Blog

AI-Augmented Legal Services: Pricing and Value Creation

July 29, 2025 

For decades, law firms have revolved around the familiar rhythm of the billable hour. Lawyers meticulously track their time, clients are invoiced by the minute, and value is measured primarily in hours spent rather than outcomes achieved. But artificial intelligence is starting to challenge this longstanding model, forcing firms to rethink not only how they work but also how they price and communicate the value of legal services.

Generative AI tools are dramatically transforming the delivery of legal work. Tasks that once required teams of junior lawyers—such as document review, contract analysis, due diligence, and regulatory research—can now be completed in a fraction of the time. The efficiency gains are striking: processes that would have consumed hundreds of human hours can now be condensed to a matter of hours or even minutes, without compromising accuracy. For clients, this shift means that the measure of value is no longer tied to hours logged, but to the outcomes delivered: risk mitigation, faster deal cycles, or a strategic advantage in litigation.

Counterintuitively, AI may also drive some of the most senior lawyer rates even higher. Experts predict that elite partners could eventually command fees as high as $10,000 per hour. This premium is not arbitrary; it reflects the way AI compresses routine work into actionable insights, allowing senior lawyers to focus exclusively on high-stakes decisions. In essence, AI magnifies the value of judgment: while machines handle the labor-intensive tasks, human expertise drives strategy, negotiation, and risk assessment. Clients are willing to pay for those decisive insights that machines alone cannot provide.

The evolution of AI in law is also reshaping pricing models. Fixed-fee structures are becoming more common for highly repeatable, AI-assisted tasks such as contract review or privilege screening. These arrangements give clients predictable costs while enabling firms to remain profitable, thanks to the efficiency gains provided by AI. Hybrid models are also emerging, where routine work is billed per unit or per document, while partner-led strategy and negotiation remain tied to hourly or outcome-based fees. Accelerated timelines further create opportunities for premium pricing, with clients willing to pay for faster delivery when AI compresses weeks of work into days. Beyond this, some firms are experimenting with value-based or success fees, where compensation is tied directly to measurable results, such as a successful regulatory approval, a closed deal, or a litigation victory.

Communicating the value of AI-enhanced legal services requires careful framing. Firms must demonstrate the difference between pre-AI and post-AI workflows, emphasizing improved accuracy, reduced risk, and faster delivery. Separating AI-driven work from human judgment is crucial, underscoring that premium fees reflect scarce expertise rather than machine output. Establishing transparent metrics—turnaround times, error rates, and cost savings—reinforces the value delivered and builds client trust in the new model.

Ultimately, AI is not the death of the billable hour; it is the death of undifferentiated hours. Law firms that embrace AI strategically can deliver higher-value services, optimize efficiency, and enhance client satisfaction. The firms that thrive will be those that shift client conversations from hours spent to outcomes achieved, designing pricing structures that capture both the efficiency of AI and the irreplaceable insight of human judgment. In this new era, legal services are measured not by time alone, but by the strategic value they create—an evolution that could redefine the business of law for decades to come.

The Consequences of AI Counseling: Risks, Ethics, and the Danger of Mistakes

July 15, 2025 

The New Frontier: AI as a Life Advisor

Artificial intelligence is rapidly entering roles once dominated by trusted human advisors. From relationship questions to career choices, from ethical dilemmas to financial decisions, people are increasingly turning to AI not just for information—but for guidance. Platforms like ChatGPT, Replika, and others are being used by millions for advice, reflection, and even moral direction.

While these tools offer unprecedented access to fast, personalized insights, the consequences of relying on AI for life advice are complex and, in many cases, underexamined. This article explores the legal and ethical risks of allowing machines to influence human decision-making—especially when mistakes are made and accountability is unclear.

The Appeal and the Illusion of Wisdom

AI systems are designed to mimic human communication, which can create the impression of intelligence, wisdom, or even trustworthiness. Users may begin to treat these systems as confidants or advisors, especially when responses appear thoughtful and context-aware.

But this illusion masks a critical truth: AI doesn’t understand, reflect, or reason in a human way. It generates responses based on patterns in data—not lived experience or moral judgment. When users act on AI-generated advice in areas such as business decisions, legal matters, or personal relationships, the consequences can be serious—and irreversible.

Mistakes That Matter

Because AI has no comprehension of context beyond what it is fed, it often gives advice that sounds plausible but is ultimately flawed, biased, or inappropriate. For example, an AI might encourage a user to take career risks without understanding their financial obligations. It might suggest ways to handle a conflict that, in reality, escalate the situation. It might even offer commentary on legal or ethical questions without knowing local laws or cultural norms.

