Food for thought on keeping your law practice lean. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Saw an interesting article online the other day about a young lawyer in Brooklyn who specializes in servicing start-ups. The lawyer, Kyle Westaway , believes that certain entrenched components of the legal system are flawed and lawyers need to rethink how they do things to stay competitive.

Westaway believes a new model of law is evolving – and it involves applying lean startup principles and challenging the old norms – like the billable hour. Westaway thinks that in light of dramatic societal and economic shifts, the American workforce will soon be made up of three equal parts: 1) robots; 2) off-shore workers and 3) highly skilled labor. He believes even skilled professional[i.e. us lawyers] will lose jobs and thinks the legal profession will eventually look like “Turbo-Tax for law”.

Westaway, in light of his affiliation with start-up companies, looks at his clients and trys to determine what would work best for his clients. He runs his paperless office out of his Brooklyn loft. He doesn’t see the need for a fancy address and has no staff. When things get hectic, he uses a virtual assistant and outsources as needed. Westaway sees a lawyer’s role as providing a solution to the client’s problem. Although Westaway used to worry about revenue that is no longer a primary concern. It didn’t hurt that he admittedly was in the right place at the right time. He got to start and lead the conversation on social enterprise law on Twitter and other social networking sites. Additionally he is teaching a social entrepreneurship course at Harvard Law School in the spring.

Westaway’s projections as to the future American workforce are a little grim[I hope], but it would be foolish to think that certain aspects of the legal system are NOT going to change dramatically in years to come – just look at the number of commercials you hear hawking do it yourself incorporations. Small law firms and solos in particular would be wise to listen to Westaway. I unknowingly embraced the startup model several years ago when I decided to relocate, eliminate staff and upgrade technology. I wish I did it years ago.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.