Ray’s Hot Takes | Volume 3

This transcript of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR was generated using AI transcription and lightly edited for readability. It may contain errors, and speaker labels are approximate. The audio recording is the authoritative version.

Welcome to Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR, the podcast where we elevate the stories of the plaintiff's bar and dive into the key trends shaping the civil justice system today. I'm your host, Ray DeLorenzi, and in each episode, we'll bring you insightful interviews with leading attorneys, expert perspectives on current legal events, and in-depth discussions on the issues that matter most. Now, let's jump in.

Ray: Hey, everyone, welcome to Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. I'm your usual host, Ray DeLorenzi. Today, I'm joined by my colleague Hannah Gallagher for the latest episode of Raising the Bar Hot Takes, which we have not done in a while. But as my colleagues can attest in our Slack channel, I have opinions on everything. So they like for me to do these episodes. And we've had some amazing guests recently, but they said it was time for me to drop some thunder onto the podcast. So, Hannah, it's great to see you.

Hannah: Great to see you too. This will be fun.

Ray: Beforehand, I think folks should know you asked me, hey, what do you want to talk about? And I said, just surprise me. I think it's better that way, because honestly, I usually like to think ahead of time about stuff, but these are always more fun when they just sort of smack me with some of these questions. So let's do it.

Hannah: I bet it's going to be a lot of AI. I feel like AI is coming.

Ray: Of course. Of course, AI is coming. And that's going to be the first subject, so we can just get it over with.

Hannah: And there's not enough podcasts talking about AI right now. So I think this is perfect.

Ray: Perfect. I'm glad.

Hannah: Yes. Okay. Well, hopefully it can be quick and then we'll move on to other things. So, first things first, lots of people asking how can they be found through AI search? How can people find lawyers that make sense for them through AI? Is Google search gone? What's kind of the status of that? How do you feel about AI search and how people can get found through AI?

Ray: I have so many opinions. This is not going to be quick. Okay. Let me start here. Anyone in our industry, and I'm really looking at a lot of SEO vendors who are like, we will help you rank in AI search. They are so full of shit. It's absurd. And you should run the other direction. And there are so many reasons for this. First off, we're talking about there's essentially three main vendors for AI in the more consumer population: you have ChatGPT, you have Claude, and then you have Gemini. Grok is not quite there. So we're going to put them on a shelf. But if you want to use four, we can say four, three or four.

No one knows what they train on. It's a black box. You don't know what they are training on, how often they are updating the models. That is constantly commonplace. And then also, new models are coming out all the time that are replacing the old ones. So you are trying to train, essentially, or get yourself supplanted into some moving target that you really don't know exists. So anyone claiming that they can kind of rig the system, it's ridiculous.

Here's the other issue. And we've done this and tested this ourselves. You know, I'm in New Jersey. Hannah, you're in Nashville. We both use AI and ask it all sorts of stuff that could be work-related, it could be tweeted. I was asking it for a recipe before. It's just a mishmash of stuff. And when you ask it the next question, the model uses its memory of you and it influences the search results. So you or I can ask the same exact question, people can ask me that question, but they could be in different geographies, be different people, and answers are going to be completely different. So that is problematic when someone says, I can get you in these search results.

All that being said, we do have a sense based upon some third-party survey data what these AI models do care about and train on. One of the areas that they really do not care about is your own website. It just is not a place that these models are ranking highly. They're training on the data, but they are not ranking it highly when they are returning a query that someone submits.

What really ranks high are news sources, which sounds self-serving because we are in the business of getting our clients in the news. But if you see the results when you're looking, when you're seeing some of the citations, you're seeing places like Reuters and Axios. Those are like sort of the two big ones I've seen, but there's a lot of other news outlets that definitely rank. You're also seeing directories like Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers, and look, they have their own set of issues, but those rank highly as well. So I think those directories, which were sort of going out of fashion maybe a couple of years ago, are now coming back into fashion because I think the models are, for now, relying on that information.

