Allen Maines, Partner, Holland & Knight

In an interview with Focus:, Allen Maines, partner at Holland & Knight, said that embracing AI and adapting to rapid technological change is essential for law firms looking to remain competitive. “Today, there’s no reason clients should pay for someone to learn on the job when AI can complete those tasks instantly,” Maines said.

What changes or milestones have had the most significant impact on Holland & Knight?

As you know, a couple of years ago, we merged with Thompson & Knight in Texas, and more recently, we merged with the Waller firm in Tennessee. Interestingly, Tennessee is now the state where we have the most attorneys. We also have well over 200 lawyers in Texas, which has been a bit surprising. In total, we have around 2,300 to 2,400 lawyers, the vast majority of whom are based domestically, though we do have offices in Bogota, Mexico City, London, and a few other locations.

Unlike some other firms that are losing money trying to expand into Asia or Europe, we’ve remained more of a north-south law firm. We have a phenomenal Latin America practice out of New York and Miami, as well as a top-tier lobbying practice in D.C.

While the mergers have certainly had an impact, the biggest changes I’ve seen aren’t due to those integrations; they’re being driven by the rapid advancement of AI and how it’s transforming legal practice. We’re focused on adapting generative AI for both efficiency and value, especially in terms of pricing and delivering hybrid services that lower costs for clients. That’s a challenge all firms are grappling with.

We’re fortunate to have great leadership in that space. Bob Grammig, from our Tampa office, someone I’ve known for 40 years, is a Harvard Law grad and exceptionally forward-thinking. He’s helping lead our AI initiatives and positioning us ahead of traditional firms that rely too heavily on legacy methods. We respect our legacy, but we’re not bound by it. 

Holland & Knight has transformed dramatically. If someone knew the firm five to seven years ago, they wouldn’t recognize it today. Law firms that prioritize high-value, strategic tasks for their lawyers will continue to thrive, growing their billables, revenues, and profitability.

A big part of our change has been automating routine, time-consuming tasks — things that used to be done by first-, second, or even third-year associates. Today, there’s no reason clients should pay for someone to learn on the job when AI can complete those tasks instantly. That’s the biggest shift I’ve seen.

What role do you see these new technologies, and the emerging industry hubs in healthcare, logistics, and tech, playing as they continue to grow?

For large firms that embrace and invest in AI, there will be a growing divide between them and midsized firms. The midlevel market will face pressure from AI-driven services, but at the same time, AI can help level the playing field for firms that are smart about using it. Even small and midsized firms that adopt AI strategically can leap ahead and compete effectively, without having to expand traditionally. I think we’ll see growth in legal services driven by how well firms use AI in sectors like healthcare, logistics, and technology.

What trends are you seeing in deal structures and litigation risks, particularly in Atlanta?

There are definitely changes. First, we’re seeing a bit of an exodus from Delaware. Corporate lawyers have traditionally favored Delaware law and courts, but from a litigator’s perspective, Delaware is expensive and cumbersome. In fact, resolving disputes there can cost double what it would elsewhere.

One emerging litigation risk involves companies claiming to be AI-driven or to have unique AI capabilities when that’s not really the case. It’s similar to what we saw five years ago with ESG — companies boasted about being environmentally or socially responsible without actually doing anything, and some were sued by investors for misleading claims. We’re starting to see the same thing happen with AI.

On a broader scale, there are significant risks due to political and regulatory uncertainty, particularly from Washington. The volume of executive orders and general disruption has led to a booming lobbying and government relations business for us. Our cross-border practice, especially north-south, is also thriving.

We’ve also invested heavily in areas like cybersecurity, data privacy, compliance, AI law, healthcare, aviation, and maritime. These are strong positions to be in during a period of governmental transformation. However, there are also practice areas that won’t thrive as much, such as white-collar or consumer regulatory practices. It’s an important time for firms to reallocate resources to align with these shifts.

How is Holland & Knight expanding its services to help clients prepare for and respond to these kinds of future risks?

We have a crisis management group and a very robust cyber practice. Our cyber lawyers primarily focus on advising and counseling clients proactively, rather than reacting after a breach. They’re often brought in early, not just when something goes wrong.

It’s the same with M&A deals now. As a securities and M&A lawyer, I’m often brought in before a deal is finalized to identify gaps in the agreement that could lead to future disputes. The goal is to address these issues up front and avoid litigation down the road. Litigation is expensive and often stems from agreements that fail to account for certain scenarios.

How does strategic conflict resolution and risk management help clients protect value and move deals forward in today’s competitive landscape?

Bringing in a dispute resolution lawyer early in the deal process is a smart move. These lawyers can identify issues that are often treated as afterthoughts, like which state’s law will govern the agreement. For example, Delaware and New York have very different laws on “sandbagging” in reps and warranties.

It also matters which court you name as the forum for disputes. Some companies name the Delaware Superior Court rather than the Chancery Court, not realizing that the Superior Court doesn’t have equitable jurisdiction. That makes it harder to unwind a deal or seek certain types of relief.

Another critical point is whether to include an arbitration clause. If you’re the party likely to initiate litigation, usually the buyer in an M&A deal, you may not want arbitration. Arbitration makes it harder to obtain discovery from third parties, which is often crucial in proving fraud or breach. Arbitrators also have limited subpoena power and inconsistent discovery rules. And once a decision is made, arbitration awards are extremely difficult to overturn.

On the other hand, if you’re frequently sued, such as a telecom or social media company, you may prefer arbitration to avoid being bogged down by a thousand small cases. However, in larger disputes, arbitration is often not cheaper or faster than court, and it comes with less predictability since you don’t know the rules until the arbitrator decides them. 

What are Holland & Knight’s top priorities over the next two to three years for maintaining its leadership in Atlanta’s legal market?

First and foremost, we’re continuing to adopt generative AI at a rapid pace. We’re investing heavily in technology to automate routine tasks and allow our lawyers to focus on helping clients achieve strategic goals.

We’re also committed to developing talent internally, promoting and training from within, and nurturing a strong, collaborative culture. Holland & Knight is not a cutthroat firm; we embrace the future without fear.

We’ve enhanced our bench strength through our recent mergers: Waller’s healthcare expertise, Thompson & Knight’s energy background, and more. We continue to focus on our north-south practices and do an extraordinary amount of work in Latin America and South America. That’s a key differentiator for us and will remain a growth area going forward.