Yeah.

And I don't care how your river is structured.

If it comes up 16 feet four times a year, you're going to lose some bank.

And if you look behind you right there and you wonder, where's all this gravel coming from? If you look at that, look at that dirt and then look under the dirt.

that's where all your gravel's coming from.

There's not a big gravel operation on this river anywhere.

People take gravel from it, but it's scoops at a time, not dump trucks at a time.

If you could, based on what you know, somebody gave you the keys to MDC, Game and Fish, put in, you know, enact something different, whether it's more stream bank stabilization, different regs, a variety of different things, like what would be the handful of things that you would do right away that you would like to see done on some of our smallmouth creeks?

Give me your best definition of what is a phase one and what is it used for?

Sure.

So technically, it gives you what they call circle of protection.

You know, you're innocent landowner defense.

So if there's any environmental liability, the phase one is not technically an insurance policy, but we always say it's an environmental insurance policy to know that once you take title to a commercial property, if there's any issues, contamination, There's no you didn't know.

Once you're on title, it's yours.

And what the phase one is going to do, it prevents or provides the new ownership an opportunity to know if there's any issues and address those before taking title.

You, you, you, you, the inspector finds you and you have an onboarding process.

Yeah.

Um, so I don't, I don't know if, uh, if maybe they've shifted locations, if, you know, there's just been more water this year, so they haven't grouped back up yet into their summertime stuff.

But yeah, I think the, the biggest thing I've seen is just an overall wariness, an overall, "Okay, I've seen that before." I don't know, you know, there's, there's contradictions in how much muscle memory they have on what they see and where it is and, you know, if they remember it or not.

But you see some of the things that I see, and, and some of your other guide guests can tell you this too, they'll, they'll come up, the bigger fish will come up behind a fly and go, "Eh."

Yeah.

Yeah.

Laying in the front of the boat, and so they're dying right now, and they're falling on the water.

And they've just got that big- ... buggy profile.

And so what would the difference be if, if like, you know, just kinda the approach that you have as opposed to, like, the approach to, like, maybe another firm where, you know, maybe they, again, they're taking contracts from a client and they're running them through, like, you know, some generative AI tool, pulling out the clauses, and then, you know, they're pulling out the relevant clauses and pulling out the relevant data and whatnot and then kinda going from there? What's, what's the difference in what you guys do as opposed to sort of like what the retrofit approach is?

So I think a big part of the retrofit challenge is, you know, ultimately some of the barriers to law firm transformation are much more deeply structural, right? Moving off of the billable hour, moving to an outcomes-based model, that's a challenging proposition for most law firms.

Just at the, at the upfront, when we're talking about the experience that clients receive, those models are, are new to these kinds of entities.

Our belief is that that's where the world needs to go.

The world, uh, you know, across all other professional services, they've made this transition in most, you know, areas.

Legal now has technology that allows you to price in an outcomes-based way, and it's time to do that.

So I, I think that is probably, from our clients' perspective, one of the biggest differences.

Uh, should they be worried about this approach, or are there ways that they can kind of weather that?

Can you tell me a little bit more about yourself and your background?

Yeah, so I came into legal from a fairly non-traditional background.

I'm not a lawyer.

I was a mathematician by training, and I was fascinated by problems that involved language, search, and machine learning.

And I was looking around, as I was thinking about my next kind of job, I was looking around for what is the space where those kinds of techniques had the most impact on And I met up with Jake Heller, who is the founder of Casetext.

And Jake very quickly convinced me that legal was exactly the right place to apply this technology.

And so at Casetext, I was CTO of Casetext.

so what would the difference be if like you know just kind of the approach that you have as opposed to like the approach to like maybe another firm where you know maybe they again they're taking contracts from a client and then running them through like you know some generative ai tool pulling out the clauses and then you know they're pulling out the relevant clauses and pulling out the relevant data and whatnot and then kind of going from there what's what's the difference in what you guys do as opposed to sort of like what the retrofit approach is

then-How, now you've been 15 months into it, how did you deal with the lack of goalkeepers, and do you think it has had a knock-on effect already?

Yeah, good questions.

So I'll echo John's point first.

So we did, we didn't use multi-ball to start with, and players and coaches started off crossing pitches.

Uh, and we soon found out, probably after a couple of weeks, that the best way to, to manage that was to tell the players not to, to leave the pitch, and to actively have probably eight or 10 balls dotted around the different pitches.

And what we actually found was, um, the, the, the smarter kids worked out how to get the ball back in play even quicker.

So they made more creative decisions about when balls are out, which one to go and find, and how to get the ball back in, how to create those two V ones, et cetera.

But yeah, I mean, Ryan will probably have better examples from his, um, early adoption.

Uh, can, can you talk about, more about what, what it is that you, that you think is important to be delivering to clients here?

I, yeah, so I, I think there's a big picture answer to that, which is, like, if we look at what legal services, what good legal services today Uh, it's a very scarce resource, and everybody has a scarcity mentality when it comes to legal work.

And so literally every choice you make about where to engage legal, you're pushing it off to the last minute.

You are foregoing as much of it as you possibly can.

And often that's actually a terrible strategy, right? Because really, legal is way cheaper if you start at the very beginning, right? Uh, if you, if you, you know, build your product with, uh, you know, the, the kind of knowledge of privacy regulations, uh, or, you know, privacy agreements from the very beginning, it's much better than building it 95%, sending it to legal review, and then, uh, legal comes in and, and makes you change all of the, the, the way you're storing and handling data.

We see the real opportunity as saying, "Okay, now legal is no longer scarce.

Guess what? You can get this cheap, you can get it fast, and you can get it integrated into those workflows." What can you do, and how does it change how you think about what-- where legal should be brought into your organization? We see a world where legal, uh, is now embedded directly into that early stages of product development, for example.

Why, why, why is that part of your thinking about how to approach this?