When things go wrong—when a user loses a job, damages a relationship, or suffers reputational harm—the question becomes: who is responsible?

Legal Gray Zones and Lack of Accountability

The law has not yet caught up with the reality of AI-generated advice. Most AI platforms include broad disclaimers in their terms of service stating that the information provided is “not professional advice” and that users act at their own risk. While this may shield companies from liability in many jurisdictions, it doesn’t resolve the core issue: people often don't read or understand these disclaimers, and may assume a level of authority that the AI does not possess.

Unlike licensed professionals—such as attorneys, consultants, or financial advisors—AI entities have no legal duty of care. If they offer misleading or damaging advice, there is usually no path to legal recourse. This means users are left with the burden of interpreting, filtering, and vetting AI responses on their own, even when the advice appears credible.

Moreover, when AI is used in automated decision-making (e.g. helping someone choose whether to accept a job offer, end a business partnership, or confront a friend), those decisions may be influenced by opaque algorithms trained on biased or incomplete data. The user has no way of verifying whether the advice is grounded, responsible, or even relevant to their unique situation.

Data Usage and Informed Consent

Another key legal issue is how user data is collected and repurposed. Many people input personal, sensitive, or strategic information into AI platforms when seeking guidance. These interactions may be stored, used to train future models, or analyzed for commercial purposes. In many jurisdictions, this skirts the boundaries of data protection law.

For instance, under the EU’s GDPR, processing data related to personal beliefs, political opinions, or behavioral profiling requires clear, informed consent. Yet most AI counseling interfaces do not fully disclose how user data is used—or how long it’s retained. In the U.S., where privacy laws are fragmented and industry-specific, protections are even more limited.

This raises questions of digital ethics as well: should companies that develop AI systems be allowed to build future tools based on people's personal dilemmas, decisions, and vulnerabilities?

Ethics of Influence

Even when AI does not cause direct harm, it plays an increasingly powerful role in shaping how people think, feel, and act. The risk isn’t only that the AI gets something wrong—it’s that users start to offload responsibility for complex decisions onto systems that cannot be held morally or legally accountable.

This leads to what some ethicists call “outsourced agency.” When individuals begin to trust AI more than their own judgment, or use it to validate choices without critical reflection, the consequences can be socially and psychologically damaging. It also allows AI developers to quietly shape behavior on a massive scale, with little oversight or transparency.

The Need for Legal Guardrails

To mitigate these risks, legal frameworks must evolve to clearly define the boundaries of AI's advisory role. This could include requiring clear disclaimers and user education about the limitations of AI-generated advice. It may also mean establishing liability standards for cases where commercial AI systems cause demonstrable harm through negligent design, failure to warn, or the misuse of user data.

Additionally, regulators must consider how AI systems are trained and whether their underlying data reflects ethical standards. If an AI is giving advice on personal or social behavior, there must be accountability for how those norms are encoded—and who benefits from shaping them.

Final Thoughts: Advice Without Accountability

As AI becomes more sophisticated and widespread, it will increasingly occupy the gray space between helpful tool and trusted advisor. But unlike human counselors or mentors, AI does not bear the moral or legal weight of its influence. It offers guidance without responsibility, direction without context, and advice without empathy.

Until legal systems impose clearer rules, users must remember: no matter how convincing it sounds, AI is not a partner in decision-making. It is a machine predicting words. The responsibility for our choices—and their consequences—remains our own.

Senate Strikes AI Regulation Ban—States Regain Power to Innovate and Protect Workers 

July 1, 2025 

In a rare moment of near-unanimous bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate voted 99–1 on July 1 to remove a controversial provision from President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill that would have barred states and municipalities from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for the next decade. The decision not only removes a major obstacle to local governance but also reaffirms a central tenet of American democracy: that states must be free to serve as laboratories of innovation, especially in fast-moving and high-stakes arenas like AI.

The now-struck provision would have prohibited any “eligible entity or political subdivision” from enforcing AI-related regulations for ten years—effectively tying the hands of local lawmakers as AI rapidly transforms industries, workplaces, and communities. The language, introduced in the House and carried into the Senate’s version of the bill, was a blunt-force attempt to consolidate regulatory power at the federal level and freeze state efforts to protect consumers, workers, and civil rights.

