Columns

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

A recent large-scale construction fire in Denver—where more than 100 firefighters battled a multi-alarm blaze at an apartment project—highlights how quickly a construction-related incident can escalate into a multimillion-dollar loss affecting property owners, contractors, neighboring businesses, and insurers.

For businessowners, property owners, and policyholders in Michigan and across the United States, understanding scaffolding insurance coverage is critical. The question is not just what happened, but who is insured, under which policy, and for what damages.
 
Why scaffolding insurance coverage matters

Scaffolding incidents often involve multiple parties and layered insurance policies. When a loss occurs, insurers may dispute responsibility, deny coverage, or shift blame to other parties. 

Scaffolding-related claims commonly arise from:

• Fires at construction or renovation sites
• Structural collapse or instability
• Falling tools, debris, or materials
• Damage to adjacent buildings or vehicles
• Injuries to workers, pedestrians, or residents 

In dense areas like Detroit, Chicago, or surrounding Midwest cities, a single scaffolding incident can affect an entire block—leading to evacuations, business interruption, and regulatory investigations.

Common insurance policies implicated in scaffolding losses 

Understanding which insurance policies may apply is the first step toward protecting your interests.

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) 

CGL policies often serve as the primary coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by scaffolding accidents. But coverage disputes frequently arise over:

• Whether the damage resulted from ongoing operations or completed work
• Policy exclusions related to construction defects or fire
• Additional insured status for property owners or developers
 
2. Builder’s Risk Insurance 

Builder’s risk policies may cover damage to the structure under construction, including losses caused by fire. Insurers may still deny claims by arguing:

• Improper installation or maintenance of scaffolding
• Violations of safety codes or project specifications
• Excluded causes of loss
 
3. Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions (E&O) 

When scaffolding design, supervision, or inspection is involved, claims may extend to engineers, architects, or project managers. These cases often hinge on whether professional judgment or a construction defect caused the loss.
 
4. Excess and Umbrella Policies

Large losses frequently exceed primary policy limits. Excess and umbrella insurers may resist paying, leading to high-stakes litigation over policy language and trigger of coverage.
 
Key coverage disputes after a scaffolding incident 

Scaffolding claims often raise complex legal questions, including:

• Who qualifies as an insured or additional insured?
• Was the fire or collapse accidental or tied to an excluded peril?
• Do multiple insurers owe defense and indemnity?
• Can insurers shift responsibility through subrogation or contribution claims?

In large-scale fires like the Denver construction blaze, disputes often expand to include neighboring property owners, municipalities, and utility providers—each with separate insurance interests.
 
Practical steps after a scaffolding-related loss

If you are a property owner, contractor, or business affected by a scaffolding incident, early action is critical. Immediate steps to protect your claim include:

• Preserve contracts, insurance policies, and certificates of insurance
• Document damage with photos, videos, and expert reports
• Notify all potentially applicable insurers promptly
• Avoid recorded statements without legal guidance
• Consult counsel experienced in insurance coverage litigation
 
Attorney and 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. He can be reached at 248) 905-1133.

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

By J.J. Conway
J.J. Conway Law

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

There is an elegant simplicity to this aspect of employment law because benefit plans work like contracts. Like a contract, an employee’s consideration is providing work for the employer. In return, the employer pays for that work, in part through non-wage compensation such as healthcare, life insurance, retirement benefits, and disability insurance. The value of these benefits to an employee and the employee’s family has been steadily growing each year. 

Litigating these disputes has led to my forming a few biases. Forgive me, but I do not have the greatest regard for human resource departments, and there are a few insurance companies that I believe are actually bad actors, not just opponents.

But lately, I have come to empathize with my would-be adversaries ... at least a little bit.  

The world of employee benefits — or should I say this new world of benefits — is becoming increasingly complex. It is fraught with new employee expectations, and there seems to be legal peril everywhere for employers and plan managers.  Just recently, the Department of Labor (which has been beset by scandals and resignations) issued its revised enforcement priorities, which, if relied upon, may result in legal troubles down the road should a new administration come into power with different priorities.  Today’s relief from regulatory enforcement could be tomorrow’s class action lawsuit. Benefit participants, in contrast, must tailor their cases to meet the moment, but benefit plans have a decades-long horizon. 