It is clear that earned media, being in the news, is a huge ranking factor for AI because, one, they're constantly generating content, and two, it's timely, it's not dated. We had a client that was in the news for a significant verdict on something. It involved a products case, a very commonplace product. And then two days later, we searched: what lawyer would I call if I had a product liability case involving X? We didn't phrase the question that way, but you know what I'm saying, and that lawyer came to the top citing all of the news coverage, and it was citing not just national but a lot of local news sources as well. So the models, at one period, were kind of stayed, but now they're kind of constantly feeding in new data.

So that was a very useful... you said it's gonna be short. That was not short. But if there's sort of a lesson here, it's you have to be ever present in a bunch of different spots. Earned media is a huge component. These directories are a huge component. Your website, I think, may send some signals to these AI bots, but we're not really sure on that.

Oh, I'm going to say another thing because you asked like five questions in one. So, is this replacing Google search? I would not go that far. Some of the data I have seen, at most 15% of Google searches are being replaced by AI right now. That is not insignificant, but it's not a massive sea change. I think it's more of a longer-term issue. But the things you should have been doing before AI, like being involved in your community, trying to find ways to be in the news, elevating your profile, all those things are really, really important. And I think would essentially contribute to you coming up higher in AI results. The end. Thank you.

Hannah: Thank you. I have a follow-up question. You mentioned there are four, I guess three or four.

Ray: I don't like to include Grok because we know they have issues.

Hannah: That's an understatement.

Ray: Yes. Issues.

Hannah: What are you looking at when you're looking at those different models to consider which one is best for what? And I know you have a personal preference, but what is your consideration when saying, okay, I'm going to go use Gemini, or okay, I'm going to go use Claude? How are you choosing?

Ray: So I think for personal and professional reasons, I just use Claude the most. And I think it's the best one because it also has its Cowork feature that can sort of do stuff in the background. So I'm a huge fan of Claude. I think people are using Gemini the most because it's coming up naturally in Google search, not because people have it specifically downloaded on an app. ChatGPT, I think, is sort of the more consumer model. It's sort of the basic initial one for a lot of people. People say ChatGPT like they say Kleenex almost these days. They may say, oh, I'll ChatGPT that, but they're actually using Claude. And look, ChatGPT was falling behind a bit in terms of the models, but now they caught up. These folks are always leapfrogging each other.

The other thing that was kind of interesting, you saw a few, probably two months ago, ChatGPT was by far the leader. But then, and not to get too far down the political rabbit hole, there was a controversy regarding Anthropic, the maker of Claude, not wanting to license or provide their AI models to the government, particularly for military uses. And ChatGPT, OpenAI, kind of was like, yeah, we'll take the government's money, which for very good reason really turned off a lot of people. And Claude captured a ton of market share. They also, kind of interestingly, I was using ChatGPT at the time, but my reason for not moving to Claude was I was like, oh, ChatGPT knows me. I don't want to. But then Claude made a tool to pull out the memory that ChatGPT had of you and import it to Claude. I think a lot of people moved over because of that.

So I think it's going to get easier and easier to move between these models. I mean, the big problem is these companies have no business model right now except bleeding money, and they're going to have to figure that out. So, anyway.

Hannah: This is not meant to be a gotcha question, but maybe it is.

Ray: I love gotcha questions, Hannah. It's okay.

Hannah: Well, so you know my stance on AI a bit, at least. I'm a little bit more skeptical and cautious than I think you and others are. There was a lot of conversation at one point about environmental impacts. All of a sudden, people were like, oh, AI is using a ton of water and all these data centers are being built. And we know it's going to get more efficient over time, but maybe it's not that efficient right now. What is your consideration when you use AI for all these different parts of your life, to the environmental or other energy impacts that it's having on the world?

