My Shingle

Taking Back the Law Doesn’t Mean Going Backwards

Carolyn Elefant — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:24:10 +0000

So, I’m not sure what it was about my post last week, Take Back the Law, that lead a few commenters to suggest that I favor the status quo. I mean, I suppose the fact that I didn’t use buzzwords like entrepreneur (because I’m not, really) or enthusiastically promote unbundled virtual law practice (because in my view, a pure virtual firm needs to be a volume practice to make small cases financially viable) or denounce the stodgy old dudes who can’t stand to see young lawyers succeed must have been the tip-off.

Truth is that even though I’m actually proud to be a lawyer, I’d be the last person to suggest that we turn back the clock and return to the day where female lawyers chose either family or career, lawyers had to head to the library or courthouse to research cases and file pleadings, and the only way to meet like-minded colleagues was to attend local bar events and hope for the best — instead of having the opportunity through social media and the web to expand one’s horizons . It may be hard for lawyers two decades my junior to conceive, but past generations have benefited from technology, even if we don’t talk about it all the time. In fact, were it not for email and efile and other techno-advancements that reduced the cost of running a law firm, I’d be extinct myself; a former lawyer with my daughters grown and time on my hands (not to mention, without work as an excuse for a messy house and burnt meals).

But I digress. My point in both my original post and here is that we shouldn’t let technology dictate our where the law is headed. Instead, we need to get out in front and figure out ways to harness technology to make us better, more effective lawyers – not pallid copies of Legal Zoom. In any event, rather than try to explain myself, in this post- and hopefully others – let me give some examples of how lawyers or the legal profession can use technology to take back the law.

The first example of using technology to take back the law comes from Austin, Texas lawyer, Paige Frankenberry, who came up with a neat way to show clients the potential value add of a lawyer. Paige took the concept of the Lawyer Clock, which shows how much time and money lawyer meetings can waste, and turned it on its head, with the Pro Se Clock, which shows how much money a pro se may have to fork over to correct a problem for every minute he waits to hire a lawyer. It’s a tough concept to depict, but Paige bases the calculator on facts from real cases where a pro se botched a matter and paid a price. The Pro Se Clock is far more effective than simply declaring that “only a lawyer can do that,” plus clients have an opportunity to see real examples of cases gone wrong. Sure, this may not convince a pro se to hire a lawyer – and Paige’s site acknowledges that there may be situations where it isn’t necessary. But at the very least, the pro se will come away having a better understanding of a lawyer’s value.

The second example of using tech to take back the law is found, in all places, on a court-sponsored site, Justice for All, a project of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Just the clean modern look of the home page doesn’t resemble anything like your typical institutional bar or court website. Justice for All offers an amazing number of resources – court forms, information and an opportunity to submit a question that a volunteer attorney will answer. Honestly, if every bar association had put out a site like this ten years ago, and included additional resources on small business and estate planning, would we even be talking about Legal Zoom today? By the way, Justice for All also makes it easy for lawyers to sign up for pro bono, find training as a mediator and even set up your own clinic.

Filling out forms is nothing new- lawyers have used forms, albeit on paper, then word processors and now online (and soon as mobile apps) since the beginning of time. Likewise, portals, while still gaining traction are yesterday’s news. As Sam Glover quipped in his plenary this past summer at the Minnesota Solo/Small Firm Conference, “if someone’s already doing it, you’re not being innovative. You’re just catching up.” But opportunities abound for us to use technology to improve the quality of legal services that we deliver and in so doing, expand meaningful access to justice. How are you using technology to further that goal? Please send me an email or post a comment below and you could be featured in an upcoming post.

Solos, Take Back the Law

Carolyn Elefant — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:17:19 +0000

Each year, I try to identify an overarching theme that will impact solo and small firm practitioners. And each year, I’ve been dead wrong – either because I’m way too far ahead of the trends, or because my predictions are contaminated by my own wishful thinking.