Had it passed, the ban would have dismantled emerging efforts across the country to hold AI systems accountable for discriminatory outcomes in hiring, housing, healthcare, and beyond. Instead, thanks to a strong Senate rebuke led by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the provision is out—and states are back in the driver's seat.

A Ban in Disguise

Though couched in the language of technological advancement, the AI regulation moratorium was a clear effort to suppress state oversight. The provision sought to link $500 million in federal funding for AI infrastructure to a sweeping preemption clause that would have nullified any local law “limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating” AI or automated decision-making systems. It wasn’t just a policy preference—it was a power grab, one that could have created a federal vacuum in oversight for a decade or more.

The Trump administration has framed this approach as pro-innovation. Through new executive orders, the administration has explicitly focused on removing regulatory “barriers” to AI development and rescinded Biden-era efforts to build national guardrails around the technology. But innovation without accountability is a recipe for abuse—and that’s precisely what many states are trying to prevent.

States Are Already Acting—And They Should Be

From California to New York City, jurisdictions are moving swiftly to address the harms and risks associated with AI in real-world contexts. California has proposed rules clarifying that using automated decision systems in employment can still lead to unlawful discrimination under state law. New York City requires employers to audit AI hiring tools for bias. And Colorado and Illinois have both introduced legislation aimed at increasing transparency and oversight.

These efforts aren't anti-technology—they're about ensuring that technology serves the public good. In a field moving as fast as AI, top-down federal mandates—especially those designed to limit rather than guide regulation—are not just unhelpful; they’re dangerous.

Federalism Is Not a Flaw—It’s a Feature

The Senate’s overwhelming vote to remove the AI regulation ban isn’t just a procedural win. It’s a powerful reaffirmation of a system that allows diverse states to test ideas, take the lead, and provide tailored solutions for their residents. Where one state might lead with worker protections, another might focus on innovation incentives. Together, they form a dynamic feedback loop that informs better, smarter national policy.

The ban’s removal sends a clear message: the future of AI governance will not be written by a single administration or bound by a decade-long freeze on local action. Instead, it will be shaped by a vibrant, ongoing dialogue between states, cities, technologists, lawmakers, and the communities they serve.

Looking Ahead

The larger bill passed narrowly—51 to 50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. But the decisive vote to strike the AI moratorium shows that there’s still a broad consensus in Congress, across party lines, that states matter—and so does their ability to lead.

Employers and tech developers should take note. State-level regulation of AI is not only here to stay—it’s gaining momentum. As the legal landscape evolves, it’s critical to stay engaged, stay informed, and recognize that responsible innovation requires partnership—not preemption.

Let’s hope this is the end of attempts to silence the states. The challenges of AI demand diverse solutions, and the Senate just cleared the path for them.

Why Small Businesses Can’t Afford Not to Have Legal Counsel

June 17, 2025 

For many small business owners, legal support is often seen as something reserved for large companies with deep pockets. When budgets are tight and priorities are competing, legal services tend to be pushed to the bottom of the list—somewhere between redesigning the website and finally organizing the back office. But here's the reality: choosing to delay or skip legal guidance isn’t just risky—it can be a costly mistake that undermines everything you’ve worked hard to build.

Every day, small business owners make decisions that carry legal implications. Whether it’s hiring a new employee, entering into a vendor agreement, signing a lease, updating a website, or bringing on an investor, each of these moments can carry hidden risks. And while you may not see the consequences immediately, legal oversights have a way of surfacing when you least expect it—and when they do, they can threaten the very existence of your business.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions among small business owners is the idea that legal protection is a luxury they simply can’t afford. But in truth, it’s not a question of whether you can afford legal counsel—it’s a question of whether you can afford to be without it. Most legal problems are avoidable. They don’t start with a dramatic lawsuit or a regulatory fine. They start with a contract that wasn’t reviewed, a regulation that wasn’t understood, or a conversation that should have been guided by legal counsel. Left unchecked, these issues grow, evolve, and often explode at the worst possible time.

That’s where the concept of Outside General Counsel comes in.

Hiring a full-time, in-house attorney may not be realistic for a small business. The salary, benefits, and overhead simply aren’t justifiable for a company still managing its cash flow carefully. But there is an alternative: Outside General Counsel gives your business access to an experienced legal advisor on a fractional basis. You don’t pay for a full-time position—you pay only for what you need, when you need it.

