TLOMA Today

Welcome back Team TLOMA!

Fresh off another invigorating conference – a HUGE THANK YOU to our conference committee:

• Amanda Hinsperger, 2026 Conference Chair
• Brad Keenan, 2026 Vice Conference Chair
• Rachael Bruce
• Joanne Gibson-Davis
• Dawn Millar
• Emily Moore
• Rachel Rivas
• Alison Russell
• & of course not forgetting TLOMA’s very own dream team: Karen Gerhardt & Courtenay Brodie!

The speakers were fresh, the topics were engaging and it struck just the right balance between educational and fun! To all who attended, it was fantastic to spend time with you and share ideas, horror stories, sangrias, and more! To those who could not make it, we hope to see you next year!

What TLOMA Means to You

At the start of conference I put out a call to our attendees to post in the conference app what TLOMA means to them and here are a few that stuck out:

“Knowing I’m not alone in facing the trials and tribulations, but also the joys and triumphs that come with working in legal.” Rebecca Cardo, Barriston Law

“Connecting and sharing stories with people who get what you experience professionally.” Tomis Saric, Travers Law Professional Corporation

“Keeping up to date on new technologies, and meeting new and old friends.” Patricia Larocque, Pavey Law LLP

What Rebecca, Tomis and Patricia have touched on is truly the heart of what makes TLOMA special. We hope these sentiments resonate with you and that you will all continue to take part in helping grow TLOMA for years to come.

Upcoming Events

October is a busy month for education:

• October 7 – Technology SIG: From Policy to Practice: Putting AI to Work in Your Firm
• October 21 – HR SIG: Thriving Through Change: Why some teams grow stronger through change, while others fall behind. This session will be led by Certified Emotional Intelligence Practitioner Shannon Talbot and is one not to miss!
• October 28 - Finance SIG: Topic & Speaker TBA

Wishing everyone a lovely October and a Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate. Team TLOMA, ‘til we meet again next month!

Multifactor authentication (MFA) is a top cybersecurity safeguard for Ontario law firms. By requiring a second form of verification, you can stop an attacker who has stolen an employee’s password. But cybercriminals have adapted, and some phishing techniques can now bypass certain types of MFA.

Microsoft highlighted that risk in March 2026 when it reported on Tycoon2FA, a phishing-as-a-service operation used to impersonate Microsoft 365, Outlook, OneDrive, SharePoint, Gmail, and other trusted services. This platform used adversary-in-the-middle phishing to intercept login credentials and then impersonate the user. What’s even more alarming is that sometimes they maintain access even after a password change.

For law firms entrusted with confidential communications and records, the message is clear: while using MFA is important, you need to be careful with your approach.

How Attackers Get Past Traditional MFA

Traditional MFA usually asks you to prove your identity with something beyond a password. Depending on the system, that second check may be a text message, a code from an authentication app, or an approval prompt sent to a mobile device. These methods are safer than password-only access, but some can still be intercepted or manipulated.

Adversary in the Middle Phishing

One method attackers use is called adversary-in-the-middle phishing. Instead of sending you to a basic fake login page, the attacker places a fraudulent site between you and the legitimate service. You enter your username and password, and the fake site relays that information to the real Microsoft 365 login page. When Microsoft asks for your second authentication factor, the fraudulent page relays that request back to you.

If you enter an MFA code or approve the login, the attacker can capture the authenticated session. In some attacks, this includes stealing a session cookie that tells Microsoft the user has already completed authentication. The attacker may then access the account without having to complete MFA again for that session.

MFA Fatigue and Help Desk Impersonation

Attackers also use MFA fatigue. They trigger repeated authentication prompts in the hope that an employee eventually taps “approve” simply to stop the notifications. With another strategy, known as help desk impersonation, a caller posing as IT support may tell an employee that a security problem requires them to approve a login request, provide a code, or visit a fraudulent sign-in page.

These attacks rely heavily on human behaviour. That means your firm’s security controls need to account for what happens after a password is stolen, not only what happens at the login screen.

Why Ontario Law Firms Are Attractive Targets

The answer is simple: law firms hold information that attackers can monetize or use for fraud. Email accounts may contain settlement discussions, banking instructions, client records, litigation documents, identification information, and internal financial data. A compromised Microsoft 365 account can also give an attacker access to SharePoint, OneDrive, Teams, and other connected services, depending on the user’s permissions.

