Episode 18: Effective project management, with Mick Edmondson

The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. The original interview can be heard on The LCN Legal Podcast lcnlegal.com/training-hub/podcast-episode-18-effective-project-management-with-mick-edmondson. Mick can be contacted at mickedmondson@completeprojects.co.uk.

Intro: Hello and welcome to The LCN Legal Podcast, bringing you professional views and analysis of the legal aspects of transfer pricing compliance. Our focus is always on real world, practical insights that you can apply in your everyday work. In this episode, LCN Legal’s co founder, Paul Sutton, talks to Mick Edmondson, the Programmes, Projects, and PMO lead at Complete Projects, which he founded in 2008. Mick specialises in complex international programmes, including legal entity restructuring and rationalisation. He and Paul discuss how to manage such projects so that they deliver the intended results, the different methodologies that are appropriate in different situations, and some of the technologies and tools that are available. We hope you enjoy the discussion.

Paul Sutton: Hi, Mick. Thank you very much indeed for joining our podcast today.

Mick Edmondson: Thank you, Paul. Really grateful to have the opportunity to get the invite and looking forward to it.

PS: Great. Well, we’re here to talk about project management, which is obviously one of my favourite subjects. And given that our listeners, our audience for the podcast is primarily tax people – so tax and transfer pricing professionals in in-house teams and also in private practice – so when we’re talking about project management, it’s generally in the context of large restructurings or group reorganisation projects, but also potentially tax technology projects. So really, that’s the context. But let’s back up a little bit and say, well, what is a project?

ME: A project, if we look at the Project Management Institute’s definition. They describe it as a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result. And I think that’s something that does work for me. It’s not business as usual. It’s not something that’s routine and repetitive. The organisation has decided they need to do something differently: different process, different system, different way of working. There’s something needs to change, and there will be a start to that change and an end to that change, and the way the organisation is working at the end will be different. So it’s this time-limited, unique period of change where you’re pulling together a project, ideally with a project team and some project governance, to change how the organisation works in some way.

PS: Great. Okay. That makes total sense. And obviously that’s from a corporate’s perspective or a client’s perspective, isn’t it? Because for us as service providers, managing projects is our day-to-day life, I guess, or having involvement in that. But it’s good to put it in context.

ME: It is. Absolutely every engagement we’re on, we’re ideally there to make a difference in some respect. And certainly my organisation, it is always projects and programmes. It is often in that tax space that you’ve described, which is very relevant for this discussion. It is often in a legal restructuring – how the organisation is legally structured – and we can think of those examples where it might be a post-merger consolidation of similar businesses into a single legal entity. Or it might be a strategic separation of different businesses that have grown organically in the one entity and reach that point where they need to be separated out into two legal entities. Or, as you say, it can be tax technology. A good example at the moment: tax technology being developed and implemented to address the huge challenge of BEPS Pillar 2 that many tax functions are facing.

PS: Yeah, absolutely. OK, so the follow-up question I have is really, ‘Why bother?’ Why bother getting serious about project management? Isn’t this just an unnecessary cost? Isn’t it all obvious anyway? Why should we care about doing it in a professional way?

ME: So ultimately with the project, I guess success is you manage to implement the thing you set out to implement. You realise the benefits of doing that. You do it as efficiently as possible and without taking undue risks. You’ve got some reasonable risk mitigation. So as long as that’s your overarching thought process that you’re aiming to, whether you do it with a dedicated project manager or whether somebody within the team has the capacity, I don’t think that’s critical as long as you’re going to be successful in the implementation and realise the benefits. But generally, bringing in a project manager, I think, is going to give you four things.

One is the additional capacity. We’ve already recognised project isn’t business as usual. It’s something on top. So you’re going to need some additional capacity somewhere. The project manager will bring that for you.

Making it a project manager gives some more clarity of focus. If the project manager’s only reason to be in the business is the successful delivery of the project, they can be 100 % focused on that. And the individuals who have day jobs who would otherwise be project managing can stay focused on their day jobs, more so.

That project manager, ideally, will bring you some specialist project management expertise, experience, and knowledge of how to do a project successfully.

And also, particularly in the kinds of projects I think we often work in – where it’s not just tax, it’s tax, finance, legal, company secretarial, the business, treasury, multiple parties in the room – that project manager can wear something of a project federal central broker hat. Where when, I guess, the benefits, the work effort, the technicalities for the different functions and businesses don’t align easily, that project manager can help find that common ground.

