This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Alex Su and Andy Chagui of Latitude about the shifting economics of law firm talent, the rise of flexible legal staffing, and the pressure AI is placing on traditional leverage models. Su, known across legal circles for his sharp commentary and creative legal industry videos, brings his background as a former Sullivan & Cromwell litigator and federal clerk to his current work leading revenue strategy at Latitude. Chagui adds the perspective of a former Carlton Fields shareholder who spent 15 years handling high-stakes federal litigation before moving into the new law space. Together, they offer a practical view of where law firm staffing is headed as clients, firms, and legal departments all face rising expectations around speed, value, and technology adoption.
Latitude’s model centers on high-end, flexible legal talent, experienced attorneys with Big Law or in-house backgrounds who step into law firms and corporate legal departments for specific engagements. Chagui explains that these lawyers often support overflow work, leave coverage, secondment requests, internal projects, and interim needs across practices ranging from litigation to corporate, labor, and employment. Su adds that staffing itself is not new, yet Latitude focuses on a segment of talent that traditional hiring models often miss, experienced attorneys with strong credentials who prefer engagement-based work over the standard full-time track.
The conversation turns quickly to why this model is gaining traction now. Remote work, post-COVID hiring shifts, and the growing acceptance of distributed teams have made it easier for firms to bring in experienced attorneys without requiring long-term headcount commitments. Chagui notes that many Latitude attorneys have 10 or more years of experience, meaning they often need less supervision than junior lawyers and move quickly into productive work. This matters as firms face inconsistent demand, intense competition for talent, and hesitation around layoffs, which in law firms often signal weakness rather than discipline.
AI adds another layer to the staffing problem. Firms have invested in tools such as Harvey, CoCounsel, and other specialized platforms, yet many knowledge management and innovation teams lack enough subject matter experts to train users, review outputs, build use cases, and handle quality control. Chagui describes Latitude lawyers helping firms train internal AI tools, review AI-generated work, and support practice-specific rollout efforts. Su points out that while some firms offer associates credit for AI training or innovation work, associates under billable hour pressure often choose client work first. Flexible talent gives firms another way to support AI adoption without asking already-stretched associates to carry the full load.
Su also frames flexible talent as a new form of leverage. Clients still trust senior partners and often accept premium rates for high-value judgment, but they are increasingly skeptical of paying top-tier rates for junior-level work. In that middle layer of legal work, AI, technology, and experienced flexible attorneys give firms more options. Su calls this “outsourced leverage,” a way to support the partner-client relationship while rethinking who performs the work underneath. The discussion also highlights a career-path shift for attorneys who prefer specialized, project-based work, especially in areas like knowledge management, AI implementation, and innovation support.
Looking ahead, both guests see uncertainty as the defining feature of the next phase of legal services. Chagui expects the traditional model to keep changing as firms and legal departments seek more flexible options. Su predicts continued upheaval around staffing, AI capabilities, and outside counsel relationships, especially as foundational AI models move further into in-house legal workflows such as NDA review, contract review, and eventually parts of diligence. Yet Su also offers a reminder for law firm leaders: premium legal judgment still has value. The rates for top partners are unlikely to fall simply because AI improves. The pressure will land instead on how firms structure the work beneath them.
Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Substack
[Special Thanks to Legal Technology Hub for their sponsoring this episode.]
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: Jerry David DeCicca
Transcript:
Marlene Gebauer (00:00)
Welcome to The Geek in Review, the podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.
Greg Lambert (00:07)
And I’m Greg Lambert. This week I’m on location in Carlsbad, California. So if you hear airplanes overhead, that’s me. So Marlene, you know, the past couple of years, we’ve talked about a lot, or we’ve seen a lot about law firms that are putting out these press releases, talking about all the great stuff they’re doing with AI. And then this week we’re seeing more with the Claude for Legal announcement.
And everyone jumping on board with that. But really, we’re, you know, I think we’re at a phase right now where we’ve got to start looking at how attorneys are using this in their day-to-day practice.
Marlene Gebauer (00:46)
Yeah. And I agree a hundred percent. And that is exactly why we are so excited to have our guests on today. We’re joined by Alex Su and Andy Chagui of Latitude. Alex is the industry’s favorite legal influencer. Great video, great, great, great reels if you haven’t seen them, but, you know, he’s also a former Sullivan and Cromwell litigator and a federal clerk. And now he’s leading revenue strategy at Latitude.
Greg Lambert (01:01)
Yeah.
And also joining us is Andy Chagui of Latitude. He’s joining us from Miami. Andy has spent 15 years on the inside as a shareholder at Carlton Fields and was handling high-stakes federal litigation before moving into the new law space.
