklist that got worked through. That exercise alone will tell you more about your firm's actual client experience than any survey you could send out.

Tyson Mutrux (11:42) Now I I want to address the pushback on this too, because I know it's coming, I get it every time I bring this up at a mastermind or at MaxLawCon. And the pushback is usually some version of, that's fine for you, Tyson, you've got the staff for that, I'm one guy answering my own phone at ten at night. And look, I I hear that, I do. But I don't think the size of your firm changes the principle, it just changes the scale of it.

Tyson Mutrux (12:12) If you're a solo, you don't need Sarah's whole system, you need one habit. Before you hang up the phone with a client, write down one non-legal thing they told you. That's it. One thing. Takes you fifteen seconds. And then next time you talk to them, you open with that. You will be, and I mean this, you will be in like the top five percent of attorneys just by doing that one tiny thing consistently.

Tyson Mutrux (12:40) The other pushback I get is, well, doesn't that feel fake, like doesn't that feel manipulative, writing down stuff so you remember it later. And I I get why people ask that, but I'd push back on it a little. It's it's only manipulative if you don't actually care. If you genuinely care about your clients as people, which I think most of us got into this profession because we do, then writing it down isn't manipulation, it's just... it's just help. It's helping your brain do the thing your heart already wants to do. None of us have the memory to hold forty active clients' personal details in our head. That's what the notes are for.

Tyson Mutrux (13:16) Let's talk about how this shows up in reviews too, because I think this is where it gets real practical for a lot of you thinking about marketing dollars. Go pull up your own Google reviews right now, or do it after this call. Read through your five star reviews and I'd bet you real money that the ones that go on the longest, the ones that read like somebody actually sat down and thought about what to write, are not gonna be about the settlement number. They're gonna use words like, listened, cared, family, remembered. Every time.

Tyson Mutrux (13:50) And here's the thing, those are the reviews that actually convert other potential clients. Nobody reading a review cares that you got somebody three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. They don't know if that's good or bad for that type of case, they've got no context for it. But when they read, this firm treated my mom like family, that they understand. That hits regardless of the type of case.

Tyson Mutrux (14:16) So if you're out there running review generation campaigns, and you should be, that should be part of your marketing, I'd actually encourage you to prompt for this specifically. Instead of just, hey would you leave us a review, try something like, hey, what's one thing that surprised you about working with our firm. You'll get so much better material, and it it does double duty because it also becomes a training tool for your team, showing them what actually lands with clients.

Tyson Mutrux (14:46) I want to shift gears just slightly here and talk about hiring for this, because I think this is a piece people miss. You can build all the systems in the world, the sticky notes, the intake questions, the CRM fields, but if you hire people who fundamentally don't care about other humans, none of it's gonna stick. It's gonna feel like a a a checklist to them because to them it is a checklist.

Tyson Mutrux (15:14) So in our interviews now, and I've talked about this a little before but I want to go deeper on it today, we actually ask candidates to tell us about a time they went out of their way for somebody who couldn't do anything for them in return. Doesn't have to be work related. Could be a neighbor, could be a stranger, could be whatever. And you'd be surprised how many people just... blank. They can't think of an example. That tells you something.

Tyson Mutrux (15:44) And on the flip side, the people who light up telling that story, who've got three examples ready to go, those are the ones who turn into your Sarahs. Those are the ones who are gonna write the note at the bottom of the file without being told to. You can't train empathy into somebody in a two week onboarding. You can train the system, the how, but the wanting to, that's gotta already be there.

Tyson Mutrux (16:12) Okay, let me bring this back around to something more tactical, because I know some of y'all want the the the concrete framework, not just the philosophy. So here's what I'd actually suggest building, and we call this internally the three touchpoint rule. Every case, there's three moments where this matters most. The intake call, the first real update call, usually two to three weeks in, and the resolution call, when the case is wrapping up.

Tyson Mutrux (16:42) At intake, that's where you capture the personal detail. That's Sarah's move, ask about the dog, ask about the kids, whatever, and write it down. At the first update call, that's where you bring it back up, even if there's nothing to report on the case itself. You still call, and you still open with the personal thing. And then at resolution, that's where you go the extra step, maybe a handwritten card of your own, maybe just genuinely reflecting back to them what you remember about their situation beyond the legal facts.

Tyson Mutrux (17:16) Three touchpoints. That's not overwhelming. Any firm, any size, can build a checklist around three touchpoints. And I promise if you nail those three, everything in between kind of takes care of itself, because your team's already in the habit of thinking about the client as a person by that point.

