The Department of Justice has accused more than one bar association of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.Louisiana and Vermont licensure systems inquired as to the mental health of applicants. Apparently, some of the same questions of which the complaint by DOJ is registered are asked in a standard national Conference of Bar Examiners questionnaire.
The Bar is not qualified to conduct a mental health diagnosis or treatment, according to the DOJ. Past behavior ... conduct ... can be reviewed, but not one's state of mind or status.
I wonder how this analysis will resonate with those who complain that one's competency to act as an attorney can be judged by one's age. Shouldn't conduct be the standard? Aren't you presumed innocent (i.e., competent) until proven otherwise? That would be ageism ... a status I think that is also protected by law.
The IRS lost its appeal to institute competency exams for as many as 700,000 paid tax preparers. The federal court said the IRS lacked the authority to impose the new rules without congressional authorization. While this argument would not likely hold water as concerns additional licensing requirements for lawyers, the arguments used rang a bell.
For example, i) the proposed regulations were onerous; ii) the proposed regulations would have put thousands of mom-and-pop tax preparers out of business. On the other side of the coin, the IRS needed to weed out ill-trained and incompetent tax preparers.
Paid tax preparers fill out 60% of all U.S. tax returns and the government has found significant problems over the years by the work done by this group.
The arguments are all to familiar and can be super-imposed on the legal profession where more than 60% of the practitioners are solo.
The question always is "how good does good have to be?" What would these people do if they couldn't find a tax preparer (substitute attorney) at a price they could afford to pay for work that was substantially correct,even if not perfect?
I would like perfection ... but even the best lawyers from major law schools (in my experience) are not perfect ... are always at a price that most of us can't afford to pay. As one of my mentors has said, don't shoot for perfection; when you're 80% good, go!
Related to this, though by a stretch, I listened to an NPR program in the last couple of days that talked about teenage suicide, a growing epidemic. The psychologists maintain that the stress caused by our current generation seeking perfection, and then realizing they can't reach that goal, is the catalyst for many suicide attempts.
To the IRS and to the Bar: Define "competence" so our professionals can attain the standard and the average American citizen can afford to engage professional assistance.
New rules relating to the issuance of 1099 forms are in place that impact even funds in one's IOLTA account. If you have oversight and management of the funds such as selecting the expert witnesses or investigators in a personal injury matter, you may have sufficient dominance to be required to issue a 1099.
See Priv. Ltr. Rul 97-44-02 (1997) and 91-02-013. See also Rev Rul 93-70, 1993-2 CD 294.
The threshold amount if $600. Beyond that, consider the consequences of filing/not filing. And if you're a co-recipient of a settlement draft with your client where a portion of the draft is for attorney's fees, you will still have to report and/or attach an explanation to your tax return.
Moral of the story: These laws are complex. Consult your tax adviser.
According to the ABA, only 56 percent of nearly 46,000 law school graduates had a job in 2012 requiring bar passage nine months after graduation. And less than 1 in 5 of the legal problems experienced by low-income people are addressed by a private attorney or a legal aid lawyer.
The president of the ABA told the House of Delegates that “‘There are so many examples of real, monumental life issues that could be alleviated with the help of a lawyer...And there is a pool of newly minted lawyers waiting for the chance to help.’”
This is the same problem or challenge that faced the legal profession in 1965 when I became a member. Bar leaders were wringing their hands, then, saying "oh my, oh my, what should we do?" One would think that the brilliance of lawyers, both before and since, could have found a solution to this challenge posed by the laws of economics, supply and demand. Well, the answer is they have.
The ABA president suggested that we should look at programs on the national, state and local levels, citing as examples New York’s legal incubator program aimed at helping new practitioners and South Dakota’s rural practice project, which provides financial incentives to lawyers willing to practice in rural areas. These are not new; examples exist from Coast to Coast. And no new regulations and no involuntary service is required to face and meet the challenges.
But there is no political will to embrace them and expand these options. Perhaps the established Bar is fearful of the results and the impact on the economics of those who have "made it."
In response to my recent question, one of our readers responded by saying “... Listen to them (clients), acknowledge what they have said (“active listening”), make sure you understand their concern/pain, and address it (their concern) effectively (competent representation per the rules of professional conduct)...” Sounds like a formula for success.
Linda Popky, marketing consultant of Leverage2Market, writes her Top of Mind piece this week about a serious marketing blunder, as follows:
“.... (T)he local Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH) store featured a great buy on a tabletop propane heater....There was only one problem. A propane heater naturally requires propane to work. And even though OSH carries small portable propane tanks, they didn't have the ones in the proper configuration to fit the heater. Whoops.
“So making this (purchase) work required an additional trip to ... Home Depot (to get the correct propane tank) ... Driving your customers to visit your competition to complete their product experience with you (is) not the best way to keep the flames of loyalty burning bright.”
As Linda suggests, make it easy to do business with you, not hard. Examples include answering phone calls quickly (as on the first ring) and messages returned promptly (no later than the next day. Being astute in The Business of Law® will create loyal clients.
In the June issue of the ABA Journal, ABA President Laura Bellows talked about the gender pay inequity in the legal profession, comparing today with 50 years ago when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. The difference is 77 cents now vs. 59 cents then. And even today, Ms. Bellows says “(f)emale equity partners in the 200 largest firms ... earn 89% of the compensation of their male peers. Not long ago, one of my clients experienced that very same bias, causing her to leave the large firm and open her own shop. Immediately, her income doubled.
But the President’s Message contained a new perspective for me. She said that unequal pay is a family issue, not just a gender issue, that affects families and retirement capabilities of husband/wife, father/mother and the well-being of everyone in the family. And the competition among colleagues is not of male and female, but of lawyer and lawyer. Gender is no longer a fair differentiation within the firm contest.
I’m becoming more sensitive to this issue as I plan for our LawBiz® Practice Management Institute scheduled for April 4th and 5th, 2014, in Santa Monica, CA. Join me and my co-anchor, Rebecca Torrey, an equity partner and member of the Executive Committee of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, as we focus on management challenges faced by women lawyers in today’s profession.
I wrote recently about the great chasm between lawyer supply and demand for legal services. I suggested that this is an age-old problem only because many lawyers are courting a very small market segment, the large companies of the world. The bulk of the consuming public has less ability to pay but still great need. And the Bar hasn't yet figured out how to incentivize lawyers to serve this need.
But perhaps the real issue is not so much the supply, but rather the lack of service provided by lawyers. The following several instances were reported to me from one who had repeated unpleasant interactions with lawyers. It's a shame that she had more than one such experience, but most people can identify with what happened to her.
"When we needed an immigration attorney," she says, "only one returned our calls of inquiry from the several my husband called locally. When we were looking for a lawyer for wills and other family matters recently, only one was interested in the bread and butter stuff we needed addressed." She continues by making the further observation, "Instead of using a lawyer, we used a 'non-lawyer' for our house sale; she was very efficient." She concludes that "... as consumers, we see the 'lawyer' crisis differently!."
Lawyers get a bad rap deservedly in too many instances!
Years ago, I wrote that new lawyers preferred to work for law firms that invested in their training so that they could become better lawyers. Nah, the response was: They want the money. I responded that when you get $100,000 plus as a newly minted lawyer, the money is good, but secondary. And, of course, today just having a job is sufficient. We won't even talk about the money, even for the top graduates.
A USA Today Snapshot tells us that 61% of those asked prefer managers who invest in the professional development ... improved skills is the ladder to improvement, success and higher status in the firm.
My own daughter, in a different field, accepted a position with an organization offering $10,000 less to start. Why? Because of the prestige and teaching skills of that operation. Today, she is at the top of her field as a result. Attitudes haven't changed that much among today's young.
The Wall Street Journal carried a column on November 11, 2013, “Big Law Mergers Questioned," that contained two blinding glimpses of the obvious – one explicit, one implicit. The explicit one was straightforward, yet seemed to elude the understanding of the writer: that in pursuing mergers to create ever-bigger organizations, law firms are simply following the paths of their clients. We saw this in the 1930s and 1940s and later when unions became larger in order to do battle with management. Today law firms are combining in order to be more respected, better received, and perceived as players in the corporate world. Small law firms supposedly can’t play in the same ballpark as a very large customer (corporate America).
Does merging law firms to make them bigger actually make them better? The answer is “yes” only when the parties have thought through what they want to accomplish and what synergies exist between them. One has to be old enough to recall that corporate America once thought that “bigger was better” when viewing itself. Then these conglomerates seemed to collapse of their own weight. The phrase, “getting back to core competencies,” became the watchword and large enterprises began breaking up into smaller units.
That’s where we get the second “blinding glimpse” – the smallest unit in a law firm is the lawyer. And corporate client after corporate client in the Journal article said that the individual lawyer is most important to them. “We hire lawyers, not law firms,” the GC of Hewlett Packard said flatly. There is some disagreement over this assertion.
Theoretically teams institutionalize the work done for a given client as they involve other firm lawyers in the delivery of legal services, even if one lawyer remains the client’s primary contact. But in a megafirm of thousands of lawyers, team members are interchangeable.
When you have a problem with your car, do you contact GM or Toyota headquarters, or the friendly mechanic at your neighborhood garage? Even neighborhood garages grow, but their size is infinitesimal compared to GM or Toyota. There is a limit to "bigger is better" beyond which "core competencies" begin to falter. Firms are kidding themselves if they think bigger by itself makes them better. And clients, often wanting to be close to the center of the law firm, will still engage a smaller, but yet large (regional) law firm.
For the 2013 academic year, law school admissions were headed for a 30-year low, a decline driven by student worries about rising tuition, debt load and unemployment after graduation. Potential law students increasingly understand that today it is a fool’s gamble to spend many thousands of dollars in the hope of getting a well-paying job at the end of three years, and as they pursue other careers the legal profession will shrink.
Demographics present another way to reduce the supply of lawyers. There are more than 1.2 million lawyers in the United States, at least half of them sole practitioners and some 400,000 poised to retire by the year 2020. To suggest that this latter group should be treated differently from any other group in the organized bar would create allegations of ageism and prohibited discrimination. However, a metric that is applicable to all lawyers, such as “competence in professional skills,” is safer ground. Of course, if this metric also achieves the basic goal of reducing the number of lawyers, by implying that older lawyers are less competent to serve clients, so much the better.
The problem with this metric is that it is never applied uniformly. If we look at new lawyers, those who have been admitted to practice for three years or less, there will undoubtedly be many who are not “competent,” despite the fact that they have passed the bar exam. What is the competence metric for “older” lawyers? Do they have to pass another bar exam? If yes why should age be the factor that determines whether they have to take a new examination? If not, what might it be? There is no examination at anywhere in the time spectrum of a lawyer’s career that requires such an examination.
It is the rare lawyer who has not thought at some point, “My opponent is not very good.” Often this is another way of saying, “My opponent doesn’t seem very competent.” This is impressionistic only, but to be valid it must be applied throughout the entire career life cycle.
It is not accurate to automatically assume that older lawyers are more careless, have too many distractions and make too many errors leading to discipline. Young lawyers are closer to the teaching of the rules of professional conduct than are the older lawyers. But, that does not assure that all younger lawyers are competent to offer the advice they're asked for ... and, with MCLE, older lawyers generally keep their skills up. Regardless of lawyers’ ages, the majority of the complaints against the profession relate to careless dealings with clients... Age is not a determining factor in such a scenario.
Should the merger take place between Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and Pillbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, there will be a reordering of the top U.S. law firms. The BCS rankings reorder every week after the Saturday college football results are known. So, too, do the BigLaw rankings change every time there is a major merger.
Will this merger succeed where others have failed? Quite possibly. The positives are that both are West Coast based. That means their cultures are more closely aligned than if they had routes on opposite parts of the country. And, I suspect that the top management of both firms, each of which are very capable, understand that integration of the two firms is essential to their success ... and thus more likely to pay attention to this process. And, from a marketing perspective, the new firm will have a dominant position in Silicon Valley, a major source of future revenue.
But there are still risks. Power struggles and cultural clashes are not unknown for combining large organizations. Aligning their compensation systems, always a key element, may or may not present a hurdle. Even if they succeed, there are likely to be some break-offs or departures of significance. Despite “advanced merger talks,” the deal is not done until done ... Much can happen between now and then.
When I was in my undergraduate studies, I realized that there were two types of learning. There were those who were naturally brilliant and could play during the semester, “cramming” or studying only before exams; they did quite well. Then, there were those of us who required continuous study throughout the year in addition to focused study at the end, before exams. I used to call the latter type of learning “seat power.” They, likewise, did quite well; they just required more effort.
Daniel Goleman (author of the best-selling Emotional Intelligence) has written a new book entitled Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence. Goleman’s “focus” is the equivalent of my “seat power.” In other words, when you remain in your seat, focused on the task in front of you, you are more likely to succeed in accomplishing that particular goal or task then you would otherwise be.
His premise is that our ability to block out the massive digital distractions is reduced by the “cognitive exhaustion” those distractions cause. Now I know why I am fatigued when I all-too- frequently review the hundreds of email (most of which have to be deleted) that enter into my system on a daily basis.
In other words, we must focus our energies, ignore the many digital images that distract us, and complete one task at a time. This reminds me of an earlier blog post I wrote concerning multitasking. The reality is that we cannot multitask although we do many things sequentially. When we allow ourselves to “multitask” (or think we are), we are allowing ourselves to be digitally distracted and cognitively exhausted.
It is my intent to focus more specifically on the tasks at hand, in line with my priorities list, without so much reference to email and other digital distractions; by taking greater control of myself, I look forward to accomplishing more – being more successful – with less fatigue.
Most people will agree that there are too many lawyers, an oversupply. (Parenthetically, I disagree; it seems to me that there is a dislocation between the supply and the demand for legal services, a situation that the organized bar has never been able to reconcile with successfully.) But I digress.
Assuming, for the moment, that there is an oversupply of lawyers, why should we care? Would that not mean the fees for legal services would come down? Would it not be best to let the marketplace handle supply and demand?
But, If the Bar wants to reign in the supply, how could they? Of course, get rid of some of the lawyers. (Making admission to the organized bar is another way, longer term. Economics seem to be handling this quite nicely, thank you. Law school admissions are down by 10 to 15%. Applications hit a 30 year low. Potential law students understand that spending many thousands of dollars to take the gamble that they will not be able to get a well-paying job at the end of three years is a fool’s gamble.)
Economics, once again, helps us answer the question of how to reduce the supply. There are more than 1 million lawyers in the United States. Of this group, it has been estimated that at least one half of this group are sole practitioners. Another statistic suggests that at least 400,000 lawyers will retire by the year 2020.
If we look at this latter group, and suggest that we treat it any differently than any other group in the organized bar, we would be accused of ageism, and prohibited discrimination. However, if we come up with a metric that is applicable to all lawyers, such as “competence,” then we are safe. Of course, if this metric also achieves our basic goal of reducing the number of lawyers available to serve clients, so much the better.
But, this metric is never applied uniformly. If we look at new lawyers, those who have been admitted to practice for three years or less, I am sure we will find many who are not “competent,” despite the fact that they have passed the bar exam. How many times have "mature" lawyers said, mostly to themselves, that they were happy that they were not the client "back then," that they didn't know enough to be really competent to handle the matter they did .... that they learned "on the job."
What is the metric for “older” lawyers? Do they have to pass another bar exam? If yes why should age be the factor that determines whether they have to take a new examination? If not, what might it be? Nowhere in the time spectrum of a lawyer’s career is there a requirement for such an examination.
How many times have you, as an adversary, said to yourself my opponent is not very good? In fact, how many times have you said my opponent is not “competent?” Until the appropriate metric can be accepted and applied throughout the entire career life cycle, it seems to this writer that the real focus should be on meeting the needs of our clients who are not served or who are under-served, making sure that all lawyers, young and old alike, are “competent” and move away from even the appearance of ageism.
