Reid Trautz to Give His "50 Top Tips" to DC Bar...Though the DC Bar Makes It impossible for People to Hear About It!
On Friday, September 21, 2007, former DC Bar law practice management expert and nationally acclaimed speaker Reid Trautz will be presenting a newly revised version of the perennial favorite,
50 Hot Technology Tips, Tricks & Web Sites for Lawyers. Ordinarily, you'd have to pay several hundred dollars to sign up for an ABA conference to hear this presentation, but the DC Bar's Law Practice Management Section (I'm an elected member of the LPM Steering Committee) is sponsoring this program as part of our Brown Bag lunch series for just $25 for section (and co-sponsoring section) members and $35 for section members.
Now, if you're a member of the DC Bar, you're probably wondering why the heck you need to learn about this event at My Shingle. Well, there's a reason for that. You see, the DC Bar is probably one of the only bar associations in the country that does not have any kind of a list serve which would otherwise serve as a source of information for events. And the DC Bar will only send an email about an event to a co-sponsoring section, which means that if you don't belong to a specific DC Bar section or your section chooses not to co-sponsor the event, you'll never learn about it unless you frequent the DC Bar's website. (We can't offer this section by teleconference, which would enable even more people to benefit from the talk, but that's a completely different matter that I'm working on changing)
Anyway, you are all fortunate to be reading my site, so sign up for the event and meet and hear Reid Trautz. The event information is below the jump - and you can sign up at the DC Bar website or by calling the Sections Office at the number below:
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on September 6, 2007 at 05:20 PM in Announcements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Do Ethics Committees Pick On Solos? Yes, yes and yes!
Back in February 2003, when MyShingle was still in its infancy, I wrote this blockbuster post, entitled The Bar's Dirty Little Not So Secret Secret, which offers some powerful evidence to demonstrate that solo and small firm lawyers are the targets of disciplinary actions far more than our large firm counterparts. Apparently, the disparity between large and small firm treatment remains an issue four years later; it was the topic of a bar panel discussion at last week's ABA conference, with some great follow up commentary here at Susan Cartier Liebel'sHow to Build A Solo Practice blog.
Take a look at my earlier post which summarizes my own reaction to the panel discussion better than I'm able to do at the moment.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 13, 2007 at 09:28 PM in Ethics & Malpractice Issues | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Been on Vacation -- and Off the Grid!
Sorry for the silence here at My Shingle - I've been on a long awaited vacation this week (and here's the proof!). I know that many bloggers often leave a stock of blog posts to auto-post while they're away, but I prefer real time postings (anything else is too much like a newspaper article to me). So how does a solo take a guilt free vacation (with 48 hours away from cell phone, Blackberry and Internet access, no less?). Here are a couple of suggestions:
(1) Get as much done as you can before you leave. Even if you have a deadline a couple of days after your vacation, try to finish the matter before you head out so that you don't worry about the deadline while you're away.
(2) Send out your invoices. When you're a solo, vacation equates to unpaid leave. But when you send out a bunch of invoices before you leave, your checks should arrive soon after you return - so you don't feel guilty for having taken the time off (not that you should anyway!)
(3) Put a vacation message on your cell phone. A message that you're out of the office alerts callers to the possibility that they shouldn't expect a return call within 24 hours. And you can relax, and set aside a morning or two to return calls in bulk (or respond by email) instead of racing to find a private place to return a call after you receive it. A vacation message also helps in a situation like mine, where I was unexpectedly without phone or internet access for two days.
(4) Find a back up. Arrange for a colleague to serve as back up - to go over to the court or make a filing for you if an emergency comes up. Chances are you won't need the help, but if you do, having a back up in place is preferable to having to race back from your trip.
(5) Give yourself a cushion. According to my voice mail, I'm on vacation through the end of this week. That's partly true - I have a bunch of housecleaning issues to address as well as some last minute minutia related to my book. I'll still be doing work this week (among other things, I will need to attend an unexpected hearing and review a contract for an interesting new project that I'll be handling) - but I don't feel as if I have to jump in full force.