Tyson Mutrux (17:38) I got a message from somebody in the association after I posted about this box of cards on our internal forum, actually, and she asked a question I thought was really sharp. She said, how do you keep this from becoming performative once you scale past like ten, fifteen employees, like how do you keep it genuine instead of just another box people check. And that's that's a real tension, I'm not gonna pretend it isn't.

Tyson Mutrux (18:08) What I told her is, you've gotta keep telling the stories. Like literally, in your team meetings, spend five minutes every week having somebody share a moment where this stuff actually mattered, where a client noticed. Because the second this becomes a a a a a a metric on a scorecard with no stories attached to it, yeah, it becomes performative, it becomes a box to check. But if your team is constantly hearing real examples of why it matters, it stays alive. Stories are what keep a value from turning into a policy.

Tyson Mutrux (18:44) That's that's actually a big part of why I even do these live episodes honestly, is to keep telling these stories out loud, both for y'all listening and honestly for myself too, keeps me honest about whether we're still doing this stuff or if we've let it slide.

Tyson Mutrux (19:00) Let me give you one more example, and then I really am gonna wrap up. We had a case a while back that we actually lost. Well, didn't lose exactly, but the result wasn't what the client hoped for, insurance company played hardball, case ended up settling for way less than anybody wanted. Tough outcome, genuinely tough one.

Tyson Mutrux (19:24) And you'd think that client would've been furious, would've left us a bad review, whatever. Instead she wrote us a card. And in the card she said, I know y'all fought for me, I know Tyson personally called me to explain why the number ended up where it did instead of having somebody else do it, and that meant more to me than the number itself. That's a losing outcome, by our own internal standard of what we wanted for her, that turned into a five star relationship because of how it was handled, not what the result was.

Tyson Mutrux (19:58) And I think that's the biggest takeaway out of everything I've said today, honestly. The outcome matters, don't hear me saying it doesn't. But how you handle people, win, lose, or draw, that's the thing that's actually within your control every single day, on every single file, regardless of what a jury or an insurance adjuster decides.

Tyson Mutrux (20:22) All right, I've I've gone really long on this one, I know, I do this, those of you that listen regularly know I do this, today especially. So let me actually wrap it up here for real this time.

Tyson Mutrux (20:36) Go find your own version of that box in the garage. Whether that's old client emails, old reviews, whatever it is. Go back and actually read what people said about working with you. Not the outcome they got, but how it made them feel. I think you'll be surprised at what you find, and I think it'll change how you think about training your team for the rest of the year.

Tyson Mutrux (21:00) And if you take nothing else away from today, just do the one thing. Write down one non-legal detail on your next call. Just one. See what happens over the next ninety days if you actually stick with it.

Tyson Mutrux (21:16) Make sure you check out Becca's List, BeccasList.co, where you can find the best vendors for your firm. And make sure you check out MaxLawCon.com so you can get your tickets to Maximum Lawyer Conference in October in Atlanta, we would love to see you there.

Tyson Mutrux (21:34) And if you're not in the association, if you're listening to this recorded, that means you're probably not in the association. Check us out at MaximumLawyer.com and we would love to have you in the association.

Tyson Mutrux (21:48) Have a great week, everybody. We will see you next week.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERE

Google isn't disappearing, but it's no longer the only place potential clients are looking for lawyers.

In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux sits down with Vaidas Cikotas and Steve Williams of Rise Up Media to unpack one of the biggest shifts happening in legal marketing: the rise of AI-powered search. As more consumers turn to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other large language models for recommendations instead of traditional Google searches, law firms need to rethink how they build online authority.

Rather than chasing the latest AI buzzwords, Vaidas and Steve explain what actually matters. They break down the difference between SEO and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), why consistency across every online platform is becoming essential, and how law firms can improve their chances of being recommended by AI tools. The conversation also includes a live experiment comparing results across ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, revealing just how differently each platform evaluates the same question.

If your firm is relying on the same marketing strategy it used a few years ago, this episode will help you understand what's changing and what you should do next.