Ray: Oh, boy, that is a gotcha question, Hannah. Sorry. First, I am a bit of an AI skeptic. I don't think I'm as all in as you stated up front, but let's put that aside. The environmental impact, I care very much about the environment and about my children, and perhaps my eventual grandchildren, having a planet that is not just, you know. But these are broader policy issues that I don't think can impact what we do on a day-to-day basis. And this is going a bit more Galaxy brain, but I think a lot of these energy oil companies have really said, oh, it's really on the consumer to save the planet. Like, oh, you should recycle, or don't have the water running when you brush your teeth, which are things I do. I recycle and I turn the water off when I'm brushing my teeth. Those are all good things, but none of those are going to save the planet when these fossil fuel companies are just pumping carbon dioxide into the environment. We need energy policy that supports the growth that we need to have a more prosperous citizenry.

Hannah: Yeah, it does feel like a go-recycle type of messaging, which they've been successful with in the past. And it's interesting that we work with plaintiff firms who are, it seems that people are already trying to control AI companies through litigation, which I think is probably a good thing, to get at it ahead of time before we just become oil companies who run free for 20 years, or a tech company who runs free for 20 years until we realize all the harms. So it's just interesting working in the middle of those things.

Ray: I think growth can be good, but it has to be done in a responsible way. I mean, we need more housing in this country. And then you see often people rise up in communities and say, we can't build this here, it's going to have some environmental impact, which is really just a not-in-my-backyard, NIMBY argument. I think there's a very important policy debate to be had about how these AI companies are taking up massive resources and they need to pay for those resources. But I feel like that's just a broader policy argument, and it shouldn't be put on the consumer.

Hannah: Yeah. Okay. We're on the same page then.

Ray: Thank you, Hannah. Still, I hated that question. Okay, sorry, you can cut it out. Whatever.

Hannah: Okay, shifting to more content and media things. Something that was brought up in the team is we get a lot of media hits around the filing of a new case or around a certain subject that a lawyer is particularly interested in. But then they get that one hit and then it's done and we kind of forget about it. What do you think firms should be doing to maintain that media presence and maybe using those media hits down the line?

Ray: So I think it depends. It's very case specific. And a lot of firms we work with, we have gotten them in the habit of understanding that it's not over from a media standpoint upon the filing of the case. It may take a while to have a new sort of newsworthy element. For example, you get through discovery and you're at a summary judgment stage and you have a bunch of documents that you obtained that could be of interest. We've also done work with a lot of firms on a case where the defense files a motion to dismiss and they say something in a particularly catastrophic case that's just really off-putting. So there are a lot of different inflection points in a case that can have media value. There's also, if it's a case where there could be multiple victims, that really changes how we approach those cases, because one person coming forward and having that lawyer in the media often leads to other victims or survivors coming forward and calling that law firm and saying, hey, we saw you, you seem to have some expertise here.

So again, it really just depends on the case. Every case is different, but I think our best partnerships are with firms that appreciate and understand that our work doesn't just end when a complaint files. Every case is a built-in calendar of events. Not all of them are newsworthy, but what can you do to continue driving media interest in a case in which doing so aids the litigation? It needs to find more people who may have been impacted, maybe bring out whistleblowers, bring out more information from witnesses who saw something. So, again, every case is different, but all those sorts of elements, I think, are what make a news story that has lasting value.

Hannah: Something else in that: I see a lot of firm websites promoting $50 million, $1 billion received for clients, or settlements of $1 billion, something like that. And they lump all of their cases together. What do you think about those kinds of results being shown on home pages? How would you lay out the presentation of their cases instead of that, if that's not the way you prefer?

Ray: You know, I think it works for a certain type of client, but if you look at law firm after law firm after law firm, many of them just do the same thing. And what distinguishes you? It's just numbers that people's eyes glaze over. I think, particularly, we're talking about AI. I actually think AI is causing a much-needed backlash where people are looking for community. They're looking for something that's more personal, something that speaks to them. And I'm not convinced that that type of messaging that's really in your face about a billion dollars recovered or whatever speaks to a huge swath of clients who really want to understand and know that the person they're calling they can trust with what may have been the worst thing to happen in their life.