(6) And finally - do take a real vacation away. I have not had a real vacation in over a year. And I never realized how much I needed one until I took this one. From now on, I will not go more than a few months without at least a four day vacation.
I'll probably resume blogging here towards the end of this week, but I'll also be posting over at Legal Blogwatch.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 11, 2007 at 08:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Are Women Fighting for Equality At Biglaw Behind the Times?
I was looking through some of these relatively new books on getting ahead in business and entrepreneurship that Marci Alboher reviewed in her Careers Column for the NY Times. (If you recall, I reviewed Marci's book, One Person, Multiple Careers back here in February). What struck me about these three books - Anti 9 to 5 Guide: Practical Advice for Women Who Think Outside the Cube; The Parentpreneur Edge: What Parenting Teaches About Building A Successful Business ; and Grindhopping: Building A Rewarding Career Without Paying Your Dues - is that not only do they each have their own website (probably di rigeur for most new titles but they are all authored by women who are pushing the concept of entrepreneurship and jumping off the traditional career ladder as a way for women to get ahead. Contrast that "go get 'em," risk-taking mentality with the initiatives within the legal profession for advancement by women at a law firm - like begging for flex time or waiting for "the firm" to come up with ways to help women network.
All of this made me wonder whether women seeking equality at law firms are behind the times instead of on the cutting edge. Because if these books are any reflection of what's happening in the business context, it seems that in order for women to succeed, they need to break the rules, not follow them and make their own rules instead of forcing others to change theirs.
For a previous, related post on a similar topic, see And where were the women solos?
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 4, 2007 at 06:55 AM in Biglaw Practice and Issues, MyShingle Solo , Solo Practice Trends | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Inspired Solo Announces New Blawg Service
My colleague Sheryl Sisk Schelin at The Inspired Solo blog (which has a great new look; I'm in the process of a facelift here at MyShingle as well) just announced a new venture: her Blawg in a Box package that helps busy solos get started on the road to blogging. Check out the new service - and be sure to mention that you've come to the site via My Shingle.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 3, 2007 at 09:48 AM in Announcements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
What Solos Can Learn From The Recent Obesity Study
As you've probably heard on the news by now, turns out that obesity isn't exclusively hereditary; it's also socially contagious (US News, 7/25/07). A recent study to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that if you're close friends with people who are obese, you're more likely to gain weight yourself either because you adopt the same unhealthful lifestyle, you don't feel as much pressure to stay thin in front of an obese friend or you alter your perception of acceptable appearance when you see that your friends have gained weight.
All very interesting, but what does a study about obesity have to do with solos? Plenty. The study reinforces a basic concept: that our behavior, action and self-worth are affected significantly by those around us - even to the point where we compromise our health and well being. And we solos and aspiring solos, independent and bold as we may like to believer, are not impervious to this phenomenon. Thus, much as we believe in our ability to start and run a successful practice, if we surround ourselves with naysayers, we may begin to have doubts. And if we've already got a pretty decent practice up and running, we're more likely to look down on our accomplishments when colleagues belittle solos.
So just as you may want to seek out fit people if you're trying to lose weight, you need to seek out supportive, go-getting, self-starters if you're thinking about starting a practice or if you already run one. Doesn't matter if they share your practice area or if they're 20 years older or younger than you, but just that they share your drive and optimism. And fortunately, with blogs and listserves, this kind of supportive crowd is only an internet connection away.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM in Ideas & Tips , MyShingle Solo | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Building Relationships as a Way to Market
At my Legal Blogwatch beat, I posted here about marketing through building relationships with other lawyers and prospective and existing clients. As I discuss, one tool that is faciliating relationship building is Face Book - so maybe it's time that you got yourself an account.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 25, 2007 at 07:00 PM in Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The ABA Gets It Right
Under the leadership of reasonably new ABA Journal editor Ed Abrams, the ABA has finally provided a really useful product with the newly launched, online ABA Journal. The site makes ABA Journal articles and legal news available, and also contains one of the best topical blawg directories that I've ever seen. I realize that the ABA wasn't a front runner in this turf - Bill Gratch as Blawg.org has been indexing blawgs for nearly half a decade, while Law.com (where I blog for Legal Blogwatch started its blog network back in November 2004. Still, the ABA is better late than never - and perhaps in some regards, better for having been late because it was able to build on and improve earlier works and avoid some of the problems.
