Entering the Era of En****tification

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Web 2.0 innovation collaboration software, metadata got the world turning as fast as it can hear how technology can help legally speaking with two of the top legal technology experts, authors and lawyers, Dennis, Kennedy, and Tom Mighell. Welcome to the Kennedy Mighell report here on the Legal Talk Network

Dennis Kennedy:

And welcome to episode 371 of the Kennedy Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy in Ann Arbor

Tom Mighell:

I’m Tom Mighell in Dallas.

Dennis Kennedy:

In our last episode, we visited with Jackie Schaeffer of Clear brief.ai. As part of our ongoing fresh voices in legal tech interview series, we highly recommend the episode as well as the other episodes in the Fresh Voices series. In this episode, we wanted to talk about the increasing deterioration of the internet and the new name that has been coined or maybe relatively new name that has been coined for that phenomenon by Corey, Dr. Row and others. It’s a vocabulary building episode on Tap. Tom, what’s all on our agenda for this episode?

Tom Mighell:

Well, Dennis, in this edition of the Kennedy Mighell report, we will indeed be looking at the growing deterioration of the internet that has reached the point where a new term, which we’ll call in ification for purposes of this podcast, has entered the room. In our second segment, we’ll have our good friend chat, GPT, ask us a question it has generated from our audience’s point of view, and as usual, we’ll finish up with our parting shots, that one tip website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over. But first up, we’ve been lamenting the decline of the internet lately and we talk about on the podcast things about the internet that have made us sad and feel like things are going away. I want to call it a new word, but it’s not really a new word. It’s relatively new word that’s being used for this lately. We want to be careful about language on this podcast. It is a family show after all, so we’re going to call this new term in ratification. You shouldn’t be able to figure out what that real term is by substituting for the right thing. Just Google it and you’ll find out, although it’s a term you won’t see in the mainstream, it suggests an increasingly serious issue that we’re seeing on the internet these days. So we thought it deserves some consideration. Dennis, why this topic now and what is it?

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, it’s interesting because I had a number of people who went to the double A double L annual meeting, which is the American Association of Law Librarians or Law Libraries, I forget which, and they told me that Corey Dro gave a keynote on this very topic at the meeting and it really resonated with the people I was talking to. Now Corey has a very specific definition which we will discuss, but I thought the term was much, much broader before I realized his specific coinage of the term, but we’re going to explore the broader concept. Tom, do you want to start us off with Corey’s definition?

Tom Mighell:

Sure. So he actually coined the terms somewhere I think around January of 2023. We’re a little behind on talking about this topic from Corey’s perspective. In fact, the term and ification was the word of the year for 2023 by the American Dialect Society. So it gained notoriety and we didn’t even know about it. So the term is the in ification of the internet that is instead of crap, Corey used a term we won’t use on this network, but you can Google it now. Corey came up with this definition to describe a pattern he is seeing on the internet and it works like this. Here’s how it works. Companies put a platform up on the internet that gives something of values to end users. Then when the end user is locked in, they claw back that value and they give it to business customers instead. And then when the business customers are locked in, they claw it back and they give it to themselves and then because they don’t have anyone left to impress the platform, they offer just turns to crap or that other word that we’re not using. So that’s generally what he’s talking about. I think, Dennis, what you’re mentioning and thinking about is that when you heard the term, you kind of wanted it to apply to all the things that are bad for you on the internet, and I think that’s fair, but that’s not exactly what he meant by it.

Dennis Kennedy:

There are some examples so people get an idea of what he’s talking about. So you see things like Facebook’s evolving newsfeed, algorithms, Facebook in generally. I was just looking at Facebook to find out some things about my high school friends and realize that basically nothing in my feed was anything other than an ad or something that Facebook thought that might apply to someone who might be something like me. It’s

Tom Mighell:

About every fifth post is something from somebody that I know in Facebook now, everything else, yeah,

Dennis Kennedy:

I mean it’s really gotten bad. And then Amazon’s search results and the ads they throw against it and the way it always seems like there’s some manipulation happening. Another example would be YouTube increasing ads. There’s a bunch of things out there, but you’re sort of in this. They’re examples of sort of free services. You get in there, you use them, and then you feel you’re being leveraged basically to become just a customer of whatever ads services are being thrown at you. And so I think that’s sort of the best and some examples and there are I think the sense of lockin and other issues that this process brings out. Maybe Tom, you wanted to talk about a few of those.