Once an attacker controls an email account, they may monitor correspondence, study payment patterns, and wait for an opportunity to send fraudulent wire instructions or payment requests. Because the message comes from a legitimate account, employees and clients may be less likely to question it.

The risk increases when senior lawyers, finance staff, administrators, or IT personnel have broad account privileges. A compromised user with elevated access can give an attacker a larger reach across the firm’s systems. That’s why MFA should be paired with access controls, monitoring, and policies that limit privileges to what each person needs for their role.

For TLOMA members, this isn’t solely an IT issue. Office administrators, finance leaders, HR professionals, and operations teams all influence how accounts are created, permissions are assigned, vendors are approved, and employees respond to suspicious requests. Cybersecurity decisions now affect daily law firm operations as directly as accounting systems, staffing procedures, and document management.

What Phishing-Resistant MFA Does Differently

Phishing-resistant MFA reduces the chance that an employee can be tricked into revealing a usable authentication factor. Instead of relying on a code that can be copied or an approval prompt that can be accepted, it uses authentication methods tied to the legitimate website or device.

Passkeys are one example. They use cryptographic credentials stored on a trusted device and can verify that the user is signing in to the real service rather than a fraudulent copy. Hardware security keys work in a similar way by requiring possession of a physical device that communicates with the legitimate login system.

This matters because an attacker can reproduce the appearance of a Microsoft sign-in page, but they can’t make a phishing site behave like the real Microsoft domain during a phishing-resistant authentication exchange. If the domain doesn’t match, the authentication attempt fails instead of handing the attacker a reusable code.

Law firms don’t need to replace every authentication method at once. A practical starting point is to prioritize accounts with elevated privileges, financial authority, access to sensitive client information, or responsibility for IT administration. From there, the firm can expand phishing-resistant MFA to other users while retiring weaker options such as SMS codes and simple push approvals where possible.

What Law Firm Managers Should Review Now

A law firm’s MFA settings shouldn’t be treated as a one-time IT project. Authentication methods, account privileges, employee roles, and cyber threats change. TLOMA members can help by making identity security part of regular operational reviews with internal IT teams or managed service providers.

Review Current MFA Methods

Start by asking which MFA methods your firm currently permits. If employees can still authenticate through SMS codes, voice calls, or basic push notifications, determine where stronger options can replace them.

Create an Action Plan

Your firm should know who can revoke active sessions, reset credentials, disable an account, review sign-in activity, and preserve records for investigation. Changing a password may not end an attacker’s access if a stolen session token remains active.

Conduct Employee Training

Staff should know that an unexpected MFA prompt can indicate that someone already has their password. They should report unexplained authentication requests rather than approve them, and IT staff should verify identity before resetting credentials or changing authentication methods.

Review Account Permissions

Employees should have access only to the systems and information required for their jobs. When someone changes roles or leaves the firm, permissions should be updated promptly. Limiting account privileges can reduce how far an attacker can reach if one login is compromised.

MFA Is One Part of Identity Security

MFA remains an important safeguard, but Ontario law firms need to look beyond the simple question of whether it has been enabled. The better question is which authentication methods your firm uses, which accounts have the greatest access, and how quickly your team can respond when a login attempt looks suspicious.

Phishing-resistant MFA can reduce the risk posed by stolen passwords, fake login pages, MFA fatigue, and intercepted authentication sessions. Pairing it with tighter permissions, sign-in monitoring, employee training, and a tested response plan gives your firm a stronger defence against account takeover. If your firm hasn’t reviewed its MFA configuration recently, now is a good time to find out where weaker authentication methods remain and which accounts should be upgraded first.

My five-part "The Law Firm" series frames issues and proposes solutions to the global legal service market's juggernaut triplets – Artificial Intelligence, Pricing, and Talent Transience.  

For some unfathomable reason, many law firms have tended not to run as businesses, choosing instead to emphasize top line revenue rather than bottom line profitability.

This is one of the reasons why many law firms have historically considered themselves to be successful. Ironically, it is also why law firm mergers and acquisitions have increased with the speed of summer lightning of late as have insolvencies and failures.

The Juggernaut Triplets

The juggernaut triplets – artificial intelligence, pricing, and talent transience – have been impacting the global legal service market’s unbusinesslike methodology and operational peculiarity for some time, but not with the intensity we have been experiencing to date.