For example, in 2009, I predicted that in the aftermath of the Madoff scandals, foreclosure crisis and economic meltdown, clients would be loathe to trust professionals. Thus, I advised lawyers to focus on building trusting relationships by using video and Skype to communicate with online clients face-to-face and by acting scrupulously in handling client trust accounts. Sadly, however, we saw an acceleration of the kind of dishonest marketing conduct discussed by Mark Bennet in this post, point 9.

I called 2010, as the year of the DIY consumer, as evidenced by trends such as self-service customer kiosks for video rental, groceries and even prescription delivery. I anticipated that lawyers would use technology to educate and empower clients to act play a more active role in their cases. Instead, seems that many (but no all) lawyers would rather use portals to fill out forms and keep more profits.

In 2011, I offered up a bunch of themes, putting my money on the idea of “bespoke on a budget,” i.e., using technology to improve the quality of legal service that we deliver without raising the price. Instead, we saw the rise of ex-lawyers or not-quite-lawyers using technology as gimmick to bring down the quality of legal service rather than as a way to expand meaningful access to law.

With these three strikes, I’m out of the prediction business for solo and small firms this year. Instead, I’ll try a declaration for 2012:

Let’s take back the law!!

Let me be clear – I am not suggesting that we lawyers invoke our guilded stature as professionals to guard our turf from poachers. Nor do I suggest that we endlessly complicate our laws and make them inaccessible from the public just so that we can line our pockets. No – instead, we need to take the law from:

* The non-lawyer providers like Legal Zoom that charge consumers for nothing more than filling out forms that are available online for free; and

* The economists and academics who don’t think what we do is particularly special or valuable; and

*The consultants who believe that our precious clients, with their fears and secrets and aspirations are no different than shoe customers.

In short, we need to take back the law for those who see it as a business or a game or a value-add and give it back to our clients.

Over the past few years, we’ve allowed the non-lawyer providers and de-regulationists to paint us lawyers out as the bad guys. For instance, Legal Zoom accuses lawyers of making the law inaccessible through high rates – yet Legal Zoom charges $99 to fill out forms that are otherwise available online at no charge for consumers to complete themselves. De-regulationists contend that non-lawyer providers will do better work and charge less — yet they fail to acknowledge that non-lawyers offering foreclosure assistance or debt settlement took far worse advantage of more consumers than lawyers.

True, there are probably too many lawyers charge too much or treat clients badly. But all but the very worst of in our profession at a minimum, adequately represent clients and protect their rights. By contrast, non-lawyer providers deprive clients of their rights by offering incompetent advice that results in clients losing their homes or racking up a poor credit score or charging them for publicly available materials paid for by their tax dollars. And worst of all, with their slick marketing and enormous advertising budgets, these non-lawyers have convinced millions of consumers that the law is nothing special and that lawyers don’t matter.

That’s why it’s high time that we lawyers particularly solo and small firm lawyers take back the law. Why solos? Well, partly, because many of the non-lawyer providers threaten the economic viability of some solos who are underbid and out-advertised by form-filling services with large coffers and freedom from ethical restrictions on advertising. But more importantly, we solos are uniquely suited to take back the law because few others within or outside our profession comprehend the awesome power of law done right or the importance of preserving client dignity or confidentiality or our tradition of pro bono (even if it’s sometimes involuntary!).

So what can we do to take back the law in 2012?

First, let’s make the law and ourselves more not less accessible to clients and the public. That means if we choose to blog, we don’t ghostwrite or slap the blog label on self-promotions and further, we link to underlying caselaw and statutes so that readers, if they choose, can review the original source and gain a better understanding of how the law works.

