Columns

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” 

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” 

It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

While every lawsuit is unique and timelines can vary depending on the complexity of the case, insurance lawsuits typically take at least one to two years, not including appeals. 

This is due to the multiple stages involved in litigation, including filing the complaint, exchanging evidence, engaging in discovery, participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution, and potentially going to trial. 

By understanding these stages and what to expect at each step, plaintiffs can set realistic expectations, plan accordingly, and remain proactive throughout the legal process.

Preparing for a Successful Insurance Lawsuit

Success in an insurance lawsuit doesn’t start in the courtroom—it starts long before you file. It starts when you report a claim for the very first time. Preparation is everything. This means that as a start, you must carefully review your policy, organize all correspondence with your insurer, gather photos and videos, repair estimates, invoices, and any expert reports that support your claim.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your case allows you to anticipate challenges and respond effectively. Being thorough at this stage not only strengthens your position but also sets the tone for the entire litigation process, giving you confidence and control as you move forward. 

The more prepared you are, the more likely your case will proceed smoothly and increase your chances of a favorable outcome.

Filing the Lawsuit 

The process begins when your attorney formally files a complaint with the court. In an insurance lawsuit, this usually involves claims for property damage, fire loss, or denied insurance coverage. Once filed, the insurance company is then officially notified and served, and it is required to respond, by answering the complaint.

The Answer and Preliminary Motions

After serving your complaint on you insurer, it typically has a set period of time to file an answer. When it answers, the insurer admits or denies your claims and may raise defenses. At this stage, either party may also file preliminary motions, such as motions to dismiss, which can slightly extend the timeline.

Discovery Phase

The discovery phase is one of the most time-intensive parts of litigation. During discovery, both sides exchange evidence, documents, and witness information. Depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production help build each party’s case. In insurance disputes, this phase can take several months or even over a year, especially if experts are involved, such as engineers or fire investigators.

Pre-Trial Mediation and Motions

Even before a trial, there are often opportunities to resolve the case. Settlement negotiations or mediation can sometimes resolve disputes faster. But if negotiations fail, parties may file pre-trial motions to clarify issues, exclude evidence, or request summary disposition or judgment. Each motion can add weeks or months to the process.

Trial

If the case proceeds to trial, the court schedules hearings and trial dates, which can be influenced by the court’s docket. A typical trial may last several days to weeks, depending on the complexity of the case.

Post-Trial and Appeals

After the trial, either party may file appeals, which can extend the resolution timeline by additional months or even years. But even without appeals, most insurance disputes take at least two years from filing to resolution, and sometimes more.

Key Takeaways 

Insurance lawsuits are often complex and involve detailed evidence and expert testimony.

The process typically lasts one to two years, or more.

Understanding each stage—filing, discovery, pre-trial motions, trial, and possible appeals—helps policyholders stay prepared and avoid surprises.

If you are dealing with a denied insurance claim or ongoing insurance dispute, working with an experienced insurance attorney can streamline the process, ensure your rights are protected, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve.
  
———————

 Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. The Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133. 

The bar exam has a way of flattening everyone into the same anxious silhouette: outlines, practice sets, timed essays, and that ever-present feeling that you should be doing more. 

The bar exam has a way of flattening everyone into the same anxious silhouette: outlines, practice sets, timed essays, and that ever-present feeling that you should be doing more. 

In that environment, it’s easy for older candidates; second-career lawyers, parents, veterans, professionals who came to law after building a life—to wonder whether time is working against them.

But age is not the liability many assume it to be. In fact, experience is an edge—if you know how to use it.

This is not motivational fluff. It’s a practical argument: maturity brings discipline, perspective, and motivation that younger candidates often need years to develop. And those traits don’t just help you pass. They shape the kind of lawyer you become after you do.