I think anybody within the team could probably do all of that, but trying to do it on top of a day job and act in the interests of your day job and your function at the same time as wearing the central project programme hat, that’s quite a stretch. So as soon as that project reaches either a critical size or there’s some real materiality about getting it right, there’s benefit to bringing in a dedicated project manager whose sole purpose day in, day out, is successful delivery of that project.

PS: Yeah, that’s really interesting. Especially that day job point, because I think this is a perennial experience of a lot of people, especially advisors, trying to help with projects, is being the pain of the clients or the individuals within the client organisation who’ve obviously got dozens of things on their to-do lists. The challenge is, from a project perspective, trying to escalate those issues or escalate the interests of the project vis-a-vis of the other priorities that people may be facing.

ME: Absolutely. Sometimes it’s just capacity of how much work there is to be done, but very often it’s an engagement thing. If you’re needing to bring together multiple stakeholders, different functions, different businesses, some who have more benefits than others accruing from the project, and some of whom will have to put in more work than others to the project, it takes a lot of engagement to get buy-in to the resourcing, the rationale, the business In case who’s going to do what, when. You can map something out on a plan and think, ‘Yeah, I can fit that in my spare half a day a week’. You might be able to if every conversation goes swimmingly. But if that engagement effort is going to take a lot more follow-up and iterative conversations and multiple parties… again, having the person who that’s all they’re there to do will give you that more flexible capacity.

PS: Absolutely. And I guess the downsides of not doing it right are obvious, but are there specific examples or types of situation that you’ve seen where the benefits of projects have not been realised, or specific downsides have been encountered?

ME: Every project is different and will have different pitfalls and need different requirements. But we generally try to keep it super simple to three stages that we call Select, Plan, and Deliver. And the big pitfall is really not getting Select right before Plan, and not getting Plan right before Deliver.

Sounds really obvious. But Select is all about somebody’s had an idea that something would be a good thing to do. And there’s an end vision. This is what it’s going to achieve. And it might be tax, statutory accounting, somebody from an efficiency perspective, or it might be business from a good governance or a strategic nimbleness point of view. And often those individuals who have the idea, who can see the benefit, will initiate the project. But they’re going to need other lead stakeholders to buy into doing it. Doing something that delivers efficiency in one part of the business may create work in another part of the business.

And so getting everybody who’s impacted, who needs to be involved together at a senior level during Select – and often this gets called the governance board, the project governance as it pulls together – you want all of those individuals aligned on ‘This is where we want to get to. This is roughly how we’ll get there: the rough business case, the benefits versus the costs.’ If you can get the key players in the room, that’s Select, and that will allow you to get those who are going to work the detail into the room to do the planning. And very often on structuring, this is all about the due diligence, turning that due diligence into an execution plan and iterating that several times over as tax inputs come in and impact the legal inputs and impact the accounting. It’s getting all of that to a position where we have a plan that everybody buys into, that governance approves of.

If you’ve got all that in line and you start pressing buttons, the project management from there on in is fairly straightforward. It’s making sure people do what they’re meant to do at the right time. But if we haven’t got that top level buy in, in Select, and we start getting pushback during the planning stage, we have to iterate back to Select. And similarly, if we’ve not got everybody fully aligned on the plan and who needs to do what during the Plan stage, then you’re going to really start to hit issues and delays and create risks in the Deliver stage.

So it’s that sequential piece. I think often people think of project management as that Deliver stage. There’s a huge number of tasks need to be done in the right order, follow up, status reporting. It’s a big part of project management. But if you’ve got your Select and your Plan right, it should be relatively straightforward and low risk. It’s the Select and Plan where I think things go wrong. Where, I guess, a number of the parties, but not all of the parties, embark on a journey and then have to circle back to bring some other parties up to speed – who may have very valid and material reasons why the existing direction or the existing plan won’t work because it creates risks and issues in another part of the organisation.

PS: Yes. We’re talking about doing things in the wrong order or making sure that we’re doing things in the right order. And talking about the downsides from that: yes, it’s a delay, the backtracking needed. But that of itself can have a massive impact on budget because effectively we’re having to redo the same work potentially multiple times. But also if those stakeholders, if those issues are not captured, we might end up executing on the wrong thing, which is potentially even worse.