Pressure and intensity are increasing exponentially to the point where, by 2030, the global legal services sector will operate much differently than it does now.

For the past 10 of my almost 30 years as a consultant in the legal services industry, I have been writing legal market strategy and management opinion columns, and speaking at conferences and retreats about the impacts of these juggernaut triplets as well as the need for both business and sector restructuring that is critical for survival.

Publishing the Package

Since publishing "The Law Firm Pyramid Rollover" in Fall 2025, this massive and at times, overwhelming topic has taken on a life of its own becoming a series of five columns each with its own take on specific bet-the-business issues and recommended solutions.

Having published these columns over the last 10 months, I have combined them into this package.

"The Law Firm" columns are presented in order of published appearance to provide logical thinking and sequencing, while enabling them to be findable in one place and easily accessible.

Each piece contains links to other columns and writings of both mine and others, as well as resources that may prove helpful.

Do with this material what you will.

For my part, within this series I have endeavoured to do what I am known for – frame critical issues and propose prescriptive solutions.

"The Law Firm" Five-Part Series

1.  The Law Firm Pyramid Rollover

Artificial intelligence, pricing, and transience of the legal service sector’s workforce will cause the traditional law firm pyramid structure to rollover like an upending iceberg, and by 2030, global legal services will operate much differently than they do now.

2.  The Law Firm Private Equity Puzzle

Private equity is now a major and, in many cases, deciding factor to enable solvency and structural reformation, and is forcing law firms to choose if and how they meet demands of clients and the legal market itself.

3.  The Law Firm Disappearing Act

Disappearing acts pertaining to people, skills and talents have always happened every few years in the global legal services market as the sector continually refreshes itself. But disappearing has never been more prevalent than it has been of late and will become even more common in months and years to come. Act now.

4.  The Law Firm Foundational Rebuild

The legal services sector is in for rough times for the foreseeable future after which we will see a rebirth of legal services entities that bear little resemblance to those operating in the market currently. This is why your firm’s foundational rebuild must happen now.

5.  The Law Firm Inflection Point

The troika of artificial intelligence, pricing, and talent transience has been with us for some time now. As a result, traditional pyramid-structured law firms grappling with these bet-the-business juggernauts are at an inflection point. I propose a flatter way forward.

By this point in the series, the framework is clear.

Information governance is broader than records management.
It enables innovation rather than constraining it.
It can be implemented through a phased strategy.
Technology makes enforcement consistent.

But even with structured systems in place, governance will not sustain itself without coordinated ownership.

This is where many firms encounter their most persistent challenge. They do not lack commitment. They lack clarity around responsibility.

The reality  

Mid-sized firms rarely have a dedicated information governance department. Governance responsibilities are distributed across existing teams:

• IT manages infrastructure and system controls.
• Records oversees retention schedules and disposition workflows.
• Risk or Compliance interprets regulatory obligations.
• Finance tracks matter lifecycle from a billing perspective.
• Operations coordinates cross-departmental processes.

Each of these functions touches the information lifecycle, but no one owns it end-to-end.

That fragmentation is rarely intentional. It develops as firms grow organically. Systems are implemented at different times. Responsibilities evolve and new compliance expectations emerge.

Over time, governance becomes everyone’s concern - and no one’s direct accountability. So, execution weakens not because of resistance, but because of ambiguity.

Why shared ownership Is necessary

Unlike many operational disciplines, information governance cannot sit entirely within one department.

IT cannot decide retention policy.
Records cannot enforce technical controls independently.
Risk cannot operationalize workflows without system alignment.
Finance cannot manage lifecycle discipline beyond billing status.

Governance sits at the intersection of all of them. Shared ownership is not a compromise — it is structural necessity and the challenge is making that shared ownership deliberate rather than informal.

Defining roles without creating bureaucracy

A sustainable governance model does not require new titles or additional layers of hierarchy. It requires clarity in three areas:

1.  Policy authority
Who defines and maintains governance standards? This may sit with Risk or a Governance committee, but it must be explicitly assigned.

2.  Operational enforcement
Who ensures system controls reflect policy? Typically, this involves coordination between IT and Records, supported by Operations.

3.  Oversight and reporting
Who monitors compliance metrics and reports them to executive leadership?

When these roles are defined, governance decisions stop drifting.