In an employee-side litigation practice, the legal process is straightforward. An employee has a benefit plan problem. The first attempt to solve the problem is by filing a claim for benefits. If that fails, there is an internal appeal with the plan. If the problem remains unsolved, then a lawsuit is filed. Benefit litigators review existing precedents, outline their legal cases, and work to see that their clients prevail. 

In the old days, employee benefit plans only had to monitor themselves for compliance with basic Department of Labor regulations and to be mindful of unique rules in insurance and banking that applied in states where a company operated. Most plans would receive regular updates on significant developments in case law across the U.S. It was all a bit sleepy and rote. 

In 2010, that started to change, led by the massive federal law requiring that healthcare plans be brought in line with the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (“Obamacare”). That was a huge change; so huge, in fact, that the law itself contained a built-in mechanism giving plans years to adjust the implementation deadlines. Then, the regulatory authorities repeatedly extended those deadlines even further. 

Prior to this, federal regulations for employee benefit plans had been amended only a handful of times since 1975. After Obamacare, the applicable regulations and USDOL bulletins began changing with great regularity.  

Before and after the law was passed, the Tea Party erupted with intense criticism over the law, and in turn there were hundreds of attempts to change the law, eliminate it, or repeal its most controversial provisions through litigation. Obamacare today looks nothing like it did fifteen years ago. 

This sudden charged approach to what was, essentially, an employee benefits law, has led to increased plan litigation and other challenges as when the federal government tried to impose a fiduciary standard on financial advisors across all plans and into individual investors. This fiduciary duty rule has changed so many times that it is hard to keep up. It was recently struck down again by a federal court.  

Since 2025, the pace of proposed laws affecting employee benefit plans has been on fire.  Plans are suddenly being forced to grapple with some really “out there” issues.  

Consider what today’s benefit plans must now address:

1. New, unusual, and unproven medical treatments and requests for coverage based on influencers, streamers and politics. Podcasters and the current HHS Secretary regularly provide medical advice to the public in a way that is new, untested, and complicated. Suddenly, employee benefit participants are hearing about how injecting peptides can help them live longer, lose weight, and look better. Participants are being told not to vaccinate or to vaccinate themselves and their families differently. 

(Recently, the U.S. military ruled that mandatory flu vaccinations for active-duty personnel are considered “woke” and would be discontinued.) Proven cancer drugs that may have been covered by health insurance are suddenly being labeled “investigative” by the FDA. With plan participants being told to eat saturated fats, lard, heavy meat diets, and to stop eating plant-based foods and getting vaccinated, it remains to be seen what will happen for cardiac, cancer, rheumatology, and infectious disease costs over time for those plans. Plans have to keep up with this, and if all this medical advice turns out to be wrong, there will be additional pressure put on health insurers and self-funded healthcare plans to clean up the medical mess.

2. Expensive life-changing drugs are coming to market, and their arability is certain to increase rapidly with AI technology.  Today, there are potentially lifesaving and life altering genetic therapies that are being developed by doctors and scientists, but they are funded privately and access to the drugs are at the cost of millions of dollars per treatment. “60 Minutes” recently chronicled the rapid and remarkable development of life-saving gene therapies that cost millions per dosage. The takeaway from the lengthy report was that benefit plans have no idea how to deal with this and definitely have not established sufficient cost reserves. 

3. Political backlash surrounding medical treatments and coverage. The backlash against DEI programs generally, and certain medical treatments specifically, has led to complexities in the medical treatment offerings for the LGBTQ community.  This is a completely different environment than two years ago. Moreover, the DEI fights have led to massive cuts in medical research grants to American universities. So, now healthcare innovations are being outsourced to financial investment firms or the private credit markets for development on their timetables, not in our universities using grant money.  Again, how do benefit plans forecast healthcare claims over the next 20 years and will there be a backsliding in medical treatment options which, again, promises to increase care costs?

4. Political backlash surrounding the climate and retirement plan investments. States like Florida have required their retirement benefit plans to divest in investments that are marketed to help the environment and to redirect those funds to other investments, including fossil fuels. Florida actually passed a law that prohibits any type of investment that has as an objective the improvement of environment or climate. In our current political state, this may serve as a template for aggrieved plan members who object to similar investments by their own retirement plans and wish to litigate these issues.

5. Your home is now your 401k. In the retirement realm, plan administrators may have to develop rules allowing people to put their homes into their 401(k) plans. This will require harmonizing contribution limits with lending laws and reconciling ERISA’s prohibition on collection activity against a retirement plan with legal documents such as mortgages and home refinancing. 