What You'll Learn

  • Why AI search is changing how prospective clients find law firms
  • The difference between SEO, GEO, and why both matter
  • Why consistency across your website, directories, and online profiles is now critical
  • How attorney credentials, reviews, and case results influence AI recommendations
  • What law firms should update today to improve AI visibility
  • Why no marketing agency has completely "figured out" AI search yet
  • How to avoid expensive AI marketing gimmicks and focus on what actually works

Highlights

  • 00:00 – Why law firms are behind on the shift from Google search to AI search
  • 05:15 – What Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) actually is and why content still matters
  • 11:20 – The key differences between traditional SEO and optimizing for AI platforms
  • 18:55 – The most common mistakes law firms make with their websites and online presence
  • 25:30 – Live comparison: ChatGPT vs. Claude vs. Gemini recommendations for lawyers
  • 37:20 – The seven-point GEO audit checklist every law firm should complete
  • 43:35 – How to evaluate AI marketing companies and avoid buying into empty promises

Connect with Vaidas Cikotas and Steve Williams

Vaidas Cell - 704-953-7051

Steve Cell - 412-713-2764

Full Transcript: 

Tyson Mutrux (00:00)
 All right, gents, I want to start here because I think that most law firms right now are thinking about marketing like it's still 2020, and it has changed drastically.

What are you seeing that most law firms haven't noticed yet?

Vaidas Cikotas (00:13)
 I think the biggest thing we're seeing is that people have heard of it, they're confused by it, they don't know what to do with it, but it's everything related to the LLMs—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and all the AI platforms.

We're getting people calling us saying, "Hey, I asked ChatGPT and either you were there or you weren't there." But they have no idea why.

There's an enormous amount of conversation around, "How do I get into these AI results? What do I need to do so I show up where my competitors are showing up?"

The reality is there isn't one single answer. There isn't one agency that has completely figured this puzzle out because it's a constantly moving target.

There are, however, things you can do to give yourself the best chance of having these AI models find you for what you're actually an expert in.

Tyson Mutrux (01:08)
 Are you guys able to tell how often people are using ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity compared to Google nowadays?

Or is it still kind of the Wild West?

Steve Williams (01:19)
 Well, every law firm out there has experienced about a 30–35% drop in website traffic.

That makes things interesting because marketing companies start calling and saying, "Oh my gosh, you're falling off the face of the earth. Search is dying."

But here's the reality—it isn't just law firms. Virtually every website on Google has experienced a similar decline because people are using AI platforms like ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, and Gemini.

People aren't just searching anymore.

They're asking for recommendations.

Search isn't going away, but it's no longer the finish line.

The finish line now is answering questions.

Keep things simple. Answer the questions people are asking, and you'll have a much better chance of appearing inside these AI platforms.

Tyson Mutrux (02:13)
 I know you both live this every day, but I'm curious.

Is this happening faster than you expected?

Vaidas Cikotas (02:21)
 I don't think it's happening faster.

I actually think it isn't happening quite as fast as people on the street are making it sound.

Certain things are changing faster than others.

For example, we track calls and intakes for all of our clients every single day.

We're starting to see some ChatGPT searches leading to calls, clicks, and intakes. We're seeing Gemini referrals too.

But it's not dramatically denting Google's dominance yet.

That's still coming.

I actually think the biggest threat to Google was never Bing or Yahoo or another search engine.

The younger generation simply isn't going to Google anymore.

They're opening ChatGPT or Claude and asking a question.

That completely bypasses Google.

In many cases, it even bypasses your website because someone can go directly from an AI recommendation to making a phone call.

SEO still matters because it's a huge validation signal for Google.

Your website still matters.

But there are now dozens of additional signals—credentials, validation, citations, and information spread across the internet—that increase your chances of appearing in AI-generated recommendations.

It hasn't completely changed the way people contact firms yet, but it's changing every single week.

The hardest part is that it's almost impossible to track.

With SEO, it's easy.

Someone searched Google...

They clicked...

They called...

They hired you.

With AI, you might know you're showing up in recommendations, but there isn't always a direct connection proving that recommendation led to the phone call.

So you almost have to believe that's where the future is headed while you prepare for it.

Tyson Mutrux (04:37)
 Here's what I think is funny.

About a year ago I was at the gym wearing a shirt that had "SEO" across the front.

A guy in his thirties asked me, "What's SEO?"

I thought everyone knew that meant Search Engine Optimization.

Now, suddenly everyone's talking about GEO.

People barely knew what SEO meant, and now we're asking them to understand Generative Engine Optimization.

How would you explain GEO to your parents?

Vaidas Cikotas (05:16)
 Steve, you want this one?

Steve Williams (05:18)
 Sure.

GEO stands for Generative Engine Optimization.

Everyone hears that term and immediately thinks AI is taking over the world.