Tom Mighell:

Well, I mean I sort of like to think about that this as use the analogy of putting a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog in boiling water and it’s going to jump right out, but you put it in cold water and bring it up to boiling and it will allow itself to be boiled. And I feel sort of like we are in the boiling water or the crap, whichever metaphor you want when you talk about a lot of these platforms that they get worse, the features get worse. One out of every five posts on Facebook is from a friend and yet I’m not getting myself out and you’re not getting yourself out. And the reason is either one, we don’t know how we don’t think about it or it’s easier to stay and be miserable than do the work and get out because one of the things we’ll talk about in our second segment is we might get out, but will our friends come with us?

Will we be able to do things with other people? And so the alternative is let’s all boil together or let’s all stay in the crap together and I think we will talk about this later. I think it’s also hard to find a new place that’s also not what’s the right word and ified that. I think that that’s the issue too. So this is a topic that gives me not a lot of joy, but I think that’s part of the problem is is that it’s very easy to get locked in. We find ourselves locked in on whatever service we have. There was a period of time where there was somewhat of an exodus from Twitter now X, but those went to places where not everybody went and some people went to Mastodon and some people went to Blue Sky and some people went to Threads, but not everybody went to the right place. And so I feel like there’s been a lot of decentralization in that area, but I don’t really see that happening anywhere else.

Dennis Kennedy:

One thing about this coinage is it kind of makes you realize something that you might’ve just felt in a sort of vague way and you think about it as TV moved from it seems like there was an ad break to the ad breaks being four minutes. You try to watch your live sports show and it feels like 10 minutes of commercials. You can’t even pick up a phone because phones normally used for spam phone calls or you feel like your texts are primarily these days campaign texts, there’s a bunch going on. So I think there is that it gives voice to what you’re and sort of a specificity to what might just have been a feeling. Now for me, I thought the word had been around longer and I always a associated with just basically with what Elon Musk had done to Twitter, but time I came up with a number of examples and I do want to say this isn’t us as the angry old men saying like, oh, I remember the good old days.

I mean the good old days weren’t necessarily all that good and we’re not really advocating going back to something we’re just kind of saying like look at how in the heck did we get here? But I look at huge numbers of ads and search results that we’re going to see in the future. Large language models trained on text that’s been generated by other large language models were introduction of ads into previously ad free tiers. We’re looking at you Netflix and increasing subscription prices all the time without often with what seems like takeaways in value. Rather than adding values, you get the free games with the aggressive monetization tactics, clickbait headlines and paywalls. One that I really hate is this with the clickbait thing is the loss of the whole inverted pyramid of notion in journalism. I read this headline and go, I like to learn about that, and I’m like five pages into it before I see what I expected to see in the first line. And then I realized I didn’t even want to see it in the first place. The other day I paid for a coffee for my wife and found that I’m subscribed to an email newsletter for the coffee shop and I could go on Tom and I’m sure you could do Autoplaying videos and intrusive ads, all sorts of things. I’ve experienced all of these I feel like in the last week. How about you?

Tom Mighell:

I will say, Dennis, you may protest as much as you want, but that sounds a lot like a grumpy old man saying, get off my lawn. That feels very grumpy. But yeah, and yet you are not wrong about any of those things. I guess I would just say some of those things, I think the talking about training LLMs on text generated by other LLMs is literally a very recent issue that we need to think about and deal with. But a lot of these things here that you put on your list have been around for a while and I think that to a certain extent, once the internet became monetized, which was very early on that it was hard to avoid stuff like this. In the next half of this segment we’re going to talk about some possible solutions. But I think unfortunately the solutions that I want to talk about really only go to Corey Docter row’s definition of in ification because it’s talking about why platforms have become the way they are.

And there are a couple of reasons for that, but I don’t think that the solutions that they talk about as being able to solve this are going to solve a lot of these issues because a lot of this is just pure entrepreneurial capitalism, want to get a buck ahead type thing. So I hate to say it, but I don’t know that we have a solve for those for the most part. But let me turn it around and ask this question. Are you seeing this also happening in legal tech as well as just in regular tech?

