'Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,' F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. To which Hemingway retorted, 'Yes. They have more money.'
A
A clash of attitudes colors the current debate over the extent to which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) should apply to small public companies. The most visible argument is that small companies should not have to shoulder the same compliance burdens as large companies do, simply because they can't afford to. But that premise is being challenged by studies, derided by a number of commentators, and viewed with public skepticism even by some SEC Commissioners. It assumes that were money no object, small and large companies should be regulated the same. If that assumption is true, then any argument for relaxed compliance that hinges on expense is vulnerable. Cost seldom satisfies as a reason for not doing something that ought otherwise be done. However, it is wrong to assume that the main difference between small and large companies is how much money they have. Large and small companies play very different roles in the national economy and in the minds of investors. The very large companies really are different than their smaller brethren, and not just because they have more money.
'Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,' F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. To which Hemingway retorted, 'Yes. They have more money.'
A
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Businesses subject to the CCPA now must conduct risk assessments for certain types of processing activities and, starting in 2028, must certify to California regulators that they completed the assessments.
The firms that will thrive when it comes to the adoption of AI will not be those with the most tools or the most prompts. They will be the ones with clear standards, defined human ownership and a dedicated AI partner able to turn raw generation into reliable, high‑value content.
Despite incredible progress in natural-language reasoning, AI tools still face fundamental limitations when it comes to performing even basic trademark searches. Here are five important reasons why.
Artificial intelligence is changing how legal work is performed. What’s needed is problem-solving optimism, a clinical appraisal of the firm’s capabilities and economic position, and earnest resolve to change before market pressure forces change under duress.
The ethical use of AI should be a prerequisite for the integration of AI into a legal practice. Failure to learn and implement transparency, accountability, and best practices for responsible AI usage prior to employing AI will likely result in ethical and malpractice difficulties.