Marlene Gebauer (01:37)
So Andy and Alex, welcome to the show.
Andy Chagui (01:40)
Thank you.
Alex Su (01:41)
Thanks for having us. I’m a big fan of the show. I’ve been a longtime listener, so excited to be here.
Greg Lambert (01:47)
So Andy and Alex, I want to start off for listeners who may not be familiar with what Latitude does. Can you give us the elevator ride on what the core businesses are? What the mission is there at Latitude? Feel free. This is a tall building, so it can be a fairly decent elevator ride.
Andy Chagui (02:09)
Sure, I can jump in. So Latitude, we are a flexible legal talent company. And what does that mean? We specialize in providing high-end attorneys who have former Big Law or in-house experience, or both, typically on contract engagements with both our law firm clients and also our corporate legal department clients.
Marlene Gebauer (02:09)
Let’s hear this pitch. Let’s hear it.
Greg Lambert (02:11)
Yeah.
Andy Chagui (02:34)
These are practice-specific attorneys. You can name the practice area, from corporate to litigation, labor and employment, whatever it might be. They usually jump in, help our law firms fulfill a secondment request, for example, or they might help the law firm with leave coverage situations. They could serve as a stopgap while the firm is trying to hire FTEs, or they could even jump in and help with special or internal projects. And we help law firms of every size, from boutique firms all the way up to AmLaw 50 law firms.
Greg Lambert (02:42)
Yeah.
Cool. Alex, anything to add to that pitch?
Alex Su (03:07)
Well, I would just say that staffing is not a new thing, but where we think we’re unique is that there’s a huge pool of talent that’s high-end, high-caliber, former Big Law, from top schools, with top credentials. A lot of this is driven by demographic shifts, so for many of our clients this is something that’s relatively new, but our hope is to share and spread the word about a resource that maybe in previous years has not really been tapped into. So we occupy a very unique segment of the market. I’m excited to share more about what we focus on today.
Marlene Gebauer (03:45)
So I’m going to tee up the next question for both of you. So Alex, you know, you clearly have made a career out of unconventional marketing and trying to crack that code on how to convince lawyers to innovate. And Andy, you’ve been a shareholder at an AmLaw 200 firm for over a decade. So when you’re looking at the current market, is the surge in demand for flexible talent a sign that firms have finally accepted that the traditional pyramid model is broken, or is it more a tactical response to this current $36 billion value gap in firm revenue? And maybe I’ll say, Alex, you start first.
Alex Su (04:34)
Yeah, I would say it’s just another resource for firms. Historically, when firms needed work done, you hire a full-time employee. Now there’s a move in all areas of the law, not just with firms, but certainly at corporate legal departments, to hire a contingent workforce, lawyers who work on engagements, interim in-house counsel. And that’s certainly true of the law firm side. So it’s simply another solution for law firms to deploy when there is need to do work. We’re a big believer in pairing the right resource with the right type of work, no matter who our client is. And so that’s why we’re seeing a surge in our business. And yeah, I would just say it’s another tool in your tool.
Andy Chagui (05:21)
I agree with all that. I mean, as a former AmLaw partner, I remember back in the day, if you were busy, it was, let’s hire more associates, right? And so now today there are more options. And so we work with a lot of forward-thinking, innovative law firms who realize that there’s a really, really highly qualified talent pool out there that they can tap into in different situations where they don’t necessarily need to bring in three or four new full-time associates. There are options.
Greg Lambert (05:50)
Yeah.
Marlene Gebauer (05:51)
I’m curious. I’m curious.
Have you seen any changes in terms of maybe the type of title or the type of work that maybe at one point, you know, this wasn’t going to be flexible talent, but now firms are looking at it as more flexible talent? They’re open to that. Have there been changes that way?
Andy Chagui (06:05)
Thank you.
Marlene Gebauer (06:16)
That you’ve seen.
Alex Su (06:18)
I think so. We have examples of firms, large firms, and law firms that are using our talent to do essentially associate, counsel, and even partner-level work. We’ve gotten placements where we have someone first-chairing a trial, as an example. And that’s not something you would traditionally think of as something you might outsource to a conventional staffing company. But I think the key point is that the caliber of talent that’s available is just unprecedented. And I know Andy sees this every single day, so I’ll let him kind of share more specifics.
Greg Lambert (06:53)
I want to just add to that. It’s like, why now? Why is there so much talent available? What’s been changing?