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, I have a concern because I can’t really say I am using a lot of pure legal tech stuff, but I see this as a downside of VC investment in legal tech and the other outside investment where people need to show profit and need to show high levels of return. I’m not saying that we’re going to see ads inside our legal tech cloud-based services, but people need to find revenue in different ways. I would expect to see this feature creep additional tiers, stuff that you took for granted that you might have to pay more for as people try to recover their investments in AI that I think we’re probably going to see that we’re paying extra for AI features. And so I would expect you’re going to see more of this. It’s something I would look out for. I can’t say that I’ve actually seen something that would put my finger on, but it would not surprise me at all. Just look at the dollars going in and look at the dollars that have to come out and you as the customer are just going to have to pay more.

Tom Mighell:

Actually, I thought of something a little different when I saw you write about this in our show notes. When I thought about in ification creeping into legal tech, I started to think in an even different way. I started to think of some of the websites that have been out there for a long time that for example, I won’t name specific sites, but they at one point in time offered themselves out as being the premier legal authorities for certain things on the internet. And now I go and they’re full of ads and the materials are not well kept up and the website looks like it was designed about 15 years ago and it’s clear that there’s no attention paid when these used to be maintained by large companies as authoritative texts. I would say take it down, why do you leave it up? I don’t understand the point of it. Anyway, alright, this is starting to bum both of us out and I’m sure it’s bumming our listeners out. So let’s take a quick break for a word from our sponsors and maybe if we can see some daylight on the other side of this topic.

Dennis Kennedy:

And we’re back, Tom. We definitely see the problem and I suspect our audience does as well. So what should we do about it? Since I doubt that the existing business models and incentives will change in the near future.

Tom Mighell:

Well, it’s nice that Corey comes up with the term but then offers four suggestions for changing things. And the first one is sort of relatively straightforward. Well, it’s straightforward, but it’s harder than you think. And that’s enforcing antitrust laws and encouraging competition. The platforms can afford to be crappy because no one is challenging them. Even the ones that challenge them don’t really offer anything new. I would say threads was built to challenge ex formerly Twitter, but is it really any better at not being crappy? I would argue that it’s not necessarily any different, but instead what’s happening is that these companies that try to compete are just being bought up and the competition is automatically eliminated. Google was just called a monopoly this week that we are recording by a judge. People are already wondering if it will have any practical effect. I don’t know what’s going to happen there.

Apple does the same thing. They do the same thing that Google did that Google just got called a monopoly for. They just didn’t say it out loud in emails like Google did, but they got away with it in court. So eliminate monopolies and encourage competition because when competition is there, then the platforms will have a need to innovate and to do things that bring back value for the user and or the business. Next thing, interoperability makes it hard for anyone to claim the monopoly. That’s for an example, I really like it about the Fedi verse. We talked about the fedi verse in a prior podcast. You can say something once on one social media platform and you can publish it to multiple platforms. It’s something that is interoperable anywhere that you want to go. Another one is data portability, which is you don’t like where you are, you can pack up and go someplace else.

And we’ve talked about that a lot. We talked about that a lot with regard to privacy. The challenge here is, and there are tools, Google makes it easy for you to pack up and go someplace else if you don’t like Google, but where are you going to go? Where are the places? There’s not a lot of alternatives to that. So that’s a little disappointing. And then I think that one of the last thing that he mentions is kind of an interesting topic that we don’t talk about much on the podcast and that is stronger consumer protection and labor laws. Those terms get a bad reaction these days. Those are things that are not necessarily in favor, but the same way that antitrust keeps companies in check. So to do these types of laws, in theory, the workers who are being asked to and crapy a platform are going to say, hell no, we won’t do it and quit. But that assumes that there’s a better job that’s not and crapy something of its own somewhere else. So I applaud Cory Doc’s ideas on how to do it. Maybe I’m just kind of so down on this. I’m not sure how much in any of these will actually be able to be successful.