In a recent article, the writer describes a twist in medical fees. A specialist, in this case a cardiologist, is charging a premium retainer fee for accessibility. That’s access, not treatment! The levels of service created by the cardiologist are $7,500 per year for “concierge” service, $1,800 for “premier” status, and $500 for “select” status. The differences among the levels range from priority to get an appointment to 24/7 access by phone or email. Medicare or private insurance still pays (or doesn’t) for the actual service. But this doctor says that Medicare reduces his billing rate and this is a way to earn the money he can and wants. This is brutally frank. But, as in other areas, economics control.
I had never thought of digital assets being inherited! Wow, what an oversight. Clearly, digital property is an asset and can be passed on to the next generation. Have you thought about the goodwill represented by your Twitter account, your blog, you website and all the other digital assets you create? If not, you should because but for an affirmative act on your part, the rights to that property may be lost.
Most lawyers will pooh-pooh the idea that their electronic/digital property is worth anything ... they said this about the value of their law practice also. Many lawyers are beginning to adjust their thinking, recognizing that law practice goodwill has value ... and together, this property could be worth tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars. Why should this value evaporate? Take care and plan not only your estate but also the estate of your law practice, including digital assets!
MyCase legal practice management software has announced an integration with the popular accounting software QuickBooks. This is an important integration, as it allows law firms to have full synchronicity between their practice management and accounting software systems. The integration comes at no additional cost to MyCase customers. For at least 15 years, I have been preaching "integration" to technology / software developers. This is a major step forward on that path. Check this out for your office.
On Thursday, August 22, the NASDAQ, one of the largest financial exchanges in the world, failed. It had no backup, and was down for more than three hours. The financial impact had to be in the billions of dollars.
Even as big as NASDAQ is, even though they have a pivotal role in the global economy, they failed to have a plan for disaster recovery. How and why they recovered is still, at this writing, a mystery. The fact that they did recover is remarkable. Even more remarkable is the fact that it has happened to them before. According to an article in The New York Times, the exchange has been shut down twice before when squirrels chewed through power lines, and as recently as 2011 hackers breached its computer system.
If it happened to NASDAQ, it can happen to your law firm. As I’ve written many times before, “disaster” for a law firm is not a question of if, but rather of when. The only unknowns are what the type of disaster, when it will occur and how bad it will be. NASDAQ was out of commission for three hours. A burst water pipe, a fire, a natural disaster, a computer meltdown could put a law firm out of commission for three weeks, or three months.
NASDAQ had no backup. How about your firm? The issue isn’t just backing up data files, although that is important. Do you have disaster recovery backups like these?
· An internal emergency communication system for lawyers, staff, clients, vendors, and the court, incorporating recorded hotline messages and out of area contact points.
· A plan for temporary office space that will accommodate furnishings, computers and phones.
· A referral arrangement with another firm that will allow you to carry on key practice matters by requesting a continuance or rescheduling a deposition.
· A solid relationship with your banker so you can get an emergency loan.
· An employee assistance fund to help tide staff over in the event there are no ready funds to pay them.
If you don’t, start planning to put them in place now. If disaster happened to NASDAQ, it can happen to you.
Some law firms are late to the starting gate. Some firms continue to hang on to the "old ways" of running their practice. There are only a few alternative paths: Hang on with the old and wait for the world to catch up, or change as the world changes, making the tough decisions on a current basis.
In recent days, there have been several articles about large law firms cutting equity partners and staff in order to bring their financial affairs into focus. The reality is that they have found that the "eat what you kill" mentality works only so long before dissension and dissatisfaction sets in amongst the rank and file. Becoming more collaborative, cross selling the expertise of the firm and its individual members can create greater firm revenue. And paraphrasing former Pres. Kennedy, as the ocean rises, so do all the ships in the ocean.
In addition, the firms must identify their strengths and play to them. There are very few organizations that can be "all things to all people." With limited resources available, it is important to husband those resources and expend them in a focused manner for greatest benefit to the firm and its clients. Knowing who you are and what you want to be is essential to one's success.
The catalyst to change is often money. With a cushion from past successes, there is little motive to change. When a cushion narrows or evaporates entirely, and when collections become an issue because clients with their own financial problems fail to pay your legal billings, motivation to review your operations and make appropriate changes rises to the surface.
Visiting ALM LegalTech conference today was eye popping in both its simplicity and complexity.
First, the simple: D. Casey Flaherty, corporate counsel at Kia Motors America, suggests that law firms don't need more software. They need to use their existing software more efficiently and effectively. What a concept. Reminds me of the scientists' suggesting that humans use only 10% or less of our mental capacity.
The difference between the two concepts is that inefficient use of existing technology increases the legal spend for clients. And only Corporate America can do what Mr. Flaherty did: subject his outside counsel to economic consequences when they are guilty. He recently reduced a law firm’s billing to Kia Motors by 40 hours because he detected they didn’t know how to use Word to print to a .pdf file and eliminate the scanning process which would have reduced associates time on his matters by the 40 hours. Multiply this scenario many times and you are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer billing. More on that in a later post.
Next, the complex: Owen Byrd of Lex Machina discussed the concept of Moneyball for Lawyers. He says that “Moneyball” applies data (any collection of facts) to analytics in order to understand trends and patterns that emerge from that data. This supplements legal research and reasoning with predictive analytics. This approach can help predict a party's behavior, likely outcome of a lawsuit and the results from a specific legal strategy or argument. The concept, emanating from Stanford studies, can be viewed merely as a new research tool. If so, it's rather expensive. It can also be viewed as a marketing tool by helping you refine your pitches for new legal work to prospective clients. In this case, the cost is insignificant when you attain one or more new clients. This is the future of the legal profession. Currently, Lex Machina and its approach can be utilized only by the larger organizations with big money at stake. But, the handwriting is on the wall.
Most important, these two divergent approaches to technology demonstrate the need to be proficient with current technology in order to satisfy rule 1.1 (definition of competence) and to run scared about the future if you fail to pay attention to the changes coming in the future. The bottom line is to serve clients well. Your awareness and proficiency with technology addresses that goal…and may provide a competitive advantage to some.
The following note is prompted by the comments of Susan Cartier Liebel of Solo Practice University® and her post about Kimberly, a young mother who just gave birth to her third child and was a 3L law student at Stetson. She became ill but failed to go to a doctor to address her own health. She was busy with her family and "stuff."
This is for all of you out there whether lawyer or law student, mother or father, who puts
themselves last. You put off going to the doctor for that chronic cough while you rush your child to the pediatrician for a hang nail. You eat your cold dinner out of a jar standing up and talking on the phone while you make sure your child’s meal is hot and she’s seated lest she choke on her food. You do so because ‘you can handle it’. Well, here’s the truth. You can’t.
You can’t care for your kids or your spouse if you break down physically. You can’t care for your clients if you don’t take time to reinvigorate and refresh. Remember the airline admonition: Put your air mask on first and then help your child and others around you. None of us are superhuman or immortal. There is nothing more important than your health, no final, no brief, no exam, no trial, no event. Remember this the next time you get no sleep or ignore that persistent cough or inexplicable pain in your side because ‘you don’t have time’ to slow down. Remember you can break down, too. No machine and certainly no human can work without stop and without repair from time to time.
MyCase features my guest blog post suggesting that there is plenty of work for those lawyers willing to be realistic both in the nature of the clients they serve and the fees they charge.
While you're at their web site, check out their software. It has been reviewed by many and is well - regarded.
There are at least two components of legal costs: Fees and expenses. When one is clearly out of line, the other is perceived to be out of line. Perception is reality.
Much has been written about the $1,000 per hour legal fee. It's out of line, too high, much too expensive, etc. But the writers fail to assess the competitive market for those services and whether those services have some very special expertise connected with the fee that justifies the fee. If, for example, you're in a "bet the company" situation, you want the best lawyer you can get. If you're in a criminal trial as was OJ Simpson, you want a particular lawyer and team of lawyers. You will pay the asking price.
If you're facing a normal contract dispute, one might consider this a commodity type of legal battle, one not requiring the best lawyer in the state; a good lawyer will suffice and the cost of his/her services will be adjusted downward accordingly. Some call this commodity pricing.
If you're a very large bankrupt company, you need specialized professional expertise. According to Bankruptcy Court filings (attorney fees need to be approved by the judge), many lawyers in this arena are receiving $1,000 per hour. Nothing out of the ordinary here.... this is reality.
However, when these same filings show application for expense reimbursements that are out of the ordinary, then questions arise. For example, why should the bankrupt estate pay for first class airfare, for normal photocopying charges, for faxes, for overnight hotel stays at the Waldorf-Astoria, etc.? Many such expenses are considered part of a firm's normal overhead; many such expenses can be lowered by conducting oneself in the "normal course of business," such as charging for coach airfare (not first class or business fare), hotel charges (at a Marriott, etc. rather than the Waldorf).
Any "over" charges should be at the lawyer's expense not the expense of the estate. After all, isn't that why the lawyer is receiving the larger per hour fees? It's when the lawyer begins to "nickel and dime" the client or take advantage by charging more than "ordinary" expenses, the perception of over-billing extends over to the fee itself. When asked, I usually advise my clients to reduce the expense charges and their fee charges will not be questioned. It's usually the $5.05 charge that brings the whole bill into question, not the other way around.
This issue has arisen in a number of conversations with clients.
Why would you engage a contract lawyer? For one of several reasons: (i) even out the work flow; ii) engage expertise you don’t possess at the moment; (iii) gain time to observe the quality of work of a potential hire; and (iv) determine if you have enough work in the long term to hire a permanent employee.
Once you hire a contract lawyer, whether for a designated number of hours or a specific project, do you know whether that lawyer is covered under your errors and omissions insurance policy? Often, policies are written to include all the attorneys you hire after your policy commencement date up to the end of that policy term period. Then, your premium is based for the following year on the higher number of lawyers now on staff.
But, the question remains, are you covered for what is, in essence, a part-time employee. Check with your broker; read your policy. Make sure you know the answer. Many lawyers require that their contract lawyers specifically name them on their policies with an endorsement. Of course, remember that most policies are claims-made policies, not occurrence policies. So, your policy must be written in such a way as to cover negligence asserted in the current period though the alleged negligence was committed by your contract lawyer in an earlier period and is no longer present. Ask. Be sure.
Most of us can notice when something “isn’t right” with our bodies, and we often are quick to jump to a conclusion about the cause. Yet what we perceive to be the problem, and the reality behind it, may be much different.
A urologist recently shared an example with me, saying that many people come to him to “fix the problem” of an over-active bladder at night. They typically attribute it to a “plumbing” issue that a pill or even surgery can cure. Yet this doctor suggested that, as people age, they sleep less and they’re likely to be awakened more easily by sounds that didn’t disturb them in earlier years – a dog barking, the house creaking. Once they’re awake, they decide to honor the bladder urge so they can go back to sleep. The perception is that there is a physical medical problem. The real cause is the natural aging process and the best “cure” is to accept it.
Transfer this lesson to a law practice. Most lawyers are quick to perceive a problem when there is less money coming in the door. They immediately jump to a conclusion about “the cure” – do more marketing, or raise rates. The reality is that declining revenue typically began long before as a problem with receivables. Generating new work to cover declining revenue simply isn’t the answer. The strategy is to make sure clients know they must pay their bills within 30 days. And the way to do that is specify clear collection terms in the engagement agreement. Lawyers perceive every client as valuable and hate to cut them loose; the reality is that continuing to do work for overdue clients who don’t pay shows those clients are not worth keeping.
A new study by George Washington Law School showed that realization rates (the amount of money billed that is collected) average 83.6 percent for all law firms, a figure that is a historic low. If you perceive your revenue is down, and the reality is that you only collect 80 cents on the dollar, you’re like the urologist’s patients – you won’t get many good nights of sleep.
“I’m so overwhelmed, I just don’t have time to take care of myself.” Those were the first and last words of a very short conversation I had recently with an obviously harried lawyer. Do you feel the same way? Are you in the same position? See our newsletter for suggestions on how to address this feeling.
Virtual veterinarian faces a legal test in Texas. He moved his practice online and talked to distressed pet owners by email and telephone. He charged a flat fee, generally, and recommended treatment options. The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners suspended his license for violating the state law that prevents veterinarians from setting up a medical relationship solely by telephone or electronic means.
The AVMA claims that it is protecting the public's interest. The vet claims that the regulation is intended to protect the brick-and-mortar veterinarian practices.
Does this sound familiar? Every Bar regulation that I've ever reviewed (or testified against) has been sustained on the basis of protecting the public. Where are the interests of the membership, the very professionals who pay dues to keep staff employed? These interests seem to be relegated to the back of the bus, if not ignored completely. In the legal community, this "ship" has sailed. I don't think anyone would claim that a "virtual" law practice is illegal. It will be interesting to see how the Texas court rules in this matter.
Are contract lawyers an expense or a fee item? This issue has been litigated before and, according to my reading, has been resolved in favor of the law firm. The law firm is entitled to engage contract or temporary lawyers for one price and charge the client a higher price. One rationale for this is that the firm can engage lawyers on a short term basis, without a long term commitment, to provide the work for the client that is necessary. When that job or assignment is completed, the law firm can sever the tie with the contract lawyer and retain a lower overhead. Everyone benefits: the lawyer who otherwise would not have been employed; the law firm that can take on additional work and its resulting benefits; and the client whose goals can be met more efficiently and timely.
The issue usually arises from a complaint by an insurance carrier who is responsible for payment of legal fees under a policy of insurance or a creditors’ committee that wants a larger share of available funds and finds the law firm(s) an easy target. Currently, the Citigroup class action legal fees are being challenged by a group called the Center for Class Action Fairness.
The allegations in this case go beyond the assertion that a law firm cannot charge more than it pays for legal talent. If this were the only issue, the challengers would have no standing; this issue has been resolved and it would be a major reversal of thought for the court to rule otherwise. But, the real issues are whether the engagement agreement mentioned anything about contract lawyers and, if so, what were the terms; what risk did the law firm accept when its fee was based on a contingency (was this a novel area of law or one in which plaintiffs had not been successful before); what was the expertise needed in the matter for which contract lawyers were engaged, and what was the expertise actually engaged; and were the fees charged “reasonable” under all the circumstances.
In this case, the total fees amount to less than 17% of the class action settlement. The court will have to decide whether this was a reasonable fee overall and/or whether each component of the fee requested reasonable. The added risk for any law firm taking on this type of case is that its fee is always reviewed on Monday morning ... the Monday morning quarterback always has a better perspective than does the game-day quarterback. While the large company client can protect itself by hiring the contract lawyers directly, though they could then hardly expect the law firm to oversee that portion of the work product. The client can further protect itself by objecting to paying the legal fee and litigating the fee. But, how does a law firm protect itself against the client (usually someone else speaking in the shoes of the client) so as to avoid an after-the-fact conflict?
In a recent case, the 7th Circuit appellate court said that the law firm failed to comply with its contractual notice requirement to the carrier. The law firm was required, as is true in most such contracts, to notify the carrier of a possible claim of negligence. The law firm said that notifying the carrier of every possible claim would delve it into minutiae and was unreasonable. The Court said the facts of this case suggest that any reasonable attorney should have known that a claim was likely ... and therefore the firm owed a duty to the carrier to notify the carrier.
If you take the time and expend the funds to purchase insurance, you must review your contractual obligations of notice ... otherwise you're wasting your money and leaving yourself exposed to massive claims.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, the writer suggests that high priced lawyers are for sale, that is, that clients are pushing back and demanding lower fees irrespective of the stated hourly rates of their lawyers. The reporter’s perspective is skewed only to the larger law firms, “Big Law.” Small firm and sole practitioners have always walked this tight rope between client acceptance and lawyers’ fees, but this doesn’t make news.
The battle between lawyer as vendor and client as purchaser has always existed. The “battle” or adversarial conflict just never received so much publicity as it does now ... And yes, some clients have become bolder as a result of the recent Depression (aka Great Recession).
Also, however, some lawyers will raise their purported rates knowing the financial officer of the corporate client will demand a discount. This way, the law firm receives the engagement, the General Counsel gets served and can protect the rights of the company, and the finance officer can assert he/she saved money for the company. A nice game.
