Every practice owner will eventually face one of the most difficult leadership decisions: letting an employee go. Partner Grace Lee joins us as we share the story of a medical aesthetics practice owner who waited too long to address a struggling employee, leading to patient complaints and a more difficult situation. Tune in to learn why successful employee terminations begin long before the termination meeting. Discover strategies to address performance issues, build a strong documentation process, and navigate employee separations in a way that protects your practice and reduces legal risk.
Listen to the full episode using the player below, or by visiting one of the links below. Contact ByrdAdatto if you have any questions or would like to learn more.
Transcript
*The below transcript has been edited for readability.
Intro: [00:01] Welcome to Legal 123s with ByrdAdatto. Legal issues simplified through real client stories and real-world experiences. Creating simplicity in three, two, one.
Brad: [00:13] Welcome back to Legal 123s with ByrdAdatto. I’m your host, Brad Adatto, with my co-host, Michael Byrd.
Michael: [00:19] As business attorneys for health care practices, we meet a lot of interesting people and learn their amazing stories. This season’s theme, Brad, is “What Now?” Each episode will involve a real client story with a high pressure moment for that practice.
Brad: [00:32] Well, Michael, before we dive in today’s show, we have a special guest joining us today. She’s a partner at ByrdAdatto and somehow willing to be seen with Michael and me in public. Grace, welcome back to the show.
Grace: [00:43] Thanks for having me here.
Brad: [00:44] Now, Grace, we’re thrilled to have you back on the show, and you’ll be playing the more mature expert for today’s show, so thank you for joining us, because Michael and I cannot pull that off. But Michael, I want to talk to you about some pressing news that we need to address.
Michael: [00:59] Okay. Already nervous.
Brad: [01:01] Yeah, you should be. Now, Grace, I’m going to ask you to just sit tight for a moment while Michael and I handle this very, very important breaking news that is happening in Dallas. It won’t take too long.
Grace: [01:09] Sounds good.
Brad: [01:11] Michael, the 2026 FIFA World Cup came to Dallas.
Michael: [01:16] Yes. I have had major FOMO because I keep hearing about how amazing the energy is, one of the most exciting events in the world, and just the energy around town has been incredible, right here in our backyard.
Brad: [01:30] Yeah, incredible. And that’s the right word, because before a single match was played, before one ball was kicked, Dallas made national headlines, but not for soccer.
Michael: [01:40] What’d you do?
Brad: [01:42] Was it me this time? It was Dallas. Dallas decided they wanted to erase the whales.
Michael: [01:49] Excuse me. Dallas did what?
Brad: [01:51] Erasing the whales. Someone had to erase them, and Dallas finally stepped up and did it.
Michael: [01:56] Okay, Brad, you are making no sense, and I know you’re trying to set up some sort of trap. Of course, there are no whales in Dallas.
Brad: [02:05] True. There are no whales in Dallas, but there were whales. There was a building, and someone painted over that building.
Michael: [02:14] Oh, no.
Brad: [02:15] Oh, yeah.
Michael: [02:15] I know where you’re going with this.
Brad: [02:16] Oh, yes. So world-renowned marine artist, Robert Wyland, the man famous for painting giant whale murals on buildings all around the world, painted some 17,000 square foot whale mural on a building in downtown Dallas back in 1999. This thing has been a beloved city landmark for over 25 years.
Michael: [02:36] Of course, I know exactly which mural you’re talking about. It is stunning. It is a piece of the Dallas skyline, in fact.
Brad: [02:43] Was stunning, past tense, because someone looked at that 25-year-old masterpiece and said, “You know what? This needs to have some World Cup stuff on it, so paint it blue.”
Michael: [02:53] Yeah. I can’t believe that this happened, but I read about it.
Brad: [02:57] Yeah, they just blue-washed the whales. The entire pod of whales gone, painted over for a new mural for the FIFA World Cup. The city gave Wyland’s life work the sinking first, ask questions later treatment.
Michael: [03:10] And I heard about this story through my wife, because one of the hats she wears deals with the laws protecting artists, and so she is quite familiar with the issues. Well, why don’t you tell the audience what did Mr. Wyland do?
Brad: [03:28] What any self-respecting artist does when a city paints over 25 years of their work without permission, he filed a $25 million lawsuit.
Michael: [03:35] Did you say $25 million?