The numbers: what pass rates really tell us—and what they don’t

At a national level, bar passage rates fluctuate year to year and vary dramatically by jurisdiction, administration (February vs. July), and candidate profile (first-time vs. repeat). Recent national reporting based on ABA data has put first-time pass rates for graduates of ABA-accredited schools around the low-80 percent range (with “ultimate” pass rates within two years above 90 percent). (Reuters)

That’s the reassuring headline—until you drill down. February administrations tend to be tougher, often driven by a higher percentage of repeat takers and a different testing population, with many jurisdictions reporting notably lower overall pass rates in February compared to July. (Reuters)

And age? Here’s where the conversation gets messy. Most widely cited public dashboards focus on jurisdiction totals, law school outcomes, and first-time/repeat distinctions—not age bands. (NCBE)

There is research suggesting performance can decline across certain age categories in some datasets. For example, a New York bar exam study examining domestic-educated first-time takers reported that average total scores decreased systematically across younger-to-older age categories through midlife before increasing again in the oldest category. (New York State Bar Examination)

That’s real—and it matters. But it’s not destiny, and it’s not a full story. Age correlates with other variables that have nothing to do with intellect: time poverty, caretaking obligations, full-time work, gaps since school, and sometimes a less forgiving margin for error because failure carries heavier consequences.

In other words, what looks like an “age problem” is often a bandwidth problem.

That’s precisely where older candidates’ advantage shows up: when experience is leveraged into structure, priorities, and execution.

The hidden advantage: discipline beats talent when stakes are high

Older candidates have lived through enough deadlines to know a basic truth: motivation is unreliable, but systems work.

Many younger candidates approach bar prep like school—long study days fueled by anxiety, last-minute cramming, and a vague hope that “covering everything” equals readiness. Older candidates are more likely to approach bar prep like a mission:

• They calendar their week the way they’d calendar a project.

• They measure progress by outputs (MBEs completed, essays timed, rule statements memorized), not by hours “spent studying.”

• They triage ruthlessly, because they’ve had to do it in real life.

This discipline directly addresses the biggest silent killer in bar prep: drifting. The bar punishes “sort of” studying. Mature candidates, when they commit, are less likely to treat prep as optional.

Perspective: the bar is not law practice—and that clarity is power

Experience also provides a stabilizing perspective: you can respect the exam without mythologizing it.

Older candidates tend to understand:

• The bar exam is a standardized test, not a measure of your worth.

• It rewards pattern recognition and repetition, not brilliance.

• The path to passing is rarely “knowing everything,” and more often “missing less.”

That perspective is not just comforting; it’s tactical. It keeps you from wasting time on low-yield perfectionism.

Mindset strategies that work better with maturity

Older candidates often win by playing a different mental game—one built on ownership, realism, and resilience.

1) Replace “confidence” with competence.

Confidence comes and goes. Competence is built. Your mood is irrelevant; your reps are not.

2) Study like an operator, not a student.

Ask daily: What will move my score? The answer is almost always: timed practice, targeted review, and re-testing weak areas.

3) Make peace with discomfort.

Older candidates have already learned that growth often feels like embarrassment: being slow, forgetting rules, bombing a practice set, starting again. That tolerance for discomfort is a competitive advantage.

4) Don’t compare schedules—compare results.

A 25-year-old studying ten hours a day isn’t “ahead” of a 45-year-old studying four hours a day if the older candidate is doing higher-quality, timed work and tracking accuracy.

Motivation: older candidates tend to have stronger “why” and fewer illusions

Bar prep is a long, grinding season. The candidates who finish strong usually have a reason that survives fatigue.

Older candidates often come with:

• a family depending on them,

• a career pivot that required sacrifice,

• a clear professional goal (public service, advocacy, entrepreneurship),

• and an acute awareness that time is precious.

That awareness doesn’t create panic—it creates focus.

And focus is underrated. It’s the ability to say: “This is hard, and I’m doing it anyway.”

What maturity contributes to ethics and judgment—beyond the test

Passing the bar is a gate. The profession you enter afterward demands something different: judgment.

The legal system doesn’t just need lawyers who can issue-spot. It needs lawyers who can:

• recognize conflicts before they become crises,

• manage client expectations without deception,

• keep promises under pressure,

• tell the truth when it costs,

• and choose long-term credibility over short-term wins.

Maturity helps here—not because older lawyers are automatically more ethical, but because experience tends to sharpen three traits that support ethical practice:

1. Impulse control.

You’ve seen what happens when people react instead of respond—at work, in relationships, in business, and in court.

