the - LawBizBlog

Alternative law firm business model

Ed — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:23:19 -0500

From Lawyers USA, we learn that the American Bar's Ethics Commission has recommended that states rules be changed to allow non-lawyers to own up to 25% of law firms.

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.

State Bar to be dismembered

Ed — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:14:04 -0500

William Hebert, President of the State Bar of California, is leading the charge to dismember the State Bar. Hebert's plan would eliminate six lawyers' seats on the Board of Governors, shrinking the current 23-member body to 17. The Governor and Legislature would still name six non-lawyers to the Board, but the state Supreme Court would choose the remaining 11 lawyer-members, stripping Bar members' current power to elect them.

In other words, despite paying dues, practicing lawyers would no longer have any say in the election of the people who govern their every action, their every responsibility to the public and their very right to earn a living. Does this sound a little like “taxation without representation?”

Yes, the state Legislature’s edict was to study the issue of governance and respond to Legislature. But, there is an option not being pursued by the Bar: Responding that the status quo works just fine, and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Or, let’s identify exactly how the Bar is being unresponsive to the public and address those issues. A wholesale change being contemplated will not change the public’s perception nor will it protect the public any more so than the current body does. This reminds me of the recent insurance discussion. The public would have been protected only be demanding that lawyers have malpractice insurance. But, the Bar didn’t go that far. Instead, they merely made it a requirement to notify clients if they didn’t have such insurance. In other words, we’re looking for band-aids; we’re not looking at the real issues. The Legislature didn’t help by connecting this report to the dues bill. And eliminating the voice of lawyers in the election of its governing body likewise will not address the Legislature’s core concerns.

The issue, raised by a body whose members no longer contain a meaningful number of lawyers, is about public protection ... and the perception by some that the State Bar’s sole mission should be to protect the public. I don’t know where these folks have been hiding, but that is the mission of the current Bar. All one has to do is read the Rules of Professional Conduct. All one has to do is speak to the hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers who feel the wrath of the Bar by its actions and in-actions (and I’m not referring to the disciplinary system that appropriately charges a small percentage of lawyers with misdeeds).

In fact, only one State Bar President in recent memory was so bold as to suggest that the State Bar has two goals: One is to protect the public; and two is to help lawyers be more effective for their clients and more efficient in the delivery of their legal services, again for the benefit of the public. Neither the staff nor any other president in recent memory has publicly uttered anything but the first goal.

And if it’s a question of being “more responsive to the general public,” there are other approaches that can be suggested. But Mr. Hebert doesn’t even look in that direction. Merely cave into the Legislature out of fear that a dues bill might be held hostage. Does this sound like a British leader we remember in dealing with a certain tyrant? Appeasement won’t work in this circumstance either.

I have been a very strong supporter of the integrated bar all these many years since law school. However, Mr. Hebert has finally caused me to flip the switch. I am now in favor of converting the State Bar to a licensing and disciplinary agency only. The result will be a savings to lawyers of at least 20% of their current dues. It takes 80% of the dues to run the disciplinary system. That’s close to$32 million. Lawyers can then join voluntary bar associations, either local or state-wide, create the education programs they need for their betterment, lobby for laws that will benefit the public without impediment, and otherwise create activities that improve their professional conditions.

Ed Poll wins Bar's first ever Lifetime Achievement Award

Ed — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:51:30 -0500

Unique Honor Given To Law Firm Management Expert

California State Bar’s Law Practice Management and Technology Section
Gives Out Their First Lifetime Achievement Award

Venice, CA: (December 8th, 2010) – Edward Poll, principal of LawBiz® Management, recently received the honor of the first ever Lifetime Achievement Award handed out by the California State Bar’s Law Practice Management and Technology (LPMT) Section. The award, which was named after him, was given due to his extraordinary level of service, enthusiasm, and vocal advocating for small firms and solo practitioners.

“Ed deserves the award because he epitomizes what this section is about,” says Robert Brownstone, the chair of the LPMT executive committee. “He has such a tremendous amount of experience and displays so much genuine passion to give back to the legal community. He’s been a mentor to all of us.”

The LPMT section, which has been operating for nearly 32 years, works to help lawyers practice more profitably and ethically. It’s the only section in the California State Bar that focuses solely on the practical aspects of growing a law practice.

The section’s committee is composed of 15 members as well as a few Special Advisor positions. Each year, the Special Advisor positions are open to committee election. For the last five years Ed has served as a Special Advisor. The reason for his continued participation is largely due to his extensive knowledge and commitment to promoting outstanding practice management.

In over 25 years of experience as a practicing attorney, Poll has lectured at UCLA and done countless speaking, coaching, and training engagements. He’s published over a dozen books and is a syndicated columnist in all the Lawyers Weekly publications. He is one of the most active members in the legal profession on the web, posting regular YouTube videos, Blawg entries, and newsletters. Poll’s efforts have literally helped thousands of lawyers create more rewarding practices.

“I was surprised and extremely honored to have received the award,” says Poll. “It was very humbling to be honored by the committee and to have the award named after me. This is truly one of my greatest achievements!”