ME: Absolutely. If we have, to some degree, rushed through Select, – not got all of those lead stakeholders really aligned behind what we’re doing, what it’s going to take, the route to get there, the resourcing – then we find ourselves in planning with not all the people who need to be at the table. The project can become very protracted, bogged down, start to sap at morale, and could lead to us jumping to solutions to exit and move on from there. There’s a phrase in one of the clients we work for a lot, which is front-end loading. Loading the effort in up from the engagement, the stakeholder engagement, onboarding, the detailed planning, just to ensure everybody is bought in on the same page. You’ve got something that is viable to implement. You’re going to win back that time, reap those benefits through an efficient and low-risk implementation, if you’ve really got everybody aligned where you’re going.

PS: That’s such an interesting point because from an adviser’s perspective, budget consciousness is often fairly high up there and front loading the planning stage – the selection and plan – in some ways, it’s the opposite of that, because you’re doing even more work, a lot of work, intensive work without delivering anything because you haven’t even started delivering anything. So I think that process of stepping back and saying, what are we trying to achieve? Is it worth even bothering to do this project at all? But then actually clearly thinking through, well, what are some of the risks and how are we going to manage the process? It’s really important.

ME: Yeah, and it’s going to be variable by project. Here we’re talking about these projects where… a legal entity restructuring, it’s fairly definitive that the right businesses need to end up in the right entities and everything relating to those businesses and/or some tax technology, usually for compliance or accurate planning or provisioning. It needs to be done a certain way, and therefore the Select and the Plan, in those cases, provide for an efficient Deliver. There are more agile projects out there in terms of business startups willing to pivot and go in different directions, where you can take much more of a ‘Test and learn and pivot’ approach to things. That’s not usually the case in the fairly complex statutory compliance-based environments I think we’re working in.

PS: Yeah, got it. And just picking up on one of the words you mentioned, the word agile. In the field of project management, there seems to be a lot of rival terminology, rival methodologies out there. Can you maybe break it down for us?

ME: I’m not sure about break it down, but I can simplify it – oversimplify it! – into two flavours, I guess. There’s a huge spectrum. But in essence, a traditional view of project management is Waterfall. And I look at Waterfall at one extreme as building a large building. It’s pretty straightforward that that building has to be planned and constructed in a certain order with all the right things happening at the right time. And you can’t deviate from that. It’s a real rigid Waterfall approach.

At the other end of the spectrum, as we said, you’ve got these different startups that start out as one thing, test, evolve, become something else. Where Twitter, I think, began life as audio, pointing people to different podcasts, and learned from that and evolved and ended up as Twitter. Paypal was security software. Amazon, more famous, it was a bookseller. And over time, they test, learn what works online for them. They’ve massively evolved. So that’s the Agile end of the spectrum.

If we go from Waterfall at one end to Agile at the other extreme. There’s a big middle ground in the middle that gets horribly acronymed to ‘Wagile’. It is probably Wagile that that we’re largely using in the projects we’re referring to. And I think the critical part is understanding when you’re in a more rigid Waterfall space: the outcome is probably fairly fixed once you get governance aligned. And when you’re in a slightly more Agile: how we get there, the sequencing of the steps, how we treat different aspects of the restructuring. Or in the tax technology, whether we’re going for an outsource solution, a managed service, an in-house solution, which solution we’re going for… the broad scope of the programme should be fairly fixed in terms of where you want to end up that end state. But through Select, you are narrowing in on the objectives, some of the specific deliverables, the broad business case. And then in Plan, you really are honing in on a lot more of the detail, the full due diligence, the full execution plan in a restructuring, the software options, the resourcing options, the pilot, the test, the cutover in a technology. Those things are taking you into more of a fixed plan so you can then deliver that.

But even within that, there will be the opportunity to iterate, to be a little bit Agile, particularly on the tax technology projects, taking a module within the solution or taking a legal entity or taking a country and using that to test and learn and iterate the approach and then apply it to a broader scope, do it a little bit further rather than try to fix everything in one big bang.

PS: Okay, that makes sense. And so in terms of the approach that you take, that there’s three steps of Select, Plan, Deliver? Is that generally the approach that you recommend that you would use when you’re managing projects for corporates?