2. Consequences thinking.

You’re more likely to ask: If I do this, what happens next month? Next year? In discovery? At a grievance hearing?

3. Humility about what you don’t know.

The most dangerous lawyer is the one who believes they can “figure it out” without asking. Experience teaches you when to slow down, consult, verify, and document.

Those are not soft skills. They are malpractice prevention.

The bottom line: age isn’t the obstacle—lack of strategy is

If you’re an older bar candidate, you don’t need permission to belong in this profession. You need a strategy that matches your life and the confidence to treat your experience as a strength.

Yes, the statistics and studies remind us that certain candidate groups face headwinds, and bar outcomes vary widely by jurisdiction and exam administration. (NCBE) But the same public data also shows that, nationally, large majorities of first-time takers do pass—and many who don’t pass initially still succeed within the “ultimate” time horizon. (Reuters)

For older candidates, the winning formula is rarely “more hustle.” It’s more precision:

• more timed practice,

• more honest diagnostics,

• more disciplined scheduling,

• more recovery and consistency,

• and less ego.


Experience is your edge—because you already know how to keep going when it’s not fun, not fair, and not fast.
And that is exactly what the bar exam—and the profession—requires.

———————

Dan Ringo, Esq. is the Vice President of Operations and Compliance for SEEL, LLC, a Detroit based Energy Efficiency Program Implementer. He is also author of “JD to Esq: Passing the Bar Past 50.”

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) not only resolved a longstanding circuit split over the evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII, but also signaled a broader shift in how courts may approach employment discrimination claims going forward.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) not only resolved a longstanding circuit split over the evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII, but also signaled a broader shift in how courts may approach employment discrimination claims going forward.

The Court held that members of a “majority group”— i.e., those belonging to groups that have not historically faced discrimination — no longer have a heightened evidentiary burden compared to minority groups: they need not prove “background circumstances” to support that the employer unusually discriminated against the majority.

The plaintiff (who is heterosexual) alleged that her employer violated Title VII when it denied her a promotion in favor of a homosexual female, then demoted her and replaced her in her prior position with a homosexual male. She claimed that her employer denied her the promotion and demoted her because of her heterosexual sexual orientation. While these facts would ordinarily satisfy her burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework,  under Sixth Circuit precedent, as a member of a majority group, she was required to provide additional evidence, such as statistical proof or information about the relevant decisionmaker’s protected traits. She failed to produce such evidence, leading to dismissal of the case on summary judgment.

Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasized that Title VII protects “any individual” from discrimination based on protected characteristics, regardless of whether the person belongs to a majority or minority group. The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional proof—such as statistical evidence or information about the protected traits the decisionmaker may have—to establish a prima facie case. The Court found this rule to be inconsistent with both the text of Title VII and its own precedent, which discourages rigid applications of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

This ruling effectively levels the playing field for all plaintiffs, removing a procedural barrier that affected only majority-group litigants. As a result, courts must now evaluate claims of discrimination based solely on whether the plaintiff can show that they suffered an adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic—without regard to group membership. This change may lead to an increase in majority-group litigants bringing claims previously characterized as reverse discrimination. It is now much easier for these litigants to meet their prima facie burden, which will likely allow numerous plaintiffs to proceed to trial who would previously have had their cases dismissed on summary judgment.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further. In his concurrence, he argued that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework itself lacks textual support in Title VII and should be reconsidered in a future case. He criticized the framework form creating unnecessary complexity and for fostering inconsistent standards between cases involving direct and circumstantial evidence.

Justice Thomas’s critique is not new—he has long expressed skepticism about judge-made doctrines that stray from statutory text. But in Ames, his argument gained new traction. He noted that Title VII’s plain language requires courts to determine whether there is evidence of intentional discrimination, and that the burden-shifting approach may obscure that inquiry rather than clarify it.

If the Court were to adopt Justice Thomas’s view and eliminate the McDonnell Douglas framework, the implications would be profound:

• Simplified litigation: Plaintiffs would no longer need to navigate the three-step burden-shifting process. Instead, courts would focus directly on whether the evidence supports a finding of intentional discrimination.