As most of you know, I'm not a member of the ABA, mostly because I can't stomach some of the political positions that the ABA takes and because philosophically, I don't believe that it's the place of a professional organization to play politics. But I have to admit that between Solosez, some of the work that the ABA energy groups are doing on renewables (relevant to my practice area) and the new ABA Journal, I may be reconsidering...
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 24, 2007 at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Problem With the Billable Hour...Or the Problem With Lawyers?
Novelist and lawyer Scott Turow takes aim at the billable hour in this provocative piece, The Billable Hour Must Die, featured as (of all places!) the cover story of this month's ABA Journal (more on the redesign in another post). Turow acknowleges the usual litany of criticisms of the billable hour: the toll that the billable hour takes on our lives and the inefficiencies created. But he also goes a step further, and makes the case that the billable hour is downright unethical because it creates a conflict between the lawyer's interest in earning more money and the client's interest in a reasonable fee and quick resolution of a matter. And Turow offers good evidence to support his case, pointing out:
More tellingly, who among us can say he or she has never accused the lawyer on the other side of “running the meter”—of doing unnecessary discovery, filing frivolous motions or foot-dragging before engaging in meaningful settlement talks—all to pad the fee. And that’s not just to make excuses to the client. When we say it, we mean it. Looking at the lawyer on the other side of the v., we can see clearly how the temptation to earn more might impact a representation. If we can see the effects of the dollars-times-hours system so clearly when we look across the courtroom, how can we be so fully confident about ourselves?
While Turow's view on the billable hour is accurate, his diagnosis makes me wonder whether any nilling system can ever align the lawyer's interest and the clients if lawyers are most interested in maximizing profits rather than protecting their client's financial interest. In my own case, I have billed by the hour and I have billed through use of flat fees and alternate billing. Yet even billing by the hour, I've never once recommended that a client undertake an unnecessary task or use a more complicated process when a simpler one was available just to increase my bill. If lawyers are driven by maximizing revenue, then any system - be it the billable hour or alternative fees won't bring relief, because lawyers will simply find another way to squeeze more money out of clients.
Perhaps the better way to resolve the ethical problems that arise when lawyers bill clients is through reference to another ethical obligation that we lawyers have: our fiduciary duty to our clients. Basically, in a fiduciary relationship, our client's interests come before our own. Until lawyers start realizing that we owe special duties to our clients because of our fiduciary relationship, not to mention our ethical responsibility, there isn't a billing practice in the world that will produce reasonable and fair fees - and let us sleep guilt free at night.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 24, 2007 at 06:40 AM in Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
The Three Year Rule - er, Guidepost
When it comes to building a law practice, I don't like to use the word "rule," because for every rule - e.g., "You must never work for free" or "You must commit to building a firm full time," there are always plenty of exceptions. Still, based on others' experience, you can glean certain guideposts or observations to help guide your practice and make decisions. And based on my own experience and those of a number of colleague, I've always regarded the three year mark as the time that most solo practices - even those that begin with the utmost success - truly begin to soar.
I'd always believed that the three year guidepost was merely a product of timing: You spend most of Year One simply scrambling to get the practice up and running and pull in whatever matters you can to generate cash flow. Year Two, you start to reap the benefits of Year One marketing so that more profitable cases find their way through the door. And by Year Two/early Year Three, you gain enough confidence to shed practice areas and/or clients that consume your time and energy but don't produce much revenue. So by the middle to end of Year Three, you've finally got a good sense of where your firm is going and you can truly take off for the stars. And in fact, many solos I know who've started a practice after leaving a firm report a drop in income for Year One, steady growth in Year Two and meeting or surpassing earlier income from previous employment by Year Three.
I've found some confirmation of the three year guidepost in another, seemingly unrelated source: this post Tips for Succeeding as a TV Writer in Hollywood by Gretchen Rubin (a former lawyer), of the Happiness Project Rubin writes:
You have to live in L.A. for three years before anything much happens.”