Second, let’s stop and take the time to explain to potential clients what they miss out on when they opt for a non-lawyer package. Instead of assuming that anyone who doesn’t want to pay top dollar for a lawyer is a tire-kicker or cheap, we ought to consider that they may not recognize the added value of our services. As lawyers, we protect client confidences, serve as trusted advisers (not robo-fillers) and if we mess up, clients aren’t limited to a refund but are made whole (or closer to whole) through our malpractice insurance. Of course, at the same time, let’s also be honest with clients about situations where the value we add isn’t worth the cost to the client – like cases that belong in small claims court or a disposition of a several thousand dollar estate by an heirless individual. And if a lawyer isn’t required, let’s point those clients in the right direction – perhaps with an ebook that explains the process or reference to a credible website or non-profit or law school clinic.

Third – and admittedly controversial, let’s make forms and pleadings available for free to those clients who clearly don’t want to pay. Sounds crazy, but both large and small firms alike make term sheet templates, LLC forms, FDCPA defense forms available at their website. The firms have got nothing to lose – if a client doesn’t want to pay money to hire a lawyer, they’re better off with a legally- sound, basic template prepared by a lawyer rather than taking their chances with the kind of products that some of the other companies charge for. And let’s face it — now that forms have been automated, it’s only a matter of time before they’re widely available for free. At that point, we lawyers can still earn money off of our advice and judgment while the non-lawyer services can’t.

Fourth, can we please, please stop using technology to look cool or to automate a volume, assembly-line style practice that delivers a mediocre, commodity product? Our clients deserve better. Instead, let’s use technology to become better lawyers – to research faster and more accurately in less time, to stay abreast of new law and through social media (yes, it has a real role), interact with colleagues across the country who can share their knowledge with us. Instead of using technology to bring ourselves down to the lowest common denominator, let’s harness it to do more with less so that we can achieve the level of excellence and bespoke expertise that every single client deserves irrespective of the size of their case.

Fifth, let’s share our knowledge freely with the next generation of lawyer so that we can continue to preserve the law for our clients. Instead of taking advantage of unemployed, desperate law grads or charging them to help out on a case, why not share your knowledge freely and make an effort to send small cases or their way.

As lawyers, we surely don’t own the law. But nevertheless, we serve as its diligent guardians. Earlier generations of lawyers erred in claiming the law as their exclusive domain and making it inaccessible and expensive, thus triggering the backlash we’re seeing today. But at least, those lawyers protected it.

Today’s critics trivialize the practice of law as nothing more than a deliverable that can be accomplished through online forms and automated checklists. And it’s views like that which deprive our clients and the public of meaningful access to, and the full potential of the law.

Because in reality, the law — particularly in the hands of a dedicated, skilled and dogged lawyer — the law is so much more than just a product. It is a source of education and empowerment, of hope and opportunity, of dignity and relief and justice. Achieving this standard is a lot harder than filling in the blanks. But it’s the type of law that every client deserves and that we lawyers must strive to attain. So let’s just man up and take back the law!

Note: Brian Tannebaum posted a few days ago on a similar theme.

Why Does NAMWOLF, An Association for Women & Minority Lawyers Exclude Solos?

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:09:33 +0000

Legal excellence knows no color or gender, reads the tagline for the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF). Unfortunately, NAMWOLF’s egalitarian notion of legal excellence doesn’t extend to size: shockingly, NAMWOLF bars women and minority owned solo and two-attorney practices from even applying for membership .

For an organization that professes a mission of promoting diversity in the profession, NAMWOLF’s size-based exclusionary policy is shocking. Sure, many organizations, even the ABA are criticized for giving short-shrift to the needs and priorities of solo and small firms. But I’ve never come across an organization serving lawyers that disqualifies solos and small firms from joining at all.

NAMWOLF’s policy comes at a time when increasing numbers of women and minority lawyers are eschewing big firm practice to take advantage of enormous opportunities enabled by the emergence of new law firm business models and beefed-up corporate spending commitments to engage women and minority owned firms. NAMWOLF’s impressive roster of strategic initiatives and membership benefits such as referrals, networking and marketing could greatly assist newly-launched solo women and minority law firms in getting a foot in the door.