Brad: [03:38] I did say that, 25 million, and it basically comes down to whether or not each organization keeps pointing their fingers at each other. The organization’s saying, “Oh, they approved it,” and someone else is saying, “No, they approved it,” but no one really is taking the baton here as to how it was approved and by who it was approved.
Michael: [03:57] From what I understand, none of that really matters because I believe the artist has a really strong position in a case like this.
Brad: [04:07] Yeah. Well, I guess a million for each year that it got erased. Grace, before we move on to today’s story, what do you think about this whale case?
Grace: [04:14] I mean, $25 million, even if they settle out, it’s still going to be a lot of money. It’s a really expensive reminder or lesson to just slow down and consider all the legal implications. Understand what you’re getting yourself into before making that big decision, and in this case, an irreversible one. The whales are gone now. I did actually read, too, that with Mr. Wyland, with any funds that he gets from this case, he plans to actually donate it back to the local community, so at least there’s some good coming out of it.
Michael: [04:49] Wow.
Brad: [04:49] I like that.
Grace: [04:50] Yeah.
Michael: [04:51] I think FIFA may have been in pirate mode, Brad.
Brad: [04:54] They might have been. We’ll get into that in a little bit. Then again, one of the most common calls we get, Michael and Grace, at ByrdAdatto, it goes something like this: “Brad, I’ve had it. I need to fire this person. What do I do?”
Michael: [05:08] Yeah, and the answer’s never as simple as they hope.
Brad: [05:11] Yeah, it never is, but the situation is almost always a long time coming, it seems like. And let me tell you about our client. I’m going to call him Dr. Finn. Dr. Finn ran a medical aesthetic practice, great reputation, loyal patients, strong team, except for one person.
Michael: [05:28] There’s always one person.
Brad: [05:29] Yes, there is always one, and Dr. Finn had a front desk coordinator, we’ll call her Marina, and Marina had a very creative relationship with the concept of doing her job.
Michael: [05:40] That’s a very generous term. Define creative.
Brad: [05:44] She showed up late regularly. She took personal calls at the front desk while patients were still waiting. She rescheduled patients without telling the doctor, and my personal favorite, she once told a patient who asked a clinical question that their treatment was probably fine.
Michael: [06:01] Wow. Well, this actually reminds me, I was just at a conference, and a client of ours told us about one of their front desk coordinators who they have now nicknamed Robin Hood, because that front desk coordinator decided on their own that they would just give discounts to patients when they thought that the patient was going to be paying too much. And they found out, like, two years after the fact, and it was six figures worth of lost revenue.
Brad: [06:31] Oh, my God.
Michael: [06:31] But to your point, I don’t think “probably fine” is a medical standard. And you have a non-medical person giving medical advice to a patient. That’s not a good thing, Brad.
Brad: [06:47] No, it’s not a good thing. I agree with you on that. But here’s the thing about Dr. Finn. He is one of the most compassionate physicians we had ever worked with, and that compassion, which makes him an extremely good doctor, also made him a very reluctant manager.
Michael: [07:00] Yes. Grace and I have had many conversations about having these types of hard conversations. It’s so tempting to avoid them. I’m guessing that Dr. Finn liked to dole out second chances.
Brad: [07:16] So many chances. Verbal warnings, a written warning, a sit-down conversation about expectations, a second sit-down, and of course, a promise to Marina that things would improve. And things would improve for about two weeks.
Michael: [07:28] Two weeks?
Brad: [07:29] Yeah, two weeks on the dot. Then Marina would turn full Marina mode. Dr. Finn would get frustrated, saying nothing, convincing himself it’s not worth the headache of starting over with someone new. Sounds familiar to anyone listening?
Michael: [07:43] Yeah, this is one of the most common things we see. It’s the battle, the perceived cost of replacing someone feels bigger in the moment than the cost of keeping the wrong person.
Brad: [07:54] Yep, until that moment is not. And Dr. Finn called me after a patient submitted a formal written complaint about Marina’s behavior during a consultation. Not a formal online review. They didn’t go online to do it, but actually submitted an internal formal complaint to the doctor.
Michael: [08:10] I’m not an expert, but I’m guessing that this is not a good thing.
Brad: [08:13] That’s correct. You’re not an expert, and it’s not a good thing. And so the whole premise of this podcast is about subject matter experts and things that we talk about, right?