A lawyer who was interviewed for the article suggests the real issue for all concerned: The client must believe he/she/it is receiving value for the fee paid. In other words, it’s the total cost of the legal service, not the rate per hour, that is significant. With more clients and attorneys beginning to speak this language, the real issue is coming into focus.
Customer service is appreciated whenever it occurs. My wife and I (and I dare not forget Bandit) are spending a few days in Tucson, AZ at the Lazydays RV Park. Gathered with us are close to 100 other Airstream rigs, from trailers, to motorhomes ... from new to vintage as is ours. The amenities are outstanding and, as usual, it is the people that make an experience memorable. They go out of their way to be friendly and accommodating. Their brochure says that all their employees take weekly service instruction. Can you identify a law firm that has done that?
Once again, the issue of large law firm partners being terminated by their firms arises. In today’s Wall Street Journal, the moral of the story is that lawyers must contribute to the well-being of their firm. If they don’t, they will be terminated irrespective of whether they are a partner (equity interest) or an associate (employee). In other words, they must adhere to the formula of The Business of Law® ... P = R - E, the basic formula of all business. Or said another way, lawyers are now beginning to realize the practice of law is a business, just as every other service profession (and manufacturing and distribution) is. And, the line between partner and employee is becoming narrower each day.
In a recent article in the New York Times, the reporter focused on the proper issue ... the productivity of the lawyer. Age is irrelevant. There are 80-somethings who are contributing to the “bottom line” of the firm and there are 20- and 30- somethings who are not. Those who do not contribute to the bottom line can be sustained in the firm for only so long before their weight begins to cause the firm to collapse. That is one of the primary reasons for the failure of many large firms in the recent past ... the failure to address management decisions that impact the operation of the firm in a business-like manner.
Being a partner is no longer the key to the magic kingdom. Partnership agreements are written in such a way that a partner can be terminated from his/her equity position without much difficulty. “What have you done for me lately?” is not an idle phrase in the world of law firms. Just as every employee in every firm/company must contribute to the well-being of the organization. It’s for this reason that lawyers are concerned about maintaining strong client relationships and not willing to share their client information with others in the firm. Cross selling is a concept that is yet to be fully embraced because of this phenomenon.
Ways in which a lawyer can contribute to the bottom line and well-being of the law firm are contained in the formula: Increase the revenue of the firm (collected billings) or decrease the expenses of your efforts relative to the revenue you bring in. In other words, if you can produce client revenue that will keep other lawyers busy, if you bill a significant number of hours (or related value billing efforts) above the average, or if you have a key client relation that is significant for the firm, you will be viewed as an asset of the firm. If your collections decline, if your time expended doing client work declines or if you utilize a disproportionate share of the firm’s resources, then you will be a drag on the performance of the firm and, at some point, terminated.
If anything is different as a result of the Great Recession for law firms, it's the realization that P = R - E, and law firms are governed by this formula as is everyone in the commercial world.
In a recent USA Today article, texting and music listening while driving and walking are leading to an increase in the death of pedestrians. People are still talking on the phone and texting while driving, despite the statistics that prove it can be deadly and despite it being against the law.
But now, we have new statistics that show the same result -- injury and death -- arises from just walking and texting or listening to music and being in "another zone." All of which confirms that multi-tasking is a misnomer. We can do one thing at a time, not many different things at the same time.
Those who reach the pinnacle of success are able to do many things ... but focus on one thing at a time. There just ain't no such thing as multi-tasking.
Life After Law, What Will You Do For the Next 6000 Days? My soon- to-be-released book is a guide to why aging baby boomer lawyers should be planning for their next career. The ABA has concluded that 400,000 lawyers will retire in the next 10 years. That is equivalent to the entire membership of the ABA, the largest volunteer organization in the world!
According to a different report, without reference to law, 10,000 people retire daily!
Look for a dramatic change in our culture as we seek to learn how to live longer, productive lives in different careers. Of course, the economy will also change as older folks become the dominant consumers in this country.
At the end of the day, the value of our law practice is based on our success and the many people we have touched over the years. This is a significant legacy we will leave on retiring from the practice.
Most lawyers all around the country with whom I've spoken don't understand this and can't comprehend even the possibility that their many years of effort may actually have produced a monetizeable value of some significance. This value can enhance their retirement. It is a challenge to overcome such deep-seeded beliefs among many Baby-Boomers as they get ready to move on to their second season. This is the difference between personal goodwill and organizational goodwill. There is more of the latter than most people believe.
My conversations have convinced me that the most feared word in the English language is “retirement.” That may contribute to the refusal to consider an alternative to closing the office; we will maintain our office and work until our last breath. It is possible, however, to do both! The sale or merger of your law practice, rather than the closing of the office, should be an alternative that is kept open for your consideration.
In an earlier blog post, I talked about creating a digital estate plan. A family law attorney speaks of preserving what you already have posted in social media. She suggests that taking down what you have posted in advance of litigation, family law or otherwise, may be the destruction of evidence and a crime!
There is more to the internet than most of us ever imagined. Walk (or type) carefully. The life you preserve may be your own.
I’ve talked about a lawyer having an estate plan. I’ve talked about creating an estate plan for your law practice; this is an idea first generated by Ellen Peck, retired judge of the California State Bar Trial Court. Now, there is another estate plan to prepare: Digital.
What are you going to do with all your passwords, all your email accounts, all your accounts in social media and all your other accounts that reside in the internet?
Your virtual life doesn’t end just because you die. And in some arenas, the material you have on the internet cannot be removed or taken down. You may even have money residing in some of the internet residences such as PayPal, on-line gambling accounts, etc. Be sure to appoint or designate someone to be responsible for dealing with these issues. Be sure to write down all the accounts and passwords. And be sure to contact such companies as LinkedIn, Facebook, Google, etc. to comply with their policies.
There is little or no case law to date about planning for digital assets after death, and certainly no precedent of which I’m aware on this. But, for just that reason, it’s time to think about these issues.
Yesterday, I watched the Richard Gere film, Aribtrage. The film portrays a successful billionaire's moral decline as he attempts to save his failing company from his poor decisions. He "cooks" the company books by borrowing money that is not shown on the books as such in order to keep up appearances in order to complete a sale of the company, falsifies investors reports and otherwise plays "loose" with the truth. This is a man in trouble, but Gere continues to exude confidence in order to reach his goal.
Coincidentally, in today's Wall Street Journal, reporters once again discuss the Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP demise. Prosecutors are still questioning whether there was deception about the financial condition of the firm in the last few months. Were partners told the truth, were they given accurate financial reports, and were the firm obligations to pay down outstanding debt on behalf of terminated partners honored? And, were the transgressions that did occur a matter of a struggling business doing what it could to survive or a matter of criminal and/or civil fraud?
As a matter of "black letter law," it's clear that management (managing partner and management committee members) owe a fiduciary duty to others -- investors, lenders and partners. Did they breach this duty? How close to Arbitrage did the leaders of Dewey come?
Electronic and computer technology enable lawyers to do more and better work in less time, but this creates a new service dynamic where clients continually demand to pay less for what they increasingly see as a commoditized service.
Law firms must meet client needs through greater technology efficiencies. Not only does this seem obvious, it is an element necessary to maintain competence as required by the rules of professional conduct.
More efficient law firms that reduce client legal costs should gain new business that enhances revenue. However, the ability to increase billings while becoming more efficient depends on changing the billing system to embrace alternative fee arrangements. With greater reliance on contingent, fixed, capped or value fees where time is not the relevant issue to determine the fee; service to the client is the key metric of value to the client, not billable hours.
Ed speaks about positive and negative changes that affect the way lawyers practice law.
Are you billing appropriately? This week, Ed will offer handy tips that will help you collect what you billed to make sure that you're getting paid.
It's no secret - lawyers butt heads. But, when it happens, do you keep your clients' best interests in mind, or do you seek dominance instead?
Getting paid by the hour stresses us, according to Frank Partnoy. He says that "(i)nnovation doesn't occur in a year or a quarter---and certainly not an hour. So why measure work in too-brief increments?"
This is a novel rationale for moving toward the fixed or flat fee billing concept and away from hourly billing. During the 25 years of my law practice, I remember how stressed I was, always seeking to make sure that I had accounted for my time ... and correctly billing my clients. During the last 23 years of coaching and consulting .... and only flat/fixed fee billing, I'm focused on my clients' condition and how I can improve it, not on how much time it takes me to do so. As Partnoy says, "Clocks and calendars are not going to change -- so it is up to us to try to get off the clock, especially when we find ourselves watching it." (See Parnoy's "Wait: The Art and Science of Delay.")
Verizon - Redux: The power of blogging is apparent when Verizon calls me the day after my original post in this column about their service, or lack thereof, to ask how they can address the problems I raised. I glad to say that the issues I raised have been resolved. The process, however, is fascinating to me.
The day after my post, I attended a conference conducted by my own business coach, Alan Weiss. While there, coincidentally, Verizon Fios was conducting a sales training program. I talked to one of the folks running the program, who then introduced me to a district manager. He knows the store manager where my incident occurred and said he would contact him. (I have still not heard from him.) Also, during the day, another higher up attempted to reach me by phone. On my return later in the day, I returned the call ... and we finally connected.
The billing issue that arose after my purchases was resolved to my satisfaction, and I learned more about Verizon. One,I was told they outsource their collection issues rather than first seeking to resolve any questions internally. To my way of thinking, this is a mistake because most billing issues result from the actions of the creditor. And, in the case of lawyers, unresolved billing issues could result in a malpractice action. Wouldn't it be better to address the billing issue, resolve it and retain the goodwill of the client, not to mention the client's future business? Verizon, being in an oligarchic position, apparently, doesn't understand the nuance. Of course, collection is not their strength; sales and service is. But, I would think that better collection techniques could enhance rather than destroy customer goodwill.
Second, I learned that neither he store level nor the first contact person can resolve these issues. They have to be pushed "upstairs." In this case, it was another district manager who had the authority. One of the lessons learned from Ritz Carlton Hotels (now a division of Marriott) is that all front line personnel have the authority to spend up to $2,500 to satisfy customer complaints. SAS, the airline, after their bankruptcy, pushed all decision-making authority down to the lowest level. This process made sure that customer issues are resolved as quickly as possible; that the sour taste of complaints does not remain with the customer longer than need be; and that senior folks are focusing on what they are hired to do ... not to settle what usually amounts to "small" issues.
In the case of lawyers, value is in the eye of the beholder, the client. Lawyers can/should adjust bills in order to match value as seen by the client. Most billing issues, in my opinion, are set up by the lawyer in the first intake session. A full discussion not only of the matter, but also the fee to be charged for the matter, will likely avoid most billing problems ... and assure the lawyer is paid on time and in full.
Next, I learned that Verizon is experimenting in our geographic area (Southern California) with requiring appointments so that customers can better plan their time and be served without interruption. I commend the company for seeking to offer better service. I believe (this is unsolicited feedback) that a combination approach would work better .... that is, make appointments and serve "walk-ins" if / when their representatives are available. It is difficult to manage any large company. Verizon certainly is in this category. But, then, so is Apple and Apple, among others seems to be able to address appointments as well as walk-ins.
Bottom line, I'm pleased with my purchases from Verizon, which included the new iPad and Motorola Razr Maxx, and I'm pleased with finally dealing with the other issues that arose. It was unfortunate that Verizon could not have handled our issues more effectively, with less turmoil, in order to retain that sweet smell of consumer purchase euphoria.
In the Wall Street Journal, staff writer, Jacqueline Palank discusses the Justice Department’s attempt to control fees that bankruptcy lawyers seek. Creditors and employees may, at times, be a bit disgruntled by such fees. So, now, the U.S. Trustee Program appears to be entering the fray.
Before going further, it should be noted that i) any fee sought by an attorney must first be approved by the client going into bankruptcy; ii) the fee cannot be paid before a Bankruptcy Court Judge approves the fee request; iii) the legal fees most often are a pittance compared to the debts of the company and thus have little or no impact on either the creditors or the employees. In fact, the current proposal is limited to companies whose assets and debts exceed $50 million, hardly your "normal" bankruptcy.
The only reason for focusing on the legal fees is that this is a topic that makes good reading in the tabloids, including the WSJ. While the quoted hourly rate received by some attorneys seems high, it is insignificant in comparison to the compensation received by incompetent CEOs and others in the C-suite offices. Why don’t the tabloids focus on the cause of the bankruptcy? Why not focus on the compensation of the management team, which often is at astronomically higher multiples compared the lowest paid employees of the company? Why not seek redress against the management that is responsible for bringing the company to its knees? Although this focus may have more positive economic impact, it clearly is not sexy enough to sell many papers.
The U.S. Trustee is proposing, according to the writer, several new approaches to control lawyers’ fees, including:
• Though the lawyer applicant must disclose his/her hourly rate now, the Justice Department wants the lawyer to disclose the lowest, highest and average hourly rates the law firm charges in all its matters.
• The Department wants the lawyer applicant to create and disclose to the Court a budget for legal expenses. This budget would, necessarily, disclose to all involved, including the creditors who are adversaries of the bankrupt, the client’s planned legal strategy.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that it was anti-competitive for bar associations to maintain a listing of suggested fees for different types of work. Such a listing, in particular, helped younger and newer lawyers set their fees at rates that were more in line with more senior lawyers. Not having such a list would compel lawyers to set their own fees, the theory being that lawyers would then be more competitive with one another to the consumers’ benefit. The Trustee by its first proposal ignores this. The existing disclosure already provides information that tends to be anti-competitive. Law firms can see what others are charging and price their own services accordingly, causing rates to slowly increase in lockstep over the years.
Intruding into the fees charged for practice areas, such as general business matters, estate planning, tax work, and other areas of work performed by the firms who also do bankruptcy work has no bearing on the special expertise of large company bankruptcy lawyers. No area of law other than bankruptcy requires such disclosure for court approval. Fees are left to be negotiated between attorney and client. Other than precedent, there is no reason disclosure should be made here either and the process should not be extended. “Transparency” is a bogus issue. There is no backroom conspiracy on how bankruptcy fees are charged. All the proceedings are public and must be approved by the Court before attorneys are paid anything.
Budgets are good. I recommend them to my attorney-clients with whom I consult. Budgeting is a process, however, between the client and the attorney. By requiring that bankruptcy budgets, which reveal legal strategy, be made public, the U.S. Trustee is saying that bankrupt companies have no rights. They have no right to advocacy; they have no right to develop a strategy that might affect creditors' claims; and they have no right of confidentiality. This is clearly contrary to the U.S. Constitution and our entire judicial system. While the bankrupts, and their inept management, may have proceeded down an economically unwise path, they still have rights to seek the best windup of affairs in their economic environment.
Don’t worry about the lawyers’ hourly rates once the bankruptcy petition is filed. They are regulated first, by the client, and second, by the Court. Who is watching the compensation of the management team before the company entered bankruptcy? Why are inept executives not punished with fines, or worse, for malfeasance and negligent management tactics? Why are they allowed to benefit so expansively at the expense of their workers? Why don’t the tabloids focus their sharp light there? Oh, I forgot, the tabloids need to sell papers, they are part of the industrial complex that both Presidents Washington and Eisenhower warned us about as they left office. Perhaps the fact that quite a few newspapers and newspaper chains (Tribune Co. and papers in Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia and many other cities) have been mismanaged and had to file for bankruptcy has something to do with it, too.
Two weeks ago, I purchased a Motorola Razr Maxx from Verizon and an iPad. I'm happy with both, but both need some adjusting. Perhaps I would be more correct in saying that the owner of the devices needs some adjusting ... or relearning.
In any event, I went into Verizon this afternoon, the same store from where the purchases were made., and asked for assistance. I was told that they now have a new policy: They would help me if I want to buy a new device or accessory. But, they would need to make an appointment with me for another time if I want to ask questions or get some help about the devices I already own.
The old policy was to wait your turn until a representative had finished with a current customer and was available to meet with you. That seemed fair.
Apple, a much larger store, will put you on their list and you wait your turn. Yes, they will also make an appointment for you at the Genius Bar. And there are many knowledgeable sales people walking the floor who can answer most of the questions I've had ... and are willing to do so.