Dennis Kennedy:

Well, I mean I think Cory’s ideas conceptually, I’m fine with all of those. It does put the burden on us as individuals to do things. If we don’t like Google as a search engine, we’re free to go out and build our own search. That’s equivalent. If we don’t like Hoover Dam, we can go out and build our own Hoover Dam. I mean there’s a limit to what you can do there. I sort of feel that there are some things out there. And actually it’s interesting, we talk a lot about all of these different approaches in the classes I teach, but I think it comes down to this that we should support models that do it right? That might mean open source and getting to understand that better and to support open source products. I think that if we don’t like it, we should advocate for change in regulation because every day that we wait to advocate for change in regulation, the big tech companies and others are sinking millions and millions of dollars into lobbying to get the regulation they want.

And then I just think we have to, can’t just step back as users of the internet and say, we don’t need to be digitally literate and we’re checking our critical evaluation skills at the door. So there are some things that we need to do. So Tom, I’m reading this biography of Samuel Adams and I just got past the point of the Boston Tea Party and there really does come a point where you say, if something needs to happen, we are all in this together. So Tom and I are always talk about collaboration, but serious collaboration, building coalitions, getting the word out, education thinking in the longer term, thinking about ethics, not just legal ethics, the big picture. And then I think there are some other things, and I have a few wild ideas, Tom, that I’ll say until I hear your next set of comments.

Tom Mighell:

I just want to bring up one quick thing and then do your wild ideas. But I was thinking about ways in which people have been able to take a stand against the platforms and one of them is the idea of these right to repair laws. For example, if your iPhone breaks, you have to take it to a genius. You can’t do it anything else, you must take it there. That’s the only place that you can take it. And there are a lot of laws that have started popping up saying, no, I should be able to take this wherever I want to. I should have the ability to repair it in whatever I want to and not break the warranty or not have any issues. And Apple has fought against this and Google has also fought against it until recently. And then Google basically defected and said, Nope, we agree.

We think that these right to repair laws are good for the consumer, they’re good for everybody and they’re basically forcing Apple to agree and Apple is slowly agreeing even though they’re trying to still maintain some level of control over it. But that created just a tiny window of competition right there. It created a little bit of thing where the consumer gets a voice where the platform has to come back and do something different where it’s giving up a little bit of control and even though it’s not in an area that is pure in ification, I’m encouraged by that. So that’s an example that I think we start doing more of that we have a better chance of clawing back into a better situation for us.

Dennis Kennedy:

Oh, sorry Tom, I was busy repairing some of the computer chips in my computer while you were

Tom Mighell:

Talking and that’s not what it means snarky.

Dennis Kennedy:

So I’m going to go wild for a change,

Tom Mighell:

For a change.

Dennis Kennedy:

Here’s some of the things I think we should start thinking about, and I think that AI has really kind of pulled some of these issues out for us. Public infrastructure. So why are we letting the big tech companies do all the stuff and saying like, oh, if we don’t like it, we could just come up with something competitive. We need to do something like this. Oh, we’re worried about the large language models. Why don’t we make ’em public infrastructure Again? What’s so bad about that? There’s things out there like data trust to help us with privacy. Again, coalitions, collaboration. How can we work together and support models that do it right? And in legal tech, what about a cooperative approach? Where did users of legal tech get together as cooperatives and put the pressure on to get the features to get the treatment that they want? So I don’t know, Tom, where do you think we’re heading with all of this?

Tom Mighell:

I don’t think that right now there’s a lot of appetite for enforcing antitrust laws and when we do, I don’t think there’ll be as much teeth as they need to be. I think it will be just a matter of show data portability and open source and interoperability. All of those ideas I think are great, but we use the platforms we do because our friends are there. I have trouble scheduling a meeting with one particular group of my friends on Facebook. How will I ever get them to come with me to the same new platform? I think that Lockin is a really, really powerful thing. So I’m not unopposed to crazy ideas because I think crazy ideas are probably the things that have the most effect. I will say also that as little as we may like the types of ways that the European Union chooses to enforce its anti-competitive behavior against companies like Google and Apple and Facebook, they are unafraid of taking them on over there for certain things. We may see that as heavy handed, but in terms of what we’re talking about today, who knows that might yield a positive effect, something that we can benefit from. So I’m willing to say have Adam do as much as you can and see what happens to it. But I guess I’m cautiously optimistic that there are smart people out there who are trying to work on a way to deal with it. But I still think we’ve got a ways to go.

