My Shingle

Question for Transactional Solos: What Kind of Contracts Do You Frequently Draft?

Carolyn Elefant — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:12:06 +0000

A few months ago, I reviewed a product released by Ken Adams and Koncision; a form confidentiality agreement that lawyers can use for drafting. Though you’ve probably seen dozens of NDA’s and confidentiality agreements online, Ken’s product is far more high end and detailed, which means that you can rely on it to make a better impression for clients.

Now, Ken is on the look out for another product to develop, potentially with solos and small firms in mind. Options on the table so far include a forms for a Delaware LLC, as well as a suite of “micro-market” M&A documents. But what suggestions do you have? Are there types of documents that solo transactional lawyers encounter routinely, where it would be helpful to have a product that automates the process without a reduction in quality? And what products do those of you who are transactional lawyers use currently to assist with drafting, due diligence and other tasks relevant to a transactional or corporate practice. Please post the comments below. It’s nice to have an opportunity to play a role in creation of a quality product that doesn’t just focus on marketing.

Should You Ever Play the Solo Card?

Carolyn Elefant — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:44:02 +0000

For solo and small firm lawyers who routinely battle big law, there’s often a temptation to play the solo card. In other words, to seek special dispensation from court rules and practices in light of solos’ more limited time and resources. Some lawyers believe that playing the solo card is justified as a way to level the playing field and save clients money when they go up against deep pocketed opponents. But in my view, playing the solo card is utterly pathetic. Not only does it abrogate our responsibility to zealously represent clients but it tarnishes the reputation of all solos, to the detriment of our clients. Moreover, with today’s technologic advancements, there’s simply no excuse for solos to play the solo card.

To write this post, I decided to briefly research how courts have treated lawyers who play the “solo” card. Though hardly scientific, I searched on Google scholar with terms like sole practitioner and solo lawyer combined with extension and delay and skimmed through the two most recent years of cases (not surprisingly, the majority of the search results involved disciplinary actions). As it turns out, the solo card is rarely, if ever effective. I found only two instances where a court granted relief from a deadline where a solo plead neglect based on a busy schedule – and in those cases, the court gave each solo a pass in spite of and not because of invocation of the solo card. See, e.g., Williams v. COMPUSA, (D.Md 2011)(granting solo claiming that he is “consistently strapped for time” extension to perfect service,but emphasizing that practitioner’s solo status was not the basis of the ruling);
Sebastian Rucci v. Mahoning County, (N.D. Ohio October 26, 2011)(allowing solo “otherwise occupied addressing motions in state and federal court” to file response to sanctions motion eight days late in light of minimal delay, lack of prejudice to opponent and apologetic nature of request).

In other cases, playing the solo card hasn’t helped at all — and made all solos look bad. For example, a state New York judge granted the prosecutor’s motion to remove Douglas Rankin, a busy defense attorney from a DWI matter that had been pending for 2 years and 8 months due to the attorney’s scheduling conflicts. People of State of New York v. Robert Jones , (2011 NY Slip Op 511064(U)) Rankin attempted to portray himself as a hard-working solo who wasn’t “on the beach somewhere, trying to avoid trial.” Still, Rankin came across as unprofessional to the judge who commented that a reasonable attorney would have “simply limited the number of cases he took on or arranged for other attorneys to try some of his pending matters.”

Even worse, in a California case, a solo tried to argue that his inept conduct (which consisted of delegating to a paralegal preparation of a response to summary judgment motion, failing to supervise the paralegal and hoping that the paralegal would miraculously file the response timely even after he left the state for a cruise to Alaska) was “typical” of the mistake that a solo practitioner would make. Henderson v. PG&E, 187 Cal. App. 4th 215 (2010). Uh, really? Most solos I know don’t delegate legal pleadings to non-lawyers. And where a solo relies on a contract lawyer for assistance who subsequently fails to follow through, most solos will work round the clock to make the deadline.

It’s no wonder that one Colorado judge, presumably tired of having been dealt the solo card one too many times, felt compelled to adopt practice standards that specifically state that “practice as a sole practitioner” [does] not constitute good cause [for extensions of time] See Lauth Management LLC v. Premier Specality Contractors, (D. Colorado 2010). How embarrassing.

Even though I have little tolerance for lawyers who play the solo card, I won’t deny that many court rules are onerous, and that compliance is easier for large, well-staffed law firms than for true solos, or solos with a skeletal staff. Of course, technology eliminates some of the hurdles – with online research and the ability, via Internet or cloud computing to outsource work to, and collaborate with capable lawyers who may be located in other cities or states, solos should be able to keep pace with the demands of legal practice without sacrificing quality.