Andy Chagui (07:02)
I don’t know. I don’t know. I mean, after COVID, certainly when remote work became so popular, I think that really kind of changed things. Especially with what we’re doing, where it’s like an interim need that may not necessarily be permanent. Our clients see the value in being able to tap into a pool of candidates that are highly qualified, that can help them do the work for the next three, six, or nine months. And they don’t really need to be there face to face. Most of our attorneys come with 10-plus years of experience. So a lot of the tasks that an associate would benefit from being face to face with a partner who’s maybe mentoring them, our attorneys already have that experience, and then you can deploy them immediately and they can jump right in and kind of hit the ground running.
Greg Lambert (07:44)
Yeah, so Andy, we were talking, you shared some things with me earlier with some examples where a lot of these Global 50 law firms, they have all these great tools. They have the Harveys, they have the CoCounsels, they have specialized tools that they use.
But everyone is just too busy to train, too busy to do quality assurance, too busy to learn the new things.
What are you seeing? How are firms motivated, where they’re seeing, yes, we have the great tools, but we don’t necessarily have everything that we need to get these great tools up and running as well as we should and get the ROI that we’re wanting?
Andy Chagui (08:32)
Yeah, so you alluded to this at the beginning of this podcast, that everyone’s got the tools, they’re deploying the tools, but now we need the bodies. We need the subject matter experts to help us with all of these initiatives. And so we’re supporting the knowledge management and innovation teams at various Big Law firms because they are trying to do various things. They are trying to either roll out a new AI tool, but then they’ve done that, and then they’ve gotten tremendous traction with it, and they have all the firm attorneys reaching out saying, all right, so how do we use this to come up with deposition questions, or how do I help this in my next deal? And so they don’t have the resources because even though they’re large law firms, the knowledge management or innovation teams are relatively small. And so a lot of this work tends to ebb and flow. And so the struggle is, do we hire more FTEs as part of the team when we may not be able to keep them busy full time?
Greg Lambert (09:20)
Mm-hmm.
Andy Chagui (09:28)
Or can we lean on a company like Latitude, who can help provide these subject matter experts? They can jump in and help us when things are busy, and then we can scale down if that work starts to subside a little bit. We’re helping the firms do things like market studies and practice areas, and also train internal AI tools. Our attorneys are serving as subject matter experts themselves, training the platforms and then reviewing the output and doing quality control to make sure that the information that the AI is generating is actually accurate. So that’s, in a nutshell, some of the work that we’re doing right now. They had a hard time as well because they tried to staff some of these projects with their own associates, right? The problem with that, as you can imagine, is that it’s not billable work, right? So the associates are prioritizing the billable work. The opportunity cost there is very high, and the associates aren’t giving the attention that it deserves. And so then leaning on us as a resource was really appealing to us.
Greg Lambert (09:39)
Yeah.
Andy Chagui (09:58)
AI is, you know, generating is actually accurate. So that’s in a nutshell kind of some of the work that we’re doing right now. They had a hard time as well because they tried to staff some of these projects with their own associates, right? The problem with that is, you can imagine, yeah, is that it’s not billable work, right? So the associates are prioritizing the billable work. The opportunity cost there is very high, and the associates aren’t giving the attention that it deserves. And so then leaning on us as a resource was really appealing to us.
Greg Lambert (10:12)
Yeah, yeah.
Andy Chagui (10:28)
To these law firms.
Greg Lambert (10:29)
Yeah, yeah. And do you think, I mean, you hear some of the firms that are giving 50 to 200 hours of compensation or billable time to learn some of these AI things. Do you think that’s the way, or do you, I know a lot of firms are also very reluctant to give associates billable credit time for non-billable stuff.
So you see this as a good happy medium for them?
Alex Su (11:03)
I can also share my perspective on that, because I think it’s a step in the right direction to offer that credit. But when the practical reality is that an associate who’s behind in their hours gets faced with needing to either find billable work or work on something that’s extra credit that they do get some credit for, I think what you end up finding is that a lot of the associates choose the billable work.
We’re seeing just a lot of demand for firms to supplement for these roles, which suggests to me that even though I’m certain that at many of these firms, the associates get credit, the way it plays out in reality is often a little bit different. So I think it’s a step in the right direction, but it can be really hard because it’s just a tough spot for the associate.
Greg Lambert (11:52)
Yeah, and I imagine as you start placing these subject matter experts, and they’re learning, they’ve got to become very valuable for you to then pitch to the firm. So it sounds like a real win for somebody that’s looking to get into this type of work and has that ability and that skill set.
Marlene Gebauer (12:16)
Yeah. I mean, it sounds like they can develop this skill set and then use it across a variety of projects for a variety of customers, which I think for some people is very engaging. So.
Greg Lambert (12:25)
Yeah.
Thank you.