People told my sister this when she moved out there, and indeed, after she’d been there for three years, her career really picked up speed. This is largely because relationships are so important in L.A., and it takes about three years to work up a serious network.
Rubin's advice made me re-examine the three year guidepost in a different light. Maybe the three years aren't really a matter of timing, but a matter of relationship building. And in law, networking is just as important as it is in L.A. Yet, many lawyers don't bother to network and build relationships until they turn solo and thus, need the full three years to get a practice up and running because that's the time it takes for them to establish relationships.
The lesson here? If you're thinking of starting a law practice - today or five years down the line, start building relationships with other lawyers and potential clients right now before you start your firm. In that way, you can ensure that you're an exception to the three year guidepost for law firm success.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 8, 2007 at 05:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Building an Innovative Law Firm: A How To With An Innovative Power Point
I haven't been checking in to Matt Homann's Non-Billable Hour site recently, which is a shame, because I nearly missed this amazing presentation on Building An Innovative Law Firm. Matt makes the presentation available using Slideshare, a very cool tool that I recommended back here back in February that allows you to embed a Power Point presentation at your website or blog.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 8, 2007 at 04:46 AM in Finding Your Passion, Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The Other Side of Solo Practice
It's difficult to fully respond to an article like this one,
The Snark: Flying solothat discusses the drawbacks of solo practice because I can't decide whether the author is trying to be funny or is truly pathetic, and pathetically uninformed.
Basically, the article is intended to discourage unhappy associates from making the mistake of starting their own firms. Fair enough. Leaping from biglaw to yourlaw is a major step, one that shouldn't be taken lightly. In fact, if an associate left a large firm to open his own shop and didn't feel apprehensive, I'd be worried that he hand'nt given much thought to the move.
But this article goes beyond highlighting some of the drawbacks of solo practice: it screams about them, loud and clear. Unfortunately, the article is rife with the sorts of stereotypes that I'd assumed that my blog and at least a dozen other solo practice related blogs had put to rest. Consider a few:
Tech Support From the article: But when you go to log in to your new laptop, and it can�t detect your wireless Internet because your router is improperly configured, you can�t just dial the IT Hotline folks, who will solve your problem in five minutes or rush up to your office with a new computer.
The truth: Hello?! Ever hear of outsourcing? Many solos outsource tech support functions. And computers are so inexpensive, that they often have two machines, so that if one goes down, they can keep working.
Client Developemnt From the article: "But without partners to delegate document reviews, memos and revisions to contracts, you�re on your own to find clients and convince them that your skills are worth your freshly discounted $175 rate: Big Firm Lawyer, Small Firm Price!� But convincing people you�re worth that rate is harder when all knowledge and networking and rainmaking must come from you alone. No more team for you."
The truth: When did the firm team ever try to sell anyone's experience but that of the senior partner?
Getting Information From the article: "If a client called with some random question, one little firmwide email later you had the answer." Apparently, this author has never heard of Solosezwhere a network of 2000 solos can find a response just as quickly as a colleague at biglaw - and they won't bill you for it!
Practice AreasFrom the article: So when your old Big Firm clients don�t follow you and hire you to draft their employee handbooks anymore�your particular sub-specialty in the Big Firm days�you better quickly learn how to draft a will, apply for a trademark, and cross-examine a cop on the calibration of the Breathalyzer 2000. The truth: More and more clients are leaving biglaw to for smaller firms because of poor client service and bloated fees. And guess what? Lots of lawyers actually want time in a court room and before a jury - it's experience many so-called litigators at large firms don't have.