ME: It’s the framework. Those are the broad three things that we’re doing at any point in time. If we’re doing a software implementation for something relatively complex, those three break out into about eight or nine stages for us. But two or three of them are clearly Select, a handful of them are clearly Plan, and then the back-end of Deliver. And we may iterate in the Plan and Deliver by different modules.

Similarly, if you think about most of the restructuring, you can probably break Plan out into due diligence and execution plan. But that, again, is generally iterative: that you can go so far with the due diligence, but until you actually start to convert that due diligence into an execution plan, you don’t know everything you need to know. The execution plan triggers facts that we need to revert back in due diligence to find out in order to complete the execution plan.

PS: You touched on this in the beginning, but in terms of the pros and cons of insourcing versus outsourcing project management, how would you look at this? Because for me, as an interested layperson in the field of project management, I can see that there is a benefit in having people in the business who know who’s who, who know how the business works culturally, who maybe have the internal connections to be able to escalate issues without ruffling feathers. That knowledge is important, but that person may or may not have the same background in terms of project management. How would you see that, that thought process?

ME: I think it comes down to the organisation’s supply and demand. How much project management need they have on a sustained basis, they can then match that in terms of internal resource. But as we touched on earlier, projects, they start, they stop, they vary in size. So if your demand for project management heavily fluctuates, that’s where you’re going to need to call on external resources.

I founded Complete Projects in 2008. And touch wood, we’re still here 16 years later with 25 of us all via word of mouth reputation – just doing a good job, delivering projects successfully and people who see us do that, telling other people and getting called in. So there’s clearly a demand for the outsourcing. I have worked in an organisation where they have brought that resource in-house. And because of that fluctuating demand, I found that point in time when it’s not needed and then a bit of reorg happens and it varies.

I think you’ve also got to think about career progression for those individuals. Obviously, if you are bringing project management into what is otherwise a financial, statutory, tax, legal, compliance organisation, it’s an additional career path and additional skillset.

But there are definitely organisations that project management is at their core. And if nothing else, they’re going to have a core project programme, PPPM function, setting the standards, doing the core main big programmes and projects, and perhaps supplementing that with third parties.

The other thing we do as Complete Projects is we have lawyers, tax professionals, accountants on the team. So, not that we are selling those services primarily, but it gives us the right subject matter expertise to supplement, to specialise in the programmes and projects we typically do.

PS: Right. Because you’ve got to be able to speak the language. Otherwise, you’re not going to make much progress in helping the organisation uncover the issues and to overcome blockages.

ME: Absolutely. And by the same token, we don’t build buildings. So we don’t have architects and quantity surveyors. We would if we did build buildings: we don’t. So there’s an element of, I guess, not only looking externally for project management expertise, but looking externally for project management expertise in the specific area that you require it.

PS: OK. So let’s talk about an imaginary scenario. Let’s say it’s a significant multinational group. It is planning, let’s say, a legal entity reduction project. There are a number of legal entities, maybe a relatively large number of entities, so 100 plus entities that need to be removed. or from a high-level review of the group structure charts are clearly superfluous to the requirements. And there may be an awareness of benefits in terms of removing them.

And possibly in tandem with that, as is often the case, there’s an update or refresh of transfer pricing policies, which means that the relationship between those entities needs to evolve. So some of them will already have agreements in place, others won’t. So there’s these different strands happening at the same time. So removing entities, but also updating TP policies and agreements and having an end result or an anticipated end state. If you put yourself in the situation of the relevant person who is effectively responsible for that, maybe it’s the head of tax in that organisation, what are the key questions that that person should be asking herself or himself on the inception of a potential project like this?

ME: I think in the example you’ve described, it is very heavily about the Select, about getting the governance in place with the right representatives from all of the functions involved. You’ve described if tax are initiating this and we’re going to we’re going to eliminate 100 plus legal entities, there are obviously benefits in terms of tax compliance, in terms of statutory compliance, the number of legal entities that company secretarial, tax, and other functions are having to deal with. But it’s going to create a lot of work – for the legal function, for other elements of the finance function, possibly for the business, for HR, depending on whether these entities are already dormant or they’ve got activities in them – where there’s not really obvious benefits accruing. The benefits in this kind of legal entity rationalisation probably accrue to the corporate centre rather than to the separate businesses or some of the other functions involved. So it is one, to me, where you’ve got to get the right governance team in the room deciding how much we’re willing to budget for this, how much work, what the resource is going to look like, how much to get done year on year on year.