####

If you’d like to schedule an interview with Ed Poll to learn more about his award or discuss the challenges law practices face in the 21^st century, please contact Luke Messecar at luke@ictusinitiative.com or at 617.717.8294.

About Ed Poll

Ed Poll, J.D., M.B.A., CMC, is a nationally recognized expert in law practice management. He helps attorneys and law firms increase their profitability consulting with them on issues of internal operations, business development, and financial matters. Poll brings his clients a solid background in both law and business. He has 25 years experience as a practicing attorney and has also served as CEO and COO for several manufacturing businesses. In 1990 he founded LawBiz® Management Company and is now focused on coaching, speaking, and training law firms.

Knowledge - Who Owns It?

Ed — Mon, 24 May 2010 10:45:47 -0500

I had the pleasure of keynoting a recent conference sponsored by LexisNexis. During a panel discussion among practitioners, technology consultant and myself, the topic of the cost of new technology was discussed. One of the suggestions I made was that the successful law firm of the future will use technology to create and enhance its effort at knowledge management. The firm that is able to retrieve its pre-existing knowledge and use it again will be more efficient, reduce its costs and therefore provide excellent results for clients at a lower price.

Then, the question arises: Who owns the knowledge, who owns the forms, the precedent knowledge? Does the client who paid for it own it? Does the law firm own it? Or does the lawyer who created it own it? This becomes more important in an age of greater lateral movement.

Some clients have as a condition of engagement that they (the client) own the intellectual property ... and that the law firm must share it with other law firms who handle the client's affairs (e.g., product liability litigation) in other parts of the country.

Do you have a firm policy on this? What do you do concerning your intellectual property when a lawyer leaves your firm? Is your policy different when the lawyer is a partner as contrasted to when the lawyer is an associate?

Senior Olympics - Why so special to me

Ed — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:01:57 -0500

I competed in two events at the Senior Olympics held this week in Los Angeles. I previously reported my results. I've been thinking further about the process of the competition and came up with ideas about how the competition relates to my life, and the lives of many people in our profession. Below is how I see the Senior Olympics on the one hand and how they are a metaphor in real life. If you have other events in your life that you care to share, please write me.

]]>I would love to present the following in a graphic format but am technologically challened to do that. So, the presentation is linear. And SO means Senior Olympics and MIRL means Metaphor in Real Life.

Senior Olympics
Rode to the site of the Senior Olympics on the Sunday before the event to make sure I wouldn’t get lost on the day of the first event

Metaphor in real life
Asked my father to drive me to and around both junior and senior high school; my daughter asked me to go with her when she scouted her ultimate college choice

SO
I rode the course before the day of the event to check it out, to determine where the inclines and curves were, to determine the benchmarks before reaching both the 5K and 10K points, and to get an idea of what my time would be on this course, a course I had never ridden before, so that I would know when my last hard push on the course should start.

MIRL
A client of mine asked me to detail what the litigation process was like, what he should expect at each stage of the process and what would be the likely outcome. He needed to reduce the element of surprise and have an idea of the process since he had never been involved with the legal system before.

SO
On the day of the event, I made sure I was early so that I could warm up sufficiently, ride the course more than once and determine if any new obstacles would impact me, as well as appropriately deal with any calls of nature. Because I was early, I had time to talk to a coach who provided me invaluable information about how to approach the race; his advice enabled me to achieve my best time ever.

MIRL
My wife is always early. When she gives me a departure time, I know to advance that by at least 15 minutes. When you know what to expect, you are less likely to be subject to unwanted surprise ... and when you do arrive early, you can network with other people and learn from them.
This experience also confirmed once again the invaluable assistance a good coach provides to lawyers who want to reach their goals, to people who want to more than just show up in life.

SO
Having completed my event, I left. I began to focus on the next goal: recuperating, and then looking at the next event on the following day

MIRL
Having achieved one goal, it’s important to reward yourself, look at your success and move on to your next goal, whether it had already been stated or is created because of your recent accomplishment. This process and working with a coach is a lifetime process ... it does not end just because you achieved your first goal. Life is holistic, a complete life that includes work, play, family, personal achievements and all else that we call living. And a coach can help make important segments that much more effective and rewarding.

SO
I arrived again the following day for the next event. I was a little later than the previous day because I felt more confident that I knew the protocol. But, I was still early. And, I had another conversation with a second coach about this day’s race. He gave me a different “spin” on how to approach the race, in effect telling me that my day’s effort should exceed twice my first day’s result. I thought he was crazy, but listened to his experience. And, though it is still counter-intuitive to me since I didn’t think I could produce two extreme efforts, back to back, on the second day, I went onto the course with two objectives, not one. The first objective was to beat my previous day’s best. The second objective was to ride a time that was less than twice my previous day’s effort. I wasn’t sure I had it in me to achieve the first goal and I thought the second goal was a pipedream ... But, because of the coach and some encouragement from a third person, I achieved both goals!

MIRL
A Coach can help shape our thinking. Positive, constructive support always helps us improve our performance, whether we’re a child receiving advice from a parent or teacher, or a lawyer working with a coach knowledgeable in the process of law practice management. I believe in the coaching process so much that it is not only my profession, but I engage my own coach. And his wisdom and teachings have made a huge and positive impact on my life.