6. Alternative investments in 401k plans. Also in the retirement plan realm, there is a push to open 401(k) plans to cryptocurrencies, hedge funds, and other alternative investments. The proposed regulation is more than 150 pages, single-spaced, and with all sorts of scenarios that add to the confusion surrounding the rules. 

7. The use of AI in administrative services contract administration for benefit plans. This is a small headache now, which promises to become a migraine soon, if it is not figured out. It is clear that many large insurers are experimenting with AI to cut down on labor costs, but it is unclear whether that complies with ERISA’s fiduciary standard.  AI generated claims management reveals itself when a claim is paid and the Explanation of Benefits forms continue to show the claim as denied. Ultimately, these types of problems find their way back to the company. 

This is a whole lot of change in a relatively short period. Plan designers have to keep up in a fast-changing world and plan administrators have to carefully monitor what is happening across the country. But empathy only goes so far. Not to worry, ERISA litigators will be there, too, watching closely to see how the plans navigate these changes.
––––
John Joseph (J.J.) Conway founder of Michigan-based J.J. Conway Law, is a national employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator representing clients in individual cases and class action lawsuits.

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

By Rabih Hamawi

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO)? 

An EUO is a formal proceeding where the insurance company questions you about your claim while you are under oath. 

Think of it as similar to a deposition—but it happens during the claim's process, not a lawsuit.

What to Expect:

You are placed under oath (sworn to tell the truth).

The insurer’s attorney asks detailed questions.

A court reporter records everything.

Your answers can be used to approve or deny your claim.
 
Why do insurance companies request an EUO? 

Insurance companies request an EUO as part of their investigation process, particularly when a claim involves complex facts or raises questions that require clarification. 

The primary goal is to verify the details of the loss, assess the accuracy and consistency of the policyholder’s statements, obtain information about damages sought, and evaluate overall credibility. In many cases, insurers also use the EUO to gather information that could justify limiting or denying coverage under the policy.

An EUO is more likely to be requested in situations involving large or high-value claims, where the financial exposure is significant. 

It may also be triggered by inconsistencies in prior statements, gaps or missing documentation, or circumstances that the insurer believes warrant closer scrutiny. 

In some cases, even without clear evidence, insurers may suspect potential fraud and use the EUO to explore that possibility. Claims involving business interruption or loss of income are also commonly subject to EUOs, as they often require detailed financial review and supporting documentation.
 
What to do if an EUO is requested after a property insurance claim

Take these steps immediately:

Do not ignore the request.

Timely submit a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss.

Ask what documents are required.

Request clarification on topics to be covered.

Prepare thoroughly before attending.

Consider legal guidance early.

What happens during an EUO?

Understanding the EUO process can help reduce stress and ensure proper preparation. During an EUO, you are placed under oath and questioned by the insurance company’s attorney about your claim, while a court reporter records everything in a transcript.

The questions typically cover the cause of the loss, the specific property that was damaged, your financial situation, and any prior claims history. 

You may also be asked to provide supporting documents, such as receipts, repair estimates, or photos of the damaged property. Preparing in advance and knowing what to expect can help you answer clearly and consistently, protecting your claim from unnecessary challenges or delays.
 
Practical mistakes to avoid during an EUO 

Even small missteps during an Examination Under Oath can put your claim at risk. 

Common mistakes include:

Guessing answers instead of saying “I don’t know.”

Volunteering extra information not asked by the insurer.

Appearing unprepared or without supporting documents.

Being defensive or argumentative during questioning.

Failing to review prior statements before attending.

Attending an EUO without an experienced insurance attorney by your side.

 Avoiding these mistakes helps ensure your testimony is accurate, consistent, and protects your claim from unnecessary challenges.
 
Why you need an attorney for your insurance claim

An EUO can be complicated, and small mistakes can lead to reduced or denied claims. An experienced insurance attorney helps you understand your policy, prepare documents, and answer questions accurately to protect your rights.

Attorney Rabih Hamawi is an experienced insurance-coverage attorney who has successfully handled hundreds of claims and recovered millions for policyholders. The Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133.