This reminds me of the lawyer who plays telephone tag with a client ... to the frustration of the client. If you're not in when the client calls and cannot return the phone call quickly, have your assistant make an appointment. It's clearly better, however, to take that call on the first attempt if you're in the office. Failure to connect is still the #1 complaint against lawyers.
Verizon does not seem to get this simple fact of customer relations! Do not let the customer go away angry because you are unwilling to answer his/her questions about the device you sold. Oh, yes, I forgot. They can be as nasty as they want because they have you tied to a two year contract! Just think what would happen without that contract? I'd be back at AT&T in a heartbeat!
Have you committed negligence in representing a current client? Do you suspect you may have committed negligence in a current matter? Don't talk about your mistakes with other lawyers in your firm! According to Richard Zitrin in his recent article in The Recorder, the courts have held that such internal discussions, even if used as a teaching device to make sure the mistake isn't repeated, can be discovered in a malpractice case. Only if you hire outside counsel and talk with such counsel are such discussions privileged. According to Zitrin, the client is owed the duty of competence as well as the duty of candid communications. These multiple duties trump whatever duty the lawyer may assert.
There is something wrong when you are not allowed to talk with other members of your own firm either to explore if something really was negligent, or how to deal with it for the betterment of all concerned and clearly how to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. I suspect that talking internally about the best way to talk with your client about the actions taken or not taken would also not be privileged. This conclusion, at least to me, is counter-intuitive.
While the rule seems to be clear in California, the rule is not so clear elsewhere. It can only be hoped that as this issue receives more light, there will be obvious exceptions for issues as I've noted above.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, staff writer, Jacqueline Palank discusses the Justice Department’s attempt to control fees that bankruptcy lawyers seek. Creditors and employees may, at times, be a bit disgruntled by such fees. So, now, the U.S. Trustee Program appears to be entering the fray.
Before going further, it should be noted that i) any fee sought by an attorney must first be approved by the client going into bankruptcy; ii) the fee cannot be paid before a Bankruptcy Court Judge approves the fee request; iii) the legal fees most often are a pittance compared to the debts of the company and thus have little or no impact on either the creditors or the employees. In fact, the current proposal is limited to companies whose assets and debts exceed $50 million, hardly your "normal" bankruptcy.
The only reason for focusing on the legal fees is that this is a topic that makes good reading in the tabloids, including the WSJ. While the quoted hourly rate received by some attorneys seems high, by comparing this to the compensation received by incompetent CEOs and others in the C-suite offices, it is insignificant. Why don’t the tabloids focus on the cause of the bankruptcy? Why not focus on the compensation of the management team, oftentimes earning historically astronomically higher multiples compared the lowest paid employees of the company? Why not seek redress against the management that is responsible for bringing the company to its knees? Although this focus may be more important for us to understand how our economic system works, it clearly is not sexy enough to sell many papers.
The U.S. Trustee is proposing, according to the writer, several new approaches to control lawyers’ fees, including:
• Though the lawyer applicant must disclose his/her hourly rate now, the Department wants the lawyer to disclose the lowest, highest and average hourly rates the law firm charges in all its matters.
• The Department wants the lawyer applicant to create and disclose to the Court a budget for legal expenses. This budget would, necessarily, disclose to all involved, including the creditors who are adversaries of the bankrupt, the legal strategy to be engaged in by the client.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that it was anti-competitive for bar associations to maintain a listing of suggested fees for different types of work. This listing, in particular, helped younger and newer lawyers set their fees at rates that were more in line with more senior lawyers. Not having such a list would compel lawyers to set their own fees, the theory being that lawyers would then be more competitive with one another to the consumers’ benefit. The Trustee by its first proposal ignores this. The existing disclosure already provides information that tends to be anti-competitive. Law firms can see what others are charging and price their services accordingly, causing rates to slowly increase over the years.
Intruding into practice areas, such as general business matters, estate planning, tax work, and other areas of work performed by the firms who also do bankruptcy work has no bearing on the special expertise of large company bankruptcy lawyers. No area of law other than bankruptcy requires such disclosure for court approval. Fees are left to be negotiated between attorney and client. Other than precedent, there is no reason disclosure should be made here either. But, the process should not be extended. “Transparency” is a bogus issue. This is not some backroom conspiracy. All the proceedings are public and must be approved by the Court before attorneys are paid anything.
Budgets are good. I recommend them to my attorney-clients with whom I consult. This is a process, however, between the client and the attorney. By requiring that these budgets, which reveal legal strategy, be made public, the U.S. Trustee is saying that bankrupt companies have no rights. They have no right to advocacy; they have no right to develop a strategy that might affect creditors' claims; and they have no right of privacy. This is clearly contrary to the U.S. Constitution and our entire judicial system. While the bankrupts, and their inept management, may have proceeded down an economically unwise path, they still have rights to seek the best of what is left to them in their economic environment.
Don’t worry about the lawyers hourly rates once the bankruptcy petition is filed. They are regulated first, by the client, and second, by the Court. Who is watching the compensation of the management team before they enter bankruptcy? Why are they not punished with fines, or worse, for malfeasance and negligent management tactics? Why are they allowed to benefit so expansively at the expense of their workers? Why don’t the tabloids focus their sharp light there?
Oh, I forgot, the tabloids need to sell papers, they are part of the industrial complex that both Presidents Washington and Eisenhower warned us about as they left office.
In the Opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal, two fellows from the Brookings Institute espouse their philosophy for deregulating the legal profession: Let anyone practice law; whether they've gone through law school or not, and allow anyone to own a law firm.
These are not new ideas, but the assertion that these ideas are the key to lowering costs of delivery of legal services is misplaced.
First, the licensing of lawyers is to protect the public; they are not there to protect the interests of lawyers. For example, an individual must be competent to represent and advocate for the interests of a client. It’s the same principle as licensing doctors. Incompetence either in court or in the operating room can cost people their lives.
Second, technology provides many avenues to reduce legal costs. Removing the licensing requirements has no impact on this issue. Yes, requiring a license does cost money and does cost time (opportunity costs for the student), but it also impacts the quality of services delivered ... just as in the case of medicine (oh yes, and plumbing), etc. Why not remove licensing requirements for everyone in everything, from medicine, to plumbing, to driving a car. Licensing assures a minimum standard of quality. Licensing requirements in specific areas of human endeavor are society's way of self-protection. Caveat emptor is acceptable, but not to the degree apparently desired by the authors of the Brookings report.
If lower legal costs are the objective, the argument should focus more on the pricing modalities as they impact the cost of legal services rather than the governance of the law firm. We've talked about this on previous occasions.
Third, the underlying premise that licensing provides an insurmountable barrier to entry and substantially raises costs by controlling supply might be true if one doesn't look at the facts of recent and current reality. There are many more lawyers than the current demand can accommodate. Many lawyers cannot find work. Thus, it is illogical to suggest that licensing is the cause for higher legal costs. Those lawyers who are working often provide legal services at lower rates than they used to charge. Even large law firms find significant resistance to raising their rates. Are legal expenses high? Yes, but compared to what? How low should these prices be before they are acceptable? And, if there is no regulation, we might likely see larger law firms pattern their pricing after one another, just as the unregulated airlines currently do, so that the benefit of lower costs would not be evident.
There is no price regulation now in the airline industry. Yet, it's remarkable how similar airline prices are. Yes, there are a few low cost airlines such as Southwest. And, yes, there are also lower cost law firms as we sit here today, even with the regulations we have in place. The only benefit of the authors' "non-licensing" proposal would be the destruction of minimum standards of quality. Caveat emptor might be acceptable if the public had a way of knowing what the quality standards should be ... but they don't and they won't.
Combining other skills such as accounting into one organization (the old "multi-discipline" argument) is not required ... many law firms already work closely with allied professionals for the benefit of clients. This is merely a non-issue.
Dewey, which went into Bankruptcy Court last night, did not fail for lack of credit. The firm had been extended bank lines of credit. It failed for lack of effective management. It's unlikely that investors or others would have given Dewey more money if they understood the true nature of the firm's economics and governance. Thus, this is also a non-issue for the authors’ arguments.
In sum, law firms function no differently from all other businesses. Good, solid business decisions must be made to attract customers/clients and operate cost-effectively. Dewey failed on both counts. The arguments put forth by the authors would not have changed this outcome. But, in the terms of business, by going into bankruptcy, the firm may be able to disgorge its unfunded pension obligations and become a viable candidate for acquisition by another large firm. That’s when the principle of caveat emptor really comes into play – as a normal risk that businesses take every day.
Letter to the Editor re Dewey LeBoeuf:
Your staff reporters, including Jennifer Smith, seem fixated on the Dewey law firm and its challenges. While one or two such articles would be of interest to both lawyers and your general readership, I suggest that recent articles have suggested nothing new and merely seem like “kicking a dead horse,” or worse, merely filling space in your paper.
Dewey highlights the unfortunate interplay of bad luck (the Great Recession and unexpected change in our economic health) and poor management (failure to anticipate alternative scenarios). Once again, it is confirmed that law practice is a business. As I've been saying since 1995 when I received the registered mark for The Business of Law®, law practice is a business. Yes, it's a profession AND also a business, a service business. Dewey & LeBoeuf confirms this as does the former chair, Tower Snow, of the now defunct Brobeck law firm, who said law is subject to the same economics as every other business and profession.
Among other challenges facing Dewey are: i) the “bleeding” of lawyers leaving the firm a few at a time until the firm will face hemorrhaging, ii) unfunded pensions that will be a drain on the firm assets and future revenue, thus setting up vicious generation warfare in the future, and iii) debt from their expanded lines of credit. Of course, none of these challenges are fatal in themselves, but are compounded by virtue of management in whom the majority of the firm has lost confidence.
Your reporters should give Dewey some space to work out their problems or, perhaps even better, talk about the issues (not the personalities or the law firms specifically) that the firm is facing. That would be interesting to your readers because it not only applies to the legal community, but to all of your readers in the companies they operate.
Judge Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York Appeals Court, announced a pro bono requirement to gain admission to the New York Bar. Every new lawyer will have to prove their performance of 50 hours of pro bono practice before being admitted to the New York state bar. Mandatory pro bono is now a reality in New York.
He said, "If pro bono is a core value of our profession, and it is—and if we aspire for all practicing attorneys to devote a meaningful portion of their time to public service, and they should—these ideals ought to be instilled from the start, when one first aspires to be a member of the profession."
His first error of judgement, in my opinion, is to conclude that pro bono is a "core value" of the legal profession. While many lawyers "give" many hours freely of their time and expertise, it is not the essence or "core value" of the legal profession. This has been substantiated many times over when bar associations call on their members to provide free services for low and moderate income people. Many do step up to the plate. But, not all. Thus, it's obviously not a core value of the profession.
He then said that "We think that if you want that privilege, that honor of practicing law in the state of New York...then you are going to have to demonstrate that you believe in our values." He is really saying that if you want to practice law in NY, you better meet my values. Interesting that he says that practicing law is a privilege, not a right. Seems as though we're taking a test to get our driving license. Driving a car is a privilege and in order to get you on the streets, you need certain requirements. I guess Judge Lippman equates getting a law license with a driver's license.
Why does this new requirement apply only to new lawyers? Why doesn't this requirement apply to all lawyers in NY, even those who have been practicing for a few years? Judge Lippman's excuse for this discriminatory practice is that existing lawyers' practices are very diverse and some lawyers already are having difficulty earning enough money to put food on the table. Thus, they should be excused from this requirement. The real reason is that the Judge would have a rebellion on his hands if he tried to spread the requirement to all present lawyers in the state.
In current times, we are becoming more familiar with law firms imploding, collapsing and even going bankrupt, literally. Wall Street Journal and it's reporter, Jennifer Smith, seem to be taking a great deal of pleasure in highlighting and repeatedly featuring the sad demise of the Dewey law firm.
Dewey highlights the unfortunate interplay of bad luck (the unexpected change in the general economy) and poor management (failure to anticipate alternative scenarios). One or two articles with new information would be illustrative; howevwe, the Journal seems to relish in "kicking the dog while down."
In the future, the Journal might do an article about how a firm in Dewey's position might avoid collapse. Would that be too much to expect?
In a recent issue of a major legal publication, as reported by the American Bar Association, the magazine looked at pension plans of law firms. It appears that a number of the country’s largest law firms have pension plans that are unfunded. In other words, these are firms with pension plans, but without money to pay the obligations of those pension plans as their lawyers retire. What we will increasingly see are law firms with the bulk of their lawyers leaving the practice for retirement with the hope and prayer that the fewer remaining, younger partners will be willing to fund the firms' obligations. We will also see many situations where these younger lawyers will find it to their economic advantage to torpedo the existing law firm and its pension obligations in exchange for creating a new firm with no pension obligations. Doing so will give them the opportunity to take on more of the revenue that is produced by their efforts. They will earn more and pay less.
This phenomenon will exacerbate the generation warfare that is building in today's law firms.
The Wall Street Journal, perhaps reflecting the concerns of its corporate readership, continues to emphasize what it considers to be the overpaid lawyers at the pinnacle of the profession. In a recent article that had the less-than-subtle title, “Biggest Lawyers Grab Fee Bounty,” the Journal reported that partners in the top 25% of more than 4,000 law firms examined in a new study boosted their average price to $873 an hour last year, up 4.9% from 2010. At the same time, the lowest-billing partners struggled to keep pace with inflation. Partners in the bottom 25% of surveyed firms charged an average of $204 last year, up just 1.3%. As the paper said, “That disparity between who can raise prices – and who can't – spotlights a growing segmentation in the $100 billion corporate legal market.”
Once again, it is confirmed that law practice is a business. As I've been saying since I received the registered mark for The Business of Law®, law practice is a business. Yes, it's a profession AND also a business, a service business. Dewey & LeBoeuf confirms this.
This large, national law firm has just retained outside bankruptcy counsel. Why? To consider whether they can create a controlled bankruptcy ... filing a bankruptcy application with creditors and potential acquirer already in place. The beauty of such a filing is that it will i) stop the bleeding of lawyers leaving the firm a few at a time, ii) eliminate the unfunded pensions that would be a drain on the firm assets and future revenue, and iii) enable another firm to complete an outstanding acquisition quickly with a clean balance sheet and revenue stream intact. A side benefit of eliminating the unfunded pension obligations would be to avoid generation warfare that frequently arises between retiring partners and younger partners left with the responsibility of using current revenue to pay for the old debt.
This process is precisely the same process used by so many other companies, including some of the large companies in the recent financial crises that survived, but in different configurations. This is the same process as the airlines are implementing today ... to reduce their obligations to labor. This is the same process being contemplated by a number of prominent government entities (cities and counties) to get rid of their unfunded pension obligations that are expected to require more than 60% of their current tax revenues.
So what is different about Dewey? Nothing. We are in the world of business, The Business of Law®.
Among the topics discussed on this day were:
- Social media
- Financial metrics of a successful law practice
- Marketing gravity and the need to have something in each stroke of the marketing wheel
- Cash flow as the single most important financial statement for a law office.
The Law Practice Management Institute raised a number of issues and produced great discussion among the attendees. Some of the issues in the first day were:
- Creating a marketing plan is important for success
- Alternative fee structures and billing modalities opened possibilities not previously considered
- Sending a satisfaction survey to clients helps maintain and build the relationship as well as provide a defense against malpractice and disciplinary complaints
- Guaranteeing satisfaction with the service of the law firm will reduce the hesitancy of many clients to engage your firm
- The statistics of why clients leave their present firm and why they refer their present firm to their friends and colleagues was an eye-opener.
- Always put yourself in the shoes of the client and seek to understand, and avoid, what makes the client unsure and/or angry about your service.
In a recent episode of Blue Blood, the granddaughter was lamenting that she didn't support a friend in need as much as she thought she should have, and that her grandfather would be disappointed in her. An uncle (son of the grandfather) of the girl said "(Grandfather) would say that 'its what you do next that counts...'"
As we review where we are n our career, in our law practice, it's not what we've done to get here that should be our focus, but rather what we will do next. Create the plan to seek your goals; move along the path toward your goals, one step at a time; and always keep your eyes open for opportunities along the way, some of which may cause you to change your plan.