Alex Su (12:30)
Yeah, if you think about the point Andy made earlier about how we’ve seen this trend towards more of a remote workforce. People have moved around. They are comfortable with working remotely. And employers are, to some extent, more comfortable with remote work, even the most conservative law firms. So what happens is work that used to need to be done by a single full-time hire, that maybe didn’t justify a full-time person, now can be almost split up.
Greg Lambert (12:31)
You.
Alex Su (12:59)
So somebody can develop an expertise in a specific area and maybe do certain types of work that wouldn’t be able to be supported by a full-time role in the past, but now they can specialize in it. An example of that is working with some of these newer AI tools, specializing in technology that hasn’t been around for very long. So that is a really interesting opportunity, I think, both for the talent and for the clients.
Marlene Gebauer (13:26)
Yeah. So I want to probe that a little bit more, like in this sort of career path idea. So there are attorneys sort of coming into practice and not having the amount of jobs that there once were. There’s a variety of different types of jobs for attorneys. I mean, it used to be, you know, your career path was, you were an associate, and you worked hard, and then you became a partner. But now there’s a whole variety of different things that you can do. Also, you can be working in a role where maybe you’re so good at what you do that no one feels that they can afford to lose you. So you kind of get stymied that way. So there’s sort of a lot of, I don’t know, swirl. There’s a lot of different options that people can take, and there may be some situations where people feel kind of stunted. So, you know, Alex, you’ve written about the whole being too indispensable. And we were also talking about how Latitude’s professional engagement model, basically, you can become a subject expert and work on a project basis, gives sort of more of that flexibility.
Greg Lambert (14:23)
Yeah, no good deed goes unpunished.
Alex Su (14:26)
That’s right.
Marlene Gebauer (14:36)
So what do you think in terms of this model that you’re offering? How does that provide a career path that the partnership track doesn’t offer and maybe won’t offer again, given AI’s increasing importance in the practice?
Alex Su (15:29)
I mean, it’s all about flexibility because everybody has a job and there are things about your job that you like, there are things about your job that you don’t like. Very often the things that you don’t like crowd out everything else. What Latitude offers is this flexibility for you to focus on the things that you do like. And you couldn’t do it probably on a full-time basis because every job’s got the things that you don’t really want to do. But if you could work on an engagement basis, that opens up a lot of doors.
Essentially, we’re providing options that both benefit the firms we work with and the attorneys we work with, especially when it comes to specific narrow niches of work, where again, in the past you couldn’t support a full-time role with that and now you can by putting it together. But it’s a pretty good deal for the attorney too, because they get a whole set of benefits which come with the work. I don’t know, Andy, if you wanted to share some of what the talent gets.
Andy Chagui (16:30)
Yeah. So it’s what we hear from our attorneys, is we love working this way because we’re exposed to a variety of clients doing different things or kind of the same practice area, but everyone’s got a different style. And so it allows me to jump from a six-month engagement to a four-month engagement and work with different clients and really kind of improve my skill set and get exposed to areas where I normally wouldn’t have been exposed. Marlene, you mentioned there are so many other non-traditional paths out there now, which is
Greg Lambert (16:51)
You.
Andy Chagui (17:00)
Which is very true. We just had one of our attorneys who was on assignment with one of our AmLaw 100 law firms helping the knowledge management team with some of these AI initiatives, and the law firm ended up making a permanent offer to our attorney to come and join the firm. And we got this incredible email from our attorney saying, I am so grateful that I found you guys and that I was put on this engagement. And then now I’m working for a major law firm in the knowledge management practice group. And this wasn’t even on my radar.
Greg Lambert (17:14)
Mm.
Andy Chagui (17:30)
And it’s a complete career pivot and something that I enjoy way more than practicing. And so there are just so many more options and so much more flexibility and ways to do things now than there used to be even when I was practicing just six years ago.
Greg Lambert (17:43)
There are two different things that are pushing on the industry that are really kind of opposed to each other. One is there’s this expectation that as AI becomes more embedded into the day-to-day practice, there’s actually going to be a need for fewer associates than there are for more associates. And at the exact same time, law firms are now recruiting 1L law students before they’ve even taken their exams. They’ve got to get these law students into the pipeline really early, because otherwise if we wait, we’re not going to get them. And now on top of that, now in three years, are we going to be trying to look at, now that we’ve got them, where are we going to put them? What are you seeing from your side of things as far as what the pressures are on law firms for hiring and potentially reducing headcount?