I recently had a client send me a document relating to a partnership dispute. The agreement looked fine at first glance and purported to release the client from further liability to the business. It had professional formatting, familiar boilerplate, all the right headings. As I continued reading, the indemnification clause flatly contradicted the limitation of liability two pages later.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton & Tomich PLC

I recently had a client send me a document relating to a partnership dispute. The agreement looked fine at first glance and purported to release the client from further liability to the business. It had professional formatting, familiar boilerplate, all the right headings. As I continued reading, the indemnification clause flatly contradicted the limitation of liability two pages later. The dispute resolution section listed mediation, arbitration, and litigation as concurrent remedies with no sequencing. No governing law provision anywhere. I asked where the contract came from. The answer: ChatGPT.

That story is not unique to my practice. I have been hearing versions of it from colleagues in every area of law. 

These AI-drafted agreements are showing up more often, and they are becoming a real source of business disputes. 

If contract work is not your focus, you may not catch every issue. But knowing what to look for and when to pick up the phone and refer the client, can save them a world of trouble down the road.

Why AI-generated contracts fail

Here is the core problem: these tools predict what a contract should sound like based on patterns. They are not doing legal reasoning. The output reads well and mimics the tone and cadence of professional drafting, but there is no judgment behind it. The tool does not account for your client’s risk tolerance is, what regulations govern the transaction, or how a judge in Wayne County would read a particular clause.

Internal contradictions are the biggest failure I am seeing. The tool will generate competing payment terms or conflicting termination rights in different sections of the same agreement without catching the inconsistency. Missing provisions are just as common. I regularly see agreements with no governing law clause, no definition of material breach, nothing resembling a workable dispute resolution process. Then there is what I call jurisdiction blindness: the tool pulls language rooted in another state or country’s law and drops it into a Michigan contract where it means nothing. And finally, there is the problem of false precision. The language sounds dense and authoritative, but when you slow down and parse it, it does not actually say anything enforceable.

What makes this worse is that the finished product looks good. A business owner sees clean formatting, legal terminology, and section headings and assumes the document is solid. Nobody discovers the problems until the relationship goes sideways and one party tries to enforce the agreement, or the other tries to get out of it.

What to watch for across practice areas

This is not just a business litigation problem, either. These contracts are turning up everywhere: in real estate deals, employment arrangements, vendor agreements, partnership formations. 
A colleague in estate planning told me about an LLC operating agreement a client had generated to hold rental property. No buyout provisions. Nothing addressing member dissociation under Michigan’s LLC Act. The management structure described in the document bore no resemblance to how the parties actually ran the company. I have heard similar stories from real estate attorneys dealing with purchase agreements full of ambiguous contingency language, and from employment lawyers finding independent contractor agreements that describe what any court would recognize as an employment relationship. That is a misclassification lawsuit waiting to happen.

Every one of these situations has the same thing in common. The client asked a tool to do something that requires professional judgment, and the tool delivered a document that looks competent but is not. Worse, by the time you are seeing it, the contract has often been signed and performed on for months.

Getting Ahead of the Problem

If you spot one of these or even suspect you are looking at one, do your client a favor and get them in front of contract counsel before the document becomes a lawsuit. A review on the front end might run a client a few thousand dollars. Litigating an ambiguous or unenforceable agreement on the back end will cost multiples of that, plus the relationship it destroys along the way.

What to Look For

You do not need to be a contract specialist to spot the warning signs. Look for provisions that repeat or contradict each other in different sections of the same document. Check whether there is a governing law or venue clause, and if there is, whether the jurisdiction it names has any connection to the parties. Watch for indemnification language that is so broad it shifts all the risk onto one side without that party seeming to realize it. See if key terms like “material breach,” “confidential information,” or “work product” are actually defined, or just used and never explained. And pay attention to the dispute resolution clause. If it references mediation, arbitration, and litigation all at once without specifying an order or which one controls, that is a problem. Any one of these is a good reason to pick up the phone and connect your client with someone who does this work every day.

These tools are not going away and for certain tasks they can be useful. But drafting a contract that will hold up when things go wrong requires judgment, context, and years of watching deals fall apart. A piece of software does not have that. 

The best thing we can do is help our clients understand the difference before they learn it the hard way. 

And when the document is already on the table, making the right referral might be the most valuable ten minutes you spend on that client all year.

Financial reforms adopted in the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis have not prevented continuing bailouts, Professor Jeffery Zhang points out in a new paper. 

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

Financial reforms adopted in the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis have not prevented continuing bailouts, Professor Jeffery Zhang points out in a new paper. 

Zhang refers to the problem as “the Mike Tyson theory of financial regulation,” after the boxer’s famous saying, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” In this case, the Dodd-Frank reforms that looked good on paper have proven to be “too narrow in design and too daunting in practice,” Zhang writes.