In other situations, there are ways for solos to seek relief from burdensome requirements in a politic manner – not by asking for special dispensation but rather, by casting their requests as opportunities to reduce all parties’ costs and serve judicial economy. For example, let’s say that a solo is representing parties in a forum where e-filing has not yet been introduced. Although the solo certainly can’t (and indeed, should not) ask the judge to cut down on the required number of paper submissions, the solo might propose that the parties serve each other electronically only instead of through hard copy by mail. E-service of documents would make case management easier for all participants, and would expedite the case by expediting receipt of documents.

Likewise, where a matter involves a series of scheduling conferences (which are entirely procedural in nature), the solo might suggest a teleconference or Skype call to handle these matters – which affords the court more flexibility in scheduling and could eliminate a trip to the court for opposing counsel. Even if the court doesn’t grant these suggestions, they demonstrate a desire to move the process quickly and lighten the load of both the court and other parties – rather than an attempt to secure special treatment because of second class status.

At the end of the day, playing the solo card perpetuates the negative stereotypes of the solo practitioner as a bumbling loser – which ultimately, hurts the clients we represent and drives capable lawyers from solo practice. If solos aren’t willing to simply hold onto the solo card but never play it, well then, perhaps it’s time for them to fold.

The Economic Benefits of A Virtual Assistant

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 16 May 2011 14:00:36 +0000

This recent post from the Harvard Business Review bemoans the loss of the executive assistant in the lower ranks at most companies, a phenomenon resulting from technologic advancements like voicemail and email and pressure to cut costs. However, as the article points out:

At very senior levels, the return on investment from a skilled assistant can be substantial. Consider a senior executive whose total compensation package is $1 million annually, who works with an assistant who earns $80,000. For the organization to break even, the assistant must make the executive 8% more productive than he or she would be working solo—for instance, the assistant needs to save the executive roughly five hours in a 60-hour workweek.

The same analysis applies to solos – who serve as the equivalent of senior level management in their la practices. Most solos don’t think that it takes much time to put a letter into a final draft on letterhead, enter new clients into a contact management sheet, create a powerpoint presentation, following up on unpaid invoices or unsigned retainer agreements or schedule lunch dates or meetings. Yet, even if these tasks consume just an hour a day, they add up to 5 hours over the course of a week, or 20 hours over the course of the month. For $50 an hour – or $250 per week (roughly, the equivalent of one billable hour), a solo can outsource these odds and ends to a virtual assistant and spend the five extra hours on additional marketing activities- or simply relaxing a little more.

The Harvard Business Journal article identifies two critical factors that will determine the success of using an assistant. First, executive must be willing to delegate work – even if it’s work that they are perfectly comfortable doing on their own. Second, assistants must be willing to stretch beyond their comfort zone and seek new responsibilities. In particular, many lawyers have difficulty passing work on to others and prefer to exercise full control. If you fall into that category, hiring an assistant may not be worthwhile. As for finding pro-active assistants, I’ve had the most success relying on virtual assistants whose livelihood depends upon satisfying their customers. But many lawyers have good luck hiring support staff within and around their community. Finally, keep in mind that often a first, or even second experience with an assistant may not work out – so give yourself a couple of chances before deciding that an assistant may not be for you.

Will Technology Make Lawyers More or Less Truthful About Whether They Work from Home?

Carolyn Elefant — Tue, 10 May 2011 09:00:04 +0000

During the past seventeen years of my practice, I’ve alternated between a traditional office (which I had before my first daughter was born, and currently have now) and maintaining a virtual space while working from home. I strongly believe that home-based offices offer many benefits for both lawyers and clients. For lawyers, particularly for cash-strapped newbies just starting out, the low overhead of a home-based office means that they don’t have to load up on lots of matters just to make rent – and a more manageable workload means higher quality work and better service for clients. Likewise, a rented office is a waste of money for lawyers who travel frequently and rarely use their space anyway. Finally, for lawyers who need to make time for family, a home office eliminates commuting time and gives lawyers more time to spend on their cases.

Still, for all of the benefits of home-based offices, as a personal matter, I’ve always been concerned that publicly broadcasting that I worked from home when I did might cost me business. Of course, if clients or referral sources asked directly if I worked from home, I’d respond truthfully. But otherwise, I simply never discussed my office situation one way or another. So long as I got the work done and was accessible to my clients 24/7, where I did the work didn’t worthy of discussion.

I was fairly comfortable with my own personal don’t ask, don’t tell policy. But now, I’m reconsidering – partly in light of Brian Tannebaum’s post on lawyers putting a photo of a fancy building where they don’t work on their website. And partly because of the emergence of a a new feature for Google Places called Business Photos, where Google photographers will schedule a business shoot of your company which will appear on your Google Place page. What’s to prevent a lawyer from setting up a shoot in a borrowed office with assistants bustling in the background, when he’s running a practice alone and on a shoestring? Moreover, because it’s Google photographers who take the video, it confers another layer of credibility. After all, Google wouldn’t send photographers to photograph a fake office, most people would assume.