This means that, instead of crossing your fingers and hoping things go smoothly, you can pick up the phone or send an email when something important crosses your desk. You can have contracts reviewed before you sign them, talk through sensitive employee matters with legal insight, and receive timely advice that helps you avoid missteps. You can run your business with the comfort of knowing there’s a professional in your corner—someone who understands your goals and is helping you protect them.

Outside General Counsel isn't just for emergency legal help. It's a relationship built on consistency and trust. When a lawyer is involved regularly, even just a few hours a month, they learn the ins and outs of your company. That knowledge allows them to provide far more valuable, strategic advice than a lawyer who is brought in after the fact to clean up a mess.

In short, having regular access to legal counsel isn’t about being “extra careful”—it’s about being a smart business owner. The real cost isn't the attorney's hourly rate. The real cost is in lawsuits, penalties, lost deals, broken relationships, and missed opportunities that could have been avoided with timely legal advice.

If you're running a small business and thinking that legal support is something you’ll look into “when things get more serious,” consider this: things are already serious. Your company deserves the protection and guidance that will keep it thriving—not just surviving. Outside General Counsel gives you a way to do that—on your terms, and within your budget.

How AI Is Changing Commercial Litigation—And What Smart Business Owners Need to Do Now

June 3, 2025 

Artificial intelligence is no longer the future—it’s the present. And in the world of commercial litigation, it’s reshaping the terrain faster than most business owners realize. From predictive analytics to AI-assisted discovery, the litigation landscape is evolving in ways that reward those who move quickly—and penalize those who cling to outdated systems.

For years, litigation has been synonymous with inefficiency: overstuffed filing rooms, endless billable hours, and discovery processes that moved at the speed of bureaucracy. But as AI technologies are deployed across the legal ecosystem, that reality is being upended. What was once slow, expensive, and reactive is becoming fast, lean, and strategic.

The most forward-thinking businesses are already taking note—and adjusting accordingly. Because those that do will not only reduce risk and litigation costs but will position themselves to turn legal strategy into competitive advantage.

A Revolution in Speed and Scale

One of the most profound impacts AI is having on commercial litigation is in the speed and scale of document review and fact-finding. Traditionally, the discovery phase could account for a significant portion of the litigation timeline—and budget. Attorneys and paralegals would manually comb through thousands or even millions of documents to uncover relevant facts, privileged materials, and potential smoking guns.

Now, machine learning tools can parse that same volume of information in a fraction of the time. AI systems trained on language models can identify key patterns, relationships, and outliers across vast data sets—including emails, contracts, internal memos, and financial reports. What used to take teams of professionals several weeks now takes hours, with greater accuracy and less human error.

This is not merely about efficiency. It’s about power. The litigant who understands the facts earlier in the case—who knows which documents matter and what the data is saying—has a tremendous strategic advantage. In a high-stakes dispute, that advantage can mean the difference between early resolution and drawn-out litigation.

From Guesswork to Litigation Intelligence

Beyond data review, AI is unlocking a new era of litigation intelligence. Predictive analytics platforms are now capable of assessing the likelihood of success in litigation, based on hundreds of variables—from jurisdiction and judge to claim type and party behavior. These platforms are not infallible, but they offer actionable insights that were previously unavailable.

Business owners who understand how to harness this intelligence can make more informed decisions about whether to pursue claims, settle early, or fight to the finish. AI can now forecast which arguments are most likely to resonate with a particular judge, how long a case might take to resolve, and what settlement ranges are statistically common for similar disputes. In short, AI is shifting litigation strategy from art to science.

This shift is profound. In the past, litigation often unfolded with a sense of fog—nobody really knew where things would land. Today, that fog is lifting. And those who can see clearly will outmaneuver those who cannot.

Contracts, Risk, and the New Preventative Model

But perhaps the most disruptive aspect of AI’s role in commercial litigation is what happens before litigation begins. Increasingly, AI is being used to monitor contractual obligations, flag high-risk provisions, and alert legal teams to non-compliance in real time. Contract intelligence platforms can ingest a company’s entire contract portfolio and provide insight into which terms are out of market, which renewal dates are approaching, and which clauses could trigger disputes.

This is where the real paradigm shift is happening. Litigation is no longer just something that happens to companies. With the right tools, litigation becomes something companies can predict—and prevent.

Imagine knowing, before your counterparty defaults, that your contract contains a weak enforcement clause. Imagine being alerted automatically that a subcontractor is falling behind on obligations, based on email communication patterns and billing discrepancies. AI makes this kind of proactive legal risk management possible—and for businesses operating in complex commercial environments, it is a game-changer.