It isn't taking over the world.

But it has changed how people search.

People aren't looking for links anymore.

They're looking for answers.

We've said for twenty years that content is king.

That hasn't changed.

Content is still king.

People keep asking, "How do I show up in ChatGPT? How do I show up in Gemini?"

The answer is still content.

It's also about keeping things incredibly simple.

Accuracy.

Consistency.

Every piece of information about your law firm needs to match across every platform.

If you moved offices three years ago but Yelp still has your old address, that inconsistency can hurt you.

AI platforms reward consistency.

Office phone number.

Office address.

Firm name.

Practice areas.

Everything needs to match.

People trust ChatGPT because it remembers them.

It learns their habits.

It tailors recommendations to each individual user.

So if you want ChatGPT to trust your law firm, your information has to be trustworthy everywhere it finds it.

Instead of saying something vague like, "Fighting for justice," be specific.

"I'm a personal injury lawyer in Tampa, Florida helping people injured in accidents."

That's what AI understands.

Go rewrite your profile everywhere.

Your website.

Super Lawyers.

AVVO.

Every directory you're listed in.

Answer simple client questions.

That's what helps AI understand who you are and recommend you.

Tyson Mutrux (07:49)
 Here's something that's always frustrated me.

If my website already ranks really well on Google...

Why doesn't ChatGPT automatically recommend me?

Vaidas Cikotas (08:01)
 That's actually a really good question...

Vaidas Cikotas (08:01)
 That's a fair question.

Here's an example we were given by some people at our corporate headquarters.

Four people sat in the same office, pulled up ChatGPT, asked the exact same question, and every one of them received a different answer.

That's because ChatGPT learns from your history. It knows what you've searched before, what you've interacted with, and what kinds of answers you're looking for.

SEO is different.

If you write great content, target the right keywords, and build authority, you can generally predict how Google is going to respond.

ChatGPT doesn't work that way.

Claude is different than Gemini.

Gemini is different than Grok.

Every large language model uses different signals and different sources.

So there isn't one thing you can do that guarantees success across all of them.

SEO is still important because that's where Google gathers much of its information. Google's AI Overview is essentially performing a search for you and summarizing the results before you ever click a website.

Generative AI takes that a step further.

Instead of simply summarizing information, it begins recommending attorneys based on credibility and expertise.

SEO tells AI what you do.

Your credentials tell AI why it should recommend you.

Instead of saying you've recovered millions of dollars, be specific.

Talk about recovering $2.3 million in a trucking accident.

Talk about trial experience.

Talk about certifications.

Talk about everything that demonstrates expertise.

The more specific and credible you are, the better chance AI has of recognizing you as an authority.

We've even had clients search for "best personal injury lawyer in Orlando," not find themselves, and ask ChatGPT why.

Sometimes the response is fascinating.

ChatGPT will explain that it intentionally recommended firms that exclusively practice personal injury because your firm also handles criminal defense and bankruptcy.

Your credentials were good enough.

Your positioning wasn't specific enough.

So the way someone asks the question dramatically changes who gets recommended.

That's why there isn't one magic button you can press.

It's constantly evolving.

Tyson Mutrux (11:00)
 So if I'm hearing you correctly...

If I only focus on SEO, that doesn't guarantee success inside the AI platforms.

But what if I focus only on AI?

Will that naturally help my SEO?

Or are these completely different strategies?

Vaidas Cikotas (11:18)
 They're connected, but they're absolutely different.

Think of your website as the foundation.

If your SEO is terrible, you're probably not going to perform well in AI either because your website still provides the primary source of information about your firm.

But when you start talking about GEO or AI optimization, you're looking beyond your website.

Now you're talking about attorney profiles.

Directories like Super Lawyers.

AVVO.

Publications.

Awards.

Speaking engagements.

Everything that validates you as an expert.

Your website explains what you do.

Those other platforms prove that you're actually good at it.

They're all connected.

But they're definitely different strategies.

Steve Williams (12:23)
 I explain it like this.

SEO is like walking into a library.

You ask the librarian where to find information on a topic.

The librarian points you toward the right shelf.

You still have to find the book.

Read it.

And discover the answer yourself.

AI is the teacher.

Instead of pointing you toward the bookshelf, the teacher already knows where the answer is.

They've read the book.

They tell you exactly what you need to know.

That's a completely different experience.

People shouldn't panic because even if ChatGPT recommends an attorney, people are still going to visit that attorney's website.

They're still going to validate the recommendation.