NAMWOLF’s exclusionary practices also penalize solo and two-person women and minority owned firms that have innovated to reduce the cost of services while improving the quality. For example, rather than pay top dollar for a full-time law firm grad who either learns on the client’s dime or requires costly training, many solo and small law firms work with highly experienced big firm expatriates who offer their service on an outsourced or freelance basis. Through outsourcing, solo and small firms can match or exceed the quality or larger firm competitors at a fraction of the cost and as a result, can offer sophisticated, competitively legal services to the corporate entities that seek NAMWOLF’s assistance in identifying qualified women and minority law firms.

When NAMWOLF was founded ten years ago, many solo and two-person firms lacked the capability to handle big corporate matters. At that time, the cost of computerized legal research services was still high, as were technology solutions – meaning that only the most deep-pocketed law firms could afford the accoutrements like Westlaw/Lexis or law firm extranet – to meet corporate clients’ demands. So arguably, NAMWOLF’s size-based eligibility criteria was justified back then.

But what a difference a decade makes. Technological advancements have given solos access to the same suite of powerful tech tools available to their larger counterparts. Today, a solo like myself can (and indeed, has) set up a fully secure, online project management and document portal for fifty bucks a month. Likewise, while most solos serving big firms don’t rely exclusively on low cost legal research tools like Google Scholar, Fastcase or Casemaker, these services have driven down the cost of mainstream research options and made them more affordable for small shops. These changes, collectively, enable solo and two-person firms to do everything that biglaw can – only faster and less expensively, too.

As I see it, there are two possible explanations for NAMWOLF’s continued exclusion of solo and two person firms from eligibility for membership. First, NAMWOLF may be unfamiliar with the capabilities that solo and two-person firms bring to the table. If that’s the case, NAMWOLF ought to educate itself and pronto, because its ignorance suggests that the entire organization hasn’t kept pace with changes in the legal profession and practice of law over the last few years. Alternatively, NAMWOLF may indeed recognize that solo and two-person firms can capably and cost effectively serve coporate clients – but chooses to bar them from membership to insulate existing member firms from competition from lower cost providers.

In any event, it goes without saying that neither explanation for NAMWOLF’s exclusionary policy is justified. How sad that an organization dedicated to promoting diversity within the legal profession must accomplish its goals by diminishing the diversity within its own ranks — not based on legal excellence but on size alone.

Where I’ve Been Hanging Out Online

Carolyn Elefant — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:11:56 +0000

So I know that there wasn’t much happening at MyShingle last week. Between my talk on starting a practice at Georgetown Law and three days catching up with clients and colleagues at my trade association’s Global Marine Renewable Energy Conference, I didn’t have much energy left for posting. In addition, I’ve been spending a bit of time away from my beloved MyShingle, posting at other online publications like The Xemplar and Small Firm Innovation – efforts that enable me to keep this blog running and offer so much information at no charge (and there’s much more coming by the end of the month).

This month, I’ve written Courting Change – about how courts aren’t keeping up with innovation in the legal profession, and What I Won From My First Loss At Trial, about how I was serendipitously spared the lingering agony of my disastrous first loss. Let me know what you think.

I Am Not An Entrepreneur…My Answer to the Most Important Question for Solo Lawyers

Carolyn Elefant — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:30:22 +0000

Over at his new gig at Above the Law, my blogging colleague and law firm founder/owner Jay Shepherd poses the penultimate question to prospective shinglers: Do you want to run a business, or do you want to practice law? For Jay, there’s only one right answer: if you want to start a law firm, you’ve got to want to run a business. Period.

Now, Jay may be on to something. After all, Jay runs a successful, small employment law firm, he just launched a new business, Prefix LLC to teach professionals how to price their knowledge and he’s blogging up at one of the most widely read law blogs while I’m slumming here at MyShingle. Even so, I think that Jay’s wrong about prioritizing entrepreneurial drive over love of the law, and I can prove it in a word:

Google.