The executive layer: Quiet but essential

Governance becomes sustainable only when it reaches the executive layer.

In many firms, governance discussions remain operational. Records and IT coordinate and Risk advises. But executive leadership sees governance only when a client audit or incident surfaces. That reactive visibility limits momentum.

Executive oversight does not need to be intrusive. It needs to be structured. When leadership receives periodic reporting on:

• Dormant matter volumes
• Retention enforcement activity
• Disposition trends
• Data growth patterns
• Access review completion

Governance becomes part of firm management. Shifting from background activity to operational infrastructure.

For firms competing for sophisticated mandates, this executive visibility strengthens credibility. It signals that governance is not an afterthought - it is embedded oversight.

Cultural considerations  

Shared ownership must also reflect firm culture. Firms often operate with consensus-driven leadership and strong partner autonomy. Governance models that appear top-down or punitive can generate quiet resistance.

Execution succeeds when governance is positioned as protective rather than restrictive and I’ve found that Partners are more receptive when they understand:

• Structured closure reduces risk of unnecessary data exposure.
• Consistent retention supports defensibility.
• Access validation narrows cyber vulnerability.
• Lifecycle discipline strengthens client trust.

Shared ownership helps reinforce that governance decisions are not imposed by a single department. They are coordinated safeguards aligned with firm interests.

Turning governance into workflow

Shared ownership must extend beyond meetings and policy discussions. It must translate into workflow.

For example:

At matter intake, classification accuracy is critical. That may involve collaboration between practice groups, Records, and IT to ensure fields are completed properly.

At closure, confirmation of lifecycle status must be coordinated between Finance, Records, and operational teams.

When retention eligibility arises, disposition review must follow documented approvals, supported by system reporting.

When access reviews are triggered for dormant matters, IT and practice leadership must collaborate to validate permissions.

Governance becomes real when it is embedded in these operational touchpoints and without workflow integration, shared ownership remains theoretical.

Avoiding the “shadow responsibility” trap

One of the more subtle risks in governance execution is shadow responsibility.

In some firms, governance tasks are quietly absorbed by diligent individuals within IT or Records. They monitor lifecycle issues, prompt closure reviews, and track retention manually.

While this demonstrates commitment, it creates vulnerability. Governance becomes dependent on specific people rather than structured roles and when those individuals change roles or leave the firm, governance weakens.

Defined shared ownership prevents this. It ensures responsibilities are institutional, not personal.

Aligning people and systems

In the previous article, we explored how technology supports governance consistency.

Shared ownership ensures that people reinforce system discipline. Systems may surface dormant matters, but leadership must decide how to prioritize review. Platforms may trigger retention eligibility, but designated approvers must authorize disposition. Reporting may highlight data growth trends, but executive oversight must determine corrective action.

Execution depends on coordination between human decision-making and technological structure. One without the other is insufficient.

From initiative to infrastructure

When shared ownership is clear, governance stabilizes. It no longer depends on periodic campaigns. It no longer competes for attention only during audits. It no longer stalls due to unclear accountability.

It becomes infrastructure. Infrastructure is rarely dramatic. It operates consistently. It supports growth. It reduces friction. It enables innovation. It strengthens resilience.

For firms balancing growth, regulatory expectations, and evolving client scrutiny, this stability is strategic.

Preparing for the business conversation

With strategy defined, technology aligned, and ownership clarified, governance becomes operationally sound. The next stage of maturity involves articulating its value more explicitly.

• How does governance align with leadership priorities?
• How does it support cost control?
• How does it reduce measurable risk?
• How does it strengthen competitive positioning?

In the next article, we will shift the focus to leadership persuasion - exploring how to build a compelling business case for information governance within your firm.

Because even the strongest operational framework must ultimately align with strategic priorities.

There’s a moment that shows up in almost every coaching engagement I’ve ever been part of, and if you’ve worked with me, you’ll probably recognize it.

It usually happens early on. We’re a few sessions in. We’ve started talking about how business development actually works—not in theory, but in practice—and I’ll hear some version of this:

“I already know all this.”

And I always understand where that’s coming from.

You’re smart. You’re accomplished. You’ve built a career on your ability to absorb information, apply it, and get results. Of course what I’m saying sounds familiar. None of it is particularly exotic or inaccessible. In fact, most of it is deceptively simple.