That isn't changing.

But what is changing is how AI determines who deserves to be recommended.

Consistency.

Clarity.

Those matter more than ever.

Another big piece is reviews.

Google mainly cares about Google reviews.

AI doesn't.

AI looks at reviews everywhere.

AVVO.

Super Lawyers.

Justia.

Wherever people are talking about you.

Every review becomes another signal telling AI whether it should trust you.

Tyson Mutrux (13:44)
 When you said attorneys now have to collect reviews on platforms besides Google...

I guarantee every lawyer listening just groaned.

Google reviews are already hard enough.

Now you're telling them they have to manage reviews somewhere else too.

Vaidas Cikotas (13:54)
 Exactly.

Google reviews still matter.

They're important for Local Services Ads.

They're important for Google Maps.

They're important for local rankings.

But now people are leaving Google altogether.

ChatGPT, for example, frequently references Yelp.

Claude often relies heavily on AVVO, Super Lawyers, and attorney directories.

We'll actually open ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini at the same time, ask them all the exact same question, and compare the answers.

Sometimes they're similar.

Sometimes they're completely different.

What's really interesting is seeing where each AI platform pulls its information from.

We had one workers' compensation attorney ask why he wasn't showing up inside ChatGPT.

When we dug into it, we discovered ChatGPT was referencing an article from Expertise.com that listed the top workers' compensation attorneys in his market.

He wasn't included on that list.

That became one of the reasons AI recommended someone else.

So suddenly another website becomes incredibly important—even if you never intentionally focused on it.

Five years ago, hardly anyone cared about Expertise.com.

Now it's influencing AI recommendations.

That's how quickly things are changing.

Tyson Mutrux (17:42)
 I remember getting emails saying, "Congratulations, you're ranked number one."

I ignored them because I thought they were nonsense.

But here's the problem.

Regular people don't know they're nonsense.

They see "Top Rated Attorney."

They assume it's legitimate.

Vaidas Cikotas (17:56)
 Exactly.

Consumers don't know how those rankings are created.

They simply see an authority saying you're one of the best.

That's why it's so important to make sure your information is accurate everywhere.

If one of those directories lists practice areas you don't even handle anymore...

That's on you to fix.

Because AI isn't calling you to verify it.

It's simply reading what's available and making recommendations based on the information

Tyson Mutrux (18:32)
 Let's say you were looking at one hundred law firm websites that weren't managed by Rise Up Media.

What are the same mistakes you see over and over again?

I'm talking about the big picture—not just SEO, but everything.

Vaidas Cikotas (19:10)
 The first thing we usually notice is poor content.

Either there isn't enough of it...

It's outdated...

Or it simply isn't very good.

We'll open a firm's blog and see that the last article was published two years ago.

Think about the signal that sends.

Not just to Google, but to potential clients.

If you haven't updated your website in years, it looks like you aren't paying attention.

Google has actually changed its algorithms to reward fresh content.

Older articles should be updated every few months to keep them relevant.

You can't just publish something four years ago and expect it to continue performing forever.

We also see websites that look nice visually but aren't doing anything proactive.

Maybe they publish one blog every now and then.

Maybe social media links don't even work anymore.

Facebook icons that go nowhere.

LinkedIn profiles that haven't been updated.

Broken links.

Outdated attorney bios.

All of those little issues start adding up.

We run every website through an analysis process to identify those gaps.

Today there are even tools beginning to measure how visible your website is inside AI search.

For example, SEMrush now tracks things like AI visibility, mentions, and cited pages across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google's AI Mode.

If those numbers are close to zero, it's usually a sign that your content isn't giving AI enough reason to reference you.

Steve Williams (22:15)
 The first number we look at is something called an Authority Score.

That's Google's way of measuring how much trust your website has earned.

People assume it's a scale from one to one hundred.

In legal, that's not really how it works.

The highest authority score we've ever seen on a law firm website is around forty.

Anything over twenty-five is exceptional.

The higher that score becomes, the more traffic you're generally going to receive.

So how do you increase it?

Content.

I've been saying it all day...

Content is still king.

Google isn't really a technology company.

Neither is ChatGPT.

They're content companies.

They organize and evaluate information.

The second thing that increases authority is backlinks.

Anywhere you're allowed to place a link back to your website, do it.

Your state bar.

Professional organizations.

Directories.

Associations like Maximum Lawyer.

Every legitimate backlink increases your authority.

And that authority doesn't just help traditional SEO anymore.