Ironically, the technology that lets us to portray ourselves to our clients in a more personal and authentic manner – by showing photos of where we work on websites or on Google Places – at the same time, enables us to engage in even more proactive and elaborate deception. Of course, part of our profession has always relied on appearances to some extent – a lawyer may barely be able to pay the rent, but will invest in a $1000 suit to make sure he comes across as professional and successful in public. But at what point do we draw the line? At what point does an appearance that we create become so pervasive that it implies a false reality? Is it using a mailing address at a downtown office but working from home? Putting up a photo of a building? Creating a video showing you in a the lobby of a court where you’ve never practiced, or sitting behind a mahogany desk in a borrowed office? Billing a company as a law firm when it’s really more like a high-end placement agency? Presenting a blog as your own first person work when it’s ghostwritten.

I don’t know the answer to all these questions. But moving forward, I think that we need to err on the side of transparency. In other words, telling – even if no one’s asking.

Ten Solo and Small Law Firm Trends 2011

Carolyn Elefant — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:17:35 +0000

Ten Solo and Small Firm Trends 2011

[Editor's Note This is a long, long post - so you can read it here as a post in its entirety, or download it as a PDF (above)]

Once again, it’s that season when, a blogger’s fancy turns to top trends (H/T Alfred Tennyson). Jack Newton of Clio has already posted a round-up of the prognostications which thus far, cover largely tech (where my co-author Niki Black has some original thoughts on social media trends) or biglaw practice (here, John Wallbillich of Wired GC offers insights on biglaw that are also relevant to solo and small firm lawyers). Another round-up post at JD Supra includes comments from lawyers and consultants on what surprised them in 2010 – most of which relate to social media, the state of the economy and legal outsourcing. But nothing specific for solos or small firms. So without repeating what’s already been said (yes, I agree that mobile apps and social media are here to stay!), here’s my best shot at opportunities and challenges for solo and small firms for 2011 (in no particular order).

1. The cloud is just a start…

Even without Richard Susskind pinpointing it, by now, most lawyers realize that data storage is heading for the clouds. Client portals are all the rage and both state bar associations and the ABA are weighing in on ethics issues related to the cloud. Solos are also fortunate in that several vendors offer affordable cloud solutions for small practices, and have also formed the Legal Cloud Computing Association to define standards and best practices.

So what challenges lie ahead for solos and the cloud? Security, discussed below, is an issue as is the possibility, discussed here of conflicting regulations by state bars that will complicate cloud adoption and increase costs for solos. But the biggest hurdle is the matter of legacy files; all of those paper files, or even paperless files housed on other systems that will need to be moved to the cloud. With the first of baby boomers turning 65 in 2011, older lawyers will be thinking about succession, either partnering with younger lawyers to take over the firm or selling it outright to younger lawyers. If boomers are going to capture the full value of their business, they’re going to have to figure out how to transition files to the cloud, an issue which hasn’t yet received much attention, but will (or at least should) in 2011.

2. Time for lawyers to “man up” about security

As I wrote here, there’s no such thing as perfect security. So rather than devote time and resources to attaining Fort Knox-like standards, lawyers should assess their risks and apply the appropriate level of security to a particular risk. Thus, using unencrypted email or cell phones to set a meeting date with a client or discuss strategy wouldn’t necessarily require exceptional precautions because the potential risk of harm, even in the event of a breach, are minimal. By contrast, where a lawyer routinely deals with client social security numbers or other information where a breach could result in identity theft, lawyers need to “man up” and get serious about security. And what that means is abiding not by ABA rules, but by the federal and state laws governing data protection and security that apply to any other providers who deal with sensitive information. The ABA and state bars should not be making rules about security issues, and I predict that if they try to exempt lawyers from federal and state law on data-protection in favor of self-regulation, that Congress will (as it should) preempt them, as it should. Instead, the ABA and state bars should focus on educating lawyers on best practices for complying with applicable law (e.g., encryption, cyber-insurance or other standard practices).

3. Vendorfactors

In 2010, and more so in 2011, we’ll see more, much more of the vendor-factor phenomenon, i.e., vendors acting as benefactors for solo and small firm lawyers by offering an array of free and low cost web-based trainings and even CLEs. This past year, I participated in webinars (available at no charge to anyone) for Avvo, Lexis and Rocket Matter, though there are plenty of other companies offering programs as well (chime in down in the comments section if you’ve got something interesting for the upcoming year). Education-based marketing is a win-win for vendors and solos: vendors build relationships with customers and save money through less costly and more effective marketing tools than bar publications or sponsorships while solos enjoy courses that are useful, often free and don’t require travel out of the office.

There are losers too: the bar associations. Though once, vendor-largesse subsidized many a bar association, now all but the biggest players can pony up and eventually, even they will question the value. Lack of vendor support packs a double-whammy for bar associations as well, which once touted substantial discounts as a benefit of membership. Now, vendors can offer discounts directly to their webinar attendees, or at group-purchasing sites like Groupon and Living Social or even GroupEsq (aka Groupon for Lawyers, which thus far, apparently offers only deals bargain-basement CLE).