Founded in 1999, Google is still thriving and growing while hundreds of other dotcoms launched around the same time failed. The reason? Because unlike most of the 20-somethings of the DotCom era, Google’s founders, Sergei Brin and Larry Page didn’t started Google simply so that they could own a business or make money. Instead, they were driven by one single purpose: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” which remains Google’s core mission to this day. Of course, great search demands a great abundance of resources – and so Google had to find a way to support those goals. So early on, the company, over its founder’s objections, began running the ads that evolved into Google’s AdWords program, the primary source of Google’s enormous profits. [Source: Wikipedia.]

For Larry and Sergei, passion for search came before desire to run a business (indeed, according to Wikipedia, theynearly sold Google early on because it interfered with their studies). Instead, they followed their passion and then, of necessity came up with a business model to make it work. The same concept applies to starting a firm: you start with a love of the law – a passion or a calling to represent clients, solve problems, or do justice. And then, because you want to practice law, you’ll develop the business model to make it work.

Ordinarily, I don’t involve myself in the perennial “is law a business? or is it a profession?” debates. After all, different strokes for different folks. But I’m troubled that Jay’s advice will deter from solo practice many really good lawyers who simply don’t view themselves as business people. Moreover, his advice is particularly dangerous in the current economic client where jobs are scarce, and many graduates with law degrees may not have the option of finding a job no matter how long they look. Thus, they may settle for doing document review or leave the law entirely, instead of taking a shot at starting a firm – which can better position them to find a job if that’s what they eventually decide to do.

In addition to over-emphasizing the importance of being entrepreneurial in starting a firm, Jay over-glamorizes what it’s like to practice law at a job. Jay writes that:

your own law firm is a lousy platform for [practicing law]. Almost any other platform is better: someone else’s firm, a company’s law department, the government, a public-service organization. These are all places where your focus will be on practicing law. Someone else runs the business.

Though it’s true that when you work for others you won’t need to send out bills or manage a trust account, you won’t have the luxury of just practicing law either. Instead, you’ll have to endure sensitivity trainings and office politics or spend hours reviewing documents and toting someone else’s briefcase and subordinating your better judgment over how to serve the client to a partner who’s more senior to you. That’s not my idea of practicing law.

Finally, just as those lawyers who only want to practice may “be miserable” running their own firm, so too, those who open a law practice because they want to be entrepreneurs will also find disappointment. That’s because law makes for an awfully stodgy and slow-moving business. We lawyers are heavily regulated, and for better or for worse, our ethics rules prevent us from implementing many of the innovations adopted in the business world. And frankly, law practice is downright hard: writing briefs or analyses of complex issues, forever trying to find ways around precedent instead of just tossing it aside. In fact, many of the lawyers I’ve met over my years in the blogosphere who tout the concept of law as a business have, not suprisingly, left the law for more exciting and fast-paced entrepreneurial ventures.

As for me, I don’t consider myself an entrepreneur. I’m a lawyer. But I developed entrepreneurial skills of necessity because I knew that starting my law firm represented my absolute last chance at a career in the law. I left my cushy but dull government job too quickly because it bored me, and I got myself laid off from my law firm job because I thought I knew better than anyone else. And suddenly, I was up against the wall and out of choices except to leave the law entirely — before I’d ever had a jury trial or argued a real appellate case or accomplished something with my hard-earned law degree that mattered. And so, reluctantly, I signed a lease for a virtual law office and printed business cards and stationary and dragged myself to networking events where no one would talk to me and went through all of the steps that I needed to because failure was not an option. That first year was as challenging as anything I’d ever done, but by sheer force of will, I made solo practice work. And if you really, truly want to be a lawyer and you have no other choices, you can too.

But if you want to be a real business owner, don’t hang out a shingle.

Just Say No To Free Use of Your User-Generated Content

Carolyn Elefant — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:27:27 +0000

Conventional, 21st century wisdom says that content wants to be free. That content isn’t worth paying for. That “exposure” in exchange for content is sufficient reward.

Funny thing is that those who try to sell you this line don’t have content. And not only do they want yours free, but they want to profit off of it as well.