Why This Matters Now

Many business owners believe they can leave AI innovation to the legal industry or trust that their outside counsel is staying ahead of the curve. That’s a dangerous assumption. Not all firms are embracing AI, and not all lawyers are equipped to translate technological capability into litigation advantage.

This means that as AI accelerates change in the legal landscape, business owners must take ownership of their legal strategy. They must ensure their legal teams—both in-house and external—are equipped with the tools, technology, and mindset to litigate and negotiate in the AI era.

It’s not just about asking your attorney whether they use AI tools. It’s about choosing legal partners who understand how to leverage technology to reduce exposure, control costs, and position your business for success. The law firm of the future isn’t defined by headcount or office space—it’s defined by how intelligently it uses data.

The Competitive Edge Is Legal Foresight

Smart companies are no longer just investing in operations, marketing, and sales. They’re investing in legal foresight. They understand that legal risk is financial risk—and that proactive, AI-informed legal strategy can generate real economic value.

The businesses thriving in this new environment aren’t just reacting to legal challenges. They’re using litigation analytics to identify patterns across their industry, refine contract templates, assess vendors, and even shape negotiation strategy. They’re turning litigation from a cost center into a source of insight—and, in some cases, revenue recovery.

The old playbook is obsolete. Commercial litigation is no longer about who has the most lawyers or the biggest war chest. It’s about who has the smartest data, the fastest insights, and the clearest view of what’s coming next.

AI has changed the game. The only question is: are you playing by the new rules?

Business Divorce: Ending a Toxic Partnership Without Destroying the Company

May 20, 2025 

Not all business partnerships are meant to last. What starts as a shared vision can, over time, devolve into conflict, misalignment, and mistrust. When a partnership becomes toxic, continuing to operate side by side can do more harm than good—not only to the individuals involved but to the company as a whole.

For professional services firms, family-owned companies, and co-owned LLCs, the consequences of a messy split are especially serious. These types of businesses are often built on personal relationships, long-term reputations, and deeply intertwined roles. A poorly managed separation can damage everything.

But a “business divorce” doesn’t have to end in flames. With the right approach, it’s possible to part ways without burning down the company.

Knowing When It’s Time

Most partnerships don’t fall apart overnight. Tension builds slowly—disagreements over strategy become more frequent, communication breaks down, and mutual trust erodes. Sometimes one partner carries more of the load. Sometimes personal relationships interfere with business decisions. And sometimes, people simply grow in different directions.

Ignoring these issues rarely helps. Over time, unresolved conflict can impact morale, disrupt operations, and even threaten the financial stability of the business. When a partnership becomes a source of constant friction, it may be time to consider a separation—not out of failure, but as a strategic move to protect the business and the people within it.

Understand the Framework Before You Act

Before moving forward, it’s important to understand the legal and financial framework governing your business. This means reviewing any partnership agreements, operating agreements, or shareholder arrangements that define how ownership changes are handled. These documents often contain critical details—such as buyout clauses, valuation procedures, or dispute resolution processes—that can significantly shape your options.

In family businesses or informally structured partnerships, such documentation may be missing or outdated. That’s when it becomes especially important to consult with legal and financial advisors who can help clarify the rights and obligations of each party, and map out the most viable path forward.

A Legal Perspective: The Importance of Proper Documentation

From a legal standpoint, the smoothest exits tend to occur when proper governance documents are already in place. For LLCs, this usually means a well-drafted operating agreement that outlines the process for voluntary or involuntary withdrawal, member buyouts, and dispute resolution. For partnerships and closely held corporations, a buy-sell agreement can be critical—it may specify who can buy a departing partner’s interest, how to calculate a fair value, and under what circumstances a forced sale might occur. In the absence of these agreements, default state laws will apply, and that can lead to unpredictable—and often expensive—outcomes. For example, some states require judicial dissolution of the entire business if co-owners reach an impasse. This is why it's essential to revisit and update governance documents regularly, especially when roles, contributions, or ownership stakes change.

Keep Emotions in Check—And Strategy Front and Center

Toxic partnerships are often emotionally charged, and that emotional intensity can lead to reactive decision-making. One of the most important steps in navigating a business divorce is creating space for objectivity. That means taking a step back, assessing the situation clearly, and focusing on long-term outcomes rather than short-term frustrations.