See our soon to be released new book, 16th Anniversary Edition, Profitable Law Office Handbook: The Attorney's Guide to Successful Business Planning. Pre-publication offer: 30% discount! Good until May 31, 2012.
An interesting question was raised recently in the discussion about alternative fees. What happens in either of two scenarios: i) When the client terminates the relationship before the legal services are concluded and ii) When the fee is challenged in a dispute between attorney and client.
In the former case, how do you apportion work already done versus work yet to be done, especially when the fee agreement is silent on the subject? This question is set against the backdrop that a lawyer refund any advance payment of fee that has not yet been earned. And, though a fixed fee, the fee must be placed into the client trust account until earned. Does one have to refer back to the time spent (hourly billing)? And if the subject is covered in the fee agreement, are we building into the relationship all kinds of negative vibes between attorney and client?
And, though fixed fees/alternative fees are designed to reduce conflict between attorney and client, should a dispute arise, how do we test the reasonableness of the fee? Again, usually by reference to the hourly billing rate and time spent.
This subject once again points to the need for good client relations and effective, frequent communication between attorney and client to make sure such disputes don't arise and/or are settled quickly.
The Wall Street Journal seems to focus on fees being charged by large law firms to large clients. It seems almost every other week, there is an article on the subject. In today's paper, Jennifer Smith writes about the "resetting of legal costs." Her basic premise is that clients who obtained the "upper hand" during the Great Recession" in negotiating fees with law firms are not going back to the old ways of the billable hour despite the more robust economy today.
Alternative fees have become a larger percentage of law firms' revenue. To use alternative fees, usually meaning fixed fees, requires a trusting relationship between law firm and corporate client. Of course, alternative fees also depends on the practice area. For example, it's easier for lawyers to quote a fixed fee in areas such as estate planning or a percentage fee in personal injury or debt collection than it is in litigation. But, even litigators are moving to alternative fees when they can work with the client as a trusted adviser ... and both sides look out for the interests of the other side.
What Ms. Smith ignores, however, is the real impetus for alternative fees. It is technology. Because of advances in technology,some tasks such as document review that used to take hundreds of lawyers many hours can now be done in a fraction of the time with a fraction of the number of lawyers. Further, when lawyers charge by the hour and see their time reduced, and thus their revenue, there is an impetus to charge a fixed fee. The client gets certainty. The lawyer gets to keep a portion of the savings resulting from the technology. Both sides benefit.
This is classic in every industry where technological innovation occurs. The legal profession is now experiencing the same upheaval. And both clients and lawyers are benefiting.
From time to time, we have guests on our blog.
This week, Erik M. Pelton with Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC is our guest blogger.
Excellent management of calendars and deadlines is critical for all attorneys. Big firms can afford dedicated staff and/or software for these matters, but small or solo law firms must properly and efficiently manage firm calendar and deadlines without such luxuries.
A law firm “docket” consists of calendar items such as meeting schedules, court deadlines, discovery deadlines, client obligations, marketing schedules, hearing dates, and more, for each of the members of the firm. Timely tracking of these matters is critical to increasing the chances for successful outcomes of matters. The key to successful docket management is to develop procedures, routines, checks, and backups so that the docket takes care of itself.
Here are some tips for setting up a docketing system:
- Find what works. There is no magic solution and there are many ways to reach the same goals. Be creative and experiment with different possibilities.
- See the big picture. Use a physical master calendar centrally located in the office. For example, I have a wall filled with four large calendars for the current month and the next three months (see photo below). Deadlines, travel, planned absences, meetings, and more are all labeled on this central calendar. I use dry erase so it can easily be changed, and it is color coded for different types of items. The calendars hang so that they can easily be rotated and updated as one month ends and a new month begins.
- A system for intake and inputting new docket items is key. When a new matter or item with a deadline comes in or is created, do not hesitate. Docket it immediately before any chance to forget is created. For example: when I receive discovery requests in a case, I docket the deadlines for when the responses are due before I even read the requests. I set a reminder of the deadline in Outlook as well.
- Err on the side of caution. I docket even potential deadlines and items. If I have to cross them out or erase them, it becomes one less thing to do. Proactively docketing saves having to scramble at the last minute if a “maybe” becomes a “yes.” (Example: a tentative deposition date in a case that might be settled first.)
- Document the office docket procedures and make sure everyone understands how to use and access them.
- Mistakes inevitably will happen when a new system is set up. Learn from them, and tweak the system to make sure that type of mistake will not happen again in the future.
- Have a backup. Even better, have two! (Example: I have a software-based docket, with backups in Outlook and on the dry erase boards.)
A solid docket with a backup does more than help you work efficiently and manage your time – it may reduce potential liability for malpractice and can also reduce malpractice insurance rates.
Managing a docket can certainly be stressful. The time and money invested into a great docket that works for your particular situation will not only serve clients and attorneys well, it will reduce an enormous source of stress and worry.
© 2012 Erik M. Pelton. All Rights Reserved.
Dr. Oz, the popular television medic, recently said that high blood pressure is the "silent killer." Stress, he said, is one of the major causes of high blood pressure.
Lawyers I talk with almost universally tell me about the stress under which they labor. Because of this, I am on the lookout for ways that my advice about improving the lawyer's operations may also have the impact of reducing his/her stress level. Thus, I am always viewing the practice from a holistic perspective, addressing revenue improvement, operations changes that impact profit, and stress reduction that improves both the professional and personal life of the lawyer. Just knowing that you now have an accountability partner (me as the coach) goes a long way to reduce the stress. For the first time, you really have someone to talk with who can be objective and with whom you can show vulnerability.
In the February 13th edition of the L.A. Times, an article featured a lawyer who clearly is a workaholic. But, she has a marvelous and somewhat unusual perspective of her workload. As the headline says, "stress can hinge on attitudes about work." In other words, if you love what you're doing, it's not work; if it's not work, you may be exhausted at the end of the day, but you won't be stressed out and unable to cope with your environment. Clearly, this lawyer enjoys what she does. Of course, the feature article didn't hurt her publicity efforts either.
With this article, came a new word or label, at least for me: "engaged workaholic." Said differently, if you are engaged with what you're doing, if you love what you do, then it's not "work." It's play ... and how can you get too stressed when you're playing.
Or, as my father used to say about his work, "... This is my hobby. This is what I love to do."
My hope for you (and therefore your clients) is that you love what you do ... and enthusiastically show your clients how to successfully address the challenges they bring to you.
One would think that lawyers could keep their eye on the ball. But, somehow, despite the importance of cash and cash flow to the very survival of the law firm, lawyers tend to focus their attention elsewhere. I find this to be true not only in the small firm, but also in some of our larger brethren as well.
Recently, I was asked to consult about "missing cash." The bottom line is that it's easy, for even a longtime and trusted staff person, to lose his or her moral compass ... when money is readily available ... and not regularly monitored! Establish policies for handling cash and for paying bills, the two easiest areas of manipulation by one so inclined. Be persistent in the application of these policies. Ask for an external review of these policies periodically ... and their application. Insist that there be no shortcuts in handling the finances of the firm.
Nothing less than the firm's reputation and standing is at stake! ... And the lawyer's license to practice law.
In 1995, the U.S. Government recognized my service mark, The Business of Law®. At that time, no one used the word “business” in the same sentence as “profession” when talking about the legal profession. Since then, more lawyers recognize that they are in a service business, but a business nevertheless. And the principles of business are now being reviewed and considered by more lawyers than before. Years ago, I wrote a piece that suggested that even sole practitioners would be well-advised to engage an executive director. The cost-benefits favor the lawyer many fold, though too few sole practitioners recognize this.
Today, large firms are engaging professionals to run their practice, their business. For example, Pepper Hamilton recently engaged a non-lawyer to be the CEO; this isn’t the first firm, though still only a select few, have moved in this direction. They are beginning to understand that it is the lawyer who can set the strategy ... and it is the lawyer who must do what only the lawyer can do, get the business (marketing) and do the work (production). But, others – professionally trained and skilled as support for the law firm – can take the law firm to higher levels of success than would otherwise be the case.
From time to time, we have guests on our blog.
This week, Erik M. Pelton with Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC is our guest blogger.
Unless you are truly a solo practitioner, you will experience hiring and managing a staff (even a ‘virtual assistant’) at some point. In fact, unless you are super-efficient or already established, some form of staff is likely necessary to manage a growing firm and the marketing needs. For example, in my 12 years of practice (starting and managing a small firm), I have hired and supervised numerous associate attorneys, paralegals, and interns, as well as a variety of subcontractors.
Hiring and managing is no easy task – especially when you have no relevant training or experience. Law school gives most of us the experience of being interviewed, not interviewing others; of writing resumes, not reviewing them; of taking instructions, not giving them.
Use the following keys for making successful hires in a law firm, and you should fare well:
- Personality and character are at least as important as experience and skills. Skills can be taught, but bad character or clashing personalities cannot be overcome.
- Reward staff that are trusted and hard working. When financial raises or bonuses are not available, provide additional vacation time. While this represents and increase in expenses, the financial and other costs (time, risk, productivity) of replacing someone good who leaves for another job and training a new hire are generally far greater.
- Let employees develop their own “brand.” Encourage them to participate in associations, chambers of commerce, or other activities that are good for the firm and good for their professional development.
- Provide occasional non-work opportunities to socialize with employees and their families and significant others. Take them out to dinner, sporting events, or the like.
- Lead by example. Actions speak louder than words. These clichés are generally true and can have a big impact. If you expect your staff to do something in a certain manner or act a certain way, you must lead by example.
- Don’t micro-manage. Delegate and provide support to your staff, but allow staff the room to grow and to figure things out on their own.
- Provide periodic reviews. Offer constructive criticism and positive reinforcement. Provide a steady stream of feedback to your staff and encourage them to provide the same to you.
- When staff members do not work out, cut your losses and move on. Letting someone go is difficult, uncomfortable, and creates short-term stress and additional work. However, it is worth it. Bad situations only become worse over time, and the lost time and stress produced by bad or unproductive relationships can never be replaced.
The only way to get experience in a position of authority is to do it! Hiring and supervising can be great fun and lead to great successes by training and mentoring staff persons that blossom.
© 2012 Erik M. Pelton. All Rights Reserved.
There is much talk about how competitive the legal market has become. And this reminds me of an old Chinese proverb: “He who doesn't turn runs far. “
In track and field events, the coach tells you to look at the tape in front of you, not who is behind you. Likewise, in running your law practice, do the best you can, focus on your skills (and improve them), on the efficiency and cost of delivering your legal services (use technology to improve your efficiency) ... and, of course, on your clients and their needs (and wants). Then, you will have given it (your profession) your best shot.
John Wooden said, “The scoreboard? Championships? A sales quota? The bottom line? As goals, predictions, hopes, or dreams to be sealed up (in an envelope) and filed away, fine. But, as a day to day preoccupation they’re a waste of time, stealing attention and effort from the present and squandering it on the future. You control the former, not the latter.
“An organization - a team - that’s always looking up at the scoreboard will find a worthy opponent stealing the ball right out from under you....” Coach seldom scouted the opposition, focusing instead on what needed to be done to improve his team and prepare them to be the best they could be.
More elderly find they cannot afford to retire ... they must continue to work. The recent economic woes have taken a big bite out of the retirement hopes and plans of the Baby Boomers. And this includes lawyers.
Just today, a lawyer in his late 60's called me to talk about selling his practice and retiring. But, he said, he enjoys what he does and financially cannot see his way to retiring. For interesting tax reasons, he turned away from selling his practice. Of course, he didn't consult me before he made this decision.
But, I find it interesting that the prediction made by the ABA only a few years ago that by 2020 (or perhaps sooner), 400,000 lawyers would retire. As evidenced by the phone conversation today, I believe the numbers are correct, but the timing is not. Succession planning, whether a solo or large firm practitioner, will require more thought than we anticipated. And experts should be consulted to determine sales potential, tax planning (both estate and consequences of a sale) and future personal life planning.
In a December issue of the Wall Street Journal, the headline implies that lawyers are making far too much money in a Delaware case. This, despite the unheralded reduction in their fee request. But, it's easy too trash lawyers, and good headline writers (a special art in writing) are brilliant in getting readers to pick up the paper and keep reading ...
But, let's look at the facts:
First, the judge in the case said that the plaintiffs lawyers did an outstanding job, not just good, and such work should be rewarded. This is the same judge who historically penalizes lawyers when they fail to get results.
Second, the agreement between plaintiffs' lawyers and plaintiffs permitted counsel to ask the court for 30% and they applied for less, only 15%, not a normally outrageous percentage.
Third, the risk reward element of contingency cases should be evaluated as of the beginning of a matter. And in this case, the risk of no recovery was substantial. Victory was, by no means, assured. Monday morning quarter-backing is always performed by those who have a corporate bias, have no interest in the matter and just want to carp, are jealous or, worse, feel that lawyers should be heard, not seen. Reminds me of the criticism against lawyers who sued Ronald Reagan, as governor of California. Despite the fact that the lawyers won most, if not all, the lawsuits brought against the abuse by the State, neither the facts nor the victories was much discussed by those with a political agenda.
Last, these arguments that the lawyers' hourly billing rates were too high fly in the face of value billing, the new wave for corporate America. In other words, the results in this case were based on the value to the clients resulting from the effort and skill of the lawyers. In most cases, hourly billing results in higher legal fees ... fees unrelated to the value received by the client ... and fees that created certainty in the cost of the legal proceeding, an important factor to clients in most matters. It's important to know what the legal cost will be before embarking on a matter. Value billing provides this.
Thus, the criticism offered by the writer in the WSJ is off target, to say the least. Most criticisms against legal billings involve the hourly billings ... here, value billing was requested by the lawyers and their clients and approved by the court. Hoorays should have been the proffered by the writer, not whining.
How do we get from here to there? Jim Collins, in his Good to Great, describes CEOs with many different styles, but all successfully leading their companies to the pinnacles of success. How do we do that for ourselves? Is wanting something enough? Is the intention to be great, to be successful, to be rich enough? Is imagining or visualizing the "there" enough?
I suspect not. First, we must identify where we are. Then we must honestly address what our current state or condition is. And finally, we must develop new approaches to deal with the troubling challenges we face. As Dr. Phil might say, in the popular vernacular, "How's this working for you?" And if what you're doing now isn't working for you, you've got to change your pattern, your actions ... and not merely wanting the change. You've first got to think it through and, then as my coach, Alan Weiss, might say, develop the "Resolve" to change.
Are you in a good employment situation, do you have a good law firm partnership, do you have the kind and number of clients you want? If not, what are you going to do to make the change you want? One approach might be to engage a coach to provide you with meaningful feedback.
Corey Stephenson of Lawyers Weekly USA wrote an article about the Oregon Bar's position about metadata:
"If a lawyer receives a document and knows or reasonably should know that metadata was inadvertently included, the Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility only require notice to the sender. The receiving lawyer is not required to return the document unread or to comply with a request by the sender to return the document, according to the opinion.
The Bar went on to say that the 2nd lawyer's client should be consulted about whether the lawyer should read the document. ".... (G)iven that the decision affects a client’s objectives, lawyers should consult with the client about the risks and rewards of returning the document versus retaining and reading the document prior to making such a decision."
It was my understanding that a misguided "hard copy" needed to be returned, unopened, if the lawyer knew the document was mistakenly sent. It seems we are modifying the rules a bit with technology.
But, there was a more fascinating pronouncement. The opinion went on to say that lawyers may not utilize special software to reveal the metadata in a document. “Searching for metadata using special software when it is apparent that the sender has made reasonable efforts to remove the metadata may ... constitute ‘conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.'" The comparison was made to surreptitiously entering the other lawyer’s office to obtain client information.
Jane's comments about holiday cards vs email cards is are worth noting. It is a tough time of year for many with cards and gifts decisions to make ... But, as my mother used to say, "... if you don't remember me364 days of the year, forget me on my birthday!" In other words, the one day a year remembrance doesn't do much, especially for busy people.