4. And, the bars struggle…

Decline in vendor funding isn’t the bars’ only problem. They’re also struggling with declining membership in a down economy, revealed a 2009 ABA Survey. Indeed, the ABA is feeling so desperate that it
reduced membership fees for solos (I joined thereafter) and hired a new marketing officer.

But in an Internet age, the bars’ powers are (or should be) constrained. In addition to the considerable potential for conflicting regulations as has been the case with the ethics of looking at metadata,
bars have no business trying to self-regulate how lawyers handle personal information like social security numbers, credit card numbers and drivers license, issues circumscribed by federal and state law. Likewise, where the ABA or state bars, even under Bates, may play some role in regulating ads created by lawyers, they simply have no power to regulate user-generated content posted at third party platforms. Regulating marketing-based speech by lawyers is one matter – personally, I don’t like it but advertising isn’t accorded the same level of protection as political or expressive speech. By contrast, bar restrictions on clients or lawyers’ business colleagues’ ability to express opinions about a particular lawyer on a third party platform like Avvo, Yelp or a self-created website violates the First Amendment and far exceeds the bars’ police power over lawyers.

So should solo and small firm lawyers simply forget about the ABA and state bars? Many of my colleagues have reached that point, but I’m still a hold-out. In particular, ABA and state bars provide significant programming and listserves to solo and small firms. They’re also default providers of important services like lawyers’ assistance programs and courses on starting a law firm that provide reasonably priced, jurisdiction-specific guidance. Many bar associations also have Practice Management Advisors who stay abreast of trends and will provide personalized advice on starting a law practice at no cost (though query whether vendors can or will eventually replace the how-to type services, if not the listserves or lawyer assistance programs). Turning these functions over to the private sector might result in more varied programming, but without the state bars as a backstop, private providers might price practice management or lawyers’ assistance services out of the range of the new or struggling solos.

Still, there’s much room for improvement. Think of what the state bars could do if they pooled their resources. Together, the bars could sponsor effective public education campaigns for the Internet and even TV to help solo and small firm lawyers compete with all of the Legal Zoom advertising. They could establish an online presence for bar referral services that might have a prayer of being listed on the first page of Google. In this way, the bars could compete with the “pay per click” companies instead of bringing specious ethics claims against the solo and small firm lawyers who use those services because they can’t afford Internet advertising any other way. They could develop a suite of high quality forms and checklists – retainer agreements, declination letters, contracts for outsourcing web design, best practices for security – available at no cost for lawyers to use in their practices. They could collectively hire independent tech experts to review different types of technology and make recommendations on security, and “certify” approved applications which lawyers could use without any added due diligence. In short, if the ABA and state bars really want to serve their members’ interests and needs in the 21st century, they need to pull together.

5. Local and Location-based marketing

OK, location-based marketing isn’t all that new or original. I blogged about it last year at Legal Marketing Blawg; Jordan Furlong had a terrific post on
Hyper-local Lawyer at the end of 2009, and just last month, Ernie the Attorney emphasized the importance of understanding how location-based social media may impact your firm. But this is the year that both local and location-based marketing will really gain traction.

Why now? First, lawyers aren’t immune from macro-trends, and this year, food trends are going local, says the National Restaurant Association. Top 20 food trends for 2011 include locally sourced meats and seafood, locally gown produce, “hyper local” (restaurants with their own gardens) and locally produced wine and beer. The local theme dominates the Tech World as well, with group-buying sites like Groupon and its copycats focused on local deals and larger companies like Google looking to pounce to leverage Groupon’s existing relationships with local vendors.
For lawyers late to come online, location-based advertising still remains a wide-open game, with opportunities to focus on local markets and come up on top in the search engines. Social media reinforces location-based marketing; firms can use sites like MeetUp or FB or Linked-In’s events pages to facilitate and publicize local seminars or charitable events.

Don’t assume that location-based marketing only works for consumer-oriented, smaller town practices. Solo and small firm lawyers with unique expertise in areas like litigation or local-court practice or a state-specific regulatory practice can create a niche in that area, acting as a local counsel – almost a sherpa – to out-of-state law firms or corporations with cases in the state.

6. Impact of Big Events on Solos and Small Firms

This past year saw the emergence of several major developments with implications for solos and small firms, including Westlaw’s acquisition of Pangea3, acceleration of the biglaw to boutique start-up, the ABA’s launch of the Commission on Ethics 2020 to explore the impact of technology on existing ethics rules and countdown til the 2011 effective date of the UK’s Legal Services Act. I realize that this topic merits a post in itself, so I’ve elaborated on the Westlaw/Pangea3 acquisition and will reserve commentary on the other topics for future posts.