And that's how we approach stuff. We never recommend doing the X-number thing. It's really meaningless and shouting into the void. It's about stories, about people. And I think that is what resonates the most. Again, and not to be dismissive of these cases, if you're doing car wreck cases, that may be a different thing. But if you're doing a catastrophic injury case, these people have suffered the worst thing imaginable, and sometimes you can't even imagine it. They want someone they can trust, and you really need to speak to those people.

Hannah: Yeah, I think that makes sense. Another thing, I recently laughed because I was at a conference and somebody had written bios out for people, and each of the bios had almost the exact same language in it. So it was like $1 billion received for clients, an experienced and compassionate attorney, something like that. And it was the same bio over and over for this panel that they were introducing. I guess it happens that we get stuck on certain language. I think experienced, compassionate attorney is a great thing to be, but...

Ray: That's just better than inexperienced and lacking compassion.

Hannah: Yes. But can you suggest maybe how to diversify the language that you're introducing yourself with, how your bio should be written in ways that actually produce interest in what you're talking about?

Ray: Think about who you are speaking to. Who are your ideal clients? And who are you as a person? It has to be authentic to you. People can tell if it's a load of BS. So, for example, if you're a class action litigator, oftentimes these bios are more for judges. They're not necessarily for an individual who's been injured. So talking more in your bio, or referencing speaking engagements, court appointments, a scholarship that you've written, is probably more important.

Now, if you're doing catastrophic injury work, talking about some case highlights in three sentences and doing that sort of bullet-point, case-studies approach, I think is important. Again, it has to be authentic to who you are, but it goes to the earlier point where reusing language that everyone else is using is just like you're almost hoping that someone picks your name out of a hat, because you have to do something that distinguishes yourself. I also think, again, there's a time and place for this. If you have a practice that's very local or regional, let's say you're in Nashville and you want to really be known for handling catastrophic injury cases in Nashville, talking about what you do in the community as part of your bio, I think, is really important. Now, make sure you back that up. Actually do stuff in the community. Don't make it up. First, you should be involved in the community because it's the right thing to do. But also, being involved in the community does have the spillover effect of your name and brand being more well known amongst the people who you ultimately want to reach if they have a need.

Hannah: Yeah, that makes sense. That actually leads me to my next question, which is about conferences and about going and showing up places. How do you think lawyers should prioritize the type of conferences that they're going to? Regional, national, super local? How do you think that they should prioritize those things? What are they trying to get out of it? And I don't mean that in a selfish way. I think you can go to these conferences and provide a lot of value to other people. And I think if you just approach life that way when you meet people, being like, how can I help you? Good things come your way.

Ray: But for any lawyer listening to this, you go to a conference like, am I looking to get smart about X or Y? And plan the conference that way. Or look at the list of attendees in advance and say, there are certain people I would love to meet and know because they can help me deepen my expertise or become a referral partner somewhere or partner on a case. You have to go in with a bit of an agenda. And again, agenda, I don't mean as a negative word. Then I think it helps you figure out what conferences are worth my time. There's so many out there. I just feel like there's more and more conferences, like enough already. But by showing up, you also get the opportunity to speak eventually. And that helps you build your reputation and have other lawyers seek you out and want to partner with you and pick your brain about things. And again, being a servant to others in that way is a positive, and I think it can lead to helping you grow your practice and deepen your practice. So I think folks should probably be a bit more selective on the conferences they want to go to, but also go with a game plan. What do you want to get out of this thing?

Hannah: Yeah, I think the most interesting conferences are ones where people are talking about their most recent case and actually giving good examples of things that were going on, instead of some really broad language about their trial strategy over 40 years. It can be helpful for our purposes. I just find it interesting to hear about how a trial went, what was going on, what was in your mind. I even recently heard an attorney practicing their opening as their presentation at a conference, which I thought was brilliant. Like, of course, you want a bunch of other plaintiff attorneys ripping apart your opening. You have to kind of pick and choose who you're talking to, but that was the best presentation I had seen at any of these conferences.