It also helps your AI visibility.

Now, I have to laugh because marketing companies are already selling "$1,500 AI packages" promising you'll dominate ChatGPT.

Nobody can promise that.

The technology changes every week.

Three people can ask ChatGPT the exact same question and receive three different answers.

There simply isn't a guaranteed formula yet.

Tyson Mutrux (24:45)
 Exactly.

Steve Williams (24:46)
 The interesting thing is that most people completely trust ChatGPT.

If ChatGPT gives them an answer...

They believe it.

Even though those of us who use it every day know it can absolutely be wrong.

If you challenge it, it'll often admit it made a mistake.

But most consumers don't do that.

That's why trust has become such a big factor.

Tyson Mutrux (25:15)
 Let's have a little fun.

Can all three of you pull up ChatGPT?

I think it'd be interesting if we all asked the exact same question and compared the answers.

People could actually see how different the recommendations are.

Vaidas Cikotas (25:38)
 Sure.

Let's make it legal-related.

Steve Williams (25:49)
 How about...

"Who is the best DUI lawyer in Dallas, Texas?"

Tyson Mutrux (25:53)
 Perfect.

Let's all ask that.

Vaidas Cikotas (26:00)
 All right.

I'm sharing my screen now.

Tyson Mutrux (26:03)
 Most people probably wouldn't type "best DUI lawyer."

They'd naturally ask...

"Who is the best DUI lawyer in Dallas, Texas?"

Steve Williams (26:09)
 Exactly.

Vaidas Cikotas (26:17)
 Let's see what happens.

Tyson Mutrux (26:27)
 Mine's still thinking.

Maybe I picked the wrong model.

I'm going to force it to answer.

Steve Williams (27:11)
 I've got mine.

It's already different.

The first couple recommendations match...

Everything after that changes.

Tyson Mutrux (27:20)
 I'll pull mine up too.

Vaidas Cikotas (27:22)
 Before you do...

Notice something interesting.

One recommendation references AVVO.

Another references Expertise.com.

If I click this result...

Here it is.

"22 Best DUI Lawyers in Texas."

Published just a few days ago.

ChatGPT is using that article as one of its sources.

Those attorneys are showing up because another website validated them.

That's exactly what we've been talking about.

Steve Williams (27:49)
 Mine even pulled a Forbes article.

Tyson Mutrux (28:02)
 Here's what's fascinating.

One attorney is ranked first...

But only has a 3.4-star Yelp rating.

Meanwhile, there are attorneys with five-star ratings showing up underneath them.

So clearly the AI isn't just looking at star ratings.

It's weighing multiple signals together.

That's really interesting.

n it finds.

Steve Williams (28:32)
 Go back to that Yelp result for a second.

I want to see something.

She only has five reviews and a 3.4 rating on Yelp, but she's still being featured.

Tyson Mutrux (28:38)
 Exactly.

Then you've got these other firms with much better ratings.

That's what surprises me.

Vaidas Cikotas (29:04)
 And that's because ChatGPT isn't looking at one single signal.

It's pulling information from multiple places.

Steve Williams (29:09)
 Click over to that icon on the right.

Is that Wikipedia?

Tyson Mutrux (29:16)
 It is.

That's interesting.

We've got Yelp, Wikipedia, and multiple attorney directories all influencing the results.

Vaidas Cikotas (29:36)
 Let me show everyone something.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, ChatGPT actually tells you where it's pulling its information from.

Here you can see AVVO.

You can see Expertise.com.

You can even see Reddit showing up as one of the sources.

So the recommendations aren't random.

They're being built from information that's scattered all across the internet.

Now let's switch models.

Let's ask Claude the exact same question.

Tyson Mutrux (30:28)
 Good idea.

Vaidas Cikotas (30:31)
 We'll use the exact same prompt.

"Who is the best DUI lawyer in Dallas, Texas?"

Let's see what changes.

Tyson Mutrux (30:52)
 Make sure you show us your password while you're logging in.

Steve Williams (30:54)
 (Laughs.)

Vaidas Cikotas (31:06)
 All right...

Here we go.

Tyson Mutrux (31:26)
 I actually got a really interesting result on mine.

I'm curious to compare.

Vaidas Cikotas (31:36)
 Here's Claude.

Immediately you can see it's different.

We're getting maps.

Different attorneys.

Different rankings.

It looks like reviews are playing a larger role here.

The important point isn't necessarily who shows up.

The important point is that the results changed.