Though the exploitative nature of this kind of arrangement should leap out at anyone, the word “exposure” blinds most people from an objective assessment of a one-sided, losing proposition. But now, in the wake of AOL’s $315 million acquisition of the Huffington Post, its corps of 9000 uncompensated bloggers, including Molly Secours are realizing that they’ve been had. Some, like Secours, are simply cutting their ties, while others, like one blogger on the Hey Arianna Facebook Page is trying to determine whether there’s any legal basis for a lawsuit for retroactive compensation in recognition of how the bloggers’ collective efforts contributed to the success of the site.

Now, I don’t sympathize with the HuffPo bloggers – they’re grown ups, and those who dutifully posted content at someone else’s site, week after week without any compensation should have known better. At the same time, I know that these are desperate times, and as Jane Genova points out at Law and More , there are hoards of unemployed lawyers willing to work for free on the slender hope that they’ll be rewarded with a paying job. Below are some questions that should help you to distinguish between strategic, uncompensated use of your talent on the one hand, and sheer exploitation on the other.

1. Is it that they can’t pay…or they won’t? To me, this is the most significant question. If you’re offered an uncompensated position – either as a law clerk in a law office or as a regular blogger or columnist for a publication – ask the person who’s hiring you why there’s no pay involved. Perhaps the lawyer is working on a pro bono matter and isn’t being paid either, or perhaps the publication you’ve been asked to write for is a labor of love that doesn’t generate any revenue. Though lack of compensation isn’t ideal, at least you won’t be taken advantage of in this type of situation. Likewise, if a lawyer offers to mentor you in exchange for a few hours of assistance each week, and doesn’t bill your time, that’s a fair deal as well because you’re getting value in exchange.

By contrast, in some situations, a lawyer may have you work for free claiming that he can’t afford it, and then bill your time at $200/hr. Or a publication may generate revenue from ads and subscription services but nonetheless, offer you “exposure” rather than cash. In these situations, it’s not that these companies can’t pay, but rather that they won’t. Here, you have two alternatives. First, if you’re somewhat interested in the opportunity, insist on some payment – even a small amount like twenty or thirty dollars for an article or a revenue share, or a promise of deferred payment from the lawyer (documented by a formal contract). At least this way, your future employer has some skin in the game. If the prospect won’t even agree to those terms, then you need to ask yourself why you’d be willing to work for someone who won’t pay. After all, if they can afford to pay you and they won’t, then maybe, they’re just not that into you. And if that’s the case, they’re certainly not going to hire you or even be of much assistance in helping you find a paying job.

2. If they can’t pay, or will pay something, what benefit will you derive from the arrangement? OK, so let’s assume that the potential employer either can’t pay or is willing to at least make a good faith effort at some compensation. Is the opportunity worth it? Will you learn a new skill or get your foot in the door in a cutting edge area or be identified as a co-author on an article that will appear in a prestigious publication? Will you have an opportunity to learn first-hand from the best family law or criminal law or [fill in a specialty] attorney in your neck of the woods? By contrast, if you’re going to be shuffling papers in a back office or writing posts that only five people read, the position simply may not be worth your time.

3. How much work is involved? Of course, most lawyers give away some amount of work for free, even where others are paid for it. Most lawyers will write an article every so often for a bar magazine or AmLaw 100 publication, or an op-ed piece for a newspaper or speak at a conference for no charge. In many of these cases, the newspaper or the conferences generate revenue even though they might not compensate you for your services. Still, these cases are distinguishable because they don’t rely on your work product for their revenue. In contrast to Huffington Post, which depended exclusively at the beginning on user-generated content (it did start paying some writers down the line), most of these publications would survive without contributions from readers. Moreover, writing a couple of articles here and there for no charge doesn’t pose an opportunity cost in the way that providing content or working free on a regular basis is.

