Leadership In Law Podcast

S03E121 Running a Non Profit Firm & Exonerating Innocent People with Michael Semanchik

• Marilyn Jenkins • Season 3 • Episode 121

Share episode

An exoneree’s plea in a law school classroom set Michael Semanchik on a 16-year mission to free the innocent, and to fix the processes that put them behind bars. We sit down with Michael, now executive director of The Innocence Center and host of For the Innocent, to map the real causes of wrongful convictions and the practical steps that prevent them.

We start with data, not drama. Government misconduct remains the leading driver, but the trail often runs through eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, junk science, and poor defense. Michael explains how the first lineup is the only one that truly counts, why confidence can rise even as accuracy falls, and how double-blind administration paired with full recordings protects truth. On interrogations, we unpack the shift from accusatory tactics to evidence-led interviews and why recording start-to-finish reduces contamination that can masquerade as “insider” knowledge.

The story deepens with the Horace Roberts case, where years of DNA work upended an old verdict and pointed to the victim’s estranged husband. Working with a district attorney’s office, Michael’s team not only secured Roberts’s freedom and a factual innocence finding but helped deliver convictions of the actual perpetrators. It’s a rare, complete arc, expose error, correct the record, and pursue accountability. We also discuss modern DNA’s power and pitfalls: hyper-sensitive tests, complex mixtures, uncertain timing, and the need for context before drawing bold conclusions.

Beyond the courtroom, we talk about running a mission-driven law firm with finite resources and infinite need. Michael shares how they scale impact, structured intake, top-tier pro bono partners, smart automation, and focused use of legal tech and AI, while protecting team health with clear boundaries and mental reset time. We close with a hopeful note: growing public awareness, more conviction integrity units, and jurors educated on memory science and forensic limits. If more of us carry that literacy into the jury box, fewer innocent people will be convicted and the real perpetrators will be found.

Reach Michael here:
theinnocencecenter.org

Law Firm Marketing Fix

Fix Your Law Firm’s Marketing in 10 Simple Steps

Download Your Free Checklist - https://fix.lawmarketingzone.com/

Ready to level up your law firm marketing? Book a FREE Discovery Call with Marilyn Here: https://lawmarketingzone.com/bookacall

Leadership In Law Podcast with host, Marilyn Jenkins
Powered by Law Marketing Zone®
https://lawmarketingzone.com
A full-service Digital Marketing Agency helping clients increase Leads, Cases, and Profit by getting their digital marketing right.

Subscribe on your favorite Podcast listening platform!

Like, Share, and Review us!

#leadershipinlawpodcast #leadershipinlaw #lawmarketingzone #marilynjenkins



SPEAKER_00:

The Leadership in Law Podcast is here to equip you with the knowledge and tools you need to build a successful and fulfilling legal practice.

SPEAKER_01:

Welcome to another episode of the Leadership in Law Podcast. I'm your host, Marilyn Jenkins. Please join me in welcoming my guest, Michael Samanchik, to the show today. Michael is the executive director of the Innocent Center, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to freeing innocent people from prison, supporting exoneries as they rebuild their lives, and educating the public on criminal justice reform. A nationally recognized advocate, Michael has reviewed thousands of broadbore conviction cases, litigating dozens, and personally helped secure the freedom of 12 people who collectively served nearly 200 years for crimes they did not commit. He hosts the podcast For the Innocent, which spotlights his honorese stories and explores systemic flaws in the criminal legal system. I'm excited to have you here, Michael.

SPEAKER_02:

Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_01:

Absolutely. So tell us a bit about your journey, how you got to where you are.

SPEAKER_02:

So I got started in this work by accident. I was in uh my first week of law school, and a person by the name of Timothy Atkins came to speak to the students at in the law school, and he had only been home for about four months or five months, and he had spent 23 years in prison for this murder he didn't commit. And and I was 23 years old. So I was sitting there thinking, this guy spent my entire life in prison for something he didn't do. And then and then he left us with a call to action. He said, Look, there's thousands more just like me, get involved and do your part to help free the next innocent person. And but that was it for me. That was the moment that I decided I was gonna get involved in this work. And so I became a clinic student first, and then in the the Innocence Organization, and then and then I became a staff attorney once I passed the bar exam. I progressed to be managing attorney, and then and now I'm directing the Innocence Center. So it just progressed all the way through for uh the last 16 years.