Independent advisors—such as mediators, attorneys, or business consultants—can be instrumental in helping partners move from conflict to clarity. They can help assess the value of the business, clarify exit options, and guide negotiations in a way that prioritizes the health of the company.

In some cases, one partner may buy out the other’s interest. In others, the business may be split or sold. Sometimes, a more creative solution—such as spinning off a new entity or shifting one partner into a passive role—can resolve the tension while preserving what’s been built.

Transition Carefully—Internally and Externally

Once a separation strategy is agreed upon, careful execution is key. Employees need clarity and reassurance. Clients need to know the business will continue to operate effectively. Vendors and partners need to understand who is now responsible for key decisions. Poor communication during a transition can cause confusion, anxiety, and even loss of business. A thoughtful and coordinated message—delivered at the right time—can make all the difference.

Internally, leadership should reaffirm the company’s direction and values. Externally, messaging should focus on continuity and stability, while maintaining confidentiality and professionalism regarding the change in ownership or leadership.

Rebuild and Regain Momentum

A successful business divorce creates space for new energy and renewed focus. For the partner who remains, it’s an opportunity to redefine the company’s goals, adjust the leadership structure, and rebuild morale. For the partner who exits, it can be a chance to pursue other ventures, take on new challenges, or simply reclaim peace of mind.

In either case, the experience offers valuable lessons—about communication, structure, governance, and the importance of alignment. The key is to move forward with intention, armed with the insight that comes from having weathered a difficult transition well.

Conclusion

Ending a toxic business partnership is never easy. But with clear thinking, careful planning, and the right guidance, it is entirely possible to exit a bad partnership without destroying the company in the process. For professional services firms, family businesses, and co-owned LLCs, taking action early—and strategically—can mean the difference between an implosion and a fresh start.

If you're seeing the signs, don’t wait until conflict consumes the business. The sooner you take control of the process, the better your chances of preserving what matters—and emerging stronger on the other side

Your Business Partner Just Went Rogue—What Now?

May 6, 2025  

Running a business with a partner is often like a marriage: it’s built on trust, aligned goals, and mutual effort. But when a business partner suddenly stops communicating, makes decisions behind your back, or starts acting in their own interest instead of the company’s, that partnership can quickly turn into a legal battleground.

If your partner has gone rogue, it is critical to understand your legal options and act strategically. In most cases, this situation involves a breach of fiduciary duty—one of the most serious claims that can arise between business partners—and may require prompt legal intervention to prevent further harm to the business.

Identifying the Problem

When things begin to go off track, the signs are rarely subtle. A partner may start withholding financial information, engaging in side deals, misusing company resources, or operating a competing business. These actions often violate the legal obligations that partners owe each other. Under the law, partners have fiduciary duties, including the duty of loyalty, the duty of care, and the duty to act in good faith and fair dealing. These duties are not optional—they are enforceable, and a breach can give rise to serious legal claims.

What the Law Requires

A partner must prioritize the interests of the business over personal gain. Taking company opportunities for oneself, misappropriating funds, or making decisions without the knowledge or consent of other partners can all constitute breaches. In many states, including New York, these fiduciary duties are clearly defined by both statute and case law, and courts do not take violations lightly.

Assessing Your Legal Position

When faced with a rogue partner, the first step is to review your partnership or operating agreement. Many of these agreements contain procedures for resolving disputes, removing a partner, or handling deadlock situations. If you do not have a written agreement, state default laws will control, which can vary in how they address internal disputes.

It is also important to begin documenting the situation carefully. Save emails, financial statements, unauthorized agreements, and any other evidence of misconduct. If discussions with your partner are possible, consider addressing the issue directly—preferably with counsel present or involved. However, if your partner is hostile or unresponsive, it may be time to consider more formal legal remedies.

Litigation and Legal Remedies

If the rogue conduct has caused financial damage, exposed the company to legal risk, or undermined the trust necessary to continue operating, you may need to pursue litigation. Common claims include breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, or conversion (theft of business assets). In extreme cases, you may petition the court to dissolve the business, request an accounting, or seek an injunction to stop harmful conduct.

The decision to litigate should not be taken lightly, but neither should ongoing misconduct. Delay can weaken your position, particularly if it allows further damage to the company or complicates your ability to recover assets.

Looking Ahead

Ultimately, the best way to prevent future disputes is to plan for them before they arise. A comprehensive, carefully drafted partnership or operating agreement can set clear expectations, establish mechanisms for dispute resolution, and outline procedures for things like buyouts, decision-making authority, and succession. If your business does not already have one, consider working with legal counsel to create or update the agreement before issues arise.