4. Are you doing the work for yourself? Of course, most bloggers don’t get paid – so you may wonder why I’m so adamantly opposed to working for free when I’ve been blogging largely uncompensated for eight years (though this site has been monetized a little bit since 2008 which is why I pay regular writers and am reluctant to accept guest posts because I can’t pay everyone). Well, actually, blogging does pay – only you make an investment in yourself and your practice by staying current on emerging areas of law, improving your writing skills and building a reputation. When you work free for others, you’re giving the value of your investment to them.

As Jay Foonberg, author of How to Start and Build a Law Practice famously says:

Would you rather do the work and not get paid? Or NOT do the work and NOT get paid.

My 21st century spin on Jay’s old Chestnut is this:

If you get paid, I get paid.

Maybe that’s an old-fashioned sentiment in a free-wheeling, crowdsourcing kind of world. But then again, so is freeloading.

Solo Practice Round Up

Carolyn Elefant — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:37:48 +0000

What’s Up Doc?

The medical profession is struggling with the same challenges as the legal profession, including rising tuition costs and enormous student debt (the average is $172,433 (as compared to $45,000- $60,000 for law students, though 25 percent carry debt in excess of $120,000 according to these stats. And like lawyers, doctors are also looking at innovative ways to deliver medical services, including e-coaching and self-assessment programs and concierge practices.

Should Lawyers Follow the Crowd to Groupon?

The ABA Journal has a piece on a recent North Carolina ethics decision related to lawyers’ use of Groupon.com, an online site that leverages the concept of collective bargaining power to offer discounts to members and exposure to service providers. The ABA mentions my Legal Marketing Blawg post which also discusses the ethics and practical issues of using Groupon (note: I was kind of down on Groupon, but if you’ve had a different experience, please let me know why I’m wrong!)

Niche News:

Here’s an article out of San Angelo, Texas about three Hispanic lawyers, two of them cousins who’ve carved out a niche in a saturated West Texas market by focusing on bilingual legal services, focused on personal injury, board-certified immigration and criminal defense.

Alpha’s Bet:

A New Jersey firm, Alpha Center for Divorce Mediation is betting that it can convince New Jersey to change its restrictive practices on trade names for law firms. Source: Law.com.

Bartering for Dollars:

Another story on lawyers who are trading legal services for other products and services, from the Tampa Business Journal.

A Match Made in the Blogosphere

Carolyn Elefant — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:03:24 +0000

From afar, they seemed like opposites: a tough New York City criminal law trench warrior with disdain for high faultin’ academics and a talent for effortless and abundant insights and a world-travelling, West Coast civil litigator with a global practice and a penchant for literature and a knack brevity. Yet they spoke each others’ language, shared the same thoughts and railed against the loss of old-fashioned values like work ethic or fealty to clients in a decidedly twenty-first century way: through blogging. So it wasn’t any surprise, really, when I heard first, via Press Release from Dan Hull, followed by Scott Greenfield’s public announcement that the two had joined forces, with Scott coming onboard Dan’s firm as of counsel on corporate criminal matters and investigations.

The HullMcGuire and Greenfield collaboration isn’t the only one birthed by blogging. Idaho-based IP lawyer and blogger Steve Nipper last month announced that he’s joined forces with Ohio-based IP lawyer-blogger, Matt Buchanan to form the bi-state law firm, Buchanan, Nipper. And as the prologue to Social Media for Lawyers describes, my co-author Nicole Black and I first met through blogs.

Say what you will about the demise of blogging (though I do agree with Nicole Black’s observation that blogging has changed over the years) but even today with so many other competing social media formats, blogging still serves the craving that humans have had since the days of the Greek Agora, for a public place to debate, to argue, to bond over ideas. Which is why blogging, in some form or another, will forever thrive. Moreover, as technology decimates geographic limits, blogging will take on even more importance for solo and small firm lawyers, as a source for finding like-minded colleagues anywhere in the world to partner with on cases, books and even law firms.

As for Scott and Dan, my best wishes for the success of your collaboration. That which blogging has joined together, let no ghostblogger or slackoisie tear asunder.