SPEAKER_01:

Wow, that's pretty incredible. You it something just hit you and you said this is it, this is what I'm gonna do.

SPEAKER_02:

That's it.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. I love that. So you've reviewed thousands of cases. What are some of the most common m mistakes or patterns that lead to innocent people being in prison?

SPEAKER_02:

The there's actually an exoneration registry. So we track every exoneration that's happened since 1989. And so we we actually have we track all of the contributing factors to these wrongful convictions as well. So we know we have the data. And what we see is that government misconduct is the leading contributing factor to a wrongful conviction. So it's prosecutorial or police misconduct or somebody that's helping the government in securing the conviction has done something that's caused the wrongful conviction. So that's the leading cause. And then after that, there are quite a few things that we look for and we know and are documented. Eyewitness misidentification. Turns out we're not very good at seeing something and then recounting it and telling a jury what we saw. We make a lot of mistakes there. People falsely confess in about a fifth of the cases, so they'll confess to something they actually didn't do. And that's typically a product of some police coercion or some poor interviewing techniques that lead to someone ultimately falsely confessing. We've got junk science, so we've for the last 10, 15 years, we've all been watching this show called CSI, and it tells us that that there are these ways that investigators can find things at crime scenes and connect people to them. And most of it's just not true. And it and for the longest time we believed it and we relied on that kind of stuff in the courtroom. And that was to our detriment and to the detriment of innocent people. We've also got ineffective assistance of counsel. It's like you have a bad defense attorney that can often result in a wrongful conviction. So there's actually there's a bunch of different ways in which people might land in prison for something they didn't do. Those are some of the highlights.

SPEAKER_01:

Wow, interesting. Yeah. CSI put us all on that track, didn't they?

SPEAKER_02:

And we're all still tricked by it.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes. So could you walk us through what a typical wrongful conviction case looks like, like from initial contact with you to exoneration?

SPEAKER_02:

Sure. So typically a person's gonna reach out either by making a phone call to us or sending us a letter from prison. And so the that's the first step. We send them an application. It's about 15 pages. They write everything about their case, who their lawyer was, who the prosecutor was, who the judge was. They describe how the case happened in detail. We then reach out to their old lawyers and we gather all of the facts about the case. And then we actually use a pro bono firm called Goodwin Proctor. It's based in they're based in Boston. The their pro bono, their lawyers do pro fantastic pro bono work for us. They do a workup on the case and they tell us whether or whether to take it or not. And we've put them through, we've uh put them through a training so they know what the red flags are that we just talked about. But ultimately they're advising us and saying this is a case that you should take and here are some of the things we think you should look into. Or now this isn't really a case for you. So then from that point, we as a staff decide, is this a case for us or is it not? If it is a case for us, we'll assign it to a lawyer and an investigator. And if they can come up with some evidence of innocence, we'll file or we'll go to the prosecutor and say, hey, this is what we found. What do you think? And then ultimately, hopefully, if we've got the evidence of innocence, then we go to court and we walk them out of prison.

SPEAKER_01:

Wow.

SPEAKER_02:

And how old is the oldest case that you've opened reopened like we had the Michael Hanlein case is a 19 it was a 70 case from the 70s. We've had a couple of cases from the 70s, and so he spent 36 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. And and for a little while he was the longest wrongful incarceration in California history. The challenge with those 70s cases, and even the 80s and a lot of the 90s cases in LA is that we don't always keep evidence. So if we're gonna go back and try to do DNA testing, you'll find in a lot of them either the evidence has been thrown away or it's not been kept in a way in which we can glean any biological material from it to know what had what's happened. So you have to get really lucky. In fact, all of these cases involve a certain amount of luck.

SPEAKER_01:

I see. So they don't keep once you're in prison, they don't keep your evidence but a certain amount of time.

SPEAKER_02:

It it depends. It depends, actually. So we've passed some laws that require evidence evidence preservation in California, but it hasn't always been that way. So in LA, just because of the sheer number of cases that are coming through the county, they weren't keeping everything. So usually if it was within five years, certain certainly in the 80s and into the early 90s, within five years they were throwing everything away. So you really have to be lucky that in LA that they somehow missed throwing away your box of evidence if you had a late 80s, early 90s conviction or earlier.