His new paper, forthcoming in the Iowa Law Review, explores the reasons that Dodd-Frank has not performed as hoped and considers an alternative. He recently answered five questions on the issue:

1. How common are bank failures these days?

Individual bank failures happen all the time. As I try to highlight in the paper, this is nothing new. In fact, we have a well-oiled system for dealing with these failures. 

Supervisors are good at coming in and saying, “Hey, time to close up shop.” Then the FDIC comes in and makes sure all the deposits are good. There are no hiccups for individuals and minimal hiccups for the economy.

However, the worry coming out of the global financial crisis was that the system was on fire, not just one individual bank. Moreover, it was these really large banks and other financial institutions that were wobbly. So the idea was that maybe we should do more to prevent that from happening without resorting to bailouts.

2. You discuss two particular provisions in Dodd-Frank designed to prevent taxpayer bailouts. What are they?

Dodd-Frank in general was a response to the ad-hoc bailouts in 2007 and 2008. The whole idea was to improve the safety and soundness of the entire system and of these individual institutions so that we don’t have these ad-hoc bailouts in the future. 

Title I of Dodd-Frank requires the largest institutions to write “living wills”—a plan to resolve a bad situation without asking for government intervention. Title II is a complementary measure that says if Title I proves insufficient, then the FDIC can step in.

In practice, though, these remedies have never been used. It was a worthwhile experiment. I’m all in favor of regulatory experimentation, but if we’ve tried something, after a while we should honestly reassess the weak points and the strong points.

3. What went wrong?

A fear of the unknown. We established these tools, but we’ve never used them. If a house is on fire, and you have no experience with putting out fires, your knee-jerk reaction is to run away. 

You’re not going to use a new tool during a panic. 

That’s where Mike Tyson comes in: Everyone has an elaborate plan for a crisis—but if you don’t practice, you get a little scared. You abandon the plan and fall back on the familiar. In financial crises, that means resorting to more bailouts. 

We saw this in 2023 with the bailouts of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. Regulators spent 12 and a half years creating a regulatory framework to not make the same mistakes again. Then you get the stress test you’re looking for in both the US and in Switzerland, and the plan got thrown out the window. 

If you ever want this resolution framework to be credible in the eyes of the market, to use it successfully, you’ve got to put it into practice somehow. Otherwise, every time a crisis comes up, we’re going to get that knee-jerk reaction.

4. Your paper suggests that part of the solution is to “practice” on smaller institutions?

Yes—institutions that are still large but not massive. If regulators could use the tools on smaller institutions, they could build confidence but also demonstrate that the tools can work. 

Right now, this won’t happen because the thresholds for invoking the tools are so high. We have to lower the thresholds—I’m suggesting institutions of somewhere between $10 billion and $50 billion. Those are big enough to matter, but not “too big to fail.” 

5. So if the threshold was lowered, would that be enough, or do we need further changes?

If we really want to make the system safer, that by itself is not enough. If we can lower the threshold, that at least gets us in the right direction. 

One other change that might help is if we direct the regulators to actually use the tools. 

Congress might have to revise the regulation to make it an automatic process—requiring that unless otherwise determined, you must use the resolution regime. Changing that structure could 
help.

The word “niche” carries several meanings, from describing a small recess in a wall to referring to a specialized segment of the market. The most powerful meaning, however, is the one that speaks to a sense of purpose, being “best fitted” for something. In this sense, a niche is not just a comer carved out but a place where a person’s skills, passions, and values align in a way that feels natural and sustaining.

By Sarah E. Kuchon
Hohauser Kuchon

The word “niche” carries several meanings, from describing a small recess in a wall to referring to a specialized segment of the market. The most powerful meaning, however, is the one that speaks to a sense of purpose, being “best fitted” for something. In this sense, a niche is not just a comer carved out but a place where a person’s skills, passions, and values align in a way that feels natural and sustaining. We often speak of”finding our niche” as if each of us has a single destination waiting to be discovered. However, a life of meaning is not about narrowing toward one fixed point. It is about finding a space that allows us to grow, to give, and to remain true to who we are. Whatever direction we choose, the goal is the same: to bring the best version of ourselves forward and to be “best fitted” for what we take on. 