• Increased judicial discretion: Without a structured framework, judges may have more latitude in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, leading to less predictable outcomes.

• Impact on DEI programs: Justice Thomas’s concurrence may invite increased scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Programs that appear to favor minority groups could be challenged under the now-equal evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs.

• Shift in summary judgment practice: The McDonnell Douglas framework has long served as a gatekeeping tool at the summary judgment stage. Its removal could result in more cases proceeding to trial, increasing litigation costs and risks for employers.

 Courts analyze employment discrimination claims under the Supreme Court’s framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), in which the plaintiff is required to make an initial showing of discriminatory intent, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action. If the defendant makes such a showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence that the defendant’s proffered reason is a “pretext,” or cover, for discrimination.

Erica L. Quigley is an Associate at Miller Johnson in the Employment and Labor practice group, focusing on management-side labor and employment counseling and litigation, as well as governmental legal matters. She advises clients on employment contracts, workplace policies, compliance with wage and hour laws, health and safety regulations, and employee discipline.
Quigley has successfully represented clients in state and federal courts on issues including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, FMLA, and constitutional violations. She counsels on traditional labor and election law matters. A graduate of Wayne State University Law School, Quigley has received multiple honors and serves as Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Section of the Washtenaw County Bar Association. Quigley can be reached at 313-435-2323 or at quigleye@millerjohnson.com.
Adam M. Taub is a founding partner at Croson, Taub, & Michaels, PLLC where he is an advocate for workers. He specializes in all forms of workplace disputes, including wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, whistleblower, non-compete, and wage and hour issues. Taub has also successfully represented public and private sector unions. He has represented numerous individuals and labor unions against employers in federal and state courts, as well as administrative agencies, including EEOC, OSHA, NLRB, and MERC. Taub can be reached at 734-519-0874 or at ataub@ctmlawyers.com.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

I have observed advocates and mediators who are the epitome of professionals. From them I’ve learned what professionalism looks like in the practice of ADR, whether as advocates or mediators. This article is about what ADR participants can do to enhance their professionalism. In writing this article, I’m drawing on my passion for promoting legal professionalism and civility. 

Legal Professionalism and Civility

Legal professionalism and civility are not the same thing. Civility is a subset of legal professionalism. We know what civility is intuitively. It is treating everyone involved in the justice system with respect. The best view of civility is what almost everyone immediately accepts-the Golden Rule. As applied to lawyers, it is treating others as we want others to treat us. While lawyers are advocating vigorously for clients, it is helpful to remember that lawyers do not litigate without constraint.

The Professionalism Principles for Lawyers and Judges, Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order 2020-23, contains a list of 12 Principles that describe professional behavior. The Order also provides commentary to further explain what the Principles look like in practice. To emphasize the Court’s role in promoting professionalism and civility, the 2020 Order is directed to both lawyers and judges-it is a partnership. And, because the Principles apply specifically to ADR, the participants in mediation are subject to the Principles. The concept of legal professionalism is not new, but we could use a reminder.

What is Legal Professionalism

Legal professionalism is broader than we might think.

It concerns the lawyer’s role in the justice system, including the promotion and defense of the rule of law. An in-depth discussion of the lawyer’s role in the justice system and defense of the rule of law is beyond the scope of this article.  However, it bears repeating that lawyers are the guardians of the justice system. 

What I am talking about here is more about dedication to doing what is necessary to demonstrate the highest standards of our profession, not the bare minimum. The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct provide the floor for lawyer conduct. Many aspects of the Rule are also found in the Professionalism Principles for Lawyers and Judges. For example, the requirement of respect for those involved in the “legal process” may be found in Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 6.5. The requirement of competence is spelled out in MRPC 1.1, which addresses legal knowledge and skill as well as thoroughness and preparation (the theme of this article). 

Because I view professionalism as representing the best of us, that is the area I’ll focus on in mediation practice.

Legal Professionalism and Mediation 

Just as professionalism is a partnership between judges and lawyers, mediation is a partnership between advocates and mediators. It requires the advocates to do their job together with the mediators doing their job. The focus of this article is on the advocates.