SPEAKER_01:

Interesting. Of of the 12 people that you've personally helped free, is there one story that still sticks with you emotionally or fundamentally that changed your view of the justice system?

SPEAKER_02:

Certainly. Uh the Horace Roberts case is one such case that had it was just a wild case. It was a case that it's a Riverside County case, and and one in which Horace had had started this affair with who ultimately ended up being the victim, Terry Cheek. He started an affair with her at their job. They worked at Quest Diagnostics. And and that affair ultimately led to police thinking that maybe he had something to do with her disappearance and ultimately her murder. She was found found murdered on the side of the 15 freeway and and ultimately was convicted. He spent 20 years in prison. But we started looking, and he wrote to us in 2004, and then we worked on his case through the first round of DNA testing in 2007, and then did a second round in 2014. And then we started a kind of one last round where we tested absolutely everything in the case. We started that late 2016, got the results in 2017, and the DNA in that pointed not to Horace, but to the to Terry's estranged husband who had committed the murder. And so we actually, after getting those DNA results, worked with the Riverside District Attorney's Office to not just reverse Horace's conviction, but get a finding of factual innocence, and at the same time arrested the husband and and the uh husband's son is Terry's stepson and the husband's nephew. And the three of them went, actually were tried and convicted. The estranged husband, Googie Harris Sr., received the death penalty just earlier this year. And Joaquin Leal was sentenced to life without parole. And then the stepson took a plea to testify against the other two. So that one for me is one of those ones that's that'll forever stand out. I think the cooperation that, you know, working together with the prosecutor's office to undo the conviction and then continuing to work with them to get the true perpetrators in prison was just a remarkable it took some years, but it was a remarkable set of circumstances that ultimately resulted in some justice for for all.

SPEAKER_01:

That's incredible. So you not only exonerate someone get exonerated, you actually got the actual murderer put in prison.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, and actually, strangely enough, that's like often what we end up doing is by going back and reinvestigating and looking into these cases, you end up figuring out what really happened, and often it points to somebody else.

SPEAKER_01:

Interesting. That's that had to be a relief for her family. For sure. Yeah, definitely. What role? So you talked about eyewitness testimony, and we're terrible about remembering what we think we remember. What role do you think faulty eyewitness testimony or false confessions play in these cases?

SPEAKER_02:

A big part. And actually the eyewitness misidentification and the false confession part, a lot of that actually is a result of the way that police do their job. So they administer typically what you'll see is they'll administer a photo lineup for the eyewitness identification cases. So a wit a witness will come in and say, Oh, I remember the person looked like, and they'll name off the things that they can remember. Oh, the person was six foot, they were black, male, short hair, goatee. And so what you're supposed to do is take those things and put together your lineup. And your lineup is supposed to have the one suspect and then five people that fit that description that the the initial description that the witness gave. And the hope is that they, if they so the first test is actually the most important. And there's been some recent studies over the last five years by Dr. Wickstead, who's at University of California, San Diego. And what he's shown is that first test is really all that matters. If the person confidently makes a pick and does it quickly, most likely they're making a correct pick. If they don't, or if they waffle, or if they're like, uh looks like, and they don't zero in on that person, then it's probably not the person. But forever, we've always we've allowed them to kind of waffle. And what you would see in a misidentification case is maybe they say, Oh, maybe I'm like 60, 70% sure that's the person that they maybe they pick out this the suspect. In future identification procedures, now they're going to become more certain. And it's not because their memory is getting better over time. What's happened is they take the image of from that lineup, and that the image they saw at the during the lineup procedure then is implanted in their brain from that contamination, and they later return to that same lineup picture going forward. So they become more and more certain all the way up till when they get to trial, you'll see they'll testify that they're 100% sure. And that's really powerful because now they're in front of the jury saying, I'm 100% sure that's the person I saw.

SPEAKER_01:

Right.