It isn’t something that there’s a super critical rationale to do now. It’s always better to do it sooner rather than later. The longer you keep these entities, the more compliance costs you are spending and the further away from the facts you are getting. So the sooner you do them, the fresher they’re going to be for due diligence and for execution planning and eliminating. But if you’re trying to pull together a business case for spending on this in the current year versus putting this off to another year… and that’s where governance comes in. If you’ve got a good, clear mandate from all the participants involved, the resourcing, then you’re in a position to do your prioritised planning according to the resource that you’ve got. And to know which targets you’re able to go after now versus later.

At that point, you’re getting into the same detailed planning you would for any structuring. You need proper due diligence, you need proper execution plans, you need to make sure you’ve considered the parents, the intercompany, the transfer pricing, all of the elements you’ve described. You don’t want to be trying to do that for a hundred entities consecutively. You want to have had a governance that has given you a mandate and you’ve cut your cloth accordingly to tackle the first batch, get the first batch a certain way along the line before you move into the second batch.

And that’s all, to my mind, Select level and about getting Select level right. I think if you’ve got Select level right and then you’ve picked your initial ten, the planning and then the implementation on those ten will be relatively straightforward and successful, versus if we’ve embarked on this without getting full buy-in of all of the finance and legal and HR and other resources who are going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting without necessarily seeing any efficiency benefits.

PS: Really interesting that you use the word ‘mandate’ there because you could say an equivalent expression would be ‘business case’ or ‘commercial rationale’. Which from my perspective, in terms of what we do at LCN – the legal implementation of transfer pricing compliance – commercial rationale is exceptionally important. To document why would any business do this in the first place and why does that make sense for each individual legal entity to approve this sequence of steps. But here you’re talking about mandate in a subtly different way, which is to say, ‘Well, number one, let’s make sure we got all the stakeholders in the room. Number two, let’s make sure that we’re all on the same page as to what this project is about, why we’re doing it, and what the parameters for the project are’. So it’s a really important thing to talk about here.

ME: Yeah. And I think that mandate from your project governance is probably all the more important where there isn’t an obvious commercial benefit to the project, or the commercial benefit is difficult to come up with. And I can think of a couple of examples. We’re talking about legal entity rationalisation here. In that context of dozens of unneeded entities that no longer serve their purpose, generally, a handful of those have perhaps got enough activity in them, enough compliance costs around them, that there’s a business case in of itself to do those one or two.

But many of them will be dormant, audit-exempt. Eliminating them individually is not going to have an immediate cost saving benefit. But, of course, it’s good housekeeping. It’s something that’s got to happen sooner or later. So there is an element of ‘That needs to be done. Within a year, it may not give you an ROI’ (a return on investment), or within many years’. So that’s one example.

Another one that many organisations are facing at the moment is implementing the compliance solution for BEPS Pillar 2. Ultimately, BEPS Pillar 2 will require compliance centrally and locally on every single legal entity in in the organisation, regardless of whether there is actually any impact on the organisation’s tax, which is ultimately the aim of Pillar 2 is: to put a base floor on the effective tax rate of 15 %.

But regardless of how far above 15 % your tax rate is, ultimately, you will need a new, pretty complex compliance regime to meet the requirements of BEPS Pillar 2. I would imagine there’s a lot of organisations at this stage pulling together a project where that governance team are going to have quite a challenge to come up with the alignment, the rationale, the stakeholder engagement, because there’s not an obvious ROI.

PS: Yeah, and I think when we’re talking about legal entity reduction projects, it’s always been notoriously hard to quantify specific benefits. It’s hard enough to quantify specific cost savings when you’re just talking about direct costs like third-party costs. But when you try to take into account indirect or softer costs, just like the complexity involved that gets passed through into other projects like refinancing transactions and so on, it’s almost impossible to quantify these benefits.