Michael: [08:23] Oh, so you’re saying I am an expert?
Brad: [08:25] No, no. Still not saying that.
Michael: [08:26] I meant… Let me rephrase it. That’s not a good thing.
Brad: [08:30] Correct. Not a good thing.
Michael: [08:32] Okay.
Brad: [08:32] Everything changed because now Dr. Finn has a liability issue, a patient relationship issue, obviously a cultural issue, all tied to this one person who’s been given many, many different opportunities to change course and correct their action. So he called and said, “Brad, I want to fire my employee. What now do I do?”
Michael: [08:52] And the answer to that question is, as we’ve probably alluded to, more involved than most practice owners realize, which is why we brought in the right person to help us today. Grace spends a lot of her time guiding clients on these types of sticky employment situations. So Grace, we’ll go to break, and when we come back, we’ll bring you in to help us help the audience.
Brad: [09:16] Let’s do it.
Access+: [09:17] Many business owners use legal counsel as a last resort, rather than as a proactive tool that can further their success. Why? For most, it’s the fear of unknown legal costs. ByrdAdatto’s Access+ program makes it possible for you to get the ongoing legal assistance you need, for one predictable monthly fee. That gives you unlimited phone and email access to the legal team, so you can receive feedback on legal concerns as they arise. Access+, a smarter, simpler way to access legal services. Find out more. Visit byrdadatto.com today.
Brad: [09:52] Welcome back to Legal 123s with ByrdAdatto. I’m your host, Brad Adatto, with my co-host, Michael Byrd, and we’re still joined by our incredible, awesome partner, Grace Lee. Now Michael, for those who don’t remember, this season, our theme is “What Now?” In this episode, we’re talking about what does a practice owner do when they need to fire an employee?
Michael: [10:10] Yes, and so the example we used is Dr. Finn, I’m guessing thematically named after your whale story. Dr. Finn ran a successful aesthetics practice when he had a problem employee, Marina. Front desk coordinator, chronic lateness, poor patient communication, and even some patient medical advice.
Brad: [10:37] Yes.
Michael: [10:37] And ultimately, a formal written patient complaint left him finally ready to make the call. Now, that’s in context to Dr. Finn, who’s a very compassionate person and gave I don’t know how many chances, but beyond second chances.
Brad: [10:55] Many.
Michael: [10:55] Lots of second chances.
Brad: [10:56] Lots and lots of second chances.
Michael: [10:58] And so the question is not whether to fire her. The question is, what’s the right way to do it?
Brad: [11:05] Fair. Now Michael, this season, we’ve been kind of talking about different frameworks throughout the season about how physicians can act, acting like a pirate or a cruise director, a Navy SEAL. And for our audience members that haven’t heard that before, why don’t you give a high-level explanation, what does that mean?
Michael: [11:21] Yeah, reset of the framework. So we have these different modes that business owners can act in, and as we’ve said, you aren’t necessarily labeled as one. You can actually be acting like one of them and move into another. So, when you’re acting like a pirate, you’re going fast and you’re breaking things. It’s a lot of fun. We’ve all agreed there’s a lot of energy to being a pirate. And so it’s tempting to seize that energy and keep going that route. What the problem is, is that you’re not really making insightful decisions. You’re really focused on whatever it is that’s in front of you, and everything else gets in the way. Whatever happens, happens. And then we have the cruise directors. The cruise directors are the opposite avatar to that, that when you’re acting like a cruise director, there is a heavy reliance on the system. I mean, you’re a cruise director, you’ve got a ship, and you’ve got to get it from point A to point B, and you need to have your checklists in place and your processes in place, and you’re not very adaptable to pivot if the situation arises. And so the trap that a cruise director can fall into is they get so reliant on the system that many times get a false sense of security that they actually think that they’re airtight and protected where they’ve got problems all around. And then we’ve got the Navy SEALs. This is the ideal place to operate. When you’re acting like a Navy SEAL, you have a team, you’re being strategic. As we’ve said or as they say, “Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” So you do have to slow down a little bit if you’re moving from pirate mode into Navy SEAL mode. You do have to take a beat, be strategic, but you’ll end up getting in the right place faster without the same degree of risk.