What It Means to Be “Best Fitted”

Being “best fitted” goes beyond ability. Skills can be learned and refined, but a true niche is about alignment between one’s inner self and outer work. Being “best fitted” is not about landing a perfect job. It is about identifying where what we do is both meaningful to us and valuable to others. It is about making intentional choices about how we spend our time and energy. It is also about aligning our work, commitments, and relationships with our strengths, passions, and values rather than drifting into roles or paths by default. When we are best fitted, we thrive. 

The Cost of Being Misfitted 

Too often, professionals stumble into careers without pausing to ask whether they have found their real fit. They may achieve outward success yet still feel restless or unfulfilled. The cost of being misfitted is subtle but profound. When our work does not align with who we are, it often shows up as restlessness, fatigue, or a nagging sense that something is missing. Success achieved without alignment can feel hollow, leaving us wondering why the milestone we chased did not bring the fulfillment we imagined. Over time, the strain of forcing ourselves into roles that do not fit can erode not only our energy but also our confidence, creativity, and joy.

Discovering Where You Are Best Fitted 

Finding a role, a path, or even a way of living that aligns with our strengths, passions, and values is rarely accidental. It is not a matter of luck or waiting for the perfect opportunity but a process of discovery that unfolds through curiosity, reflection, and experimentation. Often, small, intentional steps are needed to illuminate the path. The following strategies can provide a framework for discovery, turning what might feel like aimless wandering into thoughtful exploration. 

—Reflect on Your Strengths and Passions 

Begin by taking stock of the activities and roles that energize you. Ask yourself: “What do I do well? What comes naturally to me?” These are your strengths. Then ask: “What do I enjoy doing so much that time seems to fly by when doing it? What projects leave me feeling creative and engaged?” These are your passions. The place where your strengths and passions overlap is often the first clue toward a niche that feels authentic and meaningful. 

—Notice Patterns in Feedback 

Next, pay attention to how others respond to your contributions. Colleagues, friends, and clients often notice our gifts before we do. 

Ask yourself: “Which of my skills or qualities are consistently recognized or appreciated?” External perspectives and feedback can shine a light on strengths we might overlook, helping us see where our natural abilities meet the needs of the world around us. 

—Experiment and Explore 

Finding our niche is rarely a one-step decision or a single choice. It is something we discover through trial, reflection, and adjustment. Be willing to step outside your comfort zone and try new roles, projects, or experiences. Each experience gives you data. Ask yourself: “What energizes me? What drains me? What feels aligned? What feels mismatched?” Each experiment is a chance to test and explore what feels aligned and what does not. 

—Align with Values and Market Needs 

A true niche honors our values and meets real needs. You may have passion and skill in an area, but if there is no demand, it will be difficult to build a career around it. On the other hand, working in an area of high demand that does not align with your values will leave you burned out and unfulfilled. The sweet spot lies where authenticity meets opportunity, when your work reflects who you are and contributes something meaningful. To identify your values, start by considering what matters most to you. If the gap between your values and work is too wide, it might be time to seek a new role, organization, or field that offers a better fit. This can feel risky, but long-term fulfillment often requires the courage to step away, explore, and adjust. 

Finding My Niche 

For years, I felt like I was just moving through life. As a personal injury attorney, I had honed my abilities and achieved success, yet something felt incomplete. I wanted to serve my clients in a deeper, more holistic way, one that went beyond the confines of law. In pursuing that purpose, I explored counseling and yoga, developing new skills and discovering unexpected ways to connect with and serve my clients. 

While some thought I was taking a risky or unconventional path, to me it felt like the only one. In following my passions, I began to understand what it truly meant to be “best fitted.” At first glance, being an attorney, a counselor, and a yoga instructor seem like three very different paths, but for me they share deeper, meaningful connections. In essence, all three roles center on service, guidance, and human connection, using specialized knowledge to help people navigate challenges, grow, and find alignment in their lives. What once felt like separate callings have woven together into a life of purpose, where I discovered my niche of serving others with both skill and heart. 

Be Patient with the Process 

The search for a niche is really the search for ourselves. It is less about finding a fixed destination and more about cultivating awareness of where we are best suited to contribute, grow, and thrive. Whether we wander and explore or hone a particular path, the journey itself teaches us who we are and what matters most. In this way, the pursuit of a niche becomes not just a search for alignment but a practice of presence, reflection, and authenticity. 

Through small reflections, experiments, and observations, we can gain a clearer understanding of where we are “best fitted,” thereby finding our niche. 
————————
Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.