Dennis Kennedy:

Tom, I’m literally doing the face palm emoji thinking about what you just said. I’m not as enamored of the EU approach, that’s for sure. So I’m not really optimistic. I feel that things are really deteriorating fast. Some of this is actually to me a side effect of the complexity of the systems. I don’t look back to the good old as because the technology was not nearly as good, but we have this trade off of this complexity and some of these things in order for it to work together. There are different types of things that have to happen with the technologies just due to their complexity and we need to kind of come to terms with that. I think there’s a chance of a possible bifurcation into this sort of commercial and ified internet that many people use in an alternative platform or platforms used by small groups. Not quite sure that’s the approach I would really like to see, but that’s maybe where we end up. Then also, I think that if in ification is a great word for what we see happening, we simply just need a better word for the alternative. And whether that’s something like rehabilitation, revitalization, betterment, I don’t know what it is, but I think something that gives us an incentive to move in a different direction. So I dunno, Tom, I’ll let you wrap it up and I know we’d love to hear what our audience thinks.

Tom Mighell:

Yep, definitely want to hear what the audience thinks. I will only say that the terms that you use, I agree that we need to find a positive way to deal with it. I think those terms lend too much to saying that it was a down and out thing that is now being rehabilitated and I’d rather have it with a name that had more staying power and sparkly new and fresh than the refurbished or something like that, which kind of

Dennis Kennedy:

Sparkly is good. I like that

Tom Mighell:

Kind of what those terms feel like. So anyway, not a decision we’re going to reach today. So we’ve got to move on for our next segment. But before we do that, let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsors. And now let’s get back to the Kennedy Mighell report. I’m Tom Mighell

Dennis Kennedy:

And I’m Dennis Kennedy. We wanted to remind you to share this podcast with a friend or two that really helped us out in our new B segment. We are prompting chat GPT-4 in a sophisticated way to stand in for our audience and to ask a question that our audience might want us to answer that would make us think and push us a bit. So Tom thought maybe I was prompting chat GPT in too sophisticated away and kind of dictating the question. So I’ve changed the prompts a little bit and here’s this episode’s question on the audience’s behalf. What are the pros and cons of using general purpose AI platforms versus legal specific AI tools? That

Tom Mighell:

Wasn’t my issue. My issue was I don’t think you’re using a generative AI tool to generate the questions to begin with. Let’s just get it right out there anyway, assuming that chat g PT asked this question, here’s what I think I’m going to cover the obvious pros and cons, and then Dennis, you can cover maybe what’s less obvious. So the pros of using generative AI platforms, they scour the entire internet so they can help with a large range of issues that a legal specific tool is less likely is going to be more limited to do. They’re definitely more affordable than legal specific tools. 20 bucks a month for a very powerful AI tool is a really good deal and you’re going to be paying a lot more for the legal specific tools, I think for the most part. But cons to using general purpose AI platforms, they’re not quite as good at legal questions.

They haven’t gotten access to proprietary legal places in accuracy can be high. The potential for hallucinations witness the fake case law that they do, so you’ll want it for more general stuff than for legal stuff. And they haven’t been trained on that. Proprietary information, like I mentioned, case law pacer litigation related information treatises, things like you would find in Lexi and Westlaw behind paywalls. So they can’t provide the depth of coverage as a legal related tool can do, which leads to the pros of the legal related AI tools. They’re going to be providing you with higher quality legal work product coming out of that because it’s designed for legal work. So I think that the work product will be better. The data being fed to most legal specific AI tools is cleaner. It’s more known, so much less likelihood of inaccuracy or hallucination. The cons though are what you might expect. It’s going to be more expensive. It can’t really help you much with non-legal issues. Those are to me, the most obvious pros and cons to using Boat one versus the other. Dennis, what am I missing?

Dennis Kennedy:

I think you’re on it for the most part. I mean, I think that there is this myth out there that the legal tools have solved the hallucination problem and I’m not a buyer on that one. I think the general purpose AI platforms, especially in the current generation, if you’re good at prompting and you understand what you’re doing and can do pretty amazing things, I think in comparison, the legal specific tools, if you’re used to using the general purpose tools, you’re going to really see and feel that the legal specific tools are dumbed down. They have lots of guardrails, they’re so concerned about hallucinations, they actually make ’em a little bit less useful to you for most of the things you would like to use AI for. Personal opinion there. Obviously the cost $20 a month versus some of these legal AI tools where they won’t even tell you the price.