Alex Su (18:52)
I think there’s just so much uncertainty, Greg, and you point out the thing I’ve always been confused about with large law firm hiring. It’s like you hire these students before they barely got their grades. We barely got our grades before when we were summers, right? Andy, you remember when we were in school, it was like 1L grades and that’s it. And the firms are making decisions on hiring and demand for different practice areas three or four years in advance. So I don’t know what’s going to happen with AI and associates, but what I can tell you is that it’s not a new thing for firms to misinterpret future demand signals. Like, you have firms that overhire in certain practice areas, they’ve got to let people go, then they don’t have enough midlevels in a certain practice area. And where we fit in is essentially, because we have that bench of experienced practitioners, we help meet that supply gap for whatever practice area. Because again, our talent often is not a person who’s three or four years out of law school, it’s someone who’s probably 10 or 20 years and potentially has deeper experience who could kind of slot in very quickly, doesn’t need much oversight. So as we see more uncertainty unfold, I would expect greater demand for different resources. I don’t know if maybe law firms, maybe large law firms, will change the recruiting model. But yeah, it’s always perplexed me why hiring is done this way in our profession.
Greg Lambert (19:55)
Hmm.
Yeah.
If we’re reaching into school and pulling them out from there, this is like, where are we going next? The other thing, and I heard something really interesting. I heard Jennifer Leonard talk this week. And one of the things that she mentioned and reminded me of was the pressures on law firms.
Alex Su (20:29)
I know.
Greg Lambert (20:44)
When it comes to hiring and reducing headcount, it is almost the opposite of what we see in the corporate world. And in the corporate world, if they see a need for layoffs, they do that. And it’s actually kind of, you know, the stock price goes up. In law firms, it’s actually seen as a weakness. And so if you lay off or right-size, then all of a sudden you’re seeing it say, you know, Skadden and Kirkland, if they’re laying off somebody, they must be hurting. Now’s the chance to pounce. So it’s kind of a weird comparison between what corporate headcount and law firm headcount pressures are. So I imagine that looking at something like Latitude, where you can have that ebb and flow, and it really doesn’t necessarily show up on the headcount line, right? Is that something that you’re seeing as a real positive for law firms that, hey, look, you can have your headcount here. As demand goes up, we fill that. As demand goes down, they come back out, we reallocate them. You guys know the business better than I do, but it seems like that’s a real win for the types of pressure that law firms are under.
Andy Chagui (22:07)
Yeah, that’s exactly right. I mean, we allow the firms to be able to have the flexibility to scale up and scale down as needed, right? As opposed to overcommitting on full-time hires. You know, we have one law firm that has dozens of our Latitude attorneys working for the firm, helping a very busy big-time rainmaker at the firm with high-volume work that may last for the next six months or may go away unexpectedly, right? And so if the firm were to use a traditional staffing model and hire 10 new associates, who knows what things might look like three months down the road. So it gives them that ability to be able to scale up or down as needed.
Greg Lambert (22:29)
.
Andy Chagui (22:37)
Who knows what things might look like three months down the road. So it gives them that ability to be able to scale up or down as needed.
Marlene Gebauer (22:43)
So I’m wondering, when firms are hired by clients, we’re talking about what they’re paying for now, because it used to be, we’re paying for hours. But now I think we’re looking more at value and the value of the output, lowering risk, maybe lowering risk faster, and basically the firm’s reputation to deliver results. And so I’m wondering how this flexible talent model kind of plays into that. I mean, has there been a perception in the past that maybe that’s more risk because they haven’t been able to interview somebody on campus and sort of vet them that way, as opposed to hiring somebody using the flexible talent model? So yes, it will lower operational costs, but how do you still maintain kind of that trust and accountability that firms are trying to promote in terms of their reputation?
Greg Lambert (23:28)
So.
Marlene Gebauer (23:33)
Interview somebody on campus and sort of vet them that way, as opposed to hiring somebody using the flexible talent model. So yes, it will lower operational costs, but how do you still maintain
Greg Lambert (23:34)
Thank you.
Marlene Gebauer (23:51)
Kind of that trust and accountability that firms are trying to promote in terms of their reputation?
Greg Lambert (23:54)
You.
Alex Su (23:59)
I think in terms of the commercial model of a firm, there’s several things happening at once that I think, Marlene, what you’re pointing out is what I find most interesting that’s happening in the law firm world right now, which is the partners and the senior lawyers of the firm, I would even almost argue that they’re underpriced, that they could probably go even higher, because the judgment they bring to bear, their experience on these extremely high-value matters, is critical.
Where I think there is a little bit of uncertainty is if you go downstream to their litigation team or their M&A team. What I hear from clients is that they don’t have any issues paying the partner who’s expensive. They have issues paying the first or second year. There is a huge pool of lawyers who are doing the work under the guidance of a senior partner that I think is probably mispriced. There’s a price misalignment with the clients.
