Ken Turkel, Senior Partner, TCBG LAW

July 2026 — Ken Turkel, senior partner of TCBG LAW, sat down with Invest: to discuss the role of boutique litigation firms in a consolidating legal market. “Everything’s much more personal. It has to be,” Turkel said, while sharing details on the firm’s recent merger, the importance of cultural fit, and the limits of technology in trial work.

How would you describe the past year for TCBG LAW, and what does that trajectory tell you about where the broader litigation market is heading?

For us, the challenge is assessing the market and reinforcing the concept that there is room for a local litigation boutique with a national presence. We are in an age of consolidation. Big Law is buying up more firms everywhere, including Tampa, and we have certainly been approached a number of times.

We think there is always a place for a boutique that is locally based, in the sense that our lawyers are from Tampa and the Tampa Bay area. Meanwhile, we have earned a national profile, so we do cases all over the country.

When we look at the market, we always look through that perspective. Our concerns, where we market, and how we present ourselves to clients are always in the context of competitors that are different from us in all respects. They are bigger and have different corporate values because they have to.

To the extent there are distinctions with Big Law, we think we are much more client-centric in the way we provide services. That hits every facet, from our rates to how we staff cases to how we resolve business issues with clients. Everything’s much more personal. It has to be.

How has the merger with Guerra & Partners expanded your ability to serve clients?

I have known George Guerra since I was in elementary school. We played football together, went to the same schools, and attended the same law school. We have practiced against each other, but much more often on the same side of cases.

George’s group has a very robust practice in the financial services industry, including banks and financial advisers. We have always done work in those industries, but their experience immediately amplifies our ability in that market.

More importantly, when you are doing a lateral acquisition, it has to be about the people. We do not want to work with jerks or bad people. Before you get into anything about financial metrics, you have to be around good people.

If there is a defining cultural component for us, it is to make sure people have good values. In our profession, you can do wonderful things, but life still occurs. Those things matter when people are going through their worst times.

We seek partners we believe will be there for each other in the worst of times. I am still a believer in the old-school vision of partnership, that your partners are like family to a degree.

When somebody moves a practice, generally speaking, it takes about six months before their practice is rolling again. It’s a lot more than just a different address. In this case, the transition was seamless because I have known George my entire life. I know he is a good lawyer, I know they do good work, and I know they have a good reputation in the financial services industry.

How are you seeing broader business complexity and consolidation affect your practice?

The thing that impacts us most is seeing Big Law growing and growing. In an environment where the big are getting bigger, and smaller companies are rolling into bigger companies, we have to adapt by remaining relevant no matter the size of a company. I have represented Fortune 50 companies, local businesses, and everything in between.

Most general counsels will say they do not pick law firms, they pick lawyers. But I have also worked for publicly held companies that would hire us while also hiring Big Law because the board of directors was looking for a box to be checked.

We are generally outnumbered in every case we do. We are a speedboat with a 50mm cannon moving fast and hitting harder, and we cannot afford to have anybody on the boat who cannot man the gun and pilot the boat. We fight in a way that requires us to be more efficient and less wasteful. We do not have to staff cases with seven lawyers just to meet overhead.

The challenge is that, in a market where everybody is getting bigger, when you are that scrappy boutique looking to eliminate a lot of the noise that comes with legal relationships, it gets more challenging.

I have looked at files from big firms where 27 lawyers were working on a case that needed three. It is about the best pathway for the client to get their problem solved. You want that to be efficient and cost less because you want that client to call you every time they have a problem.

At the beginning, we are very front-heavy in how we analyze problems because we want to isolate and solve variables. Every variable I can address at the front end helps lay a train track that is direct and straight. If there is no real need to file a complaint tomorrow, we are going to take our time, do our work, and know where we are going.

Where do you see the legal industry changing over the next three years as technology becomes more common?

The integration of AI into law practice is discussed all the time now. I have talked to managing partners in very large law firms who have told me their need to hire lawyers for basic drafting is going to diminish greatly because of AI. AI will supplant younger lawyers used for first-level reviews and proofreading because AI can do that.

That does not really translate to a trial practice because AI cannot go to court and argue to a judge or jury, which is our main skill set at the firm.

There are applications of technology in document management and litigation software. Those were tasks commonly assigned to a paralegal or young lawyer, and there is an impact there. I do not think we need as many paraprofessionals as we used to need, but we still need paraprofessionals.

AI is not something I get fearful of. If anything, I think firms that are very AI-heavy risk having younger lawyers rely too much on it and get in trouble. If you start using AI briefs with case law that does not exist, you are going to get in a lot of trouble, and that is happening every day.

There is a very humanistic element to what we do and a very instinctive feeling to the research, writing, and presentation of the facts and the law. I would never advocate becoming overly reliant on computers for what we do.

What has guided your career as a trial lawyer?

I never had a plan. I went to the state attorney’s office and made $25,000 a year, but I got to try cases. Later, I went private to take care of my family.

The only constant in my mind was the responsibility vested in us when someone chose us and my desire to try meaningful cases. Meaningful cases do not necessarily mean cases that make a lot of money. The ability to do work that mattered and to work for people whose pathways mattered to me was always the driving force.

I did not inherit a book of business. I just won cases for regular people and local businesspeople that kept me up at night because I cared about these people.

The cases that affect me most are the small business owners who come to me on the verge of bankruptcy because somebody lied to them or stole from them. That is where I lose sleep.