Brad: [13:29] Well done, Michael. A good recap. Proud of you. Now, Grace, now that we have that recap, let’s take a step back and think about, Michael obviously described the different ones, but let’s get into today’s story a little bit and see how a doctor will act, and we’ll just address each one. So let’s start with a pirate. What does a, how does a, when a physician’s acting like a pirate, how do they, how, when they terminate someone from the medical practice, how do they act?
Grace: [13:55] So, like, as Michael was saying, with a pirate, it’s fast. It’s really based on emotion, so a lot of times it sounds like, “I’ve had it. Like, you’re fired. Get out of here.” There’s not much thought that was put into it, and no documentation. And yeah, no real understanding of the legal implications that would come out of a termination like this.
Michael: [14:14] Yeah, it’s almost like they reached the conclusion that Dr. Finn obviously reached, which is this person has to go, and so the reaction to make that happen is they go and fire her.
Brad: [14:29] Yeah, and I think to your point, which is they probably hadn’t even stopped to see what does their employee handbook look like or anything of that sort.
Grace: [14:36] No, because it’s purely just based on the emotions of right then and there, and they just want them out.
Brad: [14:41] Yeah.
Michael: [14:41] Well, let’s talk about risk. So if someone’s going to act like that, what are the real legal risks when a practice owner fires impulsively without doing these things, looking at the handbook, without documentation or a process or thinking it through?
Grace: [14:58] Yeah, so, like, I mean, in this situation with Dr. Finn and Marina, right? So while Dr. Finn may have been right about her work performance and terminated her because of that and the patient written complaint, the biggest risk here would be that Marina would disagree with that reason for termination and be like, “Hey, that’s actually not the reason why I was terminated. It was actually because of an unlawful reason.” And so when you are a pirate and you just terminate like that, you don’t have all the facts, right? So for example, there could’ve been a situation where Marina had reported sexual harassment at the workplace or asked for accommodations for her mental health or something. These things would trigger certain employer responsibilities, and just optically and timing-wise, she could make a pretty valid claim, be like, “Hey, I was fired because of these protected activities that I did.”
Brad: [15:51] Yeah. Do you think a pirate would’ve documented any of the prior meetings at all that he had or the warnings?
Grace: [15:59] No. And, like, actually, this kind of goes along with health care practices too because usually teams in health care practices are smaller, right? And so a lot of our communications are more informal, and so that’s kind of where a lot of the risk and exposure happens, where they don’t have the right types of documentation of the meetings, of the first chances, second chances, the coaching sessions, all of those things.
Michael: [16:22] And you posed a hypothetical, and I think that for the audience’s sake, these are not far far-reaching hypotheticals. We see employees, they Want to fight sometimes when they get fired, and so your protection is these very things that Grace is talking about, and it is amazing what they will come up with as a means to position themselves to fight back. And there are a lot of different scenarios we’ll see. We commonly see if someone’s over 40, that they’ll try to build an age discrimination claim, that you’re getting rid of them so that you would bring in somebody younger. There’s all sorts of protected ways that someone can’t be fired.
Grace: [17:12] Right. Right.
Brad: [17:12] Yeah, and so now we kind of established how the pirate comes in firing fast, dealing with the fallout later. Now let’s go to the other end of the spectrum as Michael was describing the differences. Now we go onto the cruise director, and on paper I’m sure it sounds better to be a cruise director, but tell me how a cruise director would go about the process of terminating an employee.
Grace: [17:33] I think it’s exactly what Dr. Finn did, right, with the first conversation, second conversations, all these second, third, fourth chances, meetings upon meetings, just without ever there being a decision being made. And what happens when things are being drawn out like that because he wants to make sure that he goes through all the policies and processes. You take a look at the practice as a whole, right? So what are the other employees seeing? They’re seeing Marina getting all this patience and grace from Dr. Finn, and they’re going to expect the same for themselves. And actually, he’s setting a standard for poor work performance being okay for the whole entire practice. And if he doesn’t consistently apply the same type of patience and grace he gave Marina, that’s actually another legal claim that any of the other employees could bring up too.
Michael: [18:25] Yeah, so and I would even kind of extend that to what I’ve seen cruise directors do in that same circumstance. Sometimes they’ll do the documentation. They’ll be like, “I’m going to put it in their file so I feel protected,” but then they still give them a gazillion chances, and they face all these same kind of fallout issues because the employees… I mean, first of all, getting written up doesn’t have much meaning if there’s nothing behind it. And then really the employees aren’t seeing the write-ups. They’re just seeing this ongoing behavior that seems to be tolerated.