Frankly, some lawyers who participate in mediation don’t do their job as well as they could. To be professional, in my view, they should advance the following principles in ADR.

Understand the Process

Advocates should consider the process they are about to participate in. 

Yes, it is a negotiation. Does the lawyer understand that the mediation process, for example, starts before the mediation session? Has the advocate reviewed the applicable mediation court rules? Has the advocate considered that the nature of the opening offers is not to be trivially considered and that negotiating without much thought is counterproductive? Has the advocate considered how the mediator might be helpful during the mediation?

Preparation

The ADR professional should begin the mediation process well before the mediation and before a discussion with the mediator. It begins with a thorough understanding of the client’s case, starting with its strengths and weaknesses, the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses, and faces the tough issues head on. It does their client no good for counsel to minimize weaknesses of a client position, hoping for a magical cure to resolve them. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each side is a critical starting point of risk analysis.

It always seemed to me that the best preparation for the litigation of a case, and preparation for a meaningful mediation, begins at the end. 

• Does the lawyer know what a trial of the case might look like, the actual evidence that will be admissible, the list of witnesses, and who might testify? 

• Is there a significant motion for dismissal likely?

• Has the lawyer prepared an estimate of fees and expenses to take the case to and through trial?

• Has the lawyer considered whether they have obtained enough information to engage in a meaningful mediation?

• What information may yet be necessary? 

• And what additional information will be needed to try the case?

• Has the lawyer met with the client and discussed a risk analysis so that the client understands both the monetary and non-monetary burden and risks of taking a case to trial?

All of these actions help prepare both the client and advocate to participate in a meaningful mediation. Sometimes, counsel for a party wants the mediator to shoulder the burden of discussing the weaknesses with their client in caucus. Mediators should not be afraid to ask counsel how the mediator can assist the party’s representatives. Often, they will ask the mediator to provide their client with a “reality check”. 

Mediators know that many advocates come to mediation without any obvious signs of, or with limited, preparation. That means the mediator must spend time working with the parties to make sure they and their attorney are prepared to meaningfully negotiate.

• I have found that an important starting point with lawyers and their clients is making sure that they have fully considered the information they possess and the information they need but don’t yet have and how to get it. It is common to adjourn a mediation so that the parties can exchange additional information voluntarily. 

• Also, it is important for the mediator to be prepared to adjourn a mediation to permit the parties to obtain the information they think they need. The last thing any mediator wants is for a settlement to be second guessed because available and important information was not provided to a negotiating party.

I have often asked parties whether they feel they have sufficient information to meaningfully negotiate. Invariably the answer is yes. But, a few hours later, a party realizes it needs more information about a particular issue or issues. 

The mediation statement.

I have found that most mediators require a mediation statement in advance of a mediation. The statement is intended to prepare the mediator and inform the adversary and clients, of factual, legal, and damage positions.

I encourage the advocates to address the factual and legal positions and not put a damage demand in their statements. Of course, there should be an explanation of the loss by the plaintiff and damages caused by the loss.

There are a few other significant considerations of a mediation statement. The statements are often a window into the professionalism of the advocate. As a mediator, I am looking for the use of adjectives and adverbs. I have learned over time that the best professionals use adjectives and adverbs the least often. The strength of the statements depends on the facts and law presented, not on an argumentative tone.

The statements do not have to be long and most mediators will accept versions of motions to dismiss so the parties do not have to reinvent the wheel.

However, the statements that contain unnecessary and argumentative claims tell me that the mediation itself will require some discussion designed to focus on the merits of the dispute. And keep your exhibits to a concise minimum unless there is an important area of dispute which needs to be highlighted. Just attaching a 250 page transcript is a waste of time and money. If you have concerns about an important factual allegation, by all means raise it by attaching the relevant and necessary portions of the exhibit. But if there is no dispute concerning the existence of a fact, you don’t need to attach a copy of anything because the other side does not dispute it.