I think they have to make sure that you’re in a place with smelling salts before they tell you the actual price. Very concerned about that and I would want to really understand the ROI on legal specific tools. Like for my $20 a month, I’m getting tremendous return on investment on an expensive legal specific AI tool. I’m not sure I buy it yet. I mean there are tools I’ve said often that I like Clear, brief, Westlaw Practical Law and the AI build into it. I like what Net documents is doing. I mean, there’s a number of things out there. So I think there’s stuff to look at, but I am concerned about the ROI is really what it comes down to. And I see that I can get it with the general purpose platforms and I don’t see I can get it with the legal specific AI tools yet except for the old school AI e-discovery tools, which I think are being underestimated in the current market. But now it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip website or observation, you can use this second. This podcast ends. Tom, take it away.

Tom Mighell:

So another technology tip from a recent vacation. In past vacations, I have tried to use Google Translates. They’ve touted for many, many years now, the ability to point your camera at some foreign language and it will automatically translate it. And my experience with doing that has been very hit and miss because of the way that they chose to do it is they would do it through the open lens of the camera. And as a result, the words kept shifting. And depending on how you were tilting the camera, it would change the translation automatically. It was like it animated and it kept changing the words. Google’s finally got it right. Now what they ask you to do is to take a picture of the menu you’re looking at or the sign you’re trying to translate and you take a picture of it and it instantly perfectly translates every word on that page. And it is amazing. And so I used it. We were in Brussels, Belgium for a day. I took pictures of all sorts of things and it was fantastic at it. So give another look to Google Translate. I put, it’s going to be in your mobile apps. Don’t look at it on the web. You can’t use the camera for the web version and then take a picture of something. It’s a great experience, Dennis.

Dennis Kennedy:

So let’s see a legal AI tool that can do that. Hey. Hey.

Tom Mighell:

So

Dennis Kennedy:

I was texting with a friend of mine and we were talking about AI and what he was doing with ai and he’s a lawyer and his, I will quote his reply to me, I plan to retire in eight years. I can sit this one out. So I’ve been thinking about trying to convince people to use AI and whether I need to bother to do that, or I just kind of go on and leave them on their eight year retirement glide where they don’t have to bother about anything. And it got me thinking about the early days of the internet and websites and the early days of blogging. And then I saw this article called How AI got me back into Creative Hobbies by someone named Kar Gosh. And it’s on the How to Geek blog. And I remember in the early days of websites and blogs, people say, I don’t see any reason for this.

And they would try to come up with ways to, they might use it in their law practice or something like that. It was a real stretch. And I was like, no, no, no. To understand this, you need to use it for something that you really enjoy doing. It could be a hobby, it could be a strong interest. And this article is great because the same thing applies to ai. It’s people are saying like, oh, how can I use this for legal research? How can I do this? No, no, not that. Figure out how you can use it for something you really like doing. And this article gives some really good examples of how you can use AI to kind of help you think more creatively and get involved in your do your hobbies. And it could give you some ideas for using AI that you might never have had before. So very enjoyable, thought provoking little article. Just take you a minute or two to read and your return on investment on that time should be pretty darn good.

Tom Mighell:

And so that wraps it up for this edition of the Kennedy Mall report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find notes for this episode on the Legal Talk Networks page for our show. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app of choice. If you like to get in touch with us, remember you can always reach out to us on LinkedIn or remember, we love to get your voicemails. Please leave us a voicemail at 7 2 0 4 4 1 6 8 2 0. So until the next podcast, I’m Tom Mighell.

Dennis Kennedy:

And I’m Dennis Kennedy and you’ve been listening to the Kennedy Mighell report, a podcast on legal technology with an internet focus. If you like what you heard today, please rate us in Apple Podcasts. And as always, a big thank you to the Legal Talk Network team for producing and distributing this podcast. We’ll see you next time for another episode of the Kennedy Mighell Report on the Legal Talk Network.

Announcer:

Thanks for loosening to the Kennedy Mighell report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book, the Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies, smart Ways to Work Together from a Books or Amazon. And join us every other week for another edition of the Kennedy Mighell Report, only on the Legal Talk Network.