But here’s what I can also see, very clearly:

You might recognize it. You might even agree with it. But you’re not actually doing it in a consistent, intentional way. And right alongside that, you’re often carrying a whole set of reasons—very logical, very well-articulated reasons—why it wouldn’t work for you anyway.

That combination is incredibly common. And it’s also incredibly important to understand, because it’s not a motivation problem. It’s not a discipline problem. It’s not even, strictly speaking, a knowledge problem.

It’s a learning curve problem.

Why It Feels So Uncomfortable at the Start

When you decide, really decide, to focus on business development, something shifts.

You move out of the part of your work where you are competent, confident, and in control, and into a space where the outcomes are less predictable and the feedback is slower. You’re no longer operating from mastery. You’re operating from effort.

For high-performing lawyers, that’s not a familiar or particularly comfortable place to be.

So your brain does what brains are designed to do. It tries to reduce that discomfort as quickly as possible. One of the easiest ways to do that is to convince you that you’re not actually in unfamiliar territory at all.

You tell yourself that you already know this. That you’ve heard it before. That it’s obvious. And then, almost in the same breath, you start to explain why it’s not realistic in your practice, with your clients, in your firm, at this stage of your career.

None of that is laziness or resistance in the way people usually think about it. It’s a very human response to stepping into something where you are, temporarily, not very good yet.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Playing Out in Real Time

What’s happening in that moment is something psychologists have studied for years: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

At the early stages of learning a new skill, you gain just enough knowledge to recognize the concepts and understand the language. That creates a sense of familiarity, and with it, a sense of confidence. But you don’t yet have the depth of experience required to apply those concepts effectively or consistently.

So there’s a gap between what feels like understanding and what actually shows up in your behaviour.

In business development, that gap is particularly tricky because the concepts themselves are not complicated. Stay in touch. Be helpful. Follow up. Build relationships over time. You’ve heard all of that before.

But hearing it and being able to operationalize it—to translate it into consistent, thoughtful, repeated action in the context of a busy legal practice—are two very different things.

That’s the part that only comes through doing.

The Shift That Comes Later

If you stay with it, and this is the part that matters most, something starts to change.

It doesn’t happen overnight, and it rarely happens in a straight line. But somewhere, often several months in, you begin to experiment a little more. You try things. You follow up when you might not have before. You reach out even when it feels slightly uncomfortable. You start to see small responses, small openings, small wins.

And then, at some point, I hear this:

“Oh. I get it now.”

What’s interesting is that the words are exactly the same as they were at the beginning. But the meaning is completely different.

Because now, you’re not just understanding the idea of business development. You’re starting to see how it works when you actually do it. You have your own evidence that it’s possible, that it’s effective, and that it can be done in a way that fits you.

That’s when things begin to unlock.

Where Real Change Actually Happens

I use a virtuous cycle concept with my clients - we call it Know :: Be :: Do - for a reason.

Most people spend a lot of time in Know. You read, you listen, you attend sessions, you gather information. And all of that has value. But on its own, it doesn’t change much.

The shift happens when you move into Be and Do. This is when you start to show up differently and take actions that align with what you say you want.

And that’s where the discomfort is, especially at the beginning. Because you are asking yourself to act before you feel fully confident, to repeat behaviours before you see immediate results, and to stay with something long enough for it to compound.

That’s not how most of your legal training has worked. You’re used to getting it right quickly, or at least knowing when you’re on the right track.

Business development doesn’t give you that kind of feedback. It asks for consistency instead. And, as we say often, it is consistency over time, not intensity in moments, that actually creates change.

If This Feels Familiar

If you can see yourself somewhere in this, especially in that early “I already know this” phase, there’s nothing wrong with you. In fact, it’s a very predictable place to be.

But it is also a moment of choice.

You can stay in knowing. You can continue to refine your understanding, collect more ideas, and reinforce the belief that the issue sits somewhere outside of you: your practice, your clients, your firm, your timing.

Or you can begin to shift your focus, even slightly, toward doing.

That doesn’t mean overhauling everything or getting it perfect. It just means starting somewhere. One follow-up you would normally avoid. One outreach you’ve been putting off. One small, intentional action that moves you from concept into practice—something that feels just uncomfortable enough to signal that you’re actually in new territory.

That is where confidence is built—not before you act, but as a result of your action. And over time, it is the action, and the confidence arising from it fueling the next action - the reps - that causes the results you want to take shape.