Have you ever found a lawyer or other professional to team up with through a blog? Please share your thoughts below.

Let’s Pay New Lawyers To Do CLE

Carolyn Elefant — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:25 +0000

Let me start by saying that I don’t like mandatory CLE (I’m not alone in this view either). Frankly, CLE doesn’t improve our profession and worse, gives the public a false sense of security that lawyers are competent. Let’s face it: those lawyers who take their obligations seriously will always take classes, follow relevant blogs and stay abreast of new case law without mandatory requirements. By contrast, those lawyers who don’t care about improving themselves will perfunctorily attend classes, tapping away on their smart phones or flip on a webinar at home and take a nap. Yet in the eyes of the bar, both of these types of lawyers are considered equally educated.

In addition, with so many lawyers struggling in this economy, particularly new grads, it just doesn’t seem fair to impose an additional financial burden. Which is why those of us lawyers who are fortunate enough to have the resources should pay new solos or unemployed lawyers to do CLE. Call it a CLE Scholarship Program if you will

Here’s what I’m thinking. Like many lawyers, I don’t always have a chance to read every energy related case that comes out of the federal appeals courts every year. Instead of playing catch up the next time a live appeal comes into my office, I could stay up to speed by taking the $1000 that I would otherwise spend on CLE to hire a newbie or unemployed lawyer to summarize the cases for me. Newbie learns some substantive law, and I keep abreast of what I need to know. It’s win-win for both of us.

Alternatively, sometimes, I want to learn more about issues that are so new that there isn’t even any CLE available. For example, back in 2008, I grew interested in the legal ethics issues related to social media for lawyers, but the bars hadn’t yet caught up. So I researched the issues myself, and it eventually morphed into this. Most lawyers who are engaged in their practice areas spot these new issues all the time, yet rarely have time to pursue them. Sure, we could wait a few years for the topic to become mainstream enough for a CLE, or, under my proposal, we could pay a newbie to research it and get our CLE that way.

My proposed CLE Scholarship Program offers better quality control than current CLE. If Newbie’s work doesn’t pass muster and he’s not willing to make the changes, then the supervising lawyer won’t approve his CLE request. And if the supervising lawyers didn’t turn in our work product or turned in something entirely substandard, we wouldn’t get credit either.

The CLE Scholarship Program would supplement rather than supplant traditional CLE offerings. But more importantly, it would rally support for CLE, and produce a generation of lawyers who just might pay it forward.

Upstart Outsmarts LegalZoom

Carolyn Elefant — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:02:22 +0000

If you thought that lawyers couldn’t effectively compete with low-end, quasi-legal providers like Legal Zoom, think again. There’s a new upstart service, aptly named Upstart Legal that’s come up with one formula to take on non-lawyer alternatives.

The brainchild of attorney John Gerber, UpStartLegal.com offers a web-based, legal package that gives entrepreneurs the legal documents they need to start and run their businesses reports the Philadelphia Business Journal. The package, which costs $395.00, includes LLC formation, non-disclosure agreements, federal and state tax identification number registration, service contracts, partnership agreements and subcontractor agreements. While Upstart Legal’s package costs slightly more than than Legal Zoom’s Express Gold Service, it includes the same key materials, plus the added assurance of quality control by an attorney with twenty years of experience with start-ups.

From a consumer perspective, the upside to using UpstartLegal is clear. But lawyers like Gerber benefit too. Because UpstartLegal leverages Gerber’s experience and knowledge and automates the preparation process, the marginal cost of adding the service (after the start up costs of set-up) is close to zero. Meanwhile, Gerber gets the opportunity to capture start-up clients that could not otherwise afford his service. And at some point, these companies might grow up and graduate to using Gerber’s full service firm, Gerber Legal.

Lawyers can try to sue companies like Legal Zoom, but competition from non-legal sources is not going to go away. As I wrote over five years ago, rather than try to beat these companies into submission, lawyers should find ways to compete with them, and let market forces handle the rest.