More than any development I’ve seen since I started this blog in 2002 (including the rise of Legal Zoom), the Thompson/Westlaw/Pangea3 acquisition makes me nervous with regard to its implications for solo and small firm lawyers. The combined company possesses enormous research resources and economies of scale and employs both US and foreigh lawyers. True, it likely has a decent amount of overhead, but that’s counterbalanced considerably by the low cost of offshored labor. All of these factors mean that this new behemoth can provide fairly good quality services as very competitive rates. Pangea, which will remain a separate division for the time, plans to open a US outpost – which means that lawyers stationed in the US offices could supervise and sign off on foreign lawyer’s work. According to Pangea’s site, the merged company will provide a suite of services to corporations.

Prior to the acquisition, Pangea3 had been assuming responsibility for tasks previously handled by first year biglaw associates. But now, I could also envision Thompson/Westlaw/Pangea3 stepping into the shoes that small virtual firms are trying to fulfill: that sweet-spot of low-cost online unbundled services, with the extra value add of lawyer-assistance. Trouble is, because of its size and infrastructure (presumably Westlaw/Pangea already has a top of the line cloud-based portal system), Westlaw/Pangea could provide the same service even less (because of lower labor costs and economies of scale).

At the same time, this new hybrid may also pose a challenge to high-end temp services like Axiom Legal, which at $200 an hour, already charge less for corporate work than most solos I know. And as the Law Without Borders blog predicts that these same services provided by Axiom will be cheaper still when off-shored.

As discussed over at Donna Seyle’s Law Practice Strategy Blog, experienced freelance contract lawyers can bring a value add that an outsourced firm cannot. Having used these “higher end” contract lawyers, I agree. But that’s not much comfort to newer attorneys who want to handle contract work because with little experience, it’s questionable as to how much value they can offer, both on substance and ability to turn work around quickly. This poses a conundrum for solos like me who want to send work to lawyers in the US, but don’t want to pay more for the same or lesser quality particularly when biglaw partners who earn 10 times what I do aren’t willing to cut their profits to help the next generation of lawyers. The only suggestion I have for new solos who are looking to contract work to supplement their practice is (1) develop expertise in a new practice area or focus on bespoke work, like in person court appearances, which can’t otherwise be replaced; (2) figure out ways to leverage offshore lawyers to your benefit or (3) hope that Westlaw/Pangea3 prices itself in a way that makes the service uneconomic for solos and small firm clients.

7. We get over technology

When’s the last time that you waxed poetic about the virtues of a yellow legal pad? Or boasted about talking on the phone, sending an email, taking out a classified ad or attending a bar lunch? Exactly. The legal pad, the phone, the newspaper are all longstanding tools for capturing knowledge, communicating or building relationships but because they’ve been around so long, we don’t bother to pay attention. I predict that this is the year that we’ll start to view technology, whether it’s ipads or social media or mobile credit cards or the cloud with the same nonchalance. In other words, we won’t regard tech gadgets or online medium as anything inherently special or worthy of mention, but just another one of the many, many things that we use to serve our clients.

8. Practice Growth Areas

There are so many exciting 21st century practice growth areas that it’s hard to figure out where to start. But here’s a few: the law of social media as it applies to employment law. Regulated industries (one of my new specialties where I’ll have an exciting announcement soon). Health care. Legal ethics. Defamation. Having researched the law of social media online for several reasons, I’ve found very few decent resources on the topic which is shocking. It’s a wide open field, one where newer lawyers stand on equal footing to more experienced ones.

Another hot area: privacy. Issues related to privacy of data and consumer use of social media and commercial websites, a topic just covered by the FTC in this report. Privacy relating to consumers’ energy consumption data collected by third parties administering Smart Grid, a topic covered in this DOE report . Fourth Amendment privacy issues related to searches of cell phone data and email.

There’s also 21st century legal ethics issue – serving as “outside ethics counsel” for solo and small firms. Laws related to project management and cloud computing and data security. medical marijuana. And with boomers turning 65 and reluctant to retire, watch for a potential increase in age discrimination cases as well as a need for business succession planning (law firms too), litigation over long term care insurance contracts and family leave taken by children to care for aging parents.

Finally, the global and international component of traditional practice areas, from to entertainment law to defamationto family law to will increase. We may also see foreign companies with new technologies looking to bring them to the US, and therefore in need of corporate lawyers who can set up a corporate presence for them here. And this past year, a little discussed (in the solo world, anyway) decision issued out of the EU, kzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v. EU (Case-550/07), which held that the legal professional privilege to in-house counsel communications with clients. The EU’s theory is that because in-house counsel are employees of their clients, they may lack the independent judgment necessary to justify extending the privilege. However, companies can still preserve attorney-client privilege by running in-house counsel’s advice through an outside attorney. I’d always thought that offering EU “privilege protection” services seemed like a neat little niche for solo and small firms, which would charge far less for the service than biglaw, and indeed, “selective use of outside lawyers” is one of the recommendations for protection of privilege offered by the ACC to its corporate members. What trends are you seeing?