Wisconsin is in the news again. A lawyer, who promoted himself as the "king of lemon law," won a judgment for $12,500 against an auto dealership for unauthorized repairs and an award of attorney's fees of $150,000. The Republican-controlled legislature was so incensed that they adopted a law (and signed by the governor) limiting attorney's fees at three times the judgment. With such limitations, lawyers will be less likely to tackle consumer abuses, the obvious intent of the legislature.
Wisconsin, the historical bastion of progressive legislation and politicians, has certainly served up a strange mixture of bedfellows in the last couple of years. It makes for interesting reading ... unless it's your ax that is being gored. The real question is whether this is limited to the state of Wisconsin or a harbinger of things to come on the national level.
Rules against lawyers sharing fees with non-lawyers might need to be loosened to allow U.S. firms to compete globally. The proposal says that any firm with non-lawyer owners must have “as its sole purpose providing legal services to clients.”
This is the foot in the door.The next thing you'll see is Latham & Watkins, or other billion dollar law firm opening offices in Wal-Mart or Target stores for curbside service. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It will certainly bring the law to the people ... And it will certainly change the perception of the law.
I've always maintained that the rules of professional conduct are controlled by the large firms, AmLaw 100 and 250. When their economic needs change, the rules get changed and the sole and small firm practitioners have to adapt accordingly. In other words, the rules are not made in a vacuum, not made because of their inherent righteousness or goodness. They change and are made to serve the economic interests of the few ... oh, if the public is served, so much the better.
But if you're a solo, watch out ... your interests may not matter. Such has been the case in recent times when solos' interests were not protected, in fact hurt, by changes in the rules .. But, here, to allow the larger firms to complete on a global scale, we see the rules begin to change and allow allied professions to join in the ownership of law firms, not merely as allied professionals independently serving the same client.
Economics control .. as always ... even here in the rules of professional conduct.
Target is. How long will it take for a law firm to be considered a "retailer"? Will size matter?
The Court, in the Target case said "... a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind, stating that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination in the "enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges... Until this ruling, commercial websites were not considered a place of accommodation and were assumed to not fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act..."
Robert Denney, a well -known and very capable marketing consultant, reports in his monthly newsletter that: "... an outsider ... joins DLA Piper as co-chair of the entire 4,200-lawyer firm. This is probably an unprecedented move, at least in BigLaw. Corporations frequently hire senior executives from outside the company – or even from outside their industry – but large law firms almost always elect partners to senior management positions. In most cases this means they have little senior management experience and must climb a steep learning curve..."
Perhaps the legal profession is approaching reality in letting lawyers do what they do best, lawyering, and leave the managing to professionals. Or, at the very least, engage a professional coach who has walked in their shoes (i.e., practiced law) and also has business experience. The idea of having a business professional at your side, or at least available by phone, works in industry and is beginning to work in the legal profession for mid-size firms as well as sole and small firm practitioners.
Large firms, more than we care to know, have made news in the last couple of years by "going under," i.e., defunct! Firms such as Howrey and Heller Erhman became the targets of personnel raids. Very good lawyers from these, and similar, law firms departed and joined other major, national law firms. Today's WSJ comments on the current state of affairs for some of AmLaw 100 law firms.
Some folks are asking whether your new lateral partner have any unwanted baggage? In some instances, the new firm accepted partners from the old firm with the understanding that the lawyer would bring over clients from the old firm as well as his "unfinished business." This provides for immediate billing .. and therefore an opportunity to acquire great talent at a very low or zero cost.
These firms, and others, have gone into bankruptcy to collect funds to pay the firms' creditors. In a law firm, the major assets "walk out the door every evening. Computers, furniture and real estate are of minimum value, if any, in a law firm. Accounts receivable are a major asset, though often difficult to collect from clients when they know there will be little serious effort to collect.
But, when the partners from the old, now defunct, law firm went, they generally took "their" book of business with them ... and the "unfinished business" of the clients that went with them. One argument is that clients have a right to seek their own choice of lawyer. And the other argument is that the partner and new law firm benefited, resulting in a profit to the new firm that truly belongs to the old firm.
This battle will be fought for years, I suspect. But, the reality of our world is that anyone can sue anyone else, even if wrong. In the meantime, the largest pool of cash available to the trustee in bankruptcy for the defunct firms is the new firm and, perhaps, the lawyers, individually, from the old firm. Whether legitimate or not, new firms have been economically compelled to settle many of such claims in order to go on with the new firm business.
The new firms thought they were getting a steal! Maybe. But, I'm reminded of the old say that "...if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true." There is a cost to everything, even a very attractive, new lateral partner with great talent and a great book of business.
Fee suit exclusions seem to be the latest insurance ploy to cheat unsuspecting lawyers.
An engagement agreement is designed to be a "two way street." The lawyer promises to do certain things... address the needs (and wants?) of the client; represent the client to address the challenge being faced by the client, whether it be a lawsuit or a transactional issue. And, of course, the lawyer is representing that he/she is competent to do so.
The client, on the other hand, promises to tell the truth to the lawyer, provide information and documents relative to the matter when requested by the lawyer to do so ... and to pay the fee as billed in accordance with their arrangement.
What are the consequences of failure to honor the respective promises? For the lawyer, it is a malpractice suit and/or a disciplinary proceeding. For the client, it's withdrawal by the lawyer (unless on the eve of trial or otherwise would prejudice the client) or a lawsuit for payment of the fee.
BUT, some insurance carriers are lining up with clients, saying that if the lawyer sues for fees, and the client cross complains or counter sues for negligence or files a disciplinary complaint with the state bar, the carrier will not provide defense costs or pay any judgment against the lawyer. The effect of this is to deny the lawyer the ability to collect the fee when the client fails to pay. Why pay insurance premiums for something you will not receive? The $64 question.
Fee suit exclusions are a veiled attempt by insurance companies to raise premiums without notice to the lawyer. And, the lawyer generally isn't even aware of this exclusion.
Both law schools and insurance companies conspire to keep lawyers ignorant of the business nature of their practice. In no other industry do creditors ignore their rights and fail to sue debtors for refusal to pay legitimate debts resulting from their purchases. Why should lawyers be placed in a different position? Why should clients be encouraged not to pay their lawyers' fees?
The reality is, according to people I've spoken with in the industry, that there are few lawsuits filed by lawyers. (Perhaps it's because lawyers have been scared away.) Further, the reality is that there are few counter suits for negligence. The further reality is that lawyers win most of these lawsuits; the figure I've been given is winning 9 out 10.
Seems that the lawyers face a big challenge: Failure of the law schools to teach business practices so lawyers can more effectively represent clients and efficiently deliver legal services; insurance carriers looking out for themselves, not their customers (lawyers); and bar associations believing their sole function is to protect the public, rather than a dual function of protecting the public AND helping their members (lawyers) to become better practitioners (including business skills).
Lawyers who survive in this environment should be commended.
Departures from large law firms continue. And more than one person is now asking what is the "normal" rate of departures? One estimate suggested 7%.
We are living in an environment that many people call a “new normal.” Our economy, as well as the legal community, has been turned upside down in the last couple of years. There is no ”typical” answer that has emerged yet. Departures are sometimes voluntary for better opportunities (or retirement) and sometimes involuntary where law firms are seeking to adjust their supply of lawyers with their clients’ demand.
As I mentioned in a recent interview in the New York Times, older lawyers are being asked to leave law firms when their productivity declines. That didn't happen so frequently in the past. Generally, the age factor is only coincidental with the decrease in productivity. Though sometimes it is directly correlated because of a change in attitude by the experienced practitioner who wants to slow down and spend more time in other adventures. This tends to be a personal decision, not a trend. We have many lawyers in their 70s and 80s still active and capable contributors to their clients and the profession.
At the other end of the spectrum, newer lawyers who are not asked to become a partner in a firm believe their opportunities will be greater with another firm. They seek to make a lateral transfer from their existing firm to another one. The second law firm may accept them because they see a skilled practitioner, someone who received training at the expense of another law firm, who will fill a gap in their business model. This comes when they want to grow and enhance their capacity for clients or begin a new practice area to enhance their service offerings for existing clients. The nes lateral fits well under these circumstances.
Then, there are the new law school graduates who are finding the pipeline from education to practice being clogged up by the decrease in client demands and oversupply in some law firms. It will take several years for this phenomenon to adjust. Until then, I don’t think we can say there is a “typical” law firm departure rate.
On one evening of the year, we can be legitimately scared. But, don't run your practice out of fear the rest of the year. Know the financial metrics for your success and how to achieve it by improving the condition of your clients.
The Haunted House:
From time to time, we will have a guest on our blog. This is something new for LawBiz Blog and we hope you find value in the expertise of those who will join us on occasion.
This week, Erik M. Pelton with Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC is our guest blogger.
Creating and managing a successful solo or small firm is no easy task. But given the tools available today, it is easier than ever. And more and more clients today appreciate and even seek the personal relationships provided by boutique firms. Here are ten keys areas which every small or solo firm can master to propel it to greater success, growth and profit.Continue Reading...
A recent announcement touted the merger of two relatively large firms to make one larger firm of almost 800 lawyers. Why? One doesn't know the real reason, the personal agenda of the moving players. But one can look at the outside and prognosticate the likely success of the merger. What are the characteristics that will help achieve success?
First, and foremost, is the culture. Do the firms think and act in a similar fashion? This is perhaps the most difficult characteristic to address because it's subjective. And, in truth, sometimes different cultures can be blended, resulting in "new blood" being inserted into both firms creating a new, and revitalized "third" firm. But, a clear and conscious effort must be asserted. "Integration" is an overused word, but under-utilized activity in the merger field ... without which there will be a collapse of the new entity. As said, it's imperative that the leaders of both firms come together with an integration plan that is implemented with care and diligence.
Other factors can be more objective. Factors such as the differential in compensation levels and methodology, profitability and target clients are important when analyzing two firms. Another factor to consider is whether the rationale is to expand the services offered to existing clients or to enhance and make more effective existing services. Is this a sale of one firm to another? (Lawyers never speak in this language, so one must look at the economics to answer the question.) Or, is this really an amalgamation of two equal or nearly equal groups? The answer will determine the approach to be taken in putting the two together.
Mergers of larger service organizations are never easy ... Ego always is a significant factor ... and great effort is required.
“With these lawsuits,” Law School Transparency says, “nearly 10 percent of all ABA-approved law schools across eight states will be accused of tortiously misrepresenting job placement statistics and violating state consumer protection laws.”
The complaint says, among other things, that law schools' employment figures include work outside the law. And Senator Barbara Boxer of California wants the ABA to require all law schools to better determine where their graduates go after school and what kind of employment they get.
In a recent teleseminar I conducted, recent graduates were angry that they spent so much of their money (and incurred so much debt) to receive an education in a profession that does not offer them employment opportunities. They considered it fraudulent for the schools to have taken their money.
Those feelings and this law suit are different. On the one hand, the students want jobs and feel the schools have an obligation to help them get jobs. On the other hand, the current spate of law suits merely wants information -- consumer information -- to be accurate and available to law school entrants.
What is the obligation of the law school? How could anyone have predicted the shifts in our economy and the disruption of the profession? Not even senior partners are safe in their firm positions. Why should students be protected? We need to watch these developments as the profession continues to change ... caused by the economy ... and perhaps more significantly, caused by technology.
If you haven’t already, I suggest reading “Personal Best” by Atul Gawande on newyorker.com. Dr. Gawande examines the need for and nature of coaching for professionals of all walks of life.
Musicians and singers, he points out, think of their coaches as “outside eyes and ears”. They hear and see things that even the best performers can’t detect about their own performances. In endurance coaching, anyone can design hard workouts. Anyone can make you tired and push you into the darkness. In coaching lawyers, anyone can tell you what to do even if it is beyond your comfort zone.
But a good coach will help you understand where you want to go, devise a plan that is within your comfort zone and that will get you there, and then be your mentor and accountability partner to assure your success.
Who is your coach? Is it your colleague, your spouse or significant other or a professional whose career is devoted to helping others like you to succeed? Whomever it may be, we all succeed sooner and stay on top longer when we have a coach, our "outside eyes and ears."
I was asked again about percentages of expenses. The inquiry came as a result of a recent survey that was being reviewed. What is the appropriate expense percentage of revenue for health, etc. was the question in this instance.
This was my response:
I don’t worry about surveys or what percentages others manage. Every business/law firm is different … and there are too many variables to look at others’ operations and then get depressed because you didn’t meet them or elated because you bettered them … each feeling may not be justified. Do the best you can under your particular circumstances.
When I coach and consult with lawyers, that is one of the areas of my inquiry … how we can do what we do better. If your profit is 20%, for example, who’s to say that it couldn’t be 25%? And if another firm manages 30%, does that make your percentage a poor performance? Not necessarily. Remember that percentages of this nature are based off the beginning figure of revenue. How is your revenue? If you can get it higher, then your expense percentages will be lower/better.
There are too many variables to give a definitive answer. Thus, I distrust the surveys that are floating around.
Yesterday, one of the attendees at the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association suggested that increased competition was the largest challenge facing lawyers. He said that more lawyers are using television as a major promotional venue ... and it's very difficult to compete against. These are not just the lawyers on late night, early morning spot ads. But, rather, lawyers throughout the day and in a variety of practice areas.
Television advertising is an important marketing tool for many lawyers. It has become more important for some, despite the increasing importance of the internet.
One way to address these competitors is to focus on existing clients. Bond with existing clients, serve them in ways that creates loyalty, and have these very same clients be your advocates with others.
In such a case, you don't need television. You won't have competitors! You will be in your own bubble, growing your revenue and growing your profitability with clients who continue to return and who refer others to you.
In a recent study of the top 100 general counsel, a woman was listed as the top earner (more than $6 million) and more women (14) appeared in the list. This is the first and most since the study began.
One of my clients recently asked me why we all do what we know is not good for us, in fact, hurts us? If you’ve got a choice between option A that is good for us an d option B that is not good for us, why do we oftentimes select option B? To be specific, why do we procrastinate? Why do we fail to enforce our own engagement agreements? Why do we continue to work for clients who do not pay our billings? And we could go on …
In this specific instance, my client complains about his partners and associates not collecting billings for work performed. There may be several possibilities to answer the “why.” One is that, despite being in an adversarial profession, most of us dislike being confrontational, especially with our own clients. Second, lawyers like doing what they love to do … and collecting (or any business related matter) is not what they love to do. And third, they don’t perceive this as their business.
There may be a number of solutions that will get their attention. First, you sign the paycheck. That carries a lot of weight if you care to wield the “stick.” Two, engage a staff person to be the collections manager for the firm; don’t ask lawyers to do that which they’re both not qualified to do and which takes them away from doing what they do best. Third, read my book, Collecting Your Fee: Getting Paid from Intake to Invoice, and follow the scenario and script outlined to interact with slow-paying clients.
At a recent presentation on our Road to Revenue National Tour, a young lawyer was concerned. She said that she has a new practice and has been successful in keeping her accounts receivable to a minimum. In other words, she has been able to work, bill and get paid quickly, the three elements of my 3Dimensional Lawyer® . Her concern, though, is that her pipeline for new business seems to be empty. She is concerned that prompt payment has an impact on additional work to be lined up for her to do.
In order of priority, one needs to get the work … marketing. Then, one must do the work. Production. Next, one needs to get paid. Finance. These are the three legs of the stool. The successful lawyer/law firm must focus on collections. Less than a 90% realization/collection rate is a symbol of future trouble.
In this lawyer’s situation, she is successful in the collection phase. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine a higher success rate when you have little to no accounts receivable.
The focus, then, needs to be on marketing, getting more work to fill the pipeline. These are separate and distinct issues. Relish in your success collecting your billings and address the marketing to attract more clients.
Should a lawyer-employer lend or give money to an employee to improve her skills, to become a paralegal, when there is some concern that she may not remain with the firm more than 2 years more?
This is a question that is posed more often than we realize. How would you respond?
In my experience, the answer is determined by the contribution the employee makes to the firm. However, if there is concern about whether the employee will remain with the firm, my inclination would be to hesitate.