Greg Lambert (24:41)
Yeah.
Yep. You.
Alex Su (24:54)
So the question becomes, well, what’s the best way to complete that work? My view is that with AI and technology and flexible talent, there’s a whole host of different tools you can use to support that partner. In terms of trust, the trust
Greg Lambert (25:10)
Hmm.
Alex Su (25:10)
Flows to the client with the partner. But in terms of who that work gets passed to, that is on the firm and the partner to vet. And so this is not a new concept, as you know, major litigations often hire outsourced shops to conduct first-level doc review. That doesn’t change the trust and accountability that that partner has to the client. And so one of my colleagues has called it outsourced leverage. That’s what we provide. It’s just another source
Greg Lambert (25:35)
Hmm.
Alex Su (25:37)
Of leverage that’s not your full-time associates. It’s outsourced to us. Doesn’t mean that quality goes out the window. We do vet them carefully, but that’s how I see this playing out. There’s this big middle group of work, this middle segment of work that could probably be done in a different way than it has traditionally.
Marlene Gebauer (26:00)
And I’m curious, if sort of that goes to flexible talent, do you see the model, the law firm model, changing? Because if you’re not getting the succession of associates that kind of move into partner level, and they’re not being sort of trained in that capacity, what happens when you have that generation pass the baton?
Andy Chagui (26:00)
What?
Marlene Gebauer (26:30)
You know, pass the baton.
Alex Su (26:31)
My instinct is that the associates won’t go away. Maybe it’s fewer, or maybe it stays the same and they’re just set up differently. Like, I remember when I was a summer associate, we started with a hundred people in my summer class. I think that only one of us made partner. And so that level of attrition, I think may change. I know that attrition is part of the model, but I do think you’re right that the leadership of the firms does have to think through
Greg Lambert (26:57)
Thank you.
Alex Su (27:01)
What that future state looks like. And I don’t think it’s just Flex Talent or us. It’s certainly AI, not just generative AI, but now agentic AI. And you all have seen Claude coming out with Claude for Legal. So a lot of things are changing and yeah, a lot could change.
Marlene Gebauer (27:08)
Absolutely.
Greg Lambert (27:19)
Now, so.
Marlene Gebauer (27:21)
Andy, I think you wanted to add.
Andy Chagui (27:24)
It was just Alex’s prior point about the vetting, that not only does Latitude do the vetting, but our law firm clients also do their own vetting, right? So any candidate that we ever propose, we propose them to our law firm, and the law firm partner will have his or her opportunity to do their own vetting and make sure that they’re comfortable with this person’s qualifications, right, before they put them on sensitive matters for their clients.
Greg Lambert (27:48)
Do you also provide talent for in-house teams as well, or are you focused just on law firms?
Andy Chagui (27:56)
No, we do both. We provide basically the equivalent of direct secondments to our corporate in-house legal department clients. So something that oftentimes might go to a law firm, you know, saying, we need one of your associates for the next six months. Those are the types of requests that we get directly. And so we’re filling those on a weekly basis, whether it’s leave coverage, overflow work, a stopgap, or internal projects. Yes, we work with lots of in-house corporate legal departments.
Greg Lambert (28:26)
Yeah, and I know you’ve heard companies like Ford and Walmart are really putting big demands on their outside counsel to leverage AI. And kind of the underlying threat that is going on is a lot of these clients are saying, look, I’m not just your client, I’m your potential competitor as well. A lot of this stuff, if we staff it right and use the AI properly, we could be doing a lot of this instead of outsourcing it to you. One, do you see companies actually pulling the trigger on that threat? Or do you see that as putting just more pressure on law firms to figure out ways of staffing things right, using the technology right, and kind of filling the demands that their clients are going to, you know, we see it on some of the big ones now, but I imagine that’s going to go downstream pretty quickly.
Alex Su (29:27)
I think it’s both, Greg. Some companies that we talk to are explicitly telling the firms and providers that they’re going to need to, they need them to figure out the AI strategy, or else you can’t work with them in the future. There are others that are waiting to see what’s most effective. So I think that you’ve seen multiple different strategies across the board, but what’s remained clear is that in the medium term to long term, the current model will
Greg Lambert (29:51)
You.
Alex Su (29:57)
Need to change. It’s just a fact of competition. The in-house lawyers are under
Greg Lambert (30:03)
Okay.
Alex Su (30:05)
Pressure to do more with less. They’ve got to get more work done with a limited budget, and so they’re going to need to be creative about allocating work to different providers. So what we also hear from the firms is that knowledge management, innovation teams, learning how to figure out how to use AI is just strategically critical during this time as we see more and more capabilities come out from all of these AI companies.