ME: Very difficult to quantify. And the effort and the costs of compliance – and therefore the potential benefits or costs of the project – spread across so many parts of a multinational organisation. Tax, finance, company secretarial, various parts of the finance group and local and stats, the technology teams supporting the different systems. So there’s that challenge of trying to quantify overall, recognise the stakeholders who are involved, get those stakeholders in a room, and then those stakeholders can see the federal costs and benefits, but they’ve all got very differing views on what those costs and benefits are for them individually.

PS: Yeah, and I don’t know if this matches with your experience, but from my perspective, when we’re talking about legal entity reduction projects, it’s almost never cost benefits or cost savings, which is the actual driver. From my perspective, it’s almost always the governance need. It’s just got to be done. It’s not sustainable to continue to grow the number of entities because they will continue to grow just like weeds growing in a garden. It tends to be that governance driver which overrides everything else.

ME: Absolutely. And very similar for the kinds of new compliance challenges like BEPS Pillar 2. Again, there probably isn’t going to be an ROI business case, but it has to happen. It’s legally required. And therefore it’s about getting the people in the room to find that optimal solution and a way to implement the optimal solution as efficiently as possible, mitigating the risks as you do. And that’s the role of the project manager to make that happen.

At Select – going back to the start of the question here, Select being the most important part, the players. If you’ve got them in the room, then you can work with that next level on the detail. You can break that detail down piece by piece. You can iterate. You can be a little bit Agile. Get that right with those people and the implementation will be relatively straightforward. It will take follow up. It will take status reporting. It will take issue resolution, risk mitigation. But when you know you’re going in the direction that you’ve agreed to go in and it’s moving forward and you can follow that critical path – as opposed to questioning that and being unsure about that because you didn’t get it right in Plan or you didn’t get it right in Select.

PS: Yeah, and talking about the specific detail and how to manage that in a particular project, are there any particular tools or maybe technology that you would recommend that you generally work with?

ME: Two things generally guide us on this. One is what fits for the client. And most clients spend most of their time inside Microsoft Office. So that is an influencer. And we try to keep things simple, the documentation side, both from people having to read and work through it and engage with it, and people having to maintain it. We try to keep it as simple as we can to ensure project success.

Where that means we often end up is a single Excel where a terms of reference, the objectives, the Select piece is on one sheet. The headline Plan is on the second sheet and a RAID log – Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies – is maintained on the third sheet. And those three sheets feed into a one-page status report. And that one-page status report is so important. If everybody’s aligned to that, looking at that, understanding the recent achievements, understanding the next steps, understanding the key issues that need to be resolved and the risk mitigation. If everything builds up to that and everybody works to that week on week, that’s really the key to success, I think, in terms of the document side.

If detailed planning is needed, Smart Sheet is a really good tool for that. Dashboarding via Power BI. But again, it’s really understanding what the client needs. If they work with Project, if they work with Monday.com, if they work with Trello, Wrike, Jira… whatever it is, we will adopt it. In essence, it’s less about the tool and more about what you’re trying to get the tool to do, fairly obviously.

PS: Got it. Well, looks like we’re coming to the end of our time together. Maybe, Mick, you’d just like to share some key takeaways for people who are thinking about initiating a project of this scale. What are the key things that you’d want them to take away from this conversation?

ME: It’ll sound slightly like a broken record, but I think they’ve got to look at the project as something that they want to achieve in a timeframe, as efficiently as possible and with risk mitigation. And understand what that is, and therefore come back to that Select piece. Who are the senior leaders? Who are the key stakeholders that I need to get aligned on ‘We’re doing this, and therefore, I’m going to need the resource to do this’. Get them aligned, get the resource off them to get into the detail, to do the due diligence, to do the execution planning, to iterate it several times over with the inputs from tax and finance and legal in the example of the structuring, and then move on to the implementing and the tasks that you need finance and company secretarial and others to do in order to do it as successfully and efficiently as you can.

PS: Got it. So it’s getting the foundations right and then building from there.

ME: It is.it is.

PS: Great. Well, thank you so much, Mick, for spending the time with us. I really appreciate it. Still my favourite subject, project management. I look forward to chatting to you again in the near future.

ME: Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Anytime.

Outro: Thanks for listening to The LCN Legal Podcast. We’d love to hear what you think. You’ll find the contact details on our website, lcnlegal.com, where you’ll also find a transcript of this episode with Mick’s email address.

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe. Go to your podcast provider and search for The LCN Legal Podcast. Until next time, thank you and goodbye.