SPEAKER_02:

But it's inaccurate. So now you've got high confidence, low accuracy, it leads to a wrongful conviction. And the same, so we can change that. We can modify how we do the photo lineups, we can modify how the police go about putting them together and how they administer them so that we protect ourselves from that. And so we've done some legislative work to try to make an impact there. That's certainly a big part of it. I'd say flipping over to false confessions, it's very similar there too. We need to be recording interrogations. Sometimes what happens, and police officers might not even know, they might provide some fact about a crime, and maybe some hours go by as they're continuing to do their interrogation, and that suspect then repeats back a fact that they learned some hours before. And now a police officer is like, oh, you know something that only the true perpetrator would know. But the truth is they learned it from the officer themselves. There's things that we can do, just even the way that you conduct the interrogation, what we found is that doing more of a fact-based interview as opposed to trying to interrogate and trick a person into agreeing, just get in there and let them talk and give you the facts and and get them to commit to a statement is much more reliable than trying to basically cross-examine or lead a person into admitting to like we see on the TV, yeah, TV shows of how they interrogate and absolutely you want to make them step in a hole. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01:

Has what you've done, have you I know you've talked about legis legislative changes. What about police training? Is that been influenced by some of the work that you've done?

SPEAKER_02:

Definitely. Just the eyewitness identification procedure. So one of the things that we've learned is that if you think about playing a game of poker, I don't know if you've ever played poker, but or if you ever watch the world's games of poker, when you're watching the professionals play on TV, they've got sunglasses on, they've got hats and hoodies, and they're trying to keep their tell secret, right?

SPEAKER_01:

I think that's cheating.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. They don't want the other players to know what they're thinking.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Police officers don't do that. So when they're administering a lineup, they know who the suspect is. They don't have sunglasses on and their hats down and their hoods up. You might push a lineup in front of someone and there might be a tell to signal to the witness that the person that the police think did it is the person in position four. Now that might encourage them to pick that person, not because it's the person that did it, but it's the person that the police think did it. And there's a difference there, right?

SPEAKER_01:

So and if you're confused at all, you're gonna pick the one the police think.

SPEAKER_02:

Right, because you want to help them with their investigation. It makes perfect sense. So one of the things that we've learned and we're trying to implement pretty much worldwide is it should be double blind. The witness shouldn't know who the suspect is, and the police officer who's administering the lineup shouldn't know who the suspect is when they go in. So you'd hand it to somebody else in the police precinct to walk in and do the lineup procedure. That no one knows in the room who actually is the person that the police think did it. And that can help dramatically. We should also just we should just record all of the eyewitness identification procedures. Don't rely on people's memory as to how what they thought, was it 60%, was it 70%? Did they lock onto that picture? Do they ask questions? Just record it. Like we all have phones and cameras these days. We should be recording that. And the same goes for interrogation. So that's I think those are some of the easy things that that we're we've been able to we've had some progress there and had an ability to impact the way that police police practices go.

SPEAKER_01:

So Okay, great. Yeah, I would imagine there's got to be some changes, and it's just an interesting time in America right now where what the police feels like is being a little bit more unhandcuffed with the way they can treat people.

SPEAKER_02:

Certainly.

SPEAKER_01:

So we talked a little bit about CSI and DNA and all the kind of things. They make us feel like DNA solves everything. What misconceptions do you encounter about how rare these cases actually are that the DNA or whatever influenced the case in the wrong direction?

SPEAKER_02:

One thing about DNA is that we don't know when the DNA arrived where you're seeing it. Right? So like somebody might have let's say you're DNA testing like a fork at a you find next to a or uh we could talk about the the Terry Cheek Horace Roberts case. There's a watch found next to Terry's body. And the watch is ticking, so it's not a it's not dead. It's 1998. The watch isn't dead, so it's probably relatively recent, but you don't know when it got there. So testing it is gonna tell you most likely who wore the watch at some point. But when, who knows? The other issue with DNA, especially these days, is we've gotten really good at doing DNA testing. So good that we're catching every little bit of genetic material on a on a piece of evidence that we're testing. So you end up with a super complicated mixture of multiple people. If there's been multiple people that have come in contact with it, the testing is so sensitive, you're seeing everything come through. So kind trying to deconvolute those complicated mixtures is difficult. And trying to ascertain who is the person and sometimes you can see that there's more biological material from one contributor, so more likely they're the one that had more contact with this particular piece of evidence, but maybe not. And we also, because of that hypersensitivity, you have contamination where if something's not handled properly, there might be DNA that arrives there at a different time, or because of the way that it was handled. So it certainly is great technology to try to figure out who did what in a crime, but there are still issues with it, and and we need to just recognize those. And I think for the most part, DNA testing labs are recognizing that and do understand that there are challenges to overcome with the science that they're practicing.

