ABA Techshow 2023 Preview || Google Ads: Too Expensive?

Episode Notes

Transcript

Gyi Tsakalakis: Conrad, I am super pumped I probably yelled that way too loud but I’m so excited because in 13 days, I get to see you face to face.

Conrad Saam: It’s going to be great. I just moved my flights a day earlier because I’m so excited to see you. True story.

Gyi Tsakalakis: So, I will be seeing you in Chicago for Techshow. Listeners, if you’re going to be in Chicago for Techshow, please say hello. And if you’re not currently, you’re on the fence about Techshow, check it out. I just did an interview with Victor Li for the ABA Journal. If you’re a member, you can read my preview of Techshow. We’re going to talk specifically about what Conrad and I will be presenting on a Techshow. But what else are we talking about today, Conrad?

Conrad Saam: All right, we’ve got some crazy news. AI in the news, all over the place including 100-billion-dollar change in market cap. So we’re going into that. So stay tuned for the AI news. We are going to do our Techshow purview which is going to be all the things that you and I are talking about. And finally, and for those of you listening, when we were doing the pre-production on this, I completely triggered Gyi with the word expensive.

So the final segment is, are Google ads too expensive? And while we’re talking about money, what do you have to do? You have to have money to make the world go round Mr. Lockwood.

[Music]

Intro: Welcome to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing, teaching you how to promote, market and make fat stacks for your legal practice here on Legal Talk Network.

Conrad Saam: Welcome to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing. It’s time for the news.

[Music]

All right Gyi, I talked about a hundred billion dollars in market cap. The AI search wars have begun. Google came out with its answer to ChatGPT perhaps a little prematurely. They arrogantly or cleverly called it Bard. So, one of the rubs on ChatGPT was it writes like an eight-year-old. Well Google is naming theirs after good old William Shakespeare, The Bard. But what happened? Share the funny ha-ha that lost Google 100 billion in market cap.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Well, now you can, as Conrad mentioned, you can get your search results in poetic song with Bard. But seriously during the announcement, one of the things I don’t know if this is a hundred-billion-dollar mistake but the example that they use had factually incorrect information. So, while they’re talking about how awesome it is, it’s spitting out bad information and in fairness, ChatGPT does the same thing. Some of this is like a very interesting sociological philosophical thing to be watching how the expectations of the humans of the machines at scale is like super funny because there’s the, you know, of course, like everything else half the groups like ban ChatGPT, no lawyer should ever use ChatGPT.

And then the other side of it is, “Oh, I’m going to ChatGPT everything. I’m never going to touch a client file again.” And of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle but yeah, it’s here. It’s beyond just the, you know, law practice, right? Big mistake by Google. I’m not too worried about Google figuring this out.

Conrad Saam: Well, I think the interesting thing like was the mistake on the launch a hundred billion mistake? No. And by the way, that represents 7% of Google’s market cap. That’s not insignificant. My take on that 7% loss in market cap is more that it is a — Google’s response to this however botched it may be but the fact that they had to respond to this indicates the fear that is being felt in Mountain View about this new way that people may actually be looking for information.

Gyi Tsakalakis: No doubt.

Conrad Saam: I see that as a much bigger deal and yeah, it remains fairly fascinating. Now, Google has again delivered some new guidance on AI content. We’ll make sure that we put that new guidance in our show notes.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, I mean, we talked about this before. So the last time we recorded was prior to this most recent guidance because this comes from February 8. But essentially, they give you a deeper breakdown of different ways you might use ChatGPT and it comes back to the same thing. It’s classic Google, right? You can use AI as long as it’s for users and humans and it’s got its expert content, right?

(00:05:00)

Okay. Thanks Google, very helpful, right? And then of course the question of, can they actually detect it and the fight their war. But I think to the point here is it’s a signal that it’s not a fight of whether or not you’re going to get these chat based results, it’s just a matter of how and when. And to your point though between ChatGPT and TikTok, this is the first time probably in 20 years that Google’s had something’s significantly challenged them.