Grace: [19:07] Right.
Brad: [19:08] Well, at least the employees shouldn’t be seeing the write-ups, right?
Michael: [19:10] Well, yeah. They shouldn’t be. Right. So let’s talk a little bit more about the implications of a cruise director acting like a cruise director in these circumstances. Talk about what wrongful termination actually looks like in a health care context and when a practice is most exposed.
Grace: [19:32] Yeah. So it was kind of, I was kind of talking about that earlier, where it’s really because of the informality of smaller teams in health care practices. Because a lot of things aren’t documented, if you’re firing someone for, say, poor work performance and you don’t have any documentation to support that, wrongful termination cases are so fact-based that if you don’t have the documentation, it becomes like a he said, she said fight, and those can get so expensive to prove up in court.
Brad: [20:00] That makes sense. So our cruise director is, in this particular story, you know, just kept giving warnings, kept giving warnings but never pulled the trigger. And the pirate that we described earlier just fired right probably in front of everybody, yelling and screaming at the person, and didn’t document anything. So let’s go to our goal. So our audience members are trying to… They’re like, “We know Navy SEAL’s the right approach,” but how would they strategically execute a termination of an employee acting like a Navy SEAL?
Grace: [20:30] So absolutely, they’re strategic, and it’s a team-based approach. So they are working with their HR person or their office manager, making sure they’re reviewing all the documentation, making sure that all the policies and procedures were followed, and then thinking about what’s the best option for the practice before making that termination decision.
Michael: [20:51] Yeah, I have an example too of that thinking strategically. So I had a different client who this reminded me of. She had an employee on a PIP, and a Performance Improvement Plan, I guess, for…
Brad: [21:09] I didn’t know it meant
Michael: [21:10] …you didn’t.
Brad: [21:10] Yeah.
Michael: [21:10] Yeah. So they were doing, they had the right process in place because of poor performance, and then in the middle of the PIP, a new issue arose with a substance abuse concern. And so the client called us, the team, to be like, “What do I do now?” You know, “Can I get this person drug tested?” All this line of questions where we looked at what was the real understanding of there being a substance abuse problem, and really it was just rumor at that point. There was nothing verifiable, and this person was under a PIP, and just based on how the whole thing actually, what was known and what was in the record or whatever, they were able to reach the conclusion that, okay, the cleanest route is to go ahead and terminate based on the PIP. And I think if they were in a different mode, they would’ve made the wrong decision. So if they would’ve acted like a pirate, they may have just gone down this path of getting all the testing done or just gone down reactionary to terminating this person and said the wrong things that would’ve set things up incorrectly. And the cruise director probably would’ve actually been more prone to going down the drug testing route and not been mindful of the other things, and so-
Brad: [22:45] Or try to figure out if they need to start a second PIP.
Michael: [22:47] Yeah, exactly. So there is, to your point, a lot of nuance to how you think about the total circumstance. So because it seems that most practices skip or start too late, what should a practice be building before they ever even reach this termination conversation?
Grace: [23:11] Be building, like, processes-wise?
Michael: [23:13] Yeah.
Grace: [23:13] Yeah, so, like, an employee handbook of course, with the policies inside of it with regards to misconduct, what happens, what does misconduct look like, what warrants immediate terminations. You want to be able to pivot and make these decisions when needed to have immediate termination. And I use the word immediate very loosely. I don’t mean fire right then and there. It’s more of a promptly assess the situation and understand all of the facts and then, of course, make that thoughtful determination at the end. But it’s also to train your personnel as well. So the number of employees might determine if your practice is subject to certain laws that provide protection for employees. So if you’re training your HR person or your office manager to notice and be able to spot certain situations and conversations with employees, they’ll be able to set up the process in the right way to provide the most protection in the event a termination does need to take place.
Brad: [24:15] Yeah, and now we’ve determined, we’ve been walking through this process, and we’ve gone through it. We have the right things, and we know that we do need to terminate this employee. We haven’t gone into depth. We talked about Navy SEAL having a team, but talk about if someone is going to terminate an employee, walk them through the proper steps that they should go through to make sure they’re doing it correctly.
Grace: [24:36] Yeah, so if at the end of the day you have determined to fire that employee, what does the termination meeting look like?
Brad: [24:45] Yeah.
