Choosing between food and rent
In a conversation today with a client of mine, he presented me with an interesting dilemma. He is a sole practitioner with two associates. They both acknowledged that they were down to 50% capacity.
His dilemma now: What is his best choice?
1. Fire one of the two lawyers
2. Take work from his desk and transfer it to them ... this would give him more time to market the firm or more leisure for himself, but it wouldn't immediately increase the firm revenue
3. Have the two associates begin to focus more on practice development efforts that are within their comfort zone to take up the slack time and hopefully succeed in additional revenue
What are your thoughts? Are there other options you can suggest?
He would like to keep both associates fully occupied. But, if he can't, it's like choosing between food and rent. You need both but can't afford to pay full boat to do so.
Are high student loans equal to unfitness to be a lawyer?
In the case of Robert Bowman, New York judges overruled the Bar's entrance committee. He lacks the requisite character and fitness to be a lawyer, according to the judges, because of his extensive student loans accumulated over 26 years of study. He will not be granted the license to practice law.
Because of a very tough youth and at least two major accidents that required extensive rehabilitation, his education was extended ... and during that time, Mr. Bowman accumulated somewhere between $270,000 and $400,000 in student loans. He admits to not paying any of it back ... yet. He needs a job to do so. He's passed the bar and been deemed to be morally fit and of good character by the entrance committee. Oh, yes, except for the student loans he's not repaid or even paid down. (A side question might be, who made such loans, and why? But, I digress.)
As with a number of our politicians of recent note, I find it both interesting and disturbing when small-minded (yes, I know, this is a moral characterization) people sit in judgment on others on issues of this nature. Mr. Bowman apparently faced incredible physical odds in his life, not of his own making, and overcame them. But, in the process, he needed financial help.
I guess it was just bad timing for Mr. Bowman. Because had he accumulated this debt after he were licensed, and then went into bankruptcy, there would be nothing said about his character fitness. Before today, I had not experienced lawyers going into bankruptcy. Today, that is no longer an uncommon occurrence. In fact, bankruptcy is an approved strategy to avoid debt payment, used by a number of large law firms, including the Heller Ehrmann firm recently ... to avoid payment of the firm's lease obligations ... and therefore protecting the financial interests of their equity partners who might otherwise be exposed to collection efforts. I have difficulty understanding why the lawyers of Heller are morally fit to practice law, owing millions of dollars, and Mr. Bowman is unfit because of a few hundred thousand dollars.
Oh, and how about some of the lawyers in our community who give the profession a bad name by virtue of the way they practice, and the scams they pull on their clients ... and theft from client trust accounts that result in slaps on the hand or temporary suspensions? No, that seems to be o.k., but somehow, Mr. Bowman's case is different.
Perhaps moral integrity and character fitness should be grounds at least every five years for investigating every lawyer who renews his/her license. After all, don't we do that when we renew our driver's license?
Twitter beginning to slide?
Some lawyers are beginning to leave Twitter.
I started with Twitter several months ago and within 48 hours received 2 invitations to speak at conference, one on the West Coast and one in the Northeast. Beyond that, I haven't seen any revenue generated, but I have made connections with folks whom I value. Is it worthwhile? That depends on your metric for success. For revenue, no, not yet. For connections and an avenue for quick conversation, I think so (at least that's my current thinking. And I know a number of folks who swear by Twitter.
The problem with all of this social media is that the human body needs no further inducement to hunch over ... we've tried for so long to stand tall, straight. And being hunched over to look at our portable screen takes us back to our origins ... and takes multi-tasking to an entirely new level of understanding.
What has been your experience?
Are you the manager or the visionary?
I was just getting used to the "Information Age" when I learned about Dan Pink from Stewart Levine, a friend of mine.
Pink says we're moving out of the information age and into the "conceptual age" in which creativity will be supreme.
Wow, sure is tough to stay current. Someone asked me today about widgets. I said I learned about them, along with Blackacre, in law school. But, apparently, widgets has taken on a whole new meaning. :-)
How does this impact the law firm? Well, is the leader of your firm a visionary, one who can see the future for the firm, or a manager, one who implements the firm's policies? It is rare that we find one person embracing both roles.
Legal fees - New proposal prevents retainers
A new proposal, supported by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, appears to make it illegal for a lawyer to charge and accept an advance retainer in matters involving loan modifications. Do you think that, after the work is completed, the lawyer will be able to get the client to pay the fee?
How similar is this to the new San Francisco City ordinance that forces landlords to reduce their rent if a tenant loses his/her employment?
I thought these matters were the government's responsibility or charities? Perhaps lawyers and landlords are being conscripted now as charities.
Proud parent
Today, I'm a super proud parent (though I'm always proud of my kids!)
My daughter received a certification as a WCS (Women's Health Certified Specialist), 1 of only about 50 in the country.
Age discrimination lawsuits will be harder to win
In a decision this week, the US Supreme Court decided to change precedent. And who said "conservative" justices don't make law, are not "activists"? This decision is one of those based on ideological lines.
The Court in a 5-4 decision said that the burden of proving age discrimination lies solely with the plaintiff. In previous cases, the plaintiff merely had to prove that age was a factor ... and then the company had to show that there were legitimate reasons for the termination. How, now, will plaintiffs be able to show that age was the primary factor? Afer all, the plaintiff was not in the room when the decision to terminate him/her was made.
LawBiz® Forum goes live
The Forum, previewed at the ABA TechShow, is now "live." Lawyers are invited to join at no cost and participate with their questions and support for other lawyers. We are creating a community, unique in the legal world.
Call Ed with any questions at 800/837-5880 or edpoll@lawbiz.com.
