HessConnect

HessConnect Let's explore what leveraging LinkedIn for your law practice looks like and if it's a good fit! https://linktr.ee/vivecahess

HessConnect creates online marketing strategy, content, and design through consulting, coaching and management.

Your expertise does NOT need an AI makeover.Here’s what it needs..It needs fewer things getting in its way.That, to me, ...
09/03/2026

Your expertise does NOT need an AI makeover.

Here’s what it needs..

It needs fewer things getting in its way.

That, to me, is where the AI conversation gets far more interesting.

AI doesn’t replace your expertise.
(Your words from substack inspired )

And if your AI is being asked to replace the expertise of a good lawyer, we have bigger problems Houston!

What it can replace?

✔️ The friction surrounding that expertise.

✔️ The 47 minutes spent hunting for something you know exists somewhere.

✔️ The first draft that shouldn’t require a first-year-associate-sized chunk of your afternoon.

✔️ The follow-up that gets buried.

✔️ The institutional knowledge living exclusively inside someone’s head.

✔️ The brilliant lawyer who would absolutely develop business…if someone would kindly manufacture a 27-hour day.

That’s the opportunity I think firms should be looking for.

Not:

“Where can we use AI?”

But:

“𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙙𝙤?”

Find that.

Then determine where AI can remove the friction.

The goal isn’t an AI-powered law firm.

𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧-𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚.

Funny how we keep coming back to them.
The good humans - good judgement.
Irreplaceable.
😍

Agree?

Well played, MapQuest. 😂A so-called President wants to rename Lake Ontario.MapQuest apparently chose violence.No press c...
09/02/2026

Well played, MapQuest. 😂

A so-called President wants to rename Lake Ontario.

MapQuest apparently chose violence.

No press conference.
No lengthy statement.
No 47-part Twitter thread.

Just a map.

Lake Ontario.

Sometimes the most effective trolling is simply refusing to update the directions. 😎

10/10. No rerouting necessary.
Downloading Mapquest NOW! 🔥

There is a very expensive AI strategy quietly developing inside some law firms...Buy several licenses.Hold training.Hope...
09/01/2026

There is a very expensive AI strategy quietly developing inside some law firms...

Buy several licenses.
Hold training.
Hope.

Step three is doing an extraordinary amount of work there.

Because the biggest AI problem I'm seeing isn't necessarily adoption anymore.

It's 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

A firm buys the tool.

A handful of enthusiasts become very enthusiastic.

Someone creates a prompt library.

There is a webinar.

Possibly lunch.

And six months later...

One partner is doing astonishing things with it.

Three associates use it occasionally.

Half the firm has forgotten its password.

And someone in accounting is wondering why they're paying for 47 licenses.

The technology wasn't necessarily the problem.

𝙉𝙤𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠.

AI creates meaningful value when you stop asking:

"What can this tool do?"

and start asking:

"𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩?"

That's a workflow question.

So I'd pick ONE recurring process inside the firm.

Client intake.

First-pass document review.

Matter summaries.

Chronologies.

Research preparation.

Client updates.

Proposal development.

Whatever genuinely creates friction.

Then map:

1 / What happens now?

Not what the procedure manual says happens.

What actually happens on Wednesday at 4:47 when everyone is busy.

2 / Where is the repetition, delay or unnecessary handoff?

3 / Which part requires legal judgment?

Protect that.

4 / Which part could AI assist with safely?

Test that.

5 / What result are we measuring?

Time saved is useful.

But so are faster response, greater consistency, capacity, reduced write-offs, better client experience and more work handled without adding headcount.

That's AI strategy.

Not owning the software.

And perhaps this is the slightly uncomfortable bit:

The firms that become genuinely good at AI probably won't be the firms with the most AI tools.

They'll be the firms that get very good at deciding 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝘼𝙄 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙨.

And equally good at knowing where it doesn't.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩. Shiny object procurement second.

Your law firm's AI policy may be perfectly adequate.For 2024.Which is unfortunate, because it's 2026.A lot of the first-...
08/31/2026

Your law firm's AI policy may be perfectly adequate.