Mediators want the mediation process to be a civil discussion as best as possible. We all recognize that even the business cases we see can be emotional for the parties. Yet, yelling and screaming at the other side, in the statements, and in the actual negotiations are not helpful unless the point of the advocate is to demonstrate that the client is very emotional and the emotion will affect the negotiations. However, I prefer that the yelling and screaming be made in my presence and not joint sessions. I can relate to the adversary the intensity of a party’s emotions. 

Concession Strategy

Those advocates who have carefully considered an opening offer may not have thought further about the possible progress of negotiations.

It is valuable to have, again, considered the end point, i.e. the “bottom line” and how to get there. Mediators want to see progress in negotiations and help the parties exchange offers and counteroffers. However, there is a significant principle that the most professional advocates include in their style. As one of our great PREMi mediators, Paul Monicatti, describes it, the mediation process is better positioned to reach a settlement when the parties are engaged in “principled negotiations”. That is, the offers and counteroffers are not randomly or thoughtlessly selected and the reason for a new offer or counteroffer is logically explained. We know from experience that an offer or counteroffer that has no basis in reality will not be well received. 
And, if a few are made by a party, the chances of a meaningful mediation are reduced.

The point here is that advocates should be preparing for a mediation by including a discussion with the client about how to move through the mediation negotiations.

Conclusion

Having had the good fortune to observe wonderful, professional advocates and mediators, the following hard work before a mediation pays dividends:

1. Know the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case and discuss them with the client—especially the weaknesses.

2. Think carefully about how the case will be tried including consideration of evidence and witnesses.

3. Determine whether there is enough information to have a meaningful mediation. If not, work to get the information.

4. Make the mediation statement straightforward and logical, describing the facts, law, and damages suffered or not suffered. Avoid flame throwing language.

5. Make sure that there has been consideration of, and discussion with the client of both the opening offer and the concession strategy.

6. Follow the Golden Rule in mediation statements and the negotiation process.

 _____________________

Michael S. Leib is a mediator and arbitrator with Leib ADR LLC in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and specializes in the mediation and arbitration of complex business disputes including bankruptcy disputes, real estate disputes, professional liability disputes, employment disputes, and participated on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Council of the State Bar of Michigan, as well as on the Debtor Creditor Committee of the Business Law Section. 
He is the chair of the State Bar of Michigan Special Committee on Professionalism and Civility. 
Leib is on the Commercial Panel of the American Arbitration Association and member of PREMi, an organization of attorney dispute resolution experts who have numerous years of experience in both conflict resolution processes and subject matter knowledge in many industries and disciplines. 
Leib is  listed in The Best Lawyers in America and is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell. 
He received his B.A. from Kalamazoo College, his M.M. from the University of Montana, and his J.D. from Wayne State University Law School.

Most businesses don’t realize exactly when they stop operating like a startup and start functioning as an established organization. There is no announcement, no line on the calendar. The shift usually happens quietly, often right around the time the company prepares to bring on its tenth employee.

Most businesses don’t realize exactly when they stop operating like a startup and start functioning as an established organization. There is no announcement, no line on the calendar. The shift usually happens quietly, often right around the time the company prepares to bring on its tenth employee.

Why focus on ten employees? There is no federal employment law that suddenly takes effect at the ten-employee mark. 

The significance is practical, not statutory. Once a business grows beyond a handful of people, informal management stops working. Founders are no longer part of every conversation, decisions are made without shared assumptions, and small inconsistencies can create real legal exposure. Wage and hour issues become harder to monitor, confidentiality risks expand, and HR complaints often appear for the first time when a business reaches eight to twelve employees. 

In short, ten employees is the point where a company becomes complex enough that written policies move from optional to essential.

At this stage, a founder’s instincts and a few verbal ground rules are no longer enough to keep people aligned. Employees begin making decisions without the benefit of overhearing the leadership team. Departments form, roles blur, misunderstandings multiply, and the business faces risks that did not exist when four people shared a room and improvised their way through the day.

This is the moment, before employee number ten walks through the door, when every small business should put three foundational policies in writing. The goal is not to become “corporate.” The goal is to preserve stability, fairness, and clarity as the company grows.