Grace: [24:45] Yeah, so in that case, I usually recommend that there be at least two people from the practice side who are involved at the meeting because it could turn into, once again, a he said, she said thing. You want one other person in the room with you to at least take notes of the conversations happening. I would also keep it pretty short and direct. Keep it respectful, of course. And one thing to note is because I see employers doing this sometimes, don’t say it in the future tense, like, “You’re about to get fired,” or, “You will get fired on this date.” It’s more of a past tense, so it’s already happened: “Your employment has been terminated, and this is the reason why.” And keep it pretty simple and direct because you don’t want to leave open anything for any debate or discussion or have it be another counseling session or anything. It is a notice of termination. On that note, you would also want to talk about when they’re going to get their final pay, how much it’s going to be, talk about any unused paid out vacation, and until when they have their benefits.
Brad: [25:48] So this goes back to you need to know all these things before you pull the trigger and fire someone to their face.
Grace: [25:52] Yes, yes, yes.
Brad: [25:54] And I think another important part of what you said is, we’ve… I think we’ve said this before, so sometimes less is more during that termination process. You don’t want to have a debate with the person. You’ve already, as you said, it’s already happened. Y’all have moved on, and this person’s no longer with the organization. And so now debating their past actions is not really healthy for anyone in that room, and it’s taking away from your, as you kind of just said, moving forward without this person now.
Grace: [26:20] Yes.
Michael: [26:21] What would be the reasons that people have probably heard of getting a severance agreement or separation agreement being offered at that point? What would be the strategic reasons that an employer might do that at termination?
Grace: [26:36] So one thing is if it’s per policy, then that is just something you have to follow. Some employers do have it in their policies to provide severance agreements. And if it’s not, and if it’s going to be a one-off situation, a lot of times it’s because it’s not a termination based on misconduct or anything. It’s just a separation where, “Hey, we’ll give you two weeks.” Usually it’s about two weeks’ pay as a severance agreement.
Michael: [27:00] And they get a release…
Grace: [27:01] Yes.
Michael: [27:02] …that goes with that. Yeah.
Brad: [27:03] And of course, that’s all dependent on if they have some type of employment agreement that’s a 30-day notice or 90-day notice or something like that. You would have to go back and determine whether or not it’s a written contract that has whatever those termination provisions for cause or not. But your typical staff that doesn’t have it, I think that was kind of what you were leaning towards.
Grace: [27:21] Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Yeah, and to Michael’s point, too, with the release, I want to say this. With severance agreements, they don’t provide you protection with all types of claims that an employee could bring up later on. So if there is, say, for example, a sexual harassment claim, that release agreement isn’t going to protect you from that. But if there’s anything other than those protective claims, the release would put you in a good position.
Brad: [27:47] Gotcha. Well, we’re almost out of time, Grace. And I’d love to see if you have any final thoughts for our audience as far as the termination process, if there’s any takeaways they should think about when they’re acting like a Navy SEAL.
Grace: [27:59] Yeah, from what I’ve seen from our clients, the ones who have done terminations in a successful manner, it is because they have processes in place. It’s because they’ve had these discussions with their HR people and their managers, and they know when to pivot as well. I think at the end of the day, terminations, if done well, can end in a very respectful manner that reduces significant legal risk for everybody involved.
Brad: [28:27] I like that. Michael?
Michael: [28:29] Yeah, the one thing I’ve noticed recently is a couple of clients have reported back that employees, when they were getting terminated, actually were recording the conversation. So I think it just hammers home the point that Grace made of having two people in the room, that you have to be strategic. The world around us is changing, and so there’s a whole new world of risk that is probably about to be revealed with this kind of new age of AI.
Brad: [28:57] Very good. Well, Grace, thanks for joining us again.
Grace: [28:59] Thanks for having me.
Brad: [29:00] All right. Audience members, we’re back next Wednesday when we have another show. We discuss: “I Am Hiring a Physician, What Now?“
Brad: [29:08] Thanks again for joining us today. And remember, if you liked this episode, please subscribe. Make sure to give us a five-star rating and share with your friends.
Michael: [29:16] You can also sign up for the ByrdAdatto newsletter by going to our website at byrdadatto.com.
Outro: [29:22] ByrdAdatto is providing this podcast as a public service. This podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by ByrdAdatto. The views expressed by guests are their own, and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Please consult with an attorney on your legal issues.