Tyson Mutrux (32:34)
 Let me show mine.

Mine starts by saying there really isn't an objective way to name one single "best" lawyer.

Then it lists Warren Abrams...

Randall Eisenberg...

Buck Johnson...

Benson Varghese...

Tim Clancy...

Robert Gregg.

What's interesting is where it's getting those answers.

Mine is pulling heavily from Justia.

Then it's pulling directly from attorneys' own websites.

That's a completely different set of sources than what ChatGPT was using.

Vaidas Cikotas (33:35)
 Now let's look at Gemini.

Tyson Mutrux (33:41)
 Let's do it.

Vaidas Cikotas (33:43)
 Give me just a second while I get it shared.

Steve Williams (34:16)
 I've already got mine up if you need it.

Vaidas Cikotas (34:28)
 I've got it.

Here we go.

Vaidas Cikotas (34:44)
 This is Gemini.

Again...

Different attorneys.

Different ordering.

Different map results.

But what's really interesting is that Gemini is showing the sources at the bottom.

Most of them are actually coming directly from the attorneys' own websites.

That reinforces something we've been saying this entire conversation.

Your website still matters.

A lot.

Steve Williams (35:07)
 Content is king.

Vaidas Cikotas (35:10)
 Exactly.

Your website remains the foundation.

But depending on which AI model someone is using, there are dozens of other sources that can influence whether you appear.

One model references attorney directories.

Another references Expertise.com.

Another pulls directly from firm websites.

Another may include Reddit discussions.

You don't know what the next source is going to be.

That's why this is such a moving target.

There are firms benefiting from these recommendations today that probably don't even realize they're being cited.

Tyson Mutrux (36:05)
 That's fascinating.

When I look at Gemini, I'm seeing many of the same attorneys...

But not all of them.

Some overlap.

Some completely different.

Again, there isn't one consistent answer.

Vaidas Cikotas (36:34)
 Exactly.

Google is naturally going to rely more heavily on Google's own ecosystem.

ChatGPT has its own ecosystem.

Claude has another.

That's why trying to optimize for only one platform doesn't really make sense.

You have to build authority everywhere.

Tyson Mutrux (37:02)
 All right.

Let's shift gears.

Let's talk about something practical.

If someone wants to make sure they're prepared for AI search...

What should they actually do?

Walk us through your GEO audit checklist.

Let's give everyone something they can implement.

Vaidas Cikotas (37:23)
 Absolutely.

There are several things every law firm should look at...

Vaidas Cikotas (37:23)
 There are a few things every law firm should look at, and honestly, some of them are really simple.

The first one is your homepage.

Can AI immediately understand what you do just by reading it?

Too many law firms have taglines like, "Fighting for Justice" or "Battling for What's Right."

Those sound nice, but they don't actually tell AI anything.

Instead, your homepage should clearly state exactly what you do and where you do it.

For example:

"Personal Injury Attorney Serving Dallas, Texas."

Be specific.

Think of your homepage like the cover of a book. It should immediately tell people—and AI—what the book is about.

The second thing is identity consistency.

Tyson, you joked earlier about how much of a pain this is, but it's incredibly important.

Your address...

Your phone number...

Your office suite...

Every listing needs to match.

If one directory says "Suite 200" and another says "#200," or one spells out "Avenue" while another abbreviates it to "Ave.," those tiny inconsistencies can create trust issues for AI.

Years ago we called this NAP consistency—Name, Address, Phone Number.

That still matters.

Your Google Business Profile.

The Better Business Bureau.

Attorney directories.

Everywhere your business appears online.

Vaidas Cikotas (38:55)
 The next piece is your attorney profiles.

Too many law firm websites have nothing more than a headshot and a short paragraph about hobbies.

"John enjoys fishing and spending time with his family."

That's nice...

But it doesn't help AI understand why someone should hire John.

Instead, highlight credentials.

Speaking engagements.

Publications.

Awards.

Professional memberships.

Super Lawyers.

AVVO ratings.

Everything that reinforces expertise.

Then prove your experience.

Don't simply say you've recovered millions.

Be specific.

Talk about actual case types.

Trial experience.

Years practicing.

Verdicts.

Settlements.

Specificity matters.

The more detail you provide, the easier it is for AI to understand what you're actually known for.

Then comes reputation.

Reviews matter.

Not just Google reviews.

Reviews everywhere.

If you only have one Yelp review...

Go get five.

If you have no reviews on Justia or AVVO...

Start asking for them.