1. A clear, modern employee handbook. (Because “we talked about it once” is not a policy)

Many small-business owners believe they do not need a handbook because “everyone knows how we operate.” 

That may work for the first few employees who learned the business while sitting next to the founders. Once the company reaches ten employees, people no longer learn by osmosis.

A strong handbook does not need to be lengthy. It should clearly address the issues that most often create tension, including:

• How employment works, including an at-will statement;

• Standards of conduct and what will not be tolerated;

• How performance concerns and complaints are handled;

• Attendance, scheduling, and time-tracking expectations;

• Technology and cybersecurity requirements;

• How time off actually works;

• A simple, safe process for raising concerns without retaliation.

The value of a handbook is not the document itself. It is the consistency it provides. When a difficult situation arises and an employee insists “no one ever told me that,” the handbook becomes your record, your clarity, and your protection.

2. A robust confidentiality and trade-secret policy (Because your business is worth protecting long before you are big enough to defend it)

Every business has information someone else would love to access. This includes customer lists, pricing strategies, sales processes, vendor relationships, product formulas, software code, operational methods, and market positioning plans.

Small companies are particularly vulnerable because they often rely on trust and informality. 

Courts, however, do not protect trade secrets based on trust. They protect them based on the steps a company takes to keep information confidential. If you do not treat something as proprietary, you cannot credibly object when someone walks out with it.

A well-drafted confidentiality and trade-secret policy defines what is confidential, who may access it, how it must be handled, and the consequences for misuse. It also provides a legal foundation for action if an employee attempts to take shortcuts or a competitor tries to capitalize on your work.

With non-compete agreements rapidly disappearing across the country, this policy has become one of the few remaining tools available to safeguard a business’s competitive advantage.

3. A Code of Conduct that reflects your culture (Not a generic list of corporate clichés)

Culture is what keeps a small business cohesive during growth. When the team is tiny, everyone absorbs the founder’s values simply by being in close proximity. As the company expands, that shared understanding disappears unless someone puts it in writing.

A Code of Conduct is your blueprint for how people interact. It should not sound like a template pulled from a corporate HR manual. It should reflect your voice and express the norms you expect your team to follow.

A practical and meaningful Code of Conduct addresses:

• Expectations around communication;

• Standards for professionalism and respect;

• How disagreements should be approached;

• When and how decisions are escalated;

• What accountability looks like;

• What “respecting the team” means in your environment.

This is not about micromanaging. It is about giving new hires a clear path to success, reducing unnecessary friction, and preserving the culture you worked hard to build.

Why these policies matter before you reach 10 employees

Crossing the 10-employee threshold signals three major chances:

1. Legal exposure expands quickly. Each new hire brings additional HR, wage-and-hour, and confidentiality risks.

2. Culture becomes more fragile. A single new employee can shift the identity of a small business.

3. Consistency becomes essential. What once felt like flexibility can quickly be misunderstood as favoritism or unfairness.

These policies create the guardrails that allow a company to grow without losing stability. They protect your brand, your people, and the business you have worked so hard to build. 

I have worked with many companies that waited until a crisis forced them to put policies in place. Every one of them later said the same thing: “We should have done this earlier.” The businesses that thrive are the ones that prepare before the pressure hits. Employee number 10 is your early warning bell. Put these policies in place now, and your future self will thank you.

The first two commentaries focused on Benjamin Franklin. This commentary will discuss an individual well known to Colonial leaders but less familiar in the present day: David Rittenhouse (1732-96). 

This is the third commentary in a series describing the perspectives of the Founding Fathers on “thinking like a scientist.” 

The first two commentaries focused on Benjamin Franklin. This commentary will discuss an individual well known to Colonial leaders but less familiar in the present day: David Rittenhouse (1732-96). 

Rittenhouse was “America’s Newton.”  A child genius and the son of farmers, Rittenhouse received only a basic education and thereafter self-taught.  At age 13, he mastered Newton’s calculus as well as the laws of gravity and motion.  

Rittenhouse would go on to construct models of paper mills, then working clocks, tools and as an adult, scientific instruments including two orreries – mechanical scale models of the Solar System – still in existence at Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.