9. Bespoke on a budget

What’s this year’s “killer app” for lawyers? Last year, I said it was Your Client as Your Partner. This year, I’m going with “bespoke on a budget.”

The dictionary definition of bespoke means custom or made to order. For Richard Susskind (as summarized here, bespoke legal services are individually tailored, one-on-one non-reusable services like courtroom advocacy or specialized skills which rank highest up the legal food chain, and therefore command the highest payment. (Next comes recurrent legal tasks, systematized legal tasks, packaged legal tasks. Finally, there’s commodities work – wills, leases, incorporations that are often the province of solo and small firms – which Susskind predicts which will be replaced entirely by IT solutions administered by non-lawyers)

The problem with Susskind’s model however, is that he assumes, incorrectly in my view, that ordinary consumers with run of the mill legal problems don’t need or want bespoke services. While its’ true that most consumers can’t affordbespoke services and thus, have to settle for DIY solutions or doing without, that doesn’t mean that they would turn down bespoke services if given the option.

Again, I reference other social trends as proof: bespoke services are gaining popularity as technology makes them more accessible. Consider, for example, the growth trajectory of Etsy, a website focused on sale of handmade (or bespoke) crafts: sales jumped from $130 million in November 2009 to $400 million at the end of December 2010. Moreover, Tech Crunch is predicting that added growth will come from a popular Etsy service called Alchemy, added in 2008, which allows customers to put out a bid for custom-made goods – which is as bespoke as you can get!

But bespoke is gaining traction in other places, both on the web and off. Recently, I came across this Groupon Deal, half price for custom made jeans. There are several sites where you can design shoes for purchase. And in Bethesda, Maryland where I live, food chains like Sweet Green and Yogiberry where customers can create a burrito, salad or frozen yogurt concoction by creating combinations from ten or even 20 different ingredients (quasi-bespoke) are far more popular than standard fast-food joints that don’t give customers much choice.

Technology allows us to provide bespoke services on a budget. It reduces our overhead and more importantly, makes us more efficient so that we have time to focus on the matters where we’re irreplaceable. Just like this Pittsburgh doctor I described here.

10. We start being lawyers again (not a prediction, but wishful thinking)

I’ll admit, last year’s seemingly endless trend of blog posts and seminar talks on how lawyers should be like Zappos, or Starbucks or the Ritz-Carlton or Lady Gaga on was interesting at first. Agree, client service matters . Point well taken.

But while I run a business, at the beginning of the day and the end, I’m a lawyer. The people or businesses that I represent and counsel are my clients, not my customers. I return phone calls, explain the legal issues, answer their questions and assuage their fears, keep their confidences, don’t work for their competitors and do the absolute best job I can not because it’s good customer service but because it’s my professional obligation. A business has a choice about the quality of service it provides. As a lawyer, I don’t.

In a world where technology and non-lawyer providers are replacing what we do, our path to survival is to be lawyers, in the best sense. That online form generation company won’t protect the the private information that a consumer submitted to generate a will or LLC document – but a lawyer will take it to the grave. That Stop Foreclosure Now “team of professionals” will buy clients some extra time in their home while waiting for a court ruling, but it sure won’t show up fighting and determined even when all seems lost like a lawyer would. What we solo and small firm lawyers do matters, and leave a lasting impression on our clients even when we couldn’t do much at all.

Have a wonderful and prosperous 2011!

Guest Post by Roy Ginsburg: Working with an Attorney Coach

Carolyn Elefant — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:42:04 +0000

This summer, I had the privilege of meeting lawyer coach Roy Ginsburg at the Minnesota Solo & Small Firm Conference, then seeing him a few days later at the Nebraska Solo & Small Firm Conference. Roy is well known on the CLE speaking circuit; he is a lawyer himself and in as a former in-house counsel, he also has great insights on what corporate clients look for in hiring lawyers. But Roy also coaches lawyers and that is the subject of his guest post below.

Athletes have coaches to keep them at the top of their game. Executives have coaches to help them successfully lead in the workplace. Increasingly, lawyers – especially solo practitioners – are working with lawyer coaches who help them develop new business, manage their practice and maximize success in their career choices.

Earlier this year, at a conference for solo and small law firms, I met Roy Ginsburg, an experienced attorney who is also an attorney coach. I had a lot of questions about his work with solo attorneys. Here are some of his answers.

What can you tell me about your legal experience?

I’ve been a practicing attorney for more than 25 years. As outside counsel, I practiced at a large as well as a small law firm. As in-house counsel, I worked in corporate legal departments. Now as a solo, I continue to practice part-time in the areas of legal marketing ethics for a few select organizations, including FindLaw® and Super Lawyers®, Thomson Reuters companies. With this broad range of experience, I really understand what my coaching clients are going through.

How did you decide to become a coach as well as a lawyer?