Final Thoughts

Discovering that your business partner has gone rogue is never easy. It is emotional, disruptive, and potentially damaging to everything you’ve worked to build. But with the right legal guidance and a proactive approach, you can assert your rights, protect your investment, and regain control of your business. Whether resolution comes through negotiation or litigation, swift and informed action is the key to protecting your future.

If you are dealing with a partnership dispute or need legal advice on internal business conflicts, our team is here to help. Reach out today for a confidential consultation.

Litigation vs. Arbitration vs. Mediation: What’s Right for Your Business Dispute?

April 22, 2025  

Business disputes are nearly inevitable, whether they stem from contract disagreements, partnership breakdowns, or vendor issues. When tensions escalate and resolution becomes necessary, business owners are often faced with three main options: litigation, arbitration, or mediation. Each approach has distinct characteristics, and choosing the right one can significantly impact the outcome, both financially and relationally.

Litigation is the most formal route, involving a public trial before a judge, and sometimes a jury. This method follows a strict set of rules and procedures and typically includes phases like discovery, motion practice, and trial. One of the key advantages of litigation is the ability to create a public record and set legal precedent, which can be important in high-stakes or complex matters. Courts also offer the right to appeal, providing an additional layer of review if the outcome is unfavorable. However, litigation tends to be slow and costly. Cases can drag on for years, and the process often exposes sensitive business information to the public. It's generally best suited for situations where other forms of resolution have failed, or where formal judgment and public accountability are essential.

Arbitration, by contrast, is a more private and often faster process. In arbitration, a neutral third party—or sometimes a panel—acts like a private judge, listening to both sides and issuing a binding decision. Many commercial contracts include arbitration clauses that require disputes to be resolved this way, especially in industries where confidentiality and efficiency are highly valued. Unlike litigation, arbitration allows for more flexible procedures and scheduling. While the decision is usually final and enforceable, appeal options are limited, and the cost can be significant, particularly if a panel of arbitrators is involved. Arbitration works well when both parties want a binding resolution but prefer to avoid the formality and publicity of court proceedings.

Mediation is the most informal of the three and is centered on collaboration rather than confrontation. It involves a neutral mediator who facilitates discussion between the parties in hopes of reaching a mutually agreeable solution. The mediator does not make a decision but instead guides the conversation, helping the parties explore options and understand each other’s perspectives. Mediation is private, relatively quick, and inexpensive compared to litigation or arbitration. It is also the only method that allows the parties themselves to control the outcome, rather than placing it in the hands of a judge or arbitrator. However, because it’s non-binding unless a formal agreement is reached, mediation only works if both parties are genuinely open to compromise. It’s especially valuable when preserving a long-term business relationship is a priority.

Choosing the right path depends on a number of factors. Consider how quickly you want a resolution, whether confidentiality is a concern, how much you're prepared to spend, and whether you need a final, enforceable decision. It’s also crucial to review any existing contracts, as many include clauses that dictate the method of dispute resolution to be used.

In the end, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Litigation, arbitration, and mediation each offer unique benefits and limitations. Understanding how they work—and when each is appropriate—can help business owners navigate disputes strategically, saving time, money, and relationships along the way.

If you’re facing a business dispute and unsure which direction to take, it’s wise to consult with a legal advisor who can help you evaluate your options and choose a strategy that aligns with your business goals.

Honoring Corporate Promises: The Legal Risks and Consumer Protection in the Wake of Rivian's Failures

Apr 8, 2025 

In the world of consumer protection and corporate ethics, there is a simple yet profound truth: companies must keep their promises. When they fail to do so, especially when those promises are tied to critical aspects of a product's functionality, consumers are left vulnerable—and often legally empowered. Rivian, the electric vehicle (EV) startup that once captured the imagination of early adopters with promises of Level 3 autonomy, is now finding itself at the heart of legal scrutiny for failing to deliver on that very vision.

Rivian’s initial pitch in 2020 was ambitious, bold, and captivating: “Level 3 autonomy will be available on every Rivian vehicle.” It was a statement that suggested Rivian’s EVs would, in a short time, provide the dream of hands-off, eyes-off driving. The idea was simple—Rivian would take care of the driving, and the driver could sit back and enjoy the ride. For many, it was not just a marketing line but a core element of the vehicle's appeal.