For 2024.

Which is unfortunate, because it's 2026.

A lot of the first-generation policies were essentially:

Don't put confidential things into ChatGPT.
Check its work. Don't do anything stupid.

A perfectly respectable start.

It is no longer much of an AI governance strategy.

Because the question has changed from:

"Are our lawyers using AI?"

to:

"𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙒𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙒𝙃𝙄𝘾𝙃 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙒𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠, 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙒𝙃𝙊𝙎𝙀 𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙨?"

That's considerably less catchy.

Also considerably more important.

AI is now showing up in research, drafting, document review, email, meeting notes, intake, marketing, business development and increasingly agentic workflows.

And lawyers aren't necessarily waiting for the firm to assemble a committee.

Which creates what I think is one of the biggest AI risks for firms right now:

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙖𝙥 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘼𝙄 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢 𝙏𝙃𝙄𝙉𝙆𝙎 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨...
𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘼𝙄 𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙩.

So before writing AI Policy Version 7.3, I'd ask five questions:

→ What AI tools are people actually using?

→ Which ones are firm-approved versus individually adopted?

→ What information may and may not go into each?

→ Where must a human verify the work, and who owns that decision?

→ Do our client requirements, confidentiality obligations and actual practices agree with one another?

That last one deserves considerably more attention than it gets.

Because "we have an AI policy" and "we have AI governance" are 𝙣𝙤𝙩 the same sentence.

Policy is a document.

Governance is knowing what's happening after everyone closes the document.

And with agentic AI arriving quickly, this gets more important, not less.

An agent that can research, retrieve information, draft something and initiate another action is a rather different governance proposition from asking ChatGPT to improve an email.

𝘾𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙩, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙩.

Especially when the copilot has learned to press buttons.

If you're leading a firm, I'd spend less time asking whether you have an AI policy this fall.

I'd ask whether it still describes reality.

That answer is considerably more useful.

And, if you're not entirely sure what is actually happening inside your firm, that's exactly where I'd start before buying another shiny AI thing.
And, we can start together if you like.
I'm just one DM away.

89% of companies say AI hasn’t moved productivity. Not exactly a victory lap... so lets forget AI all together. Right! T...
08/28/2026

89% of companies say AI hasn’t moved productivity. Not exactly a victory lap...
so lets forget AI all together.

Right! This thing is not going away...

I don’t think the takeaway is that AI doesn’t work.

I think the takeaway is that a lot of companies are still doing this:

“Look! We saved 27 minutes!”
..and then immediately donating those 27 minutes back to Outlook.

A recent working paper drawing on business surveys in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Australia found that 89% of firms reported no company-wide productivity impact from AI over the prior three years, measured as sales per employee.

That sounds grim.

Until you look a little closer.

AI can absolutely make a task faster without making the firm more productive.

A lawyer saves 30 minutes drafting.

An associate summarizes documents faster.

An administrator automates part of intake.

Everyone nods approvingly.

Maybe someone even makes a PowerPoint.

Then what?

If that recovered capacity simply gets swallowed by another inbox, another meeting, another clunky approval process or the mysterious black hole known as “internal admin,” the firm hasn’t really captured the value.

It has simply created faster chaos.

And I suspect that’s where a lot of firms are right now.
(Really? I know - feigning humility here...)

The research points in the same direction:

AI performs very well when applied to specific, well-defined work.

But turning those individual gains into firm-wide business results?

That requires something considerably less glamorous than buying another tool.

It requires redesigning how the work actually moves.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝘀, 𝗜’𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀:

𝟭 / 𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

Pick one recurring workflow that eats too much lawyer or staff time.

Intake. Matter opening. Discovery review. First drafts. Reporting. Knowledge retrieval.

Start with the annoying thing.

Not the shiny thing.

𝟮 / 𝙍𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙬, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙨𝙠.

Where can AI assist?

Where must human judgment remain?

Who reviews the output?

Who owns the decision?

And most importantly:

What happens with the time you just saved?

Because “we made something faster” and “we created business value”
= NOT actually the same sentence.

𝟯 / 𝘿𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣.

“Everyone is using ChatGPT” is not a KPI.

Faster turnaround?

More matters handled without adding headcount?

More attorney time with clients?

Fewer write-offs?

Better responsiveness?

Less administrative sludge?

𝙋𝙞𝙘𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙤𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙞𝙩.

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙄’𝙢 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙨: 𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙬, 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮’𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘼𝙄, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙩.

Because being “AI-ready” sounds lovely.

Being 𝙛𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚-𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 is considerably more useful.

And if your current AI strategy is essentially:

Step 1: Buy tool --> Step 2: Hope. --> Step 3: Buy another tool.

I may have found the productivity problem.

Now go do something involving absolutely 𝙣𝙤 𝘼𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝙤𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧.
Try a little 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙁𝙪𝙣.

You know, touch grass. Feel the sun. Talk to an actual person, or your dog...like me.

Enjoy one of those wildly inefficient tactile experiences AI will never quite get its virtual little hands on.

𝙃𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙮 𝙁𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙮. 😉

Apparently, I’m spending this weekend learning to orchestrate something AI can’t help me with….My emotions. 😏My 20-year-...
08/22/2026

Apparently, I’m spending this weekend learning to orchestrate something AI can’t help me with….

My emotions. 😏

My 20-year-old daughter is getting ready to leave for Madrid for an entire semester.

Which means the next few days will involve some combination of:

Excitement.
Anticipation.
Last-minute everything.
A little fear.
A lot of pride.
And me casually pretending that four months is basically a long weekend. 🇪🇸

It’s a funny parallel to something I’ve been thinking about a lot in my work.

We’ve spent the last few years learning to operate AI.

Prompt it.
Tweak it.
Try another tool.
Open 17 tabs.
Wonder which one is actually doing what.

But the next skill is different:

Operator → Orchestrator.

Knowing what AI should handle.
What humans should handle.
Where judgment belongs.
And when you have to stop trying to control every little thing.

That last one may have applications beyond AI. 😉

Because whether it’s technology, a business, a team…

…or apparently sending your daughter 5,800 miles away…

Orchestration isn’t about controlling every note.

𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪.

I’ll be practicing that one this weekend.

Madrid, please take good care of my girl. ❤️🇪🇸

AI should make a human more capable.Not less necessary.I’m wildly enthusiastic about what AI can do for lawyers.But ther...
08/19/2026

AI should make a human more capable.
Not less necessary.

I’m wildly enthusiastic about what AI can do for lawyers.

But there’s a line I come back to:

𝘾𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙩. 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙩.

AI can draft, research, summarize, compare, organize and issue-spot.

Fantastic. Put it to work.

But it doesn’t inherit:

Verification of authority.

Legal expertise.

Professional judgment.

Context.

Ethical responsibility.

Those aren’t pesky human steps waiting to be automated. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮’𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩.

Which is why the better question isn’t just:

“What can we automate?”

It’s:

“𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣?”

That question belongs in the workflow before something goes spectacularly sideways and everyone suddenly develops a passionate interest in governance.

AI can produce an answer in seconds.

It cannot look a client, judge, partner, regulator or malpractice carrier in the eye and say:

“Yes. I stand behind this.”

That part is still wonderfully, inconveniently human.

Copilot, not autopilot isn’t a warning against AI. It’s the blueprint for using it well.

𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙣-𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝘼𝙄 𝙪𝙨𝙚?

Apparently, I “do the AI thing.” About as meaningful as saying a lawyer “does the law thing.”I recently caught up with a...
08/18/2026

Apparently, I “do the AI thing.” About as meaningful as saying a lawyer “does the law thing.”

I recently caught up with a lawyer I hadn’t seen in a few years.

We did the usual life updates. Family. Business. Who’s doing what.

Then he looked at me and said:
“So…I see you’re doing this AI thing now.”

😂

Well, yes and not exactly.

Because the AI is rarely where I start.

And this is probably the question I get more than any other right now:

“So what exactly do you DO for a law firm?”

Fair question.

The simplest answer?

I help firms figure out where they’re trying to go, what’s getting in the way, and where AI can actually help them get there.

Not where AI could be inserted because someone attended a conference and came home with 14 new subscriptions.

Where it should.

That can mean:

➛ Finding the opportunity.
Where are lawyers losing time, revenue, relationships, knowledge or momentum?

➛ Building the strategy.
What should the firm actually be trying to accomplish with AI? And equally important, what should it not be doing?

➛ Redesigning the work.
Before automating a messy workflow, perhaps we stop and ask why six people are touching it in the first place.

➛ Architecting the right solution.
Sometimes that’s ChatGPT or Claude. Sometimes it’s an automation. Sometimes it’s an agentic system connecting several pieces of the firm.

And sometimes the best recommendation is:

Don’t automate that.

Human judgment remains a rather useful feature.
Ok, always useful. Still.

➛ Creating the roadmap.
What happens first? Who owns it? Where does human approval belong? What gets tested before anything gets unleashed on actual clients?

➛ Bringing the humans along.
Partners. Associates. Marketing. BD. Operations. IT. Risk.

Because a brilliant system nobody trusts is mostly an expensive screensaver.

➛ Measuring what matters.
Not “we used AI 4,728 times this quarter.”

Did we create capacity?
Reduce friction?
Protect judgment?
Strengthen relationships?
Generate more qualified conversations?
Improve the business?

That’s the work.

And because my background sits at the intersection of law, business development, marketing, relationships and now AI systems, I tend to see opportunities that don’t fit neatly into the “technology” bucket.

Which is exactly the point.

AI isn’t the strategy.

The business problem is the starting point. AI is one of the increasingly powerful ways we solve it.

So when a managing partner or CMO asks me:

“Where do we even start?”

My answer is usually:

Not with the tool.

Start with the firm.

The risk.
The work.
The people.
The friction.
The relationships.
The growth opportunities.

Then we can talk AI.

And yes, apparently, I “do that AI thing.” 😉

Quick gut check: 𝙞𝙛 𝙄 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝘼𝙄 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙬, 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩?

“Can we…?” That may be my favorite client question right now.Except lately, they don’t always get to finish it.“Viveca, ...
08/17/2026

“Can we…?”

That may be my favorite client question right now.

Except lately, they don’t always get to finish it.

“Viveca, can we…”

Yes.

“But I haven’t told you what I want yet.”

I know. 😏

After spending the last few years testing, building, breaking, rebuilding and finding AI use cases in more directions than I care to admit, I’ve reached a slightly ridiculous point:

Nine times out of ten, if a client starts with “Can we…?” the answer is probably yes.

Can we create a system that notices when referral relationships are going quiet?

Yes.

Can we turn one conversation into five genuinely useful pieces of content?

Yep.

Can we stop manually doing that thing nobody likes doing every Tuesday?

Almost certainly.

Can we have AI pull the context, prepare the next move, and still make sure a human decides what actually happens?

Please. That’s the whole point.

Now, “yes” does not mean “throw AI at it and hope for the best.”

There’s still the unsexy grown-up stuff - stay with me....

What should the workflow actually be? Does it make sense for this firm?

⇢ Who approves what?
⇢ What data is involved?
⇢ Where does judgment belong?
⇢ And does solving it actually improve anything?

That part matters.

But the fascinating shift for me is that we’ve moved from:

“Can AI even do this?” ➨ “Yes. Now let’s figure out whether, where and how it should.”

And that is a much more interesting conversation.

So, Happy-Yes-We-Can-Monday.

What’s your “Can we…?” question?

There’s a decent chance I’ll interrupt you. 😉

Seriously people - get a plan, a purpose, and a strategy before tinkering with those tools!
08/16/2026

Seriously people - get a plan, a purpose, and a strategy before tinkering with those tools!

Address

1421 West Lewis
San Diego, CA
92103

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 4pm
Tuesday 8am - 4pm
Wednesday 8am - 4pm
Thursday 8am - 4pm
Friday 8am - 4pm

Telephone

(619) 962-5504

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when HessConnect posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to HessConnect:

Shortcuts

Share

Category