Greg Lambert (30:33)
Yeah, well, let me just pull on that just one time, Alex, because I saw a pretty funny post that you did on LinkedIn where you’re saying that AI companies were telling their law firms that AI is going to replace them, and then finding out two years later that the AI foundational models are replacing the AI companies. So how do you see Claude for Legal coming in? I mean, I’ve done a little bit of digging in on it, and it’s still pretty basic, what I’m seeing they can do, but it’s scaring the crap out of everybody. What do you see, like Claude for Legal, or imagine OpenAI and maybe even Grok. Well, I’ve even heard Grok say that you can use it for legal as well. So as these tools become more advanced and push into legal, how do you see the market reacting to that?
Andy Chagui (31:04)
You.
Greg Lambert (31:17)
See, like Claude for Legal, or imagine OpenAI and maybe even Grok. Well, I’ve even heard Grok say that you can use it for legal as well. So as these tools become more advanced and push into legal, how do you see the market reacting to that?
Alex Su (31:35)
My instinct is to say that it’s going to start in-house before law firms. Because law firms do more bespoke work, you’ve got in-house teams that are working on NDA reviews, simple contract reviews. I think the foundational models in the AI companies are going to start there. It’s much easier to do. It’s much harder to replace what a large firm can provide for the client. But as they move up the value chain, as they get better at reviewing contracts, these AI companies, you’re going to start to see different elements of what firms do be potentially replaced. So for example, maybe reviewing NDAs and sales contracts means that there is another
Greg Lambert (32:10)
Yeah.
Alex Su (32:16)
Way to conduct M&A due diligence. So if I were at a law firm, I would be watching what’s happening on the in-house side with the foundational models, with all the new AI companies, and kind of seeing where the puck is headed because even though it’s not here today, that probably will plant the seeds of tomorrow’s innovation. And there, I think the law firms probably want to be more worried about than less.
Greg Lambert (32:40)
Curious for you, there’s just so much going on right now, and you’re kind of in this really interesting niche part of the market. So what resources do you go to, to keep up with the changes in the market and kind of keep, as much as you can, ahead of what’s going on?
Andy Chagui (33:04)
Yeah, so for me personally, I guess I would say I’m on LinkedIn quite a bit, and I feel like LinkedIn is really helpful because people will post things on there, and then if it’s something that I think is interesting, I’ll click on the link, and next thing I know, I’m going down that rabbit hole, right? I’m reading all about that specific topic. So I’m on LinkedIn quite a bit and reading articles and things that are posted on there. And then I’m also on the phone with clients every single day, right? Having these kinds of conversations, whether it’s with a GC of a Fortune 500 company or an AmLaw 50 law firm partner, and kind of just keeping my finger on the pulse in terms of having those daily conversations and seeing how they’re thinking of things and what their concerns are and the potential solutions that they’re thinking about and how we can help them with that. And then also I have 15 partners at the company who are having those same conversations with their own clients. And so we speak to each other on a weekly basis and kind of just make sure that we’re on top of what’s going on.
Greg Lambert (33:19)
Yeah.
Andy Chagui (33:34)
GC of a Fortune 500 company or an AmLaw 50 law firm partner. And kind of just keeping my finger on the pulse in terms of having those daily conversations and seeing how they’re thinking of things and what their concerns are and the potential solutions that they’re thinking about and how we can help them with that. And then also I have 15 partners at the company who are having those same conversations with their own clients. And so we speak to each other
Greg Lambert (33:52)
Yeah.
Andy Chagui (34:01)
On a weekly basis and kind of just make sure that we’re on top of what’s going on.
Greg Lambert (34:05)
Yeah, I’d like to see how that Slack channel looks as you guys are sharing all this stuff. Yeah, do you have AI in your Slack channel? That’s what I want to know. Alex, how about you? Wait a minute. I want to see where Alex is getting his keeping up with his things as well. Alex, how about you?
Marlene Gebauer (34:08)
Ha ha ha ha.
Andy Chagui (34:15)
Ha ha ha.
Marlene Gebauer (34:18)
So guys, it’s,
Greg Lambert (34:22)
Getting his keeping up with his things as well. Alex, how about you?
Marlene Gebauer (34:26)
Got it.
Alex Su (34:27)
My primary source of information is, of course, The Geek in Review. That’s where I get all my cutting-edge news.
Greg Lambert (34:31)
Of course. Thank you. Alex, you missed the cue on that one.
Marlene Gebauer (34:36)
Not a paid promotion.
Alex Su (34:38)
Ha.