Continuing education,not only for lawyers, but also for staff is essential for improving skills and effective representation of clients. And we should do anything we can do to encourage staff improvement.
Bob Denney says "... “70% of the managing partners [or CEOs] do not have a job description and most partners do not know what their MP does. In addition, in firms of more than 100 lawyers, only 10% have full-time managing partners.”
No wonder that in 1995, the USPO concurred with me that "The Business of Law" was a unique phrase and granted my request for a registered mark. Major law firms still, as Denny confirms, require that "managing partners" maintain a full client load of billable time. There may be some concessions, but by and large, they are evaluated on their client production rather than their effectiveness in keeping the firm together and moving forward.
I think of the analogy with Lee Iococca. Though he was given credit for designing and producing the Mustang, he could no longer perform the design or product management functions in his position as CEO and later Chairman of Chrysler. How is it that law firms believe the managing partner (CEO) of a multi-million dollar professional service organization can do more than an industry giant?
More than 23% of the Washington State Bar Association, a mandatory bar, are 60 years or older. Several years ago, the American Bar Association, a voluntary bar, estimated that 400,000 lawyers would retire in the next 10 years. For the ABA, that’s equal to its entire membership. And that's equal to about 40% of all lawyers and a majority of private practitioners.Continue Reading...
The Oregon State Bar (OSB) Association was at its most hospitable best. The standing room only group of lawyers shared their experiences as I talked about how to create stronger bonds of loyalty between client and lawyer. When I asked why we should care about this issue, two very poignant answers were shouted out: i) We'd like to get paid and an unhappy client won't pay their bill; and ii) when we deal with disappointed clients, disappointed in us, not the other party to the transaction or result of the matter, our own stress goes through the roof!
Increased revenue and decreased stress, two outstanding reasons why we should care ... I think the members of this audience hit it on the nail!
Next stop is Seattle ... come join us if you're in the area..
Outsourcing jobs typically pay better than temp work — and certainly better than no work at all. This is the message of a recent article. The legal profession is developing its own caste system. We all understand some of the differences, or castes:
- Big Law vs. Small Law
- Sole practitioner vs. Large firm lawyer
- Specialist vs. Generalist
- Boutique vs. Full product line
- Domestic vs. Outsource (overseas as in India and Philippines)
And I’m sure there are other distinctions that I've overlooked. But, now there is another phenomenon appearing. ....
What are the more than 400,000 "baby boomers" going to do in the next 10 years? For some, who are working in private practice law firms, the issue may be particularly important -- because they may be "fired." This may not be the word used; it may be "eased out," "de-equitized," "transitioned to new status" within the firm. If the lawyer is lucky, he/she may still have a place to go and income (though reduced) to receive. But, egos will be bruised.
This topic is handled nicely by recent article in the New York Times. In that article, Norm Levine (a friend and client) suggests that the real issue is not age, but rather productivity. Even lawyers who are quite young can have productivity issues while "old" lawyers are still going gangbusters. The EEOC is examining this issue in a number of current cases. And the ABA Journal is following the dialogue.
This issue applies to many professions, such as the nursing profession, the accounting profession and others.
The only real protection is to make sure you're a vigorous rainmaker; don't let your skills deteriorate or your energy lag as you get older. Make sure you have very good client relationships and "control" the firm - client business relationship. And/or make sure you have a unique skill set that is hard for the firm to replace with younger lawyers.
Of course, if you're a sole practitioner, you can sell your law practice when you choose to vacate the office. I am find more and more lawyers calling me about creating their exit strategy, which they expect will include a sale. A client of mine wants to leave the practice later this year at the age of 80. He's had a great career ... and we/he just signed a contract for the sale of his practice. That's a great way to go -- on top, healthy and with time left to do other things you would like to enjoy.
Lawyers today are looking at this issue more closely than ever before. Succession planning is one of the hot topics bar associations are asking me to address as I start our on our Road to Revenue National Road Show. Call me if you want me to visit your community.
Despite today's economy, some law firms are growing ... by merger and acquisition.
In fact, I had lunch with such a law firm just this last week. They are an 100 lawyers firm that is seeking to grow. They are interested in acquiring my client, a substantial boutique that would add a significant presence for them both in the relevant practice area as well as the geographic area.
We couldn't seem to connect, however. I made it very clear that my client was talking about selling his firm. Their offer suggested that they were interested in "merging." The reason was simple: No capital outlay was needed for a merger. The "offer" was structured in a way that would pay my client several hundred thousand dollars more than he is currently earning. And 100% of the payment to my client would be tax deductible as an ordinary expense, not a capital expenditure. They structured the offer this way also in order to be sure that the "book of business" follows my client for several years. This, was not what we wanted ... we are not looking to become partners in the acquiring firm.
During our conversation, it became clear why we were communicating at different levels...Continue Reading...
Lawyers need to communicate. The ones who face malpractice actions typically fail to communicate with their clients to learn what clients want, how they want to hear about it, and where the client’s business or personal needs may be headed.
But I think lawyers – and most of the rest of society – have increasingly fallen into the trap of too much communication with their cell and smart phones. Cell phone use for many people seems to have become a natural extension of themselves – they inflict it on everybody around them. Just like drivers who hog the left lane while driving at half the speed limit and remaining oblivious to everyone else on the road, these cell phone users hog the physical space of those around them with the sound of their own voice, and are oblivious to how irritating it is.It’s not hard to create a list of pet peeves about these people.
Here are some of mine:
· People determined to shout their conversations as loudly as possible, presumably to show off their wit or importance or intelligence (and of course doing the opposite).
· People who board a plane and decide to place orders on their cell while sharing their private credit card information.
· People who look for the proper signal area – with a constant "Can you hear me? Can you hear me now?" – but never seem to find it.
· People who let their cell phone ring time after time, in a workshop or a concert or anywhere else where they can ignore the stares of those they annoy.
· People sharing half of their life stories in an elevator or a crowded vehicle, completely unaware that others don't care about all the “fascinating” details.
· People who absolutely must interrupt their call with me to get another call rather than letting it go to voice mail.
My “favorites” are those who talk while in the stall of a public restroom. When I encounter one of them, I make as much bathroom noise as possible (flushing toilets or urinals multiple times, using the hand-dryers). Anything to let the individual on the other end of the phone know that the person is talking to them from a bathroom....
I’m sure you have your own special list of such people. Share it and I’ll pass along the responses in a future post. Maybe all of us together can generate enough “shaming” to change some behaviors.
Even marketing folks are concerned about the return on the investment in one's daily activities. While some folks, yes, lawyers too, ignore the money, marketing professionals are trying to convince their management that they are important to the success of their organization, that they are responsible for a lot of new business.
AdAge says: "...Return on advertising investment has always been a priority for marketers, but in the recession it flew to the top of the list. As chief marketing officers fought to justify spending within their organizations -- often via spirited discussions with procurement departments about where the dollars are going... " The Days, the subject matter of this article, I'm pleased to say are friends ... and outstanding marketers who focus on providing a profit on marketing dollars spent.
Do you look at this issue? Can you determine whether the money you spend is producing a profit, is enabling you to expand in your practice area, is improving your skill as a lawyer, or otherwise contributing to the improvement of your law practice? You should. If not, you're in the gardening, playing with the dirt rather than growing gorgeous roses for sale to others who can appreciate your skills.
Alan Weiss, a noted consultant (and my coach) said today: "... I've never seen happy customers when there are unhappy employees (either naturally unhappy or angry at the employer). I have seen happy employees and unhappy customers (no supervision, lazy, entitled). Always hire enthusiasm, you can teach the content.(emphasis added) ... And make sure you demonstrate within the business the behavior you'd like to see bestowed on the customer. .."
Another way of saying this is what I've always preached: Hire for work ethic; hire someone who is passionate about their work, about making a contribution to the organization. and about focusing on the client, not themselves. The rest can be taught. Skills can be taught, attitude cannot.
"The NLJ 250 collectively employed 9,567 fewer lawyers in 2010 than it did in 2008, a decline of nearly 8 percent in headcount, with the 10 largest firms in the U.S. alone losing more than 1,000 lawyers last year. This is just the second time in the 34-year history of the NLJ 250 survey that the nation’s largest law firms have experienced a net reduction in employed lawyers for two consecutive years."
This group of law firms, the largest of which is Baker & McKenzie at 3,700+ lawyers, makes up less than 5% of the attorney population. Their growth, like all corporate growth, has its expansion and contraction phases. There are at least two questions that come to mind:
1. Is this contraction permanent? Is this contraction a reflection of the entire industry?
2. Does this contraction reflect a major shift in the way legal services will be delivered in the future?
My crystal ball does not give me the answers. But, I believe that
i) even sole and small firm practitioners felt the change;
ii) though the numbers in the survey reflect 2008 as the base year, there does seem to be a cautiously upbeat attitude among lawyers today. More lawyers are contacting me with the serious questions of how do we make our practice better, how do we grow our practice ... in other words, lawyers are starting to come out from their caves, a bit shell shocked, but ready to understand the needs of clients and focus on providing solutions to their clients;
iii) it's not the contraction that will cause the shift in the way services are delivered, it's the continuing evolution of technology that will impact the delivery of services. And this conclusion would have been the same with or without the contraction. It's just that, because of the contraction, we're more sensitive to the changes. But, these changes began before 2007-2008, and they will continue after 2011.
Lawyers have to be more sensitive to technological changes and how these changes can improve their efficiency and mode of delivery. Clients certainly are and they are looking for those lawyers who can reduce their legal costs (not necessarily hourly rate). Thus, even the decades-old billing and pricing models will be subject to pressures that mere conversation failed to impact until now.
As Oprah said yesterday while interviewing the President and First Lady, "... keep your eyes on the prize." Know what you want in your practice. Know what your clients want from you ... what is the ultimate solution they are seeking by engaging your services? Stay focused and you will have happy clients ... happy clients pay their bills ... happy clients refer their colleagues and friends ... While doing good, you will be able to do well.
In most states, strict compliance with trust accounting regulations is required. Where such regulations require a paper trail that includes retaining canceled checks and other features of an older era, lawyers are inadvertently out of compliance. How? Why?
The banking industry has moved on. They are into the electronic age and we have not kept up. For example, few banking institutions, if any, still return canceled checks. They send photocopies and, after a short time, destroy the canceled checks. See the federal Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act.
In August, 2010, the American Bar Association's House of Delegates adopted the new Model Rules for Client Trust Account Records to replace the Model Rules on Financial Recordkeeping, in effect since 1993. The ABA rules now enable lawyers to use electronic tools to comply with Model Rule 1.15 concerning holding clients funds and property.
Check your State rules -- not all states have updated their regulations.
McKinsey & Co. released a report stating that 'inadequate career development has kept women from reaching the top rungs of the corporate ladder..." The same is true in law firms who correspondingly have low numbers in top management.
The report said "...companies need to spend more time coaching women ..." Corporate America understands this; when lawyers learn to understand this, they will become better lawyers.
The coaching process works for athletes, works for top executives in Corporate America; and works for others who want to increase their revenue and decrease their stress. A side benefit of great importance an increase in one's self-esteem. Lack thereof is one of the greatest impediments faced by most professionals, probably because our standard is "perfection." I know no one who is able to reach that standard. Coaching can show us how important "progress" is without worrying about reaching an impossible level of perfection. Having someone walk the plank with you who understands these issues and can enable you to progress is important. As with an athlete, having a coach can be the difference between a very successful practice and a modest practice.
Yes, say some.
Only a short time ago, we believed that non-lawyers would be able to participate in the ownership of American law firms. The pressure, so we believed, would come from the British Empire. Australia already allows this and it will soon be permitted in England. But, not the U.S. ... until now.
The District of Columbia permits non-lawyer ownership to the extent of 25% interest in a law firm. And, now, North Carolina has a bill before its Senate that would allow 49% non-lawyer ownership.
One argument is that law firms have expanded and are now very large organizations. In order to grow, they need additional capital ... and capital is best raised in the capital markets, not from individual partners of law firms ... and that means non-lawyer ownership. While large law firms are looking more and more like their corporate clients, it is still a stretch to suggest that law firms should raise outside capital.
Do law firms need to grow? Why can't corporate clients' interests be served well by smaller regional law firms? Why does the corporate law firm have to be as large as the client? We saw unions grow in both size and power in response to corporate and management growth and power. And we now see unions fighting to stay alive. Will that also happen to large law firms of the future? Will technology enable small groups of lawyers to be effective in large corporate representation?
Some argue that the rules of professional conduct wouldn't bind non-lawyers in matters of confidentiality and charging reasonable fees. Further, the very independence of lawyer's judgment might come into question. But, the rules have been bent, if not changed or discarded entirely, when large firms' economic interests were at stake. So, it will be fascinating to see who argues on which side and how this issue develops.
Is it possible that this issue will finally cause the break up of the mandatory (integrated) bar association into State licensing agencies on the one hand and voluntary bar associations on the other hand ... with the latter being the home of sole and small firm practitioners banding together to serve their own economic interests?
In today's L.A. Times, a doctor talks about her reaction to meeting a patient in an airport restroom. The patient was out of context and the doctor was taken aback, at first not recognizing the patient. She concludes by suggesting how much she learned about the patient by seeing her in her own environment, the place where she works. As a consequence, she starts to think about how her future treatment of this patient will be altered.
How often do we, as lawyers, see our clients in their habitat? What kinds of information might we gather, mostly unspoken information, that would dramatically alter the advice we provide? In many cases, quite a bit! Yet, not many lawyers take the time, unbillable time, to visit our clients to really get to know more about them, their work and family environments, and the possible impact on the clients of the advice we provide.
Like the doctor writing the article, I suspect our approach would be somewhat different. And, perhaps more important, the connection the client has with us would be dramatically different! That bond, needless to say, would result in better representation and more referrals. Interested?
Someone said, "Business, by definition, is taking a risk. Law, by definition, is staying away from risk."
I look at law a bit differently. I think law looks to the past for today's decision with a view to guide tomorrow's action.
And accounting, is merely recording this period of time in order to tell the government what we did and, as a result, how much "protection money" we need to pay.
What do you think the functions or attributes of the three professions/businesses are?
I recently wrote in my LawBiz Tips Ezine about how law schools continue to churn out new graduates even as demand for them drops, and cited a New York Times article on this issue that concluded: “Today, American law schools are like factories that no force has the power to slow down – not even the timeless dictates of supply and demand.”
Now it appears that the law of supply and demand has not been repealed after all. The Wall Street Journal reports numbers from the Law School Admissions Council showing that the number of law-school applicants this year is down 11.5% from a year ago to 66,876. The figure, which is a tally of applications for the fall 2011 class, is the lowest since 2001 at this stage of the process, which is almost 90% completed.
The reasons aren’t hard to understand. Firms increasingly prefer to hire lateral attorneys who have already had on-the-job training and books of business, rather than new graduates who don’t understand “The Business of Law®” and will take years to begin returning a profit on the investment made in them. And from the student side, the realization that going six figures into debt to get a J.D. degree that offers no assurance of gainful employment is not exactly a smart idea – especially for those whose main motivation to attend law school was to make the supposed “big bucks” available rather than to pursue a legal career.
So who is hurt most if the law school bubble does burst? We can only hope it will be the law schools themselves, who continue to pour huge resources into “gaming” the law school rankings so that they can move up from number 19 to number 17 and thereby (they presume) entice more students to enroll. When the housing bubble burst, it was – and continues to be – the financial geniuses at the banks who were left holding the bag. Are law school administrators any smarter?
After my last post about customer service, Orbea, the manufacturer of the bike frame I was riding when I was involved in an accident, a company representative contacted me. His explanation for the less than appropriate company response was that it was sent from Spain, the company headquarters, and the sender had challenges with the English language.
Whether this is true, I cannot say. But, Mr. Paul Alexander of the U.S. Orbea arm said that I should visit a local Orbea retailer and I would receive a 15% - 20% discount on a new bike. He said, "I look forward to getting you back on your bike and leave you a satisfied Orbea cyclist."