I really enjoy public speaking and teaching, so I decided to supplement my law practice with work as a paid Continuing Legal Education speaker – especially in the areas of business development, ethics and diversity. I still speak frequently at CLE events. In addition, my recorded and live webcast CLE presentations are available at ALI-ABA, Law.com and West LegalEdcenter.

It soon occurred to me that, if I can train 100 lawyers in a group setting, I can certainly coach individual lawyers one-to-one. Plus, the longer-term, more intimate coaching relationship keeps me more in touch with the positive results of my efforts. I coach in three areas: business development, practice management and career development.

How does coaching work?

I work closely with my clients to help them focus on realistic goals, identify market and career opportunities, and develop a customized, workable plan of action. I check back with them regularly to assess their progress and provide encouragement. Depending upon the goals and personality of my client, I wear many different hats – including strategist, sounding board, cheerleader and taskmaster.

Why would a solo practitioner need a coach?

Solo and small-firm practitioners face many unique obstacles. My work with solos focuses on areas that are not taught in law school – but are essential to success. In a larger law firm, these areas are often addressed by professional staff. In a solo firm, they become the lawyer’s responsibility. In addition, in a larger practice, colleagues and professional staff are available to provide perspective on your ideas and practices. Not so when you are solo. I offer clients an objective, experienced perspective on their unique circumstances. I tell them what they need to hear – not just what they want to hear.

How can solos benefit from business development coaching?

I got my start in the coaching arena as a business development coach, and it remains an important part of my practice. The economy is unstable and competition for clients is intense. I help solo practitioners identify their unique target market; connect with clients, potential clients and referral sources within that market (in ways that fall within their comfort levels); and spend their marketing and advertising dollars wisely.

How can solos benefit from practice management coaching?

Managing a solo practice while actually having time to practice law is a challenging task. After all, you did not attend law school to run a business. I work with solos as a trusted business advisor on practice management issues such as timekeeping, billing, expense management, time management and personnel. As a solo practitioner myself, these are all issues I continue to face today. I am also the former chair of the Minnesota State Bar Association’s practice management and marketing section and remain an active member.

How can solos benefit from career development coaching?

I work with solos (and would-be solos) as their legal career counselor. In the current economy, solo practice can seem like an attractive alternative for many lawyers who are currently unhappy in (or being out-placed by) their law firms or cannot find work after law school. However, as mentioned before, it is an entirely different practice model. If you already are a solo but want more satisfying work, I can help you explore other practice areas that may be a better match. If you work at a firm and are considering your options (solo practice among them), I work to help you work through that process as well. Furthermore, some of my solo clients no longer want to practice and use my services to consider alternative careers. Finally, I also help solos with their retirement planning.

Do you do “life” coaching for solo practitioners?

Life coaches focus their practices on helping clients achieve personal goals – like happiness. My practice focuses on the achievement of career goals. Of course, our careers are a major part of our lives and the achievement of career goals can contribute to personal happiness – but that is not my primary focus.

Is your coaching practice limited to solo practitioners?

No. I coach clients from law firms and corporate legal departments of all sizes. However, as a solo myself, I have a particular “sweet spot” for that type of practice. Although about half of my clients are located in Minnesota, the rest are located throughout the country. They find me as a result of referrals, my speaking engagements, and my articles and blog posts. I consider this an endorsement of my experience and reputation. Moreover, if you do a Google search for “lawyer coach” or “attorney coach,”www.royginsburg.com ranks right near the top and clients find me that way.

Does it take a lawyer to coach a lawyer?

As we lawyers like to tell our clients, it depends. Lawyers are analytical by nature and lawyer/coaches tend to be more analytical in their approach than coaches without a legal background. Furthermore, the advantage of having a lawyer/coach (especially one who’s also been in solo practice) is that you will likely have a similar personality, speak the same “language,” and understand the unique stresses. In other words, the lawyer/coach “gets” what you are up against.

What else should a solo consider when looking for a coach?

The lawyer/coach relationship is similar to the lawyer/client relationship. At a certain level, coaching skill or legal skill is a given. It is the personal relationship – the comfort and chemistry factor — that makes it work. Without this rapport, the process will fail. When selecting a coach, do your due diligence to narrow the field. From this group, select the coach who best matches your own personal style and interests.

Law Firm Tech Bio: Lewis Roberts, Orland Beach, FL Lawyer

Carolyn Elefant — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:00:12 +0000

1. Name, name of firm, location and practice areas.

Lewis Roberts, Lewis Roberts, PA, Attorneys at Law, Ormond Beach, FL (Central Florida) – consumer bankruptcy, foreclosure defense, real estate, wills and trusts, general consumer matters

2. Name 3 to 5 of the most important or frequently used software (desktop or cloud) products in your practice and describe, briefly, how you use them?

Best Case for bankruptcy petitions,

I Got Notices for management of bankruptcy notices,

gmail for office mail and calendar,

Freshbooks for billing

3. What’s your favorite tech tool under $100?

I am test driving VOIP phones from Fonality (haven’t decided to purchase yet), but it seems the service is easy to use and customize.