SPEAKER_01:

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about the oversensitivity in it. If you do a DNA test a car, how do you know they didn't have all five people in the car at one time going someplace?

SPEAKER_02:

And it let's just assume for a second it's a used car. Now a previous owner's DNA or a rental car. It doesn't matter if you've thrown it, you've taken it through the car wash and you wipe down the surfaces inside, you're still gonna have DNA from most of the occupants of that car. Especially if they're a lot of our DNA comes from our epithelial cells, and just talking is gonna project. So there's DNA all over my microphone right in front of me. From me, just talking into this thing. If somebody sneezes in a car, their DNA is gonna be in there. If they've had if they've been eating in a car, I think there's it you can see where it could get pretty complicated.

SPEAKER_01:

Wow, that's very interesting. What what do you wish the general public better understood when it comes to the barriers of proving somebody's innocence once they're convicted? They can't be easy.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I wish that I I hope the public will start to understand that number one, it's incredibly expensive to do this work because we need to have lawyers doing this casework to try to piece it all together. Number two, there's this certain level of finality that our criminal legal system has favored for the last 200 years. And that's that goes against us. Like we're when we're trying to undo what a jury of 12 said, the system favors keeping everything the same. Even when you do have some really strong evidence of innocence, you'll see that there's a lot of there's a lot of headwind against trying to correct it and and get the the truth to come out. And then I think the last is that it just takes a lot of time to figure these things out. But like we should all we should be thinking like the people that were on the jury had the information they had at the time. And they were just 12 regular people for the most part. While we try to have this finality we should recognize that things change forensic science changes witnesses and well memory and the science behind memory is better understood these days. There's been a lot of things that have shifted and changed over the years and and we should recognize that and know that when we're looking at these types of cases agree.

SPEAKER_01:

So let's move over to running a nonprofit law firm. This is a little bit different obviously what's the hardest part of balancing your mission driven work with the realities of funding and operations?

SPEAKER_02:

It's certainly that there's very limited resources and pretty much an infinite number of cases coming at us. So how do we help as many people as we can with the little that we have and so I think that's our biggest challenge and that's that's what we're always trying to to to navigate. If we can increase resources hire more lawyers we certainly can help more people. And so hopefully your listeners might consider going to our website and donating that's theiniccenter.org. But if we don't have an increase in resources then how else can we do it? So that's where we have to get strategic in it's forming pro bono partnerships with Goodwin Proctor to help us with our like the front end work. It's using legal technology to try to get some of the stuff automated or make free up the the lawyer's time so that they can focus specifically on the lawyer tasks. It's using legal AI to try to build a case to file in court it's all the things that you can do to with your same limited resources but do more work on the cases. That's so our approach is typically it's can we number one can we automate something? Number two, if we can't automate it can we look to pro bono counsel or volunteers to accomplish the task number three can we outsource it for cheap. If we can outsource something for cheap then we'll try to go down that road and then four if we can't do any of those three things then yeah it's something that we is we have to continue to take on that's the way that we try to approach all of the problems and I think that's allowed us to work on more cases than similar other similarly situated innocence organizations.

SPEAKER_01:

Interesting so you just have to there's so many prongs and a lot of larger firms are doing some promo pro bono work so that's helpful for you as well.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah we have 10 or 12 pro bono partners that are doing significant amount of work not just Goodwin Proctor a lot of the big firms have are working with us in various different tasks and cases and that sort of thing. So it's um you know I think that's certainly one of the things we look to do is if we can't hire another lawyer, can we go out and find another lawyer that will do it help us do this work for free.

SPEAKER_01:

Fantastic. How do you keep your team motivated where are you trying to be emotionally healthy there's high states in each one of these cases it just seems like it'd be emotionally draining.

SPEAKER_02:

How do you keep your team motivated it is incredibly challenging I would say we try to focus on we we're not going to be great advocates if we're not coming at this with healthy and in considering ourselves along the way. So if that means that folks want to want to do want to get out and do a workout or go do yoga midday I'm all for that we try to have hard stopping times so it's if you're going to work if your day is a if you're an eight to four kind of person or if you're a nine to five kind of person great you can work on your on where you're best at working but at some point we have to shut it down and so turn off your notifications when you're done and go check out for the rest of that go live your life and come back tomorrow ready to work. If you need to take a day like a mental health day by all means do that. We're only going to be great advocates if we come into this recharged every day. So having that kind of mindset I think certainly helps. If you're like if you're on if you're on email late into the night working on one of your cases you're not going to be ready to go come eight eight or nine a m the next day and it just slowly wears on you. And then I'd say there's the highs in this work are really high. When you walk somebody out of prison who has been in prison for decades that's a really high the lows are also really low. And so recognizing that and making sure that everyone's aware of it when you lose a case and a person might end up dying in prison from their sentence that's something that we need to make sure that we're fully understand too.