Thank you, Mr. Alexander. That should have been the first response from Orbea. My wife asked for information about the company's "crash program." Even an expression of sympathy/concern and a statement that the company doesn't have a crash program would have sufficed ... and saved unfavorable ink in this blog. Commenting on Orbea's warranty program was not the subject of my wife's inquiry.
I'm glad to see that the company has recouped so gracefully. Some companies don't do even that. Some time ago, you may remember that United Airlines committed a major gaff. By not treating their customers with due respect, a song was written about the company and it appeared in the social media. The company stock dropped 10% as a result! That is still the subject of some discussion.
I'm glad that Orbea represented the cycling industry more professionally and with greater sensitivity on the rebound.
Last week, I had an accident. A preoccupied driver who admitted she didn’t see me failed to yield the right of way and turned left before I could see her. My bicycle hit her right front fender. You can see a picture of the damage to the car. Sometimes, it's better to hit than be hit. Because I hit her car, rather than she hitting me, I am alive and still walking, albeit with some difficulty. The fireman and paramedics said they'd never seen such damage to a car from a bike. “... Either the car was made of plastic or you are a man of steel!...”
If I were made of steel, I would not be so sore and bruised as I am still today. My thighs and quads have turned colors I never knew existed; like burnt toast. The bike down tube is cracked and very good, beautiful and cherished Orbea Orca carbon fiber bike is history. I'm lucky, frankly, to be alive ... The alternative is not appealing.
Once things settled down, several days later, and a mechanic suggested that some manufacturers offer deep discounts for bike frame replacements needed because of a crash, my wife found the e-mail address for Orbea and sent them this note: “...My husband was involved in a traffic accident with his 2008 Orbea-Orca .... He is apparently okay with major bruising but his beloved Orbea has a damaged frame on the post between the seat and the pedals. Is there an incentive Orbea offers to encourage customers to replace a damaged bike with Orbea? ... Thank you.
CANNOT MAKE THIS UP
The company response follows: “Good morning, Thank you for contacting with Orbea! In case of accident, Orbea’s Warranty is null and void. Sincerely, ...”
We never entered a warranty claim; that was never in my mind. My wife was merely checking out the status of their crash program. Some companies retain the loyalty of their customers by allowing them deep discounts to replace a damaged bike (product) and then studying the returned item for future research and improved manufacturing processes. My wife’s response was classic understatement: “We were not expecting to file a Warranty claim. We understand that some bike manufacturers give a discount on purchasing a new bike when a bike has been in an accident. You might consider doing the same. We are in the market now for a new bike. Thank you for your concern.”
Lessons here are legion.
First, listen to your customer’s comments and requests. This reminds me of the classic instruction from a lawyer to his client: Listen to the question. Answer only the question. Then shut up! Wait for the next question. Don’t answer what you think should have been the question.
Second lesson: Everyone in your firm represents the organization. If a receptionist is rude, if a secretary fails to give you a message; if an associate is ill-prepared for a conference or court appearance, this reflects poorly on you as the senior lawyer and the firm as a whole. Education and training is not limited to the lawyers in the firm. Everyone needs to take continuing education programs to maintain and elevate skills and service levels.
Third lesson, don’t “piss off” the economic buyer (in this case, my wife) in your organization or you will never retain the business, and accompanying revenue.
Fourth lesson, live your life for now. There may not be a tomorrow. Yes, we have to keep an eye on the future, saving, planning and preparing. But, don’t do so without having some joy and value (your subjective opinion here) each day that passes. For me, the pleasure and reward is a vigorous bike ride, especially as a reward for something I did during that day. Whatever it is for you, “just do it.”
I’m sure you can provide other valuable lessons from this experience. Contact me or write your comment below. Let’s see how many lessons we can create from this one true-life experience.
Effective March 15, the Howrey law firm, which once employed as many as 750 lawyers, dissolved. As in past megafirm failures … Brobeck, Altheimer, Thelen, the list goes on … there never is just one, but a variety of root causes that feed the primary death blow, an exodus of lawyers.
In Howrey’s case as a litigation-focused firm, according to the firm’s CEO (quoted in the ABA Journal), up to 11% of the firm’s billable hours were devoted to contingency matters. “Some people, including some fairly high-level people, sort of bailed on us when they didn't get exactly what they wanted,” the CEO said. “You have to ask your partners to be patient until it [contingency billing] pays off, and not everyone is patient enough.”
In pure contingency law firms, that's exactly what every equity lawyer does, wait. Wait until the judgment or settlement is paid. Why should that be different with the Howrey firm? Lawyers working on contingency matters bring no money into the firm, yet are responsible for many dollars flowing out ... in the form of lawyer and staff compensation and expenses advanced to sustain the lawsuit. And if the result of the case doesn’t benefit the firm, the loss can be substantial.
But, the lawyers of the firm knew that. Thus, the question, why is it now that there is objection? Though conjecture, apparently, Howrey partners wanted pure hourly billing, less contingency work … and were uncomfortable with advancing costs for matters in which they were at risk. They seemingly could not determine, to the satisfaction of enough, how to divide the compensation pool when revenues arrived out of sequence to the work performed connected with those revenues.
If fees to the firm based on contingency reached 11%, it’s almost like having one client exceed the 10% threshold, a level that I’ve said before is dangerous. Control of this much money was essentially out of the partners’ hands, unless the firm only took on matters that were virtually sure things … which conversely would lessen the likelihood of a big contingency payout.
Other factors to consider that would lessen the threat to my 10% rule is that it's unlikely that any one matter reached 10%; if the intake decisions were wise, the firm benefited more than it suffered from periodic big revenue bumps; in today's world of "value billing," the firm would be at the forefront of aligning its interests with those of its clients. The firm should have been able, with good cash flow management and a committed group of partners to the team concept, to marry both worlds of contingency and hourly billings.
The ultimate lesson in this dissolution seems to be that Howrey fostered an environment of solo silos (with some lawyers piling up cost but poised to earn a great deal of money if "their" ship came in), not an environment where everyone was pulling for the whole (irrespective of how they brought in the revenue.
Any firm that encourages lawyers to maximize their individual compensation may have fast near-term growth. But approaching compensation as an institution makes for greater firm harmony and longevity of the firm as an institution ... and, in my opinion, greater long-term value for all.
There is a song that suggests that "all things have a season ..." And perhaps the time has come for the dismemberment of the mandatory bar, especially in California. My last post on the subject suggested that the current president of the Bar is doing a disservice to its members by complying with the implicit demand of the Legislature to eliminate lawyers from participating in the Board of Governors; lawyers should not elect its own governing body.
And, if you believe that the Bar has no business in addressing the needs of its members, then Mr. Hebert is right; the Legislature is right; let's create a licensing agency and do away with the Bar as we know it. Let's call it what it is, a tax, a fee for the privilege to practice law. A fee for the privilege to help people address their legal needs. After all, we "tax" plumbers, accountants and others for their privilege of earning a living as they do and helping their constituencies. Why should lawyers be different? Assess the fee for licensing and keeping lawyers on the path (the disciplinary process). And let lawyers form a voluntary association to provide economic advice and continuing education and lobbying efforts.
Seems simple. But, the current discussions are off onto a different path. President Hebert says that the only goal of the Bar should be to protect the public; that any benefit to or for lawyers is incidental and of little consequence.
Yet, if he (the president and other members of the Board and Legislature) truly believed in protecting the public, the first step would be to understand what the public concerns are. And that would require looking at the state Bar's disciplinary report. If you did, you's find that more than 50% of the complaints there against lawyers relate to issues of managing a law practice.
The number one complaint is still the failure to respond timely to clients. To address this and other such time and practice management issues, one need only to provide appropriate education programs. Help lawyers be more effective with their clients and more efficient in the delivery of their services. And, again, but only if you want to protect the public, require malpractice insurance at affordable prices. With its enormous buying power, California ought to be able to craft an affordable insurance program. The cynic in me says this won't happen no matter how the Bar is re-configured.
Oh, the mandatory part might show up ... but not the affordable part ... Why, because neither President Hebert nor the Legislature cares much about the average practitioner who helps the average citizen. That may be a harsh criticism, but it is apparent from observable behavior to date of both.
Lawyers have a right to have spokesperson; lawyers have a right to have someone promote their interests in Sacramento. And lawyers have a right to organize for their own economic well-being. It's clear the State Bar of California is not doing any of this!
In today’s Managing Partners Roundtable, we talked about the costs of digitizing all files the firm maintains. One partner suggested that failure to do so might result in malpractice allegations. This is an interesting concept, one that I don’t believe has yet taken hold.
Cons: Expensive, time consuming, lawyers must be involved to determine which file matters can be "cleansed" and tossed, files must be taken apart to scan, decisions on what hard copy to toss now and what to save (and for how much longer)
Pros: Reduction in amount of real estate needed to store files, lower cost of occupancy resulting from a conversion, searchability by keyword rather than memory, one time investment.
Several years ago, a Chicago law firm began this process by scanning documents through a photocopy machine. Their contract provided for payment only when paper was copied and printed, not just scanned. Thus, this segment had limited cost. Disabled people were employed to do the work, thus enabling the firm to do well by doing good, and maintain its cost of labor at a lower cost than would have resulted with its own personnel. The entire process was conducted in the evening so the normal workflow of the firm was not disrupted. This firm was ahead of its time in this process.
In today’s meeting, I learned of a major firm that completed this project last year at a rather high cost. But, the investment was believed to be essential to an efficient future operation of the firm. And, of course, younger lawyers are so conversant with the electronic world that some seldom even touch paper anymore.
Technology has and will continue to have a major impact on the efficiency of the delivery of legal services and the costs to clients.
Have you ever had problems traveling, making connections or finding that weather is a great excuse to be surly to those you serve? If you've ever experienced any of these, or a myriad of other issues facing us when we travel, check out my latest commentary on having been stranded in Manhattan, trying to get home from JFK. While bad weather is a legitimate catalyst for scrambling (as in Chicago), just remember that you're in the business and know these things happen. Be prepared with a good attitude - your customers need all the help and pleasantness they can get.
Thus, as lawyers, you know that your clients will always be in stress. Make sure that you and your staff are pleasant. It will make the relationship go more smoothly ... oh, and yes, they will be far more willing to pay your bills timely! Heed this advice only if you understand that you are in The Business of Law®.
The article by David Streitfeld is a good piece. He's the housing reporter for the NY Times and spends most of his time in California. In response to an earlier piece by him on the subject, where he failed to mention California, I contacted him. He knew nothing about the law in California (since 2009) or the State Bar's modification of its Rules of Professional Conduct that made it a crime to take money from clients in advance of completion of the loan modification, not even for deposit into a client's trust account.
I told him about the new law and pointed him to several of my blog posts on this topic where he could learn more.
I'm glad that he's written about it now, in more detail and highlighted California's experience.
As a side note, an officer of Bank of America claims that of the Bank's loan modifications, more than 70% go back into default within 2 years ... a scary statistic. Should the Bank be responsible for maintaining a family in a home which it can't afford, even with a modified loan structure? I'm not sure ... Or, should the government offer some help. They have bailed out the big banks on Wall Street, how about some help for the people on Main Street? I'm not sure what is the right answer. It's clear, however, that if no one helps, we'll have many more foreclosures in 2011 and 2012. Our political spectrum is so polarized today that all we seem to hear is noise, white noise, and more noise.
BTW, it was a politician seeking headlines that started the ball rolling. And, it was the absence of lawyers in the legislature (only about 23% today) that permitted it. And, a non-lawyer governor who signed it. And, it seems, non-profit organizations who lobbied for it (a little competition there, would you say?). Who gets screwed? The people.
Too bad the State Bar president failed to support sole and small firm lawyers who worked in this area. Rather, he seemed hell bent on chastising the whole because of a few bad apples. Rather, the Bar and the District Attorney could have used the many rules (moral turpitude and others) and laws (Penal Code against theft) already on the books to protect the people scammed by lawyers without removing entirely the good lawyers from this process. Provisions on the books already protect against any lawyer taking money from a client under false pretenses (theft) and the rules of professional conduct protects against moral turpitude and for not performing work that was promised. The State Bar didn't have to follow the urging of the bar president to support this effort.
The state bar president, at the very best, gives no more than lip service to solos ... See my open letter.
(Note: The California State Bar President asked California lawyers to contribute to the State Bar's efforts to provide legal services to those in need. Following is an open letter to the President; his letter is set forth below.
I agree with you completely. There is a tremendous "justice gap." I'm glad the State Bar is seeking to do something about this. I wonder, however, why the State Bar doesn't expend the same energy on helping its own members, lawyers. One study reported by the State Bar several years ago indicated that 50% of lawyers in this state earn less than $100,000. Just think, if the State Bar would actually help its members be more effective with their clients, be more efficient in the delivery of their services and, yes, be more profitable, members of the Bar would then i) be less tempted to invade client trust accounts (a public service issue) and ii) have money to contribute to narrow the "justice gap."
Instead, however, the Bar does things that are perceived by our members to be antithetical to the interests of lawyers … The list is rather long and I won't bore you here with issues on which I've spoken before. But, until you (the organized, mandatory Bar) works with its members … until you (the organized, mandatory Bar) has as at least one of its primary goals the interests of its members, you have a great deal of courage (some might say gall) to ask struggling lawyers to contribute more than they already do.
If our Bar were a voluntary Bar, I suspect less than 50% would join … Then we would not have governance issues imposed on us by the legislature. Of course, we would also be far more interested in the thoughts and concerns of our members than is currently the case.
Clearly, these are my own thoughts, not those of any Section or other body of the State Bar … but these thoughts were clearly expressed to me just this morning by another attorney. I thought you should know, considering you're asking us for money.
And let me take this opportunity to wish you and your family the best of the holiday season. You've taken on a very tough job, some would say a thankless job, and I wish you great courage and strength.Continue Reading...
Psychologists at the University of Toronto and Tufts University say that people with powerful looking faces will be more profitable and that one's career success can be predicted as much as 30 to 40 years earlier simply by looking at their face.
Professor Nicholas Rule of the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto, is the lead author of a new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. “This includes clothing, posture, and hairstyles, but the real window to judging people is the face. We developed a method to measure facial power and found that it is a strong predictor of law firm profitability.”
The ratings of perceived dominance from photos of managing partners were correlated with the profits of the leaders’ respective law firms; the findings were positively associated with one another, both for the judgments made from current photos and those made from college yearbook photos of the same people. Just think about the cute notes in your college yearbook. What if someone who predicted your success actually had the talent to read your face?
The psychologists studied only lawyers, but say the same principles apply to all people and industries. So, does this mean that we are trapped by our DNA, by the faces that nature provided us with at birth? Where does active will come into play? Oh, I'm sorry, this sounds just too much like my college philosophy class.
But, think about this for selecting your next law firm leader. Think about this for jury selection. The applications are endless ... if true.
For more, see the findings presented in a paper titled “Judgments of Power from College Yearbook Photos and Later Career Success”, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Today, a client called me to ask whether I know a compensation systems consultant who can help their firm create the right environment for non-equity partners to become equity partners. My response was i) compensation systems are a function of the firm culture and governance; ii) one first must analyze what the goals of the firm are and ought to be; iii) for any system to work, it must have the acceptance ("buy-in") of the principle stakeholders in the firm.
Most systems will work so long as the participants deem the system in place to be fair and reasonable. The system is better, in my opinion, when there are objective metrics in place. But, even subjective metrics work as long as the participants think there is fairness and justice working ... with an appellate process in place that is also fair and just.
Oh, by the way, I concluded, I do that! <g>
As in most law firms, compensation systems is where governance and other issues are expressed.
In a recent matter, a female partner claims that Dewey & LeBoeuf, a law firm that has received diversity awards, discriminates against women. She asserts that women partners receive less compensation than men in the firm.
The firm's partner distribution system is apparently based on origination, not just billable work. This is the case in many firms. What do you do, however, when "the old boy network" was created years ago, when women were not major law firm players, and there is no "sunset" provision in the firm for compensation? Seemingly, this would entrench old relations as the basis for current compensation ... and allow little or no access to women, to younger lawyers, and to other diverse groups in the firm.
Firms unwilling to look anew at their compensation culture will continue to face challenges from within as well as pressures from clients from without.