4. Name on favorite app for phone or ipad.

Hearts – I love to play cards, which seems to be a dying art/pastime, so it is a quick way to get my mind off something or to waste time waiting for something else.

5. What do you use for legal research?

Google, NACBA, Bankruptcy Boot Camp, and SOLOSEZ listservs; free Fastcase from NACBA, Florida Statutes online.

6. And…off tech…what’s the neatest and/or most useful piece of non-tech swag that you keep on your desk or in your briefcase?

Simple financial calculator for figuring monthly payments with interest; listening to Sirius radio at the desk, or the needlepoint of my law school hanging over my desk (my mom did the needlepoint) that gets comments from clients.

Law Firm Tech Bio: Christopher Hill, Richmond, VA Lawyer

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:51:33 +0000

1. Name, name of firm, location and practice areas.

Christopher Hill, The Law Firm of Christopher G. Hill, PC, Richmond, VA specializing in construction law and advising. Also found at Construction Law Musings Blog

2. Name 3 to 5 of the most important or frequently used software (desktop or cloud) products in your practice and describe, briefly, how you use them?

Clio for practice management, bank account management and invoicing

WordPress/Headway Theme- Construction Law Musings blog and firm website updates, etc.

Brother MFC-7840W- Scanner/Printer/Fax

Adobe Acrobat- Document creation and filing

Cardscan card scanner- speeds contact management immensely

3. What’s your favorite tech tool under $100?

Dymo Letratag- Labels quick and easy

4. Name on favorite app for phone or ipad.

Kindle Blackberry for those times on the road needing something to read

5. What do you use for legal research?

Google and the Virginia State Bar Fastcase

6. And…off tech…what’s the neatest and/or most useful piece of non-tech swag that you keep on your desk or in your briefcase?

XM radio with Altec-Lansing docking station,

Law Firm Tech Bio: Chris Peterson, Bryan, Texas Lawyer

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:05:36 +0000

1. Name, name of firm, location and practice areas.

Chris Peterson, Peterson Law Group, Bryan/College Station, Texas with satellite office in Conroe, Texas, Practice Areas: Small business law; commercial & residential real estate; family & divorce law; wills, trusts & estate planning

2. Name 3 to 5 of the most important or frequently used software (desktop or cloud) products in your practice and describe, briefly, how you use them?

Clio (web-based SaaS law practice management solution that handles contact management, calendar management, invoicing, client extranet etc.)

ProDoc (document assembly program for Texas lawyers)

Fortis (electronic document management – we have full text indexing/OCR for every document that exists in our office)

Quickbooks Online (web-based accounting program)

HP LaserJet M 4345 MFP (scans, faxes, copies, e-mails etc)

Stamps.com (how we mail/overnight everything without the need for a postage meter)

3. What’s your favorite tech tool under $100?

Google Voice (free is always good)

4. Name on favorite app for phone or ipad.

LoveTwitter app, Mint.com app, Pandora radio app for iphone

5. What do you use for legal research?

Google, Casemaker on State Bar website, Fastcase, LexisNexis (if I have to), various practice manuals; appraisal district websites

6. And…off tech…what’s the neatest and/or most useful piece of non-tech swag that you keep on your desk or in your briefcase?

I have a good old-fashioned court deadline & per diem interest calculator that I got from a court reporter in 2000 which is easier to use than any computer software. It is 2 concentric wheels that spin to calculate. Inner wheel shows the number of days to be calculated; outer wheel shows the date.

Law Firm Tech Bio: Bruce Godfrey, Owings Mills, Maryland Lawyer

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:05:12 +0000

1. Name, name of firm, location and practice areas.

Bruce Godfrey, Law Office of Bruce Godfrey, Owings Mills (Baltimore County), Maryland, unemployment appeals, tax practice and criminal defense.

2. Name 3 to 5 of the most important or frequently used software (desktop or cloud) products in your practice and describe, briefly, how you use them?

Apple’s screenshot function – much easier than in the Windows world.
Clio practice management – good billing and pretty good practice management tools.
DropBox – I don’t really need it but am setting it up for the day that I might in the future.
MyFax.com – by far my best investment.
Sitemeter – my best tool for measuring return on online investment.

3. What’s your favorite tech tool under $100?

iPhone earphones – they let me earn and learn on the road

4. Name on favorite app for phone or ipad.

Clio interface for iPhone – allows me to pull over and capture the billable right there and then.

5. What do you use for legal research?

I use the Baltimore County Circuit Court Law Library, its free Lexis service and its paper volumes. In many of my practice areas, complex legal research is less common as the relevant precedents are fairly well-known, not obscure.

6. And…off tech…what’s the neatest and/or most useful piece of non-tech swag that you keep on your desk or in your briefcase?

The little red stapler that adheres magnetically to the side of my paper file cabinet ($2.00 at Office Depot) – a little thing like this makes a surprising amount of difference.