Rittenhouse’s report on the transit path of Venus in 1769 brought international fame as an astronomer.  The telescope he utilized to make the detailed observations was of his own making.  

An Oration “Promoting Useful Knowledge” that Rittenhouse delivered in February 1775 to the American Philosophical Society, which was originally founded by Benjamin Franklin, is the focus of this commentary.  

The Oration was later published in a pamphlet addressed to the delegates of the Continental Congress “to whom the future liberties and, consequently, the virtue, improvement in science, of America are entrusted.”  Each delegate received a personal copy.

The Oration is of value today because it presents Rittenhouse’s views – in his own words - of what it means to “think like a scientist.”

 Excerpts are set forth below. The headings are mine; the quoted text is from the Oration with guidance as to context and particular terms in brackets.

On the Relationship of Scientific Discovery to Religion  

“As truth is always consistent with itself, so many new proofs were furnished from time to time by new discoveries, that a mistaken interpretation of some passages in the Bible was compelled to give way to the force of astronomical evidence.

“Our religion teaches us what Philosophy could not have … But neither Religion nor Philosophy forbids us to believe that [the creator’s] infinite wisdom and power … may have frequently interposed in a manner quite incomprehensible to us, when [understanding] became necessary to the happiness of created beings.”

Implications with Respect to Other Worlds  

In the middle section of the Oration, Rittenhouse notes that advances in astronomy may include the discovery of planetary life elsewhere in the universe. He cleverly uses that possibility as a springboard to address several “hot-button” political issues.  

“How far indeed the inhabitants of the other planets may resemble man, we cannot pretend to say … If their inhabitants resemble man in their faculties and affections, let us suppose that they are wise enough to govern themselves according to the dictates that reason their creator has given them … Happy people!”

Rittenhouse then pivots to note that from the perspective of this “happy people,” existing governments on earth lack similar wisdom and proceeds to provide examples.

On Slavery and Racism

First, Rittenhouse speculates that “inhabitants of the other planets” may be “more happy still, that all communication with us is [currently] denied.  We have neither corrupted you with our vices nor injured you by violence …  None of your sons and daughters, degraded from their native dignity, have been doomed to endless slavery by us in America, merely because their bodies maybe disposed to reflect or absorb the rays of light, in a way different from ours.”

On Greed

Second, citing additional benefits resulting from the separation of worlds, Rittenhouse notes that “you [inhabitants of other worlds] are [also] effectively secured, alike from the rapacious hand of the haughty Spaniard, and of the unfeeling British nabob. Even British thunder [canons] impelled by British thirst of gain, cannot reach you.” [“British nabob” was a pejorative reference to “a conspicuously wealthy individual returning from India with a fortune.”]

On Luxury and Tyranny

As an example of “tyrannical” government actions on earth, Rittenhouse next cites the highly contentious British colonial acts, such as the Stamp Act.

These Colonial rules required Americans to import high-priced “luxury” goods through Britain rather than manufacture or obtain them elsewhere. 

They were then the subject of the incendiary colonial protests and boycotts that would spark the Revolutionary War only two months after the Oration was first delivered.

“Luxury and tyranny …  pretend at first to be the patrons of science and philosophy, but at length fail not effectively to destroy them; agitated by these reflections, I am ready to wish that nature would raise her everlasting bars between the new and old world; and make voyage to Europe as impracticable as one to the moon … Let our harbours, our doors, our hearts, be shut against luxury.”  

The Benefits of Science

In closing, Rittenhouse turns “to consider [the] happy effects of science, on the human mind … it is of great service to mankind, in banishing bigotry and superstition from amongst us … to dilate the heart with universal benevolence, and to enlarge its views.  

[Science] does this without propagating a single point of doctrine contrary to common sense, or the most cultivated reason. It flatters no fashionable princely vice, or national depravity. It encourages not the libertine by relaxing any of the precepts of morality.” 

Rittenhouse’s ambitions for science to have a central role in transforming American life were reflective of Revolutionary times.   

Historians suggest his idealism and optimism, in fact, influenced the selection of a circle of thirteen stars in the republic’s first flag symbolizing American democracy as a “new Constellation” in the progress of humankind.