Getting PaidThis is the most hilarious of all. From the article: The same is true when you try to collect your own fees from your new clients. Sadly, your letterhead doesn�t scream, �I Am Part of a Firm of 1,000 Lawyers Who Will Hunt You Down Until You Pay.�" The truth: Hello? Ever heard of money up front? Evergreen retainers? Withdrawing if clients don't pay? Is this Cog-Author really a lawyer?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to stay at a large firm. Maybe you're at a point in your life where you'd really be struggling without the money and fear that you'll risk your large salary if you leave. Maybe you've finally found a comfort spot after a bumpy ride through law school and other jobs. Maybe you truly enjoy working on complex pieces of a case with other people and don't mind the long hours. I don't denigrate the choices that biglaw attorneys make. But you've got to be honest with yourself - and that's something this article isn't. It's one big, sad and uninformed rationalization of why lawyers at large firms should suck up the downside of large firm life, to toil in obscurity and loan your talent for the rest of your life when you should be owning it instead.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on July 6, 2007 at 04:47 AM in Biglaw Practice and Issues, Solo Practice Trends | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Yes, You Can Solo Part Time
Conventional wisdom used to be that if you're going to succeed as a solo, you need to jump in with both feet. But the one rule of solo practice is that there are no rules, only millions of exceptions. And here's one of those exceptions: Danielle Colyer, a teacher by day, busy real estate attorney by night, as described in this article,
Her Homework: Law Practice. According to the article, Colyer went to law school after she'd burned out of teaching. But after getting her law degree, she also received a "dream job" offer teaching law to high school students. Still, as a single mom, her teaching salary didn't go far enough, so she started a real estate closing business on the side. According to the article, these days, she juggles 100 closings with the aid of a part time assistant and earns as much from her part time practice as from her full time teaching job.
So if you're thinking about solo practice, but too nervous about cutting off your salary entirely, see if you can arrange a part time gig and use it as support to get your practice growing...before making the leap entirely or, keeping a slash career.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 29, 2007 at 08:15 AM in Work Life Balance | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Walmart v. Neiman Marcus Pricing for Legal Services
Over at my Legal Blog Watch Beat, I posted about the Walmart v. Nieman Marcus pricing dichotomy, initially described by Mike Sherman of Law for Profit. Now many of you have heard about this model before: basically, you have a choice between selling lots of legal services (volume practice) at a narrow profit margin or handle fewer cases with higher paying clients and larger profit margin. Clearly, the latter model makes sense; after all, why not work less and make more?
At the same time, because I'm a lawyer and part of a system whose very integrity depends on access to law, I wonder what's going to happen to all those clients who can only afford volume service. Services like We the People offer some hope, as do robust pro se programs. But frequently, the bar opposes expanding the scope of services that non-lawyers can provide because it vitiates lawyers' monopoly power.
We're at a cross roads where we can't have it both ways. If we solos want to focus on high end cases and earn more, then go for it! But as we do so, let's not stand in the way of options for those whom we've priced out of our markets.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 29, 2007 at 07:47 AM in Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Announcing....SOLOFORMANIA - now in beta!
My site has been dead for so long, that I couldn't wait to get some new content going. So here it is, in beta...SOLO-formania. What is SOLOFORMANIA? It's a cornucopia of forms for the busy solo - ranging from FREE sample practice guides, fee agreements and retainer letters, to court forms for all 50 states (some free, some fee) to general form files on the Internet. I'll put a link up at the sidebar for now, until I finish revamping the site. (Though the Online Guide should be upgraded soon).
You're free to link to SOLOFORMANIA at your site, so long as you attribute MyShingle.
Update: Caveat on using forms. Forms are a terrific starting place but for your practice, but they are just that - a good start. If you view forms from other jurisdictions (which is useful), be sure to check whether they comport with the ethics rules where you practice. And adapt forms for a particular task. For example, when I draft retainer letters, I always include a fairly detailed scope of work so that clients understand which tasks are covered and which are not.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 19, 2007 at 05:55 PM in MyShingle Solo | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Make a positive contact, write away!
Perhaps you've just started your firm, and you're already tiring of those "informational" interviews and "getting to know you lunches" with more experienced attorneys. Of course, you've met some jerks, but on the whole, they're all nice enough, incredibly supportive and genuinely interested in helping you out with advice and war stories. But at the end of the meeting or the lunch, you still come away empty handed, with no referrals, no offers of contract work and no idea of whether you've made a lasting impression or not.