However, as time passed, those promises began to unravel. Early buyers of the R1T and R1S models discovered that the vehicles they received did not, in fact, include the necessary hardware to support Level 3 autonomy. Even worse, Rivian made no significant efforts to retroactively upgrade the hardware or offer a clear path to fulfilling their initial promises. Unlike Tesla, which retrofitted older models with new sensors during hardware shortages, Rivian has remained silent on this issue, frustrating early adopters and creating a brewing storm of dissatisfaction.

This scenario illustrates an important concept in consumer law: when a company makes specific promises, particularly in advertising or during pre-sale promotions, and fails to follow through, it opens itself up to legal risks. Rivian’s failure to deliver on its Level 3 autonomy claim, a feature that formed the centerpiece of its initial pitch, may lead to significant legal consequences.

The Legal Landscape: Breach of Contract and Fraud in the Inducement

When companies fail to fulfill their promises, they may be held accountable for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, or a combination of both. Breach of contract is a straightforward claim in cases where a consumer has entered into an agreement—such as purchasing a vehicle—based on certain representations, only to find those representations unfulfilled. In Rivian’s case, the company marketed its vehicles with the promise of Level 3 autonomy, a feature that would have influenced purchasing decisions. If Rivian’s vehicles were sold with the clear intent to include this capability, the failure to deliver on that promise may constitute a breach of contract.

In addition to breach of contract claims, there is also the potential for fraud in the inducement. Fraudulent inducement occurs when a company intentionally misrepresents or exaggerates claims to entice consumers into making a purchase. Rivian’s marketing of Level 3 autonomy as a guaranteed feature could be viewed as a form of fraudulent inducement if it was presented in a manner that misled consumers into believing it was an immediate and unambiguous feature of the vehicles they were buying. The legal ramifications of such claims can be severe, leading to not only monetary damages but also reputational harm and further legal complications.

Consumer Protection Statutes: GBL 349, GBL 350, and State Equivalents

In addition to standard legal claims like breach of contract and fraud, companies like Rivian are also bound by consumer protection laws designed to safeguard consumers from deceptive business practices. In states like New York, the General Business Law (GBL) sections 349 and 350 provide consumers with a powerful toolkit to challenge misleading advertising and deceptive business practices.

GBL 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. If Rivian’s representations regarding Level 3 autonomy were found to be misleading or deceptive, affected consumers could potentially file claims under this statute. GBL 350 similarly targets false advertising, making it illegal for businesses to engage in misleading advertisements that could harm consumers.

Many other states have similar laws in place, which provide consumers the ability to challenge companies over unfulfilled promises, especially when those promises relate to the core attributes of a product. These consumer protection laws empower consumers to seek compensation for their losses, file class actions, and hold companies accountable for their marketing tactics. With the growing number of dissatisfied Rivian customers, the company could face substantial legal risks if its failure to deliver on its autonomy promise is seen as a violation of these statutes.

The Road Ahead: Legal Troubles and the Potential for Massive Lawsuits

As Rivian faces increasing backlash from early buyers who feel misled, the company is now at risk of significant legal challenges. Customers who purchased their vehicles based on the promise of Level 3 autonomy now have the opportunity to file class-action lawsuits, asserting claims of breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and violations of consumer protection laws. Given the wide-reaching nature of the company’s promises, these lawsuits could escalate quickly and potentially involve thousands of affected consumers.

Moreover, the lack of a proactive response from Rivian, especially when compared to Tesla’s efforts to retrofit older vehicles with upgraded hardware, could intensify the legal fallout. While Rivian may argue that global supply chain issues and pandemic-related delays were out of their control, their failure to offer any retrofitting or remediation options for affected customers could be seen as a failure to act in good faith—a key factor in many legal disputes.

A Call for Accountability and the Importance of Trust

The case of Rivian serves as a reminder of the delicate relationship between businesses and consumers, and the crucial role that promises—whether verbal or written—play in maintaining that trust. While technological setbacks are inevitable in any industry, transparency and accountability are critical when managing consumer expectations. Rivian has an opportunity to salvage its reputation by addressing its failures head-on, acknowledging the shortfall in its promises, and offering solutions for affected customers.

Failing to do so, however, could result in long-term legal consequences. Rivian must recognize that the trust it built with its early adopters is just as valuable as the technology behind its vehicles. As consumer protection laws continue to evolve and empower buyers, companies like Rivian must be vigilant in honoring their promises—before they find themselves facing massive legal battles that could tarnish their brand for years to come.