SPEAKER_01:

It sounds like good boundaries.

SPEAKER_02:

Trying to have the best boundaries and trying to make sure that everyone's staying self-aware of of their own mental health I think is crucial.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah I think you can get ground down into when you get so into a project you it's hard to turn it off. So I love that you're encouraging that taking purposeful breaks and then stopping at the end of your day and going about your lie just think it's so important to be able to shut it down at the end of the day. Yeah I think more of us could use a bit of that. Looking ahead what changes in in the criminal justice system give you hope as far as the reforms to prevent this in the future?

SPEAKER_02:

I think we've made a lot of progress there's certainly more to go but as we get more and more exonerations we're we're proving the point that there are these flaws and each one is should can and should be used as a teaching tool to prevent as prevention moving forward. And I think at this point now with I think there's 3600 wrongful convictions in the registry there are a lot of teaching points there's a lot of teaching tools there we're using to steer us uh in the direction of lessening this problem certainly but there's public awareness has been awesome too and I'm hopeful that as people are learning about this issue and they're learning about the contributing factors, they take that into the jury box. So as you're going to do your work as a juror, which by the way everyone should participate in that process go in and do your civic duty and have a good understanding of what are some of the contributing factors of this so go learn, read up on some of the issues on our website and and dive into this so that you know when it's your time to go and do this, you come in knowing oh this isn't this isn't a particular thing that I should have a strong belief in. Go do your homework on shake and baby syndrome. You might be on a on an SBS type case and that's a super complicated medical type case that I hope that that's just one example of something. I hope people will do a little bit of homework on it and then maybe they sit for a jury and they understand there's a lot of flaws and in that tip type of case. So that's certainly one thing I'm hopeful for. I think at this point there used to be like you'd have one exoneration a week in a given year. And now it's almost like every single day you're hearing about another wrongful conviction case. And I and that's in part because of the resources that have been flowing into the work this type of work and the number of organizations out there doing this. But I also think it's public awareness it's prosecutor's offices open can open and conviction integrity units there's a lot more there's a lot more focus on this and so I'm just I guess I'm hopeful that we one day might put ourselves out of business and I'll go find something else to do. That'd be great.

SPEAKER_01:

I love that I love that this has been incredibly interesting. I really appreciate your time today and I know my listeners are probably going to want to connect with you maybe donate it time or money. Where could they connect with you? What would be the best place?

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah so the innocencecenter dot org is the best place to go and you can we put our I think we have a form petition on there or a form you can fill out to for volunteer opportunities and there's a there's an easy link to donate on that website and that will help you that'll help us work towards the next exoneration.

SPEAKER_01:

I love that okay great so we're going to put that in the show notes so definitely go to the inn innocent center dot org to donate or volunteer. I appreciate that. Thank you so much for being with us Michael I really appreciate your time. This has been very interesting. Thanks for having me Marilyn thanks for joining me today for this episode. As we wrap up I'd love for you to do two things first subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode and if you find value here I'd love it if you would rate it and review it. That really does make a difference in helping other people to discover this podcast. Second you can connect with me on LinkedIn to keep up with what I'm currently learning and thinking about and if you're ready to take the next step with a digital strategist to help you grow your law firm I'd be honored to help you. Just go to Lawmarketingzone.com to book a call with me. Stay tuned for our next episode next week. Until then as always thanks for listening to Leadership in Law Podcast and be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss the next episode thanks for joining us on another episode of the Leadership in Law Podcast.

SPEAKER_00:

Remember, you're not alone on this journey there's a whole community of law firm owners out there facing similar challenges and striving for the same extent head over to our website at LawmarketingZone.com and from there connect with other listeners access valuable resources and stay up to date on the latest episodes combined and link us to review on your favorite podcast platform. Until next time we keep leading with business and keep growing further

Head Shot

Marilyn Jenkins

Host