u/ShiftGood3066 — reddlx

We're a third of the way into 2026 and I want to know how LinkedIn is holding up for everyone as an actual channel.

A few things I'm seeing on my end:

Organic reach feels noticeably softer than 12 months ago, even on posts that used to bang
DMs land less often (more "Accept" without reply, more silent reads)
The feed is heavier on AI-generated/templated content, which I think is training people to scroll past faster
Sales Navigator searches surface the same overworked ICP everyone else is hitting

What are you seeing on your end?

Is your organic reach up, flat, or down vs. last year?
Are you still getting inbound from posts, or has it shifted to DMs / outbound / events / referrals?
Anyone closed a real deal from LinkedIn in the last 60 days - what was the path (post → DM, comment → DM, cold connect, etc.)?
What format is actually working for you right now. Text posts, carousels, video, newsletters, polls?
If you've moved budget/time off LinkedIn, where did it go and is it working better?

Thanks!

Hey r/legaltech.

Wanted to share something we built and ask for honest feedback from the people who'd actually use i

Wee open-sourced a Claude + Clio MCP connector this week. MCP = Model Context Protocol, Anthropic's standard for connecting Claude to data sources. 15 tools across matters, contacts, documents, tasks, calendar, and billing.

Local-only (stdio transport, nothing leaves the lawyer's machine). MIT license, free. The differentiator: it's the only open-source Clio MCP connector with ABA Opinion 512-aligned audit logging built in. Append-only JSONL log of every Claude interaction with Clio data, kept locally.

Three other open-source Clio MCP options exist; none ship with audit logging.

Install:

npx u/oktopeak/clio-mcp

Plus 3 env vars in your Claude Desktop config. Five minutes if Node and Claude Desktop are already on the machine.

Repo: github.com/oktopeak/clio-mcp

What I'd actually like feedback on:

Is the audit log format useful for an ethics review or state bar audit, or are we missing fields someone with ABA 512 review experience would want?
We kept write scope tight - only create_task and create_note. Conservative enough, or should we add more?
Region handling: built US/EU/CA support via env var. Anyone using Clio outside US who can test EU/CA?
What's the most common Clio integration pain that ISN'T solved by this connector?

Thanks.