Conrad Saam: Okay. Yeah. That is what I felt the day that I saw this. Okay. So speaking of AI, there’s been a big blow up between DoNotPay and a woman in Seattle, my hometown of Seattle, Catherine Tucson, who I have to note describes her Twitter handle as good in a crisis and at no other time and boy oh boy, did she deliver on this. Gyi, what’s going on in this spat that was covered fairly extensively by Bob Ambrogi?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. I’m not going to parse everything in here but looks like formal complaint against DoNotPay for fraud. There’s a lot more to this story and we’re not going to go into all the details of it but I think this is a legal technology. I think it’s valid news item for Lunch Hour Legal Marketing and people should know what’s going on. But check out Bob’s interview on LawNext and check out, we’ll put a link to some of the threats Catherine’s on Twitter. But at the intersection of law practice and technology, this story lives and so we’ve thought appropriate to bring up.

Conrad Saam: Some good muckraking I believe brought to you by Gyi and Conrad.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Some muckraking, yeah.

Conrad Saam: Hey Gyi, the latest thing in the news, using fruit snacks to generate great reviews from was it jurors I think? This is from Chris Vinny.

Gyi Tsakalakis: No. Yes. Chris Finney, you are a genius.

Conrad Saam: Absolute genius. We love this. Go. Read it out because it’s so funny.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. So it’s on LinkedIn. We’ll put a link in the show notes. But essentially what happened was, Chris Finney is an attorney, got a review on his Google business profile from an opposing witness in a trial. The opposing witness tongue-in-chic said I don’t know these lawyers and we might differ ideologically but they gave everybody in the courtroom fruit snacks and water bottles. And I just got to tell you I am now enamored by all of this. And Chris calls it out on LinkedIn. You know, it’s some of this is tongue-in-cheek but it goes to show you, you know? And he mentions this is like, if you would think about people and you treat people with respect, you never know where it’s going to lead.

And in this particular case, not only did he get the review and you might laugh about and say, “Well that’s not a real review, whatever” but the buzz around this on LinkedIn itself, you know, at least the last time I checked, there was over 20-plus comments and lots of them engagement, that’s it. Those are the kind of stories that are just for me like, that’s what it’s all about. So, nice job Chris Finney.

Conrad Saam: And by the way, in Google’s eyes, this is a legitimate review. This is how someone treated you, right? Whether or not he was on the other side like immaterial in Google’s eyes. So don’t ever forget that. I actually reached out to Chris and he wrote back to me he said, “Hey thanks Conrad. It was all we had and he said he was hungry so.” Right? Like what else are you going to do? He’s just a good guy handing out fruit snacks, right? Look what it turns into. Super funny.

All right, this is our longest news segment we’ve ever done. We are going to take a break and when we come back, a preview of ABA Techshow sessions from Conrad and Gyi.

[Music]

Conrad Saam: Built for lawyers, Nota’s cloud-based business banking is perfect for your solo or small law firm. You want to spend your day helping clients not struggling to reconcile bank statements. Nota’s customer service specialists are here to help you. They only support attorneys so they understand the tools you use and the requirements you’re up against and take your business as seriously as you do. Don’t miss out on exciting new member benefits including our partnership with Lawline to earn ethics credits for your CLEs online at trustnota.com/legal. Nota, banking built for law firms like yours. Terms and conditions may apply.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Seventy-six percent of lawyers say they are overworked and part of the problem is tedious tasks like manually retyping information when drafting. Lawyaw’s document automation enables law firms to fill sets of word-based documents in court forms cutting legal drafting time by 80%. Use intuitive features like conditional logic and e-sign to simplify drafting and improve client experience.

(00:10:00)

Learn more at lawyaw.com. That’s L-A-W-Y-A-W.com.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Welcome back. So as we said at the outset, we are 13 days away from ABA Techshow in Chicago, March 1 through 4, Conrad and I’s in-person meeting. And if you’re there, we’d love to hear from you. But we did want to give folks a little preview of what we’ll be talking about at Techshow. And if you’re going to be there, may be a pitch for why you should come to our sessions and if you’re not currently planning to come, a pitch to come. So Conrad, what are you talking about? What the heck are you talking about at Techshow this year?

Conrad Saam: So one of my favorite things that I’ve worked on from the beginning of my kind of game in the legal world is positioning. Branding and positioning and positioning and messaging more importantly than branding. I think a lot of you get stuck on this branding is just a logo and colors and type font, right? But it’s really messaging and positioning. Why you? Like most lawyers we’ve talked about the poor ad nauseam on this on the podcast. Most of you go out of your way to identify yourself as being a lawyer and that is what you think your branding position is but it’s not.