Ray: Yeah, I've seen people speak where they do just war stories, and then they do tactical tips. And the best ones, I think, are the intersection, or the, you know, you make the Venn diagram, where they are telling war stories, but not because they're bragging, and then they are giving here is something that happened in this case that is not unique to this case, that you're going to see again and again, that you and the audience can apply to the cases you're working on. I think those are some of the most interesting ones.

Hannah: Okay, well, moving on from conferences, I know it is conference season, so a lot of people are out traveling. But while they're out traveling, maybe can you give some suggestions of things people should be reading or things that you've been reading recently or keeping up with? Newsletters, podcasts, anything fun that you've been reading that you want to share?

Ray: I don't read anything fun. What have I been reading recently? I think everyone in the space needs to actually read the legal news. And by that, I mean every day I read Reuters' legal newsletter. I read law.com. I get all their alerts and I read a ton of that stuff, and I read a ton of Law360 stuff. I probably read like 50 Law360 articles a day. And it's stuff really in the personal injury, mass tort, class action world. But I also read stuff that may not be, because it's just good to be smart on the industry. And it just inspires ideas for me. I'll read that and I'm like, oh, it'll spawn some idea that wouldn't have come to me otherwise.

In terms of podcasts, I listen to a lot of legal marketing ones. I don't particularly like them. I think a lot of them are a bit self-aggrandizing. They're not like Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. Okay, but that was self-aggrandizing. I see what I did there, Hannah. You're welcome.

Hannah: I heard it.

Ray: But they have interesting guests on, and you get nuggets here and there. And then, just as a side thing, I really like technology stuff. So I listen to a bunch of tech podcasts, which also is useful because we do a lot of anti-big-tech work. So listening to that stuff is interesting. I think some of these companies build amazing tools with really no recognition of the awful impact they have on real people and human lives. But understanding technology, which has always been an interest of mine, I think helps me in the work I do, and helps us think about how we can do innovative things here at RebuttalPR. What are you listening to, Hannah? You're more in the podcast game than I am.

Hannah: I know, I love podcasts. Question Everything has been my favorite, and I've been sharing it in the channels way too much recently. But they're like policy-slash, they've been covering some litigation stuff recently, but also they're very much in the media space, so they talk to a bunch of reporters who cover all of these things instead of actual sources, which I like, because I just like hearing reporters talk. I think their job is words, so they're generally good at talking. So I like that. Yeah, there's always my silly ones that I enjoy too. I love a good Amy Poehler podcast interviewing people. Hilarious. My favorite thing.

Ray: My wife listens to that. She was trying to get me into it. I probably should.

Hannah: It's good. It's joyful. You'll feel happy after the fact.

Ray: The thing about them interviewing reporters, it's fascinating, because you read a reporter's stories, and when you talk to them... I have a good friend in town who I won't say what they write for, a major news outlet. I'll just say that to protect the innocent. But the stuff they tell me about, they essentially get left on the cutting room floor, is incredible. It's a bit more on the gossipy side, and there's a reason that they don't include it, but you hear it, and that's the stuff that's good for a podcast, that they can dish on that stuff. And it's not gossip that's unsourced. But it's a great format for them to share that sort of information.

Hannah: Yeah, I love it. Well, cool. That's all my questions today, unless you had anything you want to wrap with.

Ray: No, Hannah, this was a real thrill. Couldn't think of a better way to spend 30 minutes. The questions were a little tough. I may need to screen them next time. Sorry.

Hannah: Yeah, maybe you should read through the prep document, but we'll see.

Ray: It makes it more fun to do it on the fly. Anyway, thanks everyone for joining the latest episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. I'm Ray DeLorenzi. Thanks again to Hannah Gallagher for serving as the Hot Takes host. And we'll see you next time, fam.

Thanks for listening to this episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. Don't forget to subscribe and follow to join us next time. See you then.