A partner returns from a conference excited about a promising new technology. The firm purchases licences, schedules training, and encourages everyone to try it—yet weeks later, very little has changed in how the work actually gets done.

Was the technology the problem? Probably not. Similar firms may be using it successfully, and the partner’s excitement may be justified. The real issue is that adoption was missing something essential.

For office managers, this can be especially frustrating. You may need to coordinate the rollout while protecting daily operations, addressing staff concerns, and supporting leadership.

Even when a new tool has clear benefits, lawyers and administrative professionals may see it as one more demand on an already full workload. Leadership may want better technology adoption while also asking teams to spend less time in meetings.

Why Traditional Technology Rollouts Often Stall

A firm-wide training session can introduce a new application, but awareness is not adoption. If training feels too broad, technical, or disconnected from daily work, employees may understand the tool, yet still return to familiar routines.

This does not necessarily mean employees resist improvement. It often means they have not seen a compelling reason to invest their limited time.

The Adoption Solution

The Law of Diffusion of Innovations* suggests that successful change begins with early adopters: people who believe in an idea and are willing to try it before it becomes mainstream. Once enough early adopters embrace it, momentum builds and the broader majority begins to follow.

Traditional top-down implementations often fail because they overlook human behaviour. Lasting change is rarely imposed; the strongest movements begin at the grassroots level.

Begin with the People Who Are Already Curious

Instead of trying to persuade the entire firm at once, start with a small group of interested employees. Let them explore approved tools, identify valuable uses, and share practical lessons with colleagues.

Every firm has people who naturally explore new features and look for better ways to work. They may be lawyers, law clerks, assistants, bookkeepers, or operations staff. They do not need senior titles or formal technology responsibilities.

These employees are your early adopters. They cannot be assigned; they need to volunteer.

An Offer an Early Adopter Won’t Refuse

The best draw for early adopters is the chance to learn, contribute, and be recognized. Create an opportunity that is exclusive and rewarding, and the right people will step forward.

Participants could receive:

• Early access to an approved technology.
• Focused coaching from an internal or external expert.
• Opportunities to demonstrate ideas to leadership.
• Recognition for helping improve firm processes.
• Time during the workday for approved experimentation.
• Professional development opportunities connected to technology.

Frame participation as career development rather than extra training. The goal is to show participants that their effort matters and their contribution is valued.

Creating Your Firm’s Tech Adoption Group

Start by inviting four to six people to join the firm’s first technology adoption user group. An application process can help identify employees who are genuinely interested.

Choose participants from different roles where possible. A diverse group can better identify how technology affects workflows across the firm. A legal assistant may spot ways to reduce repetitive document tasks, a bookkeeper may notice billing or reporting efficiencies, a lawyer may focus on client service, and a newer employee may bring a fresh perspective to long-standing processes.

Launch the Group and Build Momentum

Launch the group by giving members access to a well-chosen technology tool. Invite them to explore it, test practical uses, and look for small wins that make daily work easier. Even one focused 30-minute conversation each month can build momentum and turn experimentation into a shared habit.

Keep the meeting conversational, collaborative, and energizing. Encourage members to share what they tried, what worked, what surprised them, and what they would do differently next time.

Practical examples are more powerful than long feature lists. Encourage members to share the tips, shortcuts, and discoveries that made daily work easier. Those examples can spark interest across the firm and help enthusiasm spread naturally.

Firmwide Results

Once the group starts seeing practical results, do not keep that momentum bottled up—invite them to share their wins with colleagues and leadership. Before long, others may want to be part of the movement too.

People are more likely to try a new technology when:

• The benefit relates directly to their work.
• A trusted colleague can demonstrate a useful example.
• Help is available when questions arise.
• Trying the tool does not create unnecessary risk or additional pressure.

You do not need every employee to become an innovator. You need a small group of credible colleagues who can demonstrate that change can be useful, safe, and manageable.

Even Great Movements Need Support

If your firm is considering a technology adoption group, reach out your Managed Service Provider for support. Start with three questions: Which tool offers the best starting point? What safeguards are needed? Who inside the firm might enjoy helping lead the effort?

When technology adoption starts with curiosity, trust, and practical wins, it becomes more than another firm initiative—it becomes a shared movement toward better work. Start small, support your early adopters, and let their success show the firm what is possible.

* Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2009) at 120.