And so, I’m working with (00:11:14) who we have spoken about numerous times on this podcast. She is, and I’ll give away the initial slide, she is a black female trademark attorney and her branding and positioning is, “I am what a trademark attorney looks like” which is outstandingly effective. But we’re going to go into a variety of examples of where lawyers have gone out of their way to not try and convince their audience that they’re just someone who happens to have a law degree but they’re actually a person behind that law degree.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Awesome, looking forward to that one. You and I are also speaking together on March 3 I believe and the title of our session is Marketing as a Team Sport. But why don’t you talk to me about what you envision this session to be?

Conrad Saam: Yeah. So we touched on this very lightly the other day that some law firms are really leaning into becoming media companies. And one of the ways to do that is really, especially with social, we talked about our social before as well, leveraging the power of the network effect of social. The way to do that is through deep relationships and partnerships with people who already have that reach. And so you amplify your reach by doing this. So that’s kind of the external partners. I think the internal partners conversation is really evolving recently. Should we have in-house staff? Should we be partnering with an agency? Who should we be working with to actually run our marketing?

I think that has evolved tremendously over the last three or four years, maybe three years Gyi whereas law firms get increasingly sophisticated we start to see how these work. And I think what you’ll get from Gyi and Konrad is who, if you’re going to do work internally, what are the right roles for that? And if you’re going to do marketing work externally, who are the right people to do that as well, right? And I think there are different perspectives and different approaches for different firms.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Awesome.

Conrad Saam: So Gyi, you are also covering upcoming trends with Allison from Legal Ease Consulting. Talk about that.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, this is going to be a great session. The law practice division and Legal Technology Resource Center does a lot of great surveying of their membership and so you get to see where lawyers at least the survey respondents where they’re focusing their activities, the channels that are underutilized. So real data-informed, trending session that we’re going to use to kick off the marketing track so be sure not to miss that one.

Conrad Saam: And finally a place you and I have both been playing quite actively over the last 12 months. Brand acceleration with LinkedIn Gyi, what are we going to be talking about there? Because I think this is really, really pertinent right now.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, we’re going to go everything LinkedIn profile creation, content creation, engagements, short form video, all the things that can help you stand out on LinkedIn. I mean, we’re probably a little bit behind the power curve of like the adoption of LinkedIn, I think it’s catching up. But in terms of business intent, professional network, lawyer to lawyer referrals and all the other things that LinkedIn does, it’s to me it’s been the most powerful from an intent-based social network.

Now, look, TikTok and Facebook have the users but LinkedIn has got that business and professional connection intent and it is really, really powerful. So we’re going to go deep on that.

Conrad Saam: Yeah, I think it’s great. Super, super, super important for almost all others. And you know my love affair with LinkedIn for lawyers came early, early on. Its frequently that winner in name search, right?

(00:15:01)

And so there’s an SEO element in this in a big, big way. If you don’t think link is important, you are missing the boat here.

Gyi Tsakalakis: So if you’re going to be in Chicago for ABA Techshow please do see Conrad and I out. We love talking marketing. If you got questions or just want to say hello, we’d love to hear from you. And if you’re not currently going to Techshow, please consider joining us in Chicago. It’s going to be a great show.

Conrad Saam: All right. We’re going to take a break. When we come back, we’re going to go over a great reaction to our previous episode. Someone was mad that we were half an hour late in posting which is great. Both of us heard about it. And then I’m going to make Gyi’s head explode by using the word expensive. Gyi, are Google ads too expensive?

Female: Let me tell you about David, a criminal defense attorney in Ventura California. His firm is probably like yours. Client intake was inefficient. His staff was at risk for burnout and his client acquisition rate was just meh. Then he tried Lawmatics powerful client intake and automation software. Within months, David’s lead conversion jumped by 200%. If running your law practice is keeping you from practicing law, take Lawmatics for a free test drive. Lawmatics, makes automating your firm easy. Visit lawmatics.com.

Gyi Tsakalakis: So if you’ve been listening to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing for any time now, you know that we love to call out reactions to the show and we got some great ones this week. I’m biased of course but we had a great show last episode. So here’s I received this message in Twitter. I sent this also to Conrad but where is today’s Lunch Hour Legal Marketing podcast? It hasn’t dropped yet. Are you’re still doing them on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month? I love your news or in format. I mean, thank you so much that you are so eager to get the episode drop. You notice when we’re late and we are — we apologize for being late. That was Conrad’s fault.

Conrad Saam: That was Conrad’s fault.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Also from Shawn Ham, great podcast episode this week. Thank you for putting all that out there. I mean, honestly, I got to give the gratitude to our listener who did a really nice job and was very I think in some ways vulnerable to be able to share that story. But again, so valuable to all of the listeners to hear what’s going on. That’s what we think Lunch Hour Legal Marketing is all about and so thank you so much.

Conrad Saam: Yeah.

Gyi Tsakalakis: And as always, if you’ve got something you want to hear us talk about, you got an issue, you got a question, you got some kind of marketing problem, let’s talk it out. #LHLM submit feedback. We’d love to hear from you. Thanks again.

Conrad Saam: Lie down on the couch. Take a deep breath. Ask your question and let Gyi and Conrad go off. Speaking of letting Gyi and Conrad go off, I’m going to make Gyi angry right now because it happened in the pre-production meeting. Gyi, the COLA report for 2023 came out. Ninety-seven percent of lawyers said that Google ads are too expensive. I just grabbed this. I put this on Facebook a couple days ago. This was an ad from someone else selling something else to lawyers that says Google charges law firms 5 to $300 for a click. Pay per click is too expensive. Law firms need hundreds of clicks on their ads to get a client. It’s costing the industry too much. Pay per click is too expensive.

Gyi, is Google’s pay per click too expensive?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Sure. Now, you know the reason I got so animated and emotional about this in the pre-show is this came up in another lawyer Facebook group and this question comes up all the time. Stuffs too expensive. SEO is too expensive. I can’t believe you’re paying that for SEO. I can’t believe you’re paying that for this and then of course all the consultants jump in and they’re like, “No, I can do it for cheaper” and blah, blah, blah. And it’s just, it’s all the wrong questions. Too expensive in the context of what? If you will pay $100 for a click that generates a million-dollar fee, is that too expensive? Plus by the way, everybody doesn’t pay the same thing. This idea that like, “Oh what’s your cost per click? What’s a hundred dollars for truck accident lawyer?” No, it’s not. Maybe yours is but not everybody’s is. There’s quality scores. There’s ad rank. There’s all these factors that go into how much you’re paying per click.

And by the way, lawyers who are having this conversation asking these questions, ask it of yourself, $3,000 for legal representation, that’s way too expensive. Well, in the context of what? In the context of my freedom? In the context of being able to recover for a lifetime of interest? You’re taking a third of my recovery in your personal injury fee. That’s outrageous. No, it isn’t. Right? It’s the value of what you’re getting. So again, ask better questions. Is it maybe too expensive for your firm especially if you’re super selective and if you’re broad matching lawyer and you’re only taking highly selective, high value, very niche types of cases?

(00:20:02)

Well, yes, it probably isn’t going to work. It probably is. It’s not too — go ahead. All right, I’m done.

Conrad Saam: So you got very tactical right there. Why is that not going to work? Let’s get into that.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Because you’re going to pay for a whole bunch of clicks that have nothing to do with generating the types of clients that you want. And so again, it’s not that Google ads is too expensive or SEO is too expensive. It’s only expensive in the context of its value to your practice. So instead of focusing on, “Oh this is a cost per click, it’s way too high.” Focus on like all right, work backwards. What’s the target average value of a fee for your firm? What’s the target cost per consultation? What’s the target cost per qualified attorney leader whatever you want to call it? And then work your way back to, “Here’s how much we can pay to acquire that” and “Here’s how much of that’s going to be a media fee. Here’s how much that’s going to be my consultant fee. Here’s how much it’s going to be if I’m going to do it myself, put your own time into the formula.”

I usually bill $600 an hour so for every hour that I spent on Google ads, that’s $600 of me spending on Google ads. Think about in the context of if you hire a full-time person to do it for you. Hey, my Google ads manager in my firm makes this a year. That’s got to be factored into your entire cost per acquisition. And again, this is a very unsophisticated way to do this. You know there’s obviously more sophisticated ways to calculate target cost especially across multi-channel and all this stuff. But you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of the conversations we have early on when lawyers would be like, “Cloud computing, we can’t do cloud computing.” It’s like, you’re asking all the wrong questions. It’s not about its expense, it’s about tying it to business metrics.

Conrad Saam: I love getting you angry because it makes the show better man. Let me give two really tactical and very real examples of where spending less is actually really expensive. These are two very real examples that I’m dealing with right now. We are talking to a law firm right now about doing work with them. They are a personal injury firm in three different states, smaller states but they have a profile across three different states. And the bids that we are going up against are in the 4 to $7,000 per month retainer for SEO. That is the most expensive money and we are well north of that. But the most expensive money they can spend right now is to spend $4,000 a month on a game that they are never going to win, okay? And so, this is an example.

I’m going to have another example in a different channel but this is an example of where trying to be money conscious is actually from an expense perspective a really, really bad idea because they’re never going to win with that budget. I can’t win with that budget and neither can they. Let me give you another example. One of the, and Gyi I’m sure you see this or hear this regularly from law firms and this came up in the PDC number so this is the ad that I read. Showing up for the top for divorce lawyer near me search can cost up to $30 per click. The keyword phrase car accident lawyers is $50. By the way, if you’re getting clicks at $50 and you can’t turn those into profitable clients, you’re doing a lot of other things wrong, right? A lot of other things wrong.

But one of the things that we often see is a desire by PDC vendors to drop the pay per click numbers, right? We used to be $87 per click and now we’re $70 per click but you’re not bidding on high converting terms anymore, right? So it’s not about the click, it’s about the consultation. This is why you specifically said Gyi, it’s about the cost per consultation. So in many cases, we’ll actually deliberately drive up the cost per click, right? More expensive but from a conversion perspective, it’s actually more effective and that’s what you want to actually get into. And so, if you guys start kind of pulling your hair out about these ridiculous cost per click numbers, well it’s the wrong metric. You’re looking so far up the journey of that perspective client that you’re not really thinking about what matters to you which is your cost per consultation and ideally cost per client.

Another way I look at the word expensive when we talk about cost per client is your time. So put differently, if your cost per client is 20%, that means you work on Monday for your marketing apparatus, right? Whether that’s money spent on Google, SEO vendors like Conrad and Gyi, your reporting, your internal staff, the reality is you’re going to work to pay for those things on Monday and you’re working for yourself the remaining days.

So I get that no one wants to go to work on Monday to fund their growth but if you’re a growing company, that is the investment that you’re going to need to put in in order to make this happen because bluntly, the clients come from these more expensive where it costs to actually win channels, right?

(00:25:03)

And you can hate that, that doesn’t change the game.

Gyi Tsakalakis: And to your point, don’t misunderstand my rant. I mean, there are plenty of firms. They are at a stage or a position or a model that Google ads is the least effective way for them to spend advertising dollars. I’m not saying it’s for everybody, I’m just saying start asking better questions folks. It’s not about the expense of the click. That’s part of it. It’s not fair to say it’s nothing. It’s part of the analysis but again, work backwards from target clients, fees, the volume and that sort of thing too. If you only need — if your whole firm is supported by like one or two really high value clients and that’s the way you like to practice, good for you. Don’t go bidding on injury lawyer and then turning away 99 out of 100 actually qualified leads because you don’t do, you don’t have a volume style practice, right?

Well, my cost per acquisition is like really high. Well, it’s like, well, again, are you turning away all of these potential clients that you’re actually buying their attention? Because remember, that’s what you’re doing. With ad’s, you’re buying their attention. And it’s the same thing across all these channels. None of it. At least the other I love two because it’s the opposite. Well SEO is free, you just post stuff and Google picks it up and you start ranking and then the phone starts ringing. It’s like, oh yeah, it’s totally free. Doesn’t take you any time to actually create a page let alone a page that’s actually going to rank or attract links or get shared or convert or do all the other things that’s going to happen.

So anyway, I don’t know. Look, I think that my rant here is, you got to ask better questions. And I’m going to hold you accountable people on Facebook because I watch you ask these questions and I’m not going to call you out because I’m sympathetic. This can be complicated but you got to dig a little deeper.

Conrad Saam: Well, I think you, and I want to stay with Google ads because I think the Google ads continuously gets the rap about being too expensive. But I think you very astutely called out some firms don’t need Google ads at all because they have a bunch of marketing channels that are working extremely well for them and frankly the cost per client on those other marketing channels is better, right?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Right?

Conrad Saam: Google ads cost per client tends to be higher than most other channels.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah.

Conrad Saam: That is a reality as all of you guys have gotten into that game but there are a couple real, real truths here. Generating clients from more cost-effective marketing channels typically takes a long time for that flywheel to actually happen. You get the referrals from reputation, you do dark social which takes a long time to pull out, you do organic search which takes a long time to work, You’re running billboards which take a long time to work, right?

The other reality is a significant portion of the market is going to hire a lawyer through Google ads. And if you ignore that portion of the market, you are definitionally retarding your growth. That may be 100% okay with you or it may not be. But if you’re ignoring that channel, your market size, your opportunity constricts by definition. Those are the numbers. You can hate the player, don’t hate the game.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. You also just remind me of something else that gets me so fired up which is the expense. We’re talking about direct response paid search ads here, right? We are talking about last touch attribution direct response paid search ads. There’s all sorts of other ways to buy Google media than just direct response paid search ads. And so again, we see it as Google doesn’t work. Well Google seems to be in light of recent issues, Google’s been doing just fine. So the point is that advertisers are buying Google media and they’re buying it in more sophisticated ways. And so again, Google makes it really easy for you to open an ads account up, bid on a keyword and pay per click. That’s all they care about. That’s their one-trick pony.

They don’t really have — they’re getting better I would argue and you know some of the movement, performance max campaigns and some others stuff, they’re trying to move it to a better performance driven model. But again, that’s why there’s a whole industry of people that try to help manage heads because it’s not as simple as like, “Oh I’m going to open an ads account but in keywords.” Anyway, the thing that you said that really struck me because it’s the same thing about billboards. Billboards and TV and Super Bowl commercials. That stuffs all super expensive but guess what? If you’re embedding your name in someone’s head so that when they need you, they think of you, what’s the cost per acquisition there, right? I mean, what are you measuring? Are you measuring my name showing up in your head at the key moment? That’s extremely valuable.

Conrad Saam: Right.

(00:29:59)

And those players who are building that brand awareness and/or spending a ton of money on that so you’ve got the brand awareness brand affinity which is that long time recognition and then you have that direct response which is that short-term need, right? The firms that are doing better with things that cost a lot, right? So whether it’s billboards or Google pay per click, they have two things in common. Number one, by and large they do volume, right? Because they are willing to take on more types of cases which drop. This is just pure simple, simple pre-algebra. The more cases you accept, the lower your cost per client for that same spent, period.

And the second thing that they have in common and this goes right to this is they are very, very efficient and very, very good at converting those inbound inquiries into clients. So they are less picky and they’re really good at that entire process because the amount of time, money, expense needed to generate those inbounds whether it’s direct response or brand awareness brand affinity is very high. And so for that to pay off, you need to figure out how to do volume. It’s really hard to do volume. Brand awareness for a very, very specific niche where it’s hard to target that audience, really difficult because you’re so picky. The pickier the lawyer, the harder it is to make all this work.

Gyi Tsakalakis: And by the way, if you’re going to be picky, the other thing a lot of these firms do is they’ve got referral networks. So cases that they can’t take, they refer those cases out and recoup their ad cost to that referral.

Conrad Saam: Yep. Finance your advertising with referral fees, baby. All right. Are you still mad? You calmed down a little bit?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Well, we’ll see. We got to stop thinking like this. I mean again, we’ve come a long way, we got a long way to go.

Conrad Saam: Fair enough. Fair enough.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Well with that, I will leave you on a happy note that I am grateful for your listening. If you just landed here, please do subscribe on your favorite podcasting thingamabob and check us out on YouTube because we have hilarious outtakes and non-hilarious outtakes and other clips. And if you’re going to be in Chicago, please do say hello if you’re a listener, it really does make our day. Thanks so much. Until next time, Conrad and Gyi or Lunch Hour Legal Marketing.

[Music]

Male: Thank you for listening to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing. If you would like more information about what you heard today, please visit legaltalknetwork.com. Subscribe via Apple Podcasts and RSS. Follow Legal Talk Network on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Super cringy.

Conrad Saam: Cringy. Cringe alert. I am so glad we’re not doing this show live.

Continue Reading