Here's a thought that could make one of these meetings a win-win for both you and the other attorney. Consider this advice by Ari Kaplan, entitled
Summer Associates Can Write Their Way to Success (National Law Journal 6/19/07). Kaplan recommends that summer associates volunteer to co-author an article with a partner to distinguish themselves from the dozens of other eager colleagues. Why an article? Well, as Kaplan describes, it's tangible and lasts longer than a memo, but more importantly, it provides a huge benefit to the partner.
Though Ari gears his article towards summer associates, there's no reason why the same advice can't work for a newbie attorney looking to make a positive impression. For example, let's say that you're hoping to get overflow work from an employment law attorney? When you meet with the attorney, why not offer to co-author a quick article for a bar newsletter or local newspaper on a recent Supreme Court case or a list of how-to's or even a post for the lawyer's blog or an online publication. I'm not suggesting a scholarly piece that will consume hours of time, but just a quick piece that takes a couple of hours of time.
Of course, you'll have to do most of the work, with your "co-author" merely editing the piece. Still consider the benefits: the other attorney's credentials will make it easier to place your article in a more visible publication, you'll get your name in print and best of all - you'll be at the top of that attorney's referral list.
So why are you still reading...get in touch with some prospective co-authors and start writing!
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM in Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Should We Rescue Biglaw, Part II?
A while back, I posed the question whether women at large firms have some kind of duty to rescue biglaw and save it from becoming the exclusive domain of white men. Well, here's an article, Women Leaven which suggests that many women aren't doing that. Instead, they're leaving law firms in droves for greener pastures, including starting their own firms. Consider Mae O'Malley, who started her own contract law practice, and lined up so much work that now she's placing other attorneys - to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue a year. From the article:
People were always asking San Francisco attorney Mae O'Malley how she lined up so much contract legal work as she juggled continuing her law career and raising three children. Her secret: As a former in-house counsel, she had built up a clientele, including Google Inc., and was ready for solo work after her third child was born. Last year, O'Malley, 34, created a company built on her strategy, giving her the opportunity to share the trick with the many other women who have asked about it. She opened Paragon Legal Group in September, and already has 20 lawyers working for her on either a full-time or part-time basis, 90% of whom are women. The attorneys make as much as $175 per hour and she expects the San Francisco-based company will have $1 million in revenue this year.
"We have several women who are leaving firms and coming to us," O'Malley said. "We allow them to continue to practice with challenging assignments on a much more flexible basis."
So...should women stay at firms that don't accomodate their families - or leave? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM in Biglaw Practice and Issues | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
A Tale of Two Lawyer Ratings Systems
Imagine a lawyer rating system that assigns lawyers different categories of grading and purports to provide an objective way to assess a lawyer and through "third party validation of ethics and legal ability provides that extra level of confidence that the right lawyer or firm has been selected." A ratings system that takes years of experience into account in issuing ratings and removes positive ratings where a lawyer has a negative disciplinary record. A ratings system that even generates enough profit to fund a fellowship. And a ratings system that includes some errors and omissions.
If you thought that the lawyer rating system that I just described would be the subject of class action lawsuits, you'd be wrong. But that rating system sure sounds like this one, which is the subject of a class action lawsuits. And indeed, many of the claims alleged in the class suit (which you can access here) would seem to apply to both ratings systems: such as complaints of arbitrariness of ratings or that the rating service makes deceptive and false representations that clients can rely on the ratings in choosing a lawyer.
So, one of these ratings systems is sued, while the other is not. And if you're wondering about the reasons for the differential treatment, I can think of at least one: consider the ratings of the class action's lead plaintiff by this ratings service and this one.