Those platforms are becoming validation signals.

AI wants proof that other people trust you.

Your website alone isn't enough anymore.

The AI models are looking across the internet asking,

"Can anyone else verify what this attorney claims?"

That's what separates recommendations today.

Tyson Mutrux (41:02)
 And I'm better looking.

Does that count as a ranking factor?

Steve Williams (41:05)
 I think everyone already knows that's true.

Vaidas Cikotas (41:06)
 I'm sure there's some scale for that somewhere.

Steve Williams (41:09)
 Let me add one thing.

Traditional SEO asks,

"Who has the best content?"

AI asks,

"Who can I trust?"

That's the biggest shift.

Trust comes from simplicity.

Consistency.

Clarity.

If I were running a law firm today, one of the first things I'd create is an FAQ section.

Take the ten questions clients ask you most often...

Answer every one of them.

Put those answers on your website.

People using Google are searching for information.

People using ChatGPT are asking questions.

Those are different behaviors.

I've spent enough time using ChatGPT that it knows a tremendous amount about me.

It knows what I care about.

It knows my interests.

When I ask for a recommendation...

I'm inclined to trust it.

That's exactly how your potential clients are beginning to behave.

Vaidas Cikotas (42:54)
 And remember...

Those recommendations are still being built from your credentials, your website, and everything else we've been discussing.

You can spend more money than your competitors.

You can write more content.

You can outrank them in traditional search.

But you can't fake credibility.

You either have the experience...

Or you don't.

How many trials have you won?

How many verdicts?

How many years have you practiced?

Those are the things AI is beginning to value because they're difficult to manufacture.

That's why you can't simply buy your way to the top of AI recommendations.

Tyson Mutrux (43:36)
 I love that.

Before we wrap up, how can people get in touch with you if they're interested in working with Rise Up Media?

Vaidas Cikotas (43:45)
 We offer a completely free consultation.

No obligation.

We'll look under the hood of your website.

We'll show you what's working...

What's not...

What your competitors are doing...

And where you have opportunities to improve.

The easiest way to reach us is simply to call or text.

Steve Williams (44:20)
 You can reach me directly at 412-713-2764.

Vaidas Cikotas (44:25)
 Or you can call me at 704-953-7051.

We'll schedule a time, walk through everything together, and point you in the right direction.

Tyson Mutrux (44:39)
 One thing I really appreciate about you guys is that everything is month-to-month.

That's a huge differentiator.

We've had so many members of the Maximum Lawyer community work with you, and they absolutely love what you do.

The reason I wanted to have this conversation is because it's exactly the kind of discussion we're going to be having at MaxLawCon.

Marketing is changing.

AI is changing.

Business operations are changing.

Everything is evolving incredibly fast.

Vaidas Cikotas (45:22)
 Honestly, Tyson...

It's probably going to change again by next month.

Steve Williams (45:25)
 Maybe tomorrow.

Tyson Mutrux (45:27)
 You're probably right.

If you want to spend time with people like Steve and Vaidas—and really some of the smartest people in legal marketing, AI, operations, and law firm growth—make sure you check out MaxLawCon.

I really appreciate both of you taking the time to do this today.

There was a tremendous amount of value here.

Thank you both.

Vaidas Cikotas (45:52)
 Let me leave everyone with one final thought.

If someone is pitching you an AI package...

Or promising guaranteed AI rankings...

Get a second opinion.

There are a lot of people selling AI services right now simply because AI is the buzzword.

Many of those packages don't have much substance behind them.

We're always happy to take a look and tell you whether something actually makes sense before you spend money on it.

I'd be extremely cautious about signing long-term contracts with anyone claiming they can guarantee you'll dominate the AI search results.

Nobody has that figured out.

It's changing constantly.

There are definitely things you can do to improve your visibility, and we've talked about many of them today.

But nobody can honestly promise guaranteed placement.

Tyson Mutrux (46:58)
 That's great advice.

And just to confirm...

You still offer free website evaluations?

Vaidas Cikotas (47:12)
 Absolutely.

We're always happy to help.

Tyson Mutrux (47:17)
 Perfect.

Steve, Vaidas, thank you both again.

Really appreciate you coming on.

Unlock The Law Firm YouTube Accelerator Playbook

Get the complete, step‑by‑step system we use to turn YouTube into consistent, high‑value clients!
Button: Get Instant Access to the Playbook
We only send you awesome stuff =)
Privacy Policy
crosschevron-up linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram