Success in Succession: Preparing the Next Generation of Legal Leaders

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to the Legal Report from Robert Half, where industry leading experts discuss current hiring and practice management issues impacting the legal profession. Robert Half is a premier provider of talent solutions for the legal field. The legal report from Robert Half is here on the Legal Talk Network.

Jamy Sullivan:

Hello everyone and welcome. I’m your host, Jamy Sullivan, Executive Director of the Legal Practice Group for Robert Half. Succession planning has always been important in corporate legal departments, but in 2026, it’s become something more than a long-term consideration. Rapid regulatory change, evolving technology, shifting talent pipelines, and increasing specialization are forcing legal leaders to rethink how they prepare the next generation. Today, succession planning isn’t just about filling roles. It’s about protecting institutional knowledge, managing risk, and developing leaders who can guide legal teams through constant change. So what does success in succession really look like today? And how can leaders build plans that actually work? Joining me to explore this is Ami Rodrigues, Deputy General Counsel at Under Armour. Ami leads the company’s privacy team, driving high impact initiatives and shapes how the organization balances innovation and risk and is deeply involved in developing and preparing future legal leaders.

Ami, it’s such a pleasure to have you at the show today.

Ami Rodrigues:

Jamie, thank you so much for having me.

Jamy Sullivan:

Absolutely. So before we dive in, can you share a bit about your experience with the development of legal leaders and guiding succession efforts in your career?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. My first exposure to succession planning came when I was a more junior lawyer. And I watched the legal department of the organization I was in struggle through sudden unexpected gaps and there were multiple departures. And what stood out, there was obviously operational disruption, but that then had an impact on stakeholder confidence. It impacted cross-functional alignment and even strategic momentum for some of the company’s initiatives were affected when the right people weren’t ready to step in. And it took several months of watching that situation flounder. You could see the ripple effects across the business because there wasn’t adequate ownership. So as I’ve progressed in my career and become a legal leader, I’ve approached this with a much broader lens now. And I think succession planning can be really hard for some legal departments, but it’s really not a static exercise in saying, “Okay, who’s next?” You have to really be strategic and think about who in your bench of people can understand the business, or at least upskill to understand, who can manage their select stakeholders under pressure, who thinks strategically, who can communicate effectively.

And it goes beyond just having legal skills or subject matter expertise to take that judgment into practical trusted guidance. So a lot of it is spotting capability early on, it’s creating stretch opportunities, and most importantly, it’s building resilience into the team structure so that no one person becomes a single point of failure.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, that is a very clear landscape that you have set for us of what you’ve experienced, kind of your vision, if you will, and the reality. So given this hands-on experience that you have had with secesion efforts, I’m curious, looking at that broader legal landscape, how has succession planning in departments evolved over the past few years?

Ami Rodrigues:

What I would say is there are a few things that stand out. Before, it used to be about titles and now it’s about continuity. So what I mean by that is legal teams, it was very common to see the team map out who might inherit a role. And now the question is a lot more practical. The question is, if someone disappears on a Tuesday, who keeps the business out of trouble on Wednesday? And it’s less about leaning on the way things have been done. So maybe there used to be an assumption that people won’t leave because turnover is solo, retirement timelines are distant, and so far so good. The emergencies have been rare, and when they’ve popped up, they haven’t been as bad. But in the last five years, especially, the volatility that most organizations face do require a more agile legal department, and that’s where it’s no longer about titles, it’s about continuity.

And the second big shift, because of that, the regular volatility that is just expected change is the only thing you can expect. Cross-functional credibility is incredibly important. And so the successor, the person who steps in, isn’t just someone who knows the law, it’s the person who can calm down a panicked product manager, can talk to finance to understand the budget impact, can communicate risk to executives without anyone becoming even more confused or more worried. And that has also changed. I would also say the third thing is when I started in- house, documentation was a nice to have, something that was rarely done. And now you see legal teams treating documentation as a precious artifact. And we saw this happen more after the great resignation where institutional knowledge easily just walked out the door and it’s become a core leadership competency to document and understand how the work is getting done.

So I would say those are the three main shifts I’ve observed.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, the evolution is constant change, finding continuity, as you said, keeping calm under pressure ultimately with all of the changes that are going on. And hearing all of that you just explained, it’s so important for legal leaders to have a plan and think ahead, but it still feels difficult to prioritize. So why do you think sucesion planning has traditionally been such a challenge for corporate legal teams to prioritize it?

Ami Rodrigues:

Succession planning is incredibly hard in a legal department. The work never stops. It rarely slows down. Legal is one of the few functions in a company where the calendar is dictated by everyone else’s emergencies and everyone else’s timelines. So deals, investigations, regulatory deadlines, product launches, that is determined externally. And so when the team is underwater, carving out time to think about future leadership feels like a luxury that the department can’t engage in. The other thing is I also find that legal work tends to depend on deep person specific knowledge. So it can be really hard to document select knowledge, and it can feel overwhelming to talk about how do longstanding internal relationships transfer when someone else takes the role. I think also with a legal department, it can be really hard when confidential if your organization has select areas of confidentiality. So letting a junior lawyer shadow sensitive matters can be really hard because maybe it’s executive level strategy or there are a lot of M&A deals that can’t be shared outside of a larger team, or there are certain privileged investigations or matters under privilege that really need a tight need-to-know circle, and that can make it overwhelming as to how do you expose junior lawyers to this, or even junior non-lawyers, legal professionals in the department to upskill and grow into roles.

I also think that sometimes you are a product of your hiring patterns. I referenced how sometimes there’s a preference to just recruit laterally. So we want someone who’s done this before and there’s risk aversion around promoting an internal candidate. They may lack breadth or influence, but when you assume that you’ll hire from the outside, you don’t invest in internal successors.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, and not to mention, there’s an increase in the number of general councils that are set to retire in the next five years, right? So thinking about that in the Fortune 500 companies, I read a stat around that as well. So the reason I bring that up is what are maybe some other trends or changes that you can point to in this current legal or business landscape that has made succession planning more urgent than ever before?

Ami Rodrigues:

There are a lot of trends and changes externally. We see a lot of disruption that organizations have to face, and maybe disruption isn’t the best word, it’s just change, external change. And what that means is legal departments have to navigate more complex regulatory environments or environments in which there is no regulation. So when we think about things like AI or AI governance, and we may have a patchwork of regulations or no regulations, what does responsible adoption and implementation look like where there is a whiteboard as to legal requirements. Other things that impact the business strategy and risk, they include data privacy and cybersecurity, which my team handles, and that also quickly shifts from what it was five years ago. We also see a lot of shifts in ESG, in global compliance, but also we see changes in technology such as digital IP. So when we had NFTs come out, when we talk about how IP is minted and how IP is protected.

So there’s a lot of smart technology as well that impacts different areas. There are a lot of fast growing fields and attorneys who I find are drawn to fast moving and high visibility fields, they are often the same ones who would otherwise form the core of a future leadership pipeline. And so it is very urgent. And I also want to say that it’s very possible to begin succession planning just based on what you see with people who rise to the level of demonstrating curiosity, growth mindset. If you are ready to build cross-functional relationships and get into operational discipline of building new processes, govern instructors, these are people who maybe need a little bit help in exercising strategic insight, but have the potential. They can navigate ambiguity, they can create enterprise trust. These are things that are well needed whenever there is a shift in how the company can do business, and that’s going to continue over the next several years.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, we’ll come back to that aspect of how do we continue to prepare legal leaders and make them future ready. I want to touch a little further. You’re right, we are in such a complex legal landscape and compliance and risk are top of mind for the day-to-day functions within legal, but not having a succession plan, right? It brings its own risks. So if you think about how does leadership gaps or the lack of a succession plan create its own risk for an organization?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. I think you end up undermining your legal team because it means that there isn’t a lot of cross-functional alignment. Stakeholders are wondering, who do I go to? Is this the right person? If there is a gap and there are two to three lawyers advising one person on the strategy and compliance of something versus having a singular point of contact that takes in the input and feeds it, that can create a lack of trust. It also holds up the business from being able to execute flawlessly and doesn’t really embed a sort of continuity in the way things operate. It also has a ripple effect, I would say, on crisis navigation. So crisis with little C or crisis with the big C, if something goes wrong and no one knows who in legal to contact, or because there hasn’t been a lot of trust and there’s no one single point in legal where the stakeholder is able to communicate and talk to the legal department, it’s really difficult then to see, okay, we have this problem.

Something blew up. What do you recommend we do? Here’s what we’re thinking. Are there other angles to look at this? Because oftentimes what we do as lawyers is we don’t just tell our stakeholders what the law is. We look at a risk management strategy and a risk management strategy can often support a sound business strategy. So when there’s a lack of succession planning, it creates multiple risks in an organization that ripple through.

Jamy Sullivan:

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was thinking what a ripple effect that is. So if something goes bump in the night, you got to have somebody else to continue to turn to within legal. So now you started our conversation about some of those situations of what you had learned from or what you had witnessed early on in your career. So I’m just curious if there’s any other situations where the absence of a clear succession plan created real organizational operational challenges outside of what you shared on the front end that you can elaborate on.

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. What I have seen just from the experience that I had mentioned, I noticed that operations continued. Ultimately, the deals got signed, the acquisitions were completed, but the way in which it happened was a lot clunkier. It was a lot slower, it was a lot messier, it took more time. And sometimes what ends up happening is what I also saw was there were inexperienced people who didn’t have the cross-functional influence to be able to really lead and communicate, or there was an incredibly knowledgeable junior attorney who didn’t have the gravitas to communicate why something was especially important, or we also saw in certain deals and certain integrations, it took longer because it was clunkier. Rather than saying, “Here’s the risk, here’s the risk mitigation strategy because of these prior relationships, because the person who was handling it did not have not only relationships, but the ability to understand how the work had been completed prior.” What we saw was it took longer, it was more expensive, it took more steps, required more team involvement, for lack of a better word, where people, rather than completing something, walking away and celebrating that win, there was a lot more continuous involvement to keep something going because of the discomfort with communicating what that risk should be and how we should sit with that risk, which a predecessor would have been able to do.

Without getting into too many specifics, those can have some real impacts in how things are done. And then when you try to build on that, you’re building on a very messy foundation.

Jamy Sullivan:

I definitely will be using that picture of, “If we don’t do this, it’s going to be clunkier.” Definitely. I mean, you’re spot on. I mean, you’ve really just painted an incredible picture for our listeners, and it’s been an enlightening conversation thus far. So when we return, I really want to dive into that future ready legal leadership, what that looks like, and how leaders can intentionally develop the next generation. We’ll be right back.

Announcer:

Is your legal team buried under rising workloads? Having trouble containing costs or staying ahead of changing regulations? Robert Half can help. We assist thousands of organizations, including Fortune 500 companies and AmLaw law firms, offering an alternative to legal staffing and project management. Our flexible talent solutions can be customized and seamlessly integrated into your organization to help alleviate the time or budget management challenges facing your team. Connect with us today at robertfalf.com.

Jamy Sullivan:

Welcome back to The Legal Report from Robert Half. I’m here with Amit Rodriguez, and we’ve been talking about why succession planning has become such a critical issue for legal departments in 2026. So let’s shift to the leadership development. Beyond technical legal expertise, what skills or capabilities do you believe future legal leaders need most to succeed?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. What I would say is the difference between a lawyer and a legal leader is one has mastery of a legal doctrine or practice area. The other has the ability to lead people, to shape strategy, manage complexity, and guide the organization through uncertainty or difficulty. So technical excellence is the baseline for coming in- house and working successfully on a legal team, but leadership capability is the differentiator.

Jamy Sullivan:

I couldn’t agree more, and I love the idea of making sure there is a difference, that everybody understands that going from that lawyer to that legal leader. So are there gaps that you’ve seen then between that traditional legal training and what’s actually required to step into that leadership role in today’s world?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. It’s a very interesting question because in legal departments, there is an assumption that if you spend a certain amount of time, you’ll become a people manager or you will get promoted into having a team or overseeing something. Maybe you manage stakeholders as well as a team, but the things that make someone a very strong individual contributor, which is expertise, precision, and most importantly, independence, those are not the same things that make someone an effective leader. And so there’s a whole mindset shift that has to happen in order to become an effective leader. And you don’t need to wait for someone to tell you and give you permission. You can always go from doing things to enabling others to do them well. You can go from being the expert to being a coach. And instead of managing details as a people leader or a leader of a group or leader of a project or strategy in the legal department, you are setting direction and expectations.

So the biggest gaps that I see happen when someone steps into a leadership role … There are so many, by the way, but the two biggest ones I think are communication. So setting the expectations rather than asking what they are and delivering on them, you’re setting the expectations, you’re communicating upwards with the executive team in a way that demonstrates, “Here’s what you need to know. Here’s where we need a decision. Here’s where we need you to tell us if you have any concerns, otherwise we will proceed as stated.” That level of communication is also important because you are setting expectations up top and to the team that executes. Communication also means cross-functional influence. It means having difficult conversations, which a lot of people are uncomfortable with, but getting comfortable with having those in order to move things forward. And I would argue communication is the single biggest indicator of who is and isn’t a successful manager.

And the way you communicate as an individual contributor, the way you communicate as a manager is very different. Second thing I would say is the mindset shift between going from individual contributor to a leader is team dynamics and people leadership, obviously, but this means coaching and developing others, so giving feedback, providing support in a impactful way, finding stretch assignments, bringing someone along to shadow your work or self-initiated shadow work. “Hey, can I sit in on this to better understand how this works?” With team dynamics, it’s understanding motivation and engagement for your team. So what drives each person? There are some people who simply just want to be challenged intellectually. There are others who want to do good work and be told, “You’re doing a great job.” But what motivates and engages people on a team, that is also something that is really important. One of the things that a lot of managers struggle with is delegation.

So assigning work that builds capacity versus offloading tasks because you as a manager have too much work. A part of delegating is how do you delegate work that you also find interesting, but it’s going to have long tentacles or roots, and it’s important then to upskill the team so that they’re also able to jump in as the work continues to evolve and get more complex and requires a series of smaller decisions. I’d also say things like psychological safety. I think this is really big for managers to understand. And again, you don’t need to be a manager to begin developing. How do you create psychological safety where there’s an environment that people can speak up and say, “Hey, I think this is going wrong,” or, “I think this might go off the rail if we do it this way,” where people can speak up, they can ask questions, and more importantly, they feel empowered to take smart risks.

So sometimes the bet you take doesn’t work out, and there’s a plan and there’s support to get things back on track.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, that’s a great depiction of what gaps might be, as well as what to look for or think about as you step into a leadership role. Now, we do a survey, different surveys throughout the year here at Robert Half, and I wanted to share one of our most recent ones, we found 56% of legal departments cite that they have a limited internal talent pool for advancement as a key succession planning challenge. So from your experience, what are effective ways, and you did start to go down this path, but what are some of those effective ways legal leaders can help their high potential internal team members build those skills that they will need before they’re ready to step up?

Ami Rodrigues:

I do think that when you invest internally, your return is tenfold because the relationships will continue to establish the organizational knowledge will just deepen. And I would say you have to build underlying muscles. Those muscles are the ones that help someone understand that they are credible, trusted, and ready. So there’s a few things that high potential lawyers need before they’re ready. Certain things are judgment under ambiguity. Have you exercised making a call with incomplete information? Cross-functional influence, I’ve talked about this, but that’s really shaping decisions without formal authority or an executive saying, “Yes, this is okay.” Obviously, executive communication so that senior leaders can have issues framed adequately for them. Prioritization and triage is also big, so deciding what matters most or something may matter, but there’s nothing that can be done about it, or there are times where something can be fixed, but it’s not worth the team’s time.

It makes sense to give ownership of what I call safe but strategic work. So there are times when there are cross-functional initiatives, so there might be a policy rollout, or there is a change in a compliance program. There might be a company-wide project where legal is a key stakeholder because of some transformation effort, or there might also just be an opportunity to draft or present a high level risk summary to an executive or to another department or to a cross-functional group. And I think giving ownership of safe strategic work is one great way to enable high potential lawyers, but I also think structured shadowing with certain caveats, observing portions of meetings where decisions are made and having them listen in on the framing of a sensitive matter, even if it’s not the details, or even debriefs. I don’t know that a lot of organizations do debriefs of larger matters, what went well, what did not go well, what could we have done better with more resources, or did we have the right resources?

If we had to do this all over again, how would we have done those? Those can also be very valuable. Once an initiative has launched, a deal has closed, to bring in more junior people and start assessing who can be ready. So I also like to invite people, not just on my team, but from other teams to our tabletop exercises and to our mock simulations so that they can see in real time how things are going down. And especially on the business side, what I love seeing is somebody who’s being asked, “How do you want to think about this issue?” Or sometimes I’ll bring people from other legal teams that don’t necessarily report into me, but they support that business team. And I really enjoy seeing, “What would you do in this situation?” Because the tabletop is a controlled, safe environment where we’re really talking through how would we address the situation at hand and how do we go forward with potential impact not knowing if it would have a ripple effect?

I think there’s many ways to do this, but also teaching the why of how certain decisions are made, explaining trade-offs, because that is also institutional knowledge, why we do things this way instead of this way, why it matters more. And then frameworks for risk assessment and escalation are sometimes embedded into higher level operational decisions, sometimes at the senior leadership level or even at the director plus level. And so teaching the why can also be impactful as well.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, though it’s a great list of how to build those skills for the future, and then as you’re starting to talk about that knowledge transfer, right? It is such a critical piece of preparing future leaders and having the right succession plan. And in our survey, 71%, an astonishing 71% of legal leaders said transferring knowledge from those departing leaders was one of their biggest challenges. So what are those strategies that you have found that are effective in capturing and passing on that institutional knowledge before someone exits or retires?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. And documentation is cool now, especially after the great resignation where so much institutional knowledge walked out of the Fortune 1000. So okay, writing playbooks, decision books can be helpful, but I love doing what’s called a bus-proofing ritual where you do a quarterly review of what knowledge is still held by a single person. And what that does is it identifies certain points of failure or where someone has a relationship that no one else is able to permeate, where someone even knows how to use a certain system, even knows how to pay a certain supplier because they’re off the usual procurement system. Doing those, what I call the bus-proofing ritual, we all say person gets hit by the bus, or maybe it’s the lottery card ritual. If they win the lottery and they quit, what knowledge is still held by a single person? Because that can demonstrate where that needs to be democratized to a A broader set of individuals on the team.

So I like doing that. And I also really like, as I mentioned, I like walking through afterwards a project or an … It takes a lot of discipline to do this, by the way, because you have to get all the stakeholders at the same time on the same day to talk about how decisions were made under pressure. Maybe it’s a high stakes matter such as a high stakes litigation, or maybe it’s just a transformation that the company went through. Maybe it’s onboarding a major vendor that ended up having impacts, but talking through how those decisions were made under pressure can be really impactful. For younger lawyers, they have the potential, but they just need to have the experience, the time put in. What I’ve seen other lawyers do is annotate artifacts as to how those decisions are made. So instead of writing a formal playbook or a decision book, there’s an annotation as to how certain things are done.

But what we’ve also done in previous roles, what I’ve seen done is there’s a two minute library and it’s a shared folder of quick explanations. If this event happens, how do we handle it? That can also be very helpful for someone coming in brand new into a role. My team, we try to also do what’s called a compliance calendar that helps routinize the work. And what I’ve also had I have benefited from when stepping into a new role where someone has departed, which I would’ve loved when I was having worked with them side by side to upskill into it, was a screen recorded walkthrough. So a short video on how to navigate a system, how to draft recurring documents, or go through a complex workflow. Really what it is, is investing the time, because you’re talking about institutional knowledge, and a lot of that is nuance that written instructions can miss.

Those are some examples I’ve given, but it’s really being intentional and giving that time to ensure that those single points of failure are mitigated. And again, that’s that lottery ticket ritual or the bus proving ritual, which is that quarterly review.

Jamy Sullivan:

Those are great analogies, but I mean, ultimately examples of solutions that you can put into place to capture the knowledge. And ultimately, it’s one thing, right? We can talk all day long about succession planning in theory, but what does it actually look like in practice? So Ami, when you think about an effective, actionable succession plan, what are some of the core components that legal leaders need to have in place?

Ami Rodrigues:

So the core components, obviously what roles matter most? Your organization will determine that based on what they’re going through. Maybe there’s a financially precarious situation, maybe they’re about to go public, maybe there’s a heavy acquisition period, and certain roles may be more impactful. And from there, who’s ready now? Who may be ready later? So maybe they started recently, they haven’t gotten their bearings straight, they’re still learning the business and getting to know stakeholders, but they demonstrate potential and in a two to three year time span would be ready. And then it’s also important, I think, my opinion is to find people who would be ready if told to be ready, but because those would make good interim roles. If, for example, you ultimately do need to go external to recruit. And from there, trying to understand how you intentionally develop and retain these individuals. I don’t know that everyone has an IDP, individual development plan, but legal leaders can also just have the conversations, “Hey, what are you interested in?

What do you like about your role? What do you like about the work?” And that conversation could be a great way to see who’s ready now, who’s ready later, because it’s not just when someone leaves the company, it’s when new work has been foisted onto the legal department because of the volatility we spoke about earlier, where there may be a technological disruption or there may be a geopolitical disruption that requires time and effort from the legal department to address. So that can also be a good way in seeing who is ready, who’s able to help us pivot when we need to.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, building upon what you just chatted about with core components, we have a large range of listeners that are just at different places in their career, experiences. So maybe for those legal departments that are building their first succession plan, what are some common challenges, even blind spots that you see and how can leaders avoid them?

Ami Rodrigues:

Yeah. Jamy, I’m sure you see this a lot. A lot of first time efforts are, well, who’s the next GC? And the GC will figure it out.

But there are so many roles that create day-to-day fragility if there is no one managing it. So from my point of view, the real succession risks sit in those mid-level or super specialist roles where there is somebody who runs the contract management system or the litigation management system. Privacy team, I stepped into a role where the entire privacy team had departed and had to jump in immediately to get things running again. Certain regulatory compliance based on your company and the industry that it’s in, or certain contracts based on, again, your company’s risk profile and the industry that it’s in. There are a lot of mid-level or specialist roles that need to be analyzed to see, is there only one person who knows the systems, the history, the stakeholders? And again, it goes back to that single point of failure, or even if it’s not a single point of failure, continued fragility that can be avoided.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, these are all great insights, great dialogue that you are sharing. I have to ask one final question before we wrap, and that’s for the legal leaders that are listening who want to start or strengthen their current succession plan efforts. What’s that one practical step that they can take in the next 90 days?

Ami Rodrigues:

I think it can be really overwhelming to say, now we will do succession planning and write a heavy, perfect succession plan. But getting started, think of it as a critical infrastructure stress test for the legal department and turn it into a bit of scavenger hunt for single point of failure work. Again, maybe it goes back to that bus-proofing ritual, maybe it’s the, or I guess we can be positive and call it the lottery proofing ritual, but really understand what are the niche processes, the relationships and technical tasks that only one person can do. And that really reveals a lot as to how a legal department does function. I do think that is a good exercise regardless because how the work gets done is as important as what work gets done. But once you find those things, I would say find a way to create a 90-day plan, maybe it’s a sprint to make it shareable.

So pairing up people so that the workflow is understood, recording screen shares of how a tricky system works, or even playbooks can be daunting because there’s this expectation of coming up with a thorough and proper playbook, but what I call is minimum viable product. So minimum viable playbook. What is the essentials? If I had to come in and give this to someone who is brand new or an intern, what is the very least that they should just be able to do to make it run with perfection? And I think trying to just figure out what are the, maybe call it a scavenger hunt for single point of failure work, is it surfaces a lot of hidden vulnerabilities. It surfaces those vulnerabilities, but then if you action on it, it can spread expertise. It can build a culture of continuity without announcing a big initiative. You can take the succession planning and disguise it as operational hygiene because that can create momentum, which will expand into a broader, more intentional pipeline over time.

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, Ami, you have shared a plethora of points today, all valuable, specific strategies that our listeners can take and really apply to wherever they are currently in their journey of succession planning. So I can’t thank you enough for joining us today.

Ami Rodrigues:

Thank you so much for having me. I love this conversation.

Jamy Sullivan:

It’s great. So my guest today has been Amit Rodriguez, Deputy General Counsel at Under Armour. Ami, thank you again, and hopefully we’ll have an opportunity to connect again in the near future.

Ami Rodrigues:

Yes, thanks so much. But

Jamy Sullivan:

Before we close, how can our listeners connect with you if they’d like to reach out?

Ami Rodrigues:

Well, I’m on LinkedIn, and if anyone is ever at the ACC meetings or if they go to any privacy conferences, please feel free to come up and introduce yourself. Would love to hear more about you and your career, would love to understand more as to what I can help you with and would love to just get to know you.

Jamy Sullivan:

Great. Thank you again, Ami. So great to have you. And our listeners can reach me at jamy, [email protected]. And thank you again to you, the listener. If you enjoyed this episode, please be sure to rate us on your favorite podcast platform and follow Robert Half and the Legal Talk Network on X and Facebook. You can also visit roberthalf.com for more insights and resources. Join us next time for another edition of The Legal Report from Robert Half, right here on the Legal Talk Network. Until then, be well.

Announcer:

The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by Robert Half, Legal Talk Network, or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, or subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Robert Half is a premier provider of talent solutions for the legal field. Robert Half is an equal opportunity employer, including minorities, females, people with disabilities and veterans. Robert Half is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. Robert Half project attorneys do not constitute a law firm among themselves.

Continue Reading