Andy Chagui (34:39)
Yeah, and TikTok.
Greg Lambert (34:40)
And TikTok.
Alex Su (34:40)
And TikTok.
Greg Lambert (34:41)
TikTok.
Alex Su (34:41)
Yeah.
Marlene Gebauer (34:42)
Ha ha ha.
Alex Su (34:44)
But seriously, I do read quite a bit on some of the trade publications and on certain Substacks, I would say there’s a few good ones out there. But really what I always worry about is that when I read things in Bloomberg or ALM, I don’t know if it’s tied to reality. So very often I am talking to our 15 partners. I am talking to Andy, saying, hey, I think this thing is happening. I think they’re talking about AI. I mean, what do you think? And so Andy and the other partners at Latitude will kind of give me anecdotes, will tell us like, hey, this is the conversation we’ve had with the GC or a law firm partner this week. And so that helps me get a sense of where everything is moving. So it’s a little bit of everything and talking to everyone.
Greg Lambert (35:30)
Yeah. I think that’s good advice. That was always the best.
Marlene Gebauer (35:31)
Very good. Yeah. Insider conversations. Those are always the best. You get it from the source.
All right guys, it is time for the crystal ball question. So this is basically where we ask you to look ahead a few months to a few years in terms of what impactful changes you see happening in the legal industry. So I will start with Andy.
Andy Chagui (36:02)
Oh man.
Marlene Gebauer (36:04)
Zing!
You’re up.
Andy Chagui (36:06)
I don’t know. I don’t like making predictions. All I can tell you is that things are definitely changing, and they’re changing quickly, and there are more options today than ever before. And that there’s a lot of disruption in this industry, and it’s a lot of fun for me personally to work with clients who are forward-thinking and innovative and looking for creative solutions to problems.
I think the traditional model is going to change, but I don’t know exactly how, but it’s changing all the time. And I’m having fun being a part of it, but I don’t really know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m not good at making these predictions. Alex hopefully will have a better answer than me.
Greg Lambert (36:50)
Yeah, well, as we say a lot, Yogi Berra says, predicting is very hard, especially if it’s about the future.
Marlene Gebauer (36:51)
All right, Alex, take us home.
Andy Chagui (36:58)
Ha.
Alex Su (37:00)
Yeah, I would add that I think there’s more uncertainty. Kind of to Andy’s point, there’s a lot of uncertainty. I’ll talk about that and I think what won’t change, which is I think that it’ll be uncertain what AI’s true capabilities are. We’re seeing new capabilities every day. I think the impact to how legal departments staff, and that includes full-time hiring, but also how they leverage providers and outside counsel, I think that’s highly uncertain. But what I feel most strongly about is that hourly rates will continue their march upwards. I think that clients are willing to pay when it’s worth it. And the partners at the firms that they’re paying exorbitant amounts for, they are certainly more than worth it. I think that gets lost among the AI discourse. So I thought that I should point that out, that it’s not just a memo that the most senior partners at these firms are putting out. They are providing legitimate valuable guidance and so that’s not going to change. So even though there’s a lot of AI change, I don’t know that the hourly rate of the top partners will go down.
Greg Lambert (38:15)
You’re speaking their language. They’re going to love to hear. If they heard nothing, they will hear that. So, well, Alex and Andy, I want to thank you guys both for coming on the show. It’s been a pleasure. I’ve been wanting to have you on for a long time. So it’s great sometimes to meet your heroes. So thanks for coming on, guys.
Marlene Gebauer (38:17)
Hehehehehe.
Andy Chagui (38:21)
Yeah.
Alex Su (38:21)
Thank you.
Marlene Gebauer (38:21)
Like what Alex said.
Mm-hmm.
Alex Su (38:44)
Likewise, likewise. Thanks for having us.
Andy Chagui (38:45)
Likewise.
Thank you guys. Appreciate the time.
Marlene Gebauer (38:50)
And thanks to all of you for listening to The Geek in Review. If you enjoyed the show, please share it with a colleague.
Greg Lambert (38:55)
And Andy and Alex, if people want to learn more about Latitude or reach out to you guys, where’s the best place to do that?
Alex Su (39:04)
For me it will be LinkedIn, but I would also encourage everyone to check out latitudelegal.com. That’s our website. You can find our bios there, but also see what we offer.
Greg Lambert (39:13)
All right.
Andy Chagui (39:15)
Likewise, LinkedIn, or feel free to check out the website, and you can email me at any time.
Greg Lambert (39:19)
Thank you.
Marlene Gebauer (39:21)
And everybody, please remember to like and subscribe. And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry. And goodbye everybody.