Note: for the record, I have criticized both ratings services for various reasons here and here and here. In my view, ratings systems aren't worth much because choosing a lawyer isn't like picking a restaurant or buying a house. So if we lawyers allow ratings system, we should explain that they're one of many, many factors in picking a lawyer. But more importantly, if we allow ratings systems, we must tolerate all systems; we shouldn't be able to pick and choose by filing class actions between those ratings systems that we want (because they grade us better) and those we don't.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 15, 2007 at 04:03 AM in Ethics & Malpractice Issues , Marketing & Making Money , MyShingle Solo , News | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
What Judge Bork's Choice of PI Counsel Says About Lawyer Rankings like Avvo and Marketing
Over at some of the more conservatively inclined blogs, like Overlawyered, there's some interesting discussion over whether conservative judge and jilted Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork betrayed his conservative principles by suing the Yale Club for $1 million (both compensatory and punitive damages) for injuries sustained following Bork's fall from a dais a speaking event sponsored by the club. The discussion is interesting enough, but what captured my attention even more is Bork's choice of representation: Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson, Dunn . Indeed, Bork's choice defies the advice of lawyer ranking systems like Avvo which advise clients to examine whether a lawyer has experience with cases similar to theirs. Mastro's firm bio doesn't indicate that he has any PI experience, and indeed, his Avvo rating is 6.5 (Apparently, the default ranking . Yet Bork chose Mastro anyway, which raises the question: Why?
The answer is easy. Because when clients choose lawyers, above all, they want someone who makes them feel comfortable, someone they know and believe they can rely on. I'm certain that Bork has some kind of relationship with Gibson, Dunn (through some kind of Ted Olson/former Solicitors' club affiliation, if nothing else). And even though Gibson, Dunn apparently has no experience bringing personal injury cases, Bork has enough confidence in their work that he must believe that they're up to the task.
So what does all of this mean for lawyer rating services like Avvo? That in spite of efforts to objectively rank lawyers, a lawyers' ranking is probably the last thing that a client cares about in making a hire. Clients will choose lawyers based on
their expressed opinions or as in the Bork case, a personal relationship. I've been hired for both reasons (my writings and personal recommendations) myself. In both cases, I wasn't necessarily the best lawyer for the job, but I was the right lawyer for the client. And at the end of the day, that's what matters - and what we can't lose sight of - when we market.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 8, 2007 at 06:05 AM in Marketing & Making Money | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
You know what...this judge WAS a few fries shy of a Happy Meal
Ever since I've started my site, I've blogged about situations where, in my view,
judges have gone way over the line in sanctioning attorneys for conduct, such as sending a lawyer to jail for refusing to apologize or showing up late for a hearing. But typically, these sanctions have issued against solo and small firm attorneys.
But outrageous judicial conduct isn't any less outrageous when it's directed against our biglaw colleagues. And that's why the scenario described in this,
Lawyer's 'Super-Size' Gaffe Costs Him Client and Possibly Right to Practice Before Fla. Court (law.com 5/31/07) really ticked me off. According to the article, William Smith, a partner at large, Chicago based law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery commented to Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff during a hearing Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida that "with all due respect, you're a few french fries short of a Happy Meal." The relevant portions of the transcript, available here at David Lat's Above the Law show that the judge didn't say anything other than "proceed counsel" at the hearing. But subsequently, issued a Show Cause order asking Smith to demonstrate why his pro hac vice status shouldn't be revoked in light of his remarks. The judge also denied Smith's motion, and Smith's client has since replaced him with a local firm.
The judge's decision is wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin. First, if she was offended by the comment at the hearing, she should have said so right away and given the attorney a chance to apologize. To me, this smacks of a set up. Second, quite frankly, this is overkill. Requiring a lawyer to respond to a show cause order and convening a hearing uses time and resources. Why couldn't the judge simply have slapped the lawyer with a monetary sanction right on the spot? At least, it would have ended the matter. Third, did the judge really need to copy every other judge on the bench with the show cause order? To me, that's simply vindictive. After all, many judges may have taken the remark in stride or come back with a snappy quip from the bench in response.
I also question the judge's motives. I wonder whether she'd have reacted the same way had a local attorney rather than one from an out of state, biglaw firm made the same remark. And as a result of her action, the client did channel its case to a local firm. As a solo, that should give me pleasure (since I often serve as local counsel), but it doesn't. If I get business, I want to win it fair and square - not because local judges are mistreating out of state counsel.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on May 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM in Ethics & Malpractice Issues , Litigation & Courts: Policy and Practice | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)
