My Shingle : MyShingle : Solo and Small Law Firm Management and Marketing

This past Friday, I presented a nearly full day seminar, Solo By Choice in the Current Economy at the Oregon Bar Center, sponsored by the Professional Liability Fund, the Oregon State Bar Sole and Small Firm Practitioners Section and the Practice Management Section of the Oregon Bar.  But as I was preparing the materials, I realized that sitting through five hours on the the minutia of getting a practice going - where to locate, how to bill, choosing a practice area and marketing - can make the process seem completely overwhelming and lethally boring.  

So I decided to open my presentation with a video focusing on the big picture:  how starting a law firm can help lawyers realize the dreams that sent them to law school to begin with and how other lawyers have done just that.  Because when you have a big picture - a dream or a mission in mind, the details all fall seamlessly into place.  Take a look at the video below- or if you want to slow it down (there's lots of detail on the slides), there's a link to the Slideshare format at the end.  

Slideshare link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Last week, I was privileged to be interviewed by Rodney McDowell, who heads the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program and, coincidentally a fellow Cornell  Law School alum (as an aside, we were just a class apart but didn't really know each other well back in law school - and my guess is that neither one of us expected that we'd wind up doing what we are)  Anyway, you can catch our conversation on Legal Talk Network.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What do I think about Google's recent launch of a free, online legal research tool as part of Google Scholar?  (disclosure: my husband works for Google, but isn't involved with the legal research project)

  Funny you should ask, because I've been tracking, evaluating and most of all, patiently awaiting the arrival of a functional, robust online research tool for nearly a decade.  Back in 2000, I wrote my first piece for the Washington Legal Times, entitled How I Researched A Legal Brief Online for Free (now only available behind fee wall, here) And when I started MyShingle in 2002, I set up a category for "Legal Research & Writing" to track various bar associations' adoption of Casemaker, which at that time was one of few free resources for legal research.  In short, I've been around the block long enough to put Google's new tool in perspective -- a welcome  step worth celebrating, but far from the game changer that many are predicting.  At least yet.  Here are my quick thoughts:

1.  Is Google's free service functional?  Google's service isn't the first time we've seen free legal research on the Internet.  For years, Findlaw purported to be a source of free research and to its credit, it aggregated most publicly issued court releases.  But Findlaw didn't offer a search engine for locating the material nor did the cases include citations.  Moreover, Findlaw didn't include any federal district court law, thus severely limiting its functionality.

Google's legal research tool is different.  The coverage is broad, dating back at least 60 years and encompassing federal district court cases, bankruptcy and state and federal appellate decisions.  Not surprisingly, the search engine is robust, speedy and offers several neat features, such as the ability to search by state and to see how a case has been cited previously.  In addition, the cases include the appropriate Bluebook citation (e.g., 333 US 234 (1943)) and hyperlinks to other cited precedent.  

One deficiency I noticed, however:  I was unable to find unreported cases (or at least my one unreported case; most of mine are published).  For example, a Section 1983 case of mine went up to the Fourth Circuit and was affirmed in an unreported case.  Google lists the lower court decision, but the appellate decision isn't available either through direct search or the cited previously feature.  That's potentially a problem (even though many circuits don't permit cites to unreported cases, they can prove valuable) and I assume it will be corrected or the omission will be clarified.

Update - for more extensive functionality analysis, see Don Cruse's Scotx Blog and Volokh (describing his vanity search).

2.  So will Google replace Lexis?

Already, some bloggers like Social Media Law Student Rex Gradeless are suggesting that Google's unique features will give LEXIS and Westlaw a run for their money.  How I wish that were so, but it's unlikely for some time.  For starters, what many commenters overlook is that a research database for caselaw alone isn't very useful for regulatory practice areas like energy, securities law, communications or tax where LEXIS and Westlaw aggregate reported agency decisions.  That's the value I get from LEXIS and what keeps me a captive customer.

Second, LEXIS and Westlaw are upping the ante with value adds like access to federal briefs (I don't subscribe to these add-ons because I can't justify the cost in my practice).  In fact, several weeks back, I was blindsided in federal court when opposing counsel cited an unpublished federal district court decision issued a few months earlier that was not yet indexed on Westlaw or LEXIS.  My guess is that my opponents' searches lead them to one of the briefs in the unreported case which cited other related caselaw.  Having found the brief, they could then enter the docket number on PACER to determine whether a decision issued (which it had in this case).  This is the first time that this has ever happened to me; generally, I'm a sufficiently thorough researcher that I never miss a case.

My point here is that even as free services launch, the premium legal services still continue to improve. So the gap still remains  between legal research haves and have-nots.  And just when I think that the gap is closing and perhaps the WEXIS duopoly has been cracked, it turns out that the fee services have added some other bell or whistle to keep an edge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks

Even though I reside in Bethesda, Maryland and practice appellate law in Washington D.C. just like appellate lawyer Mark Levy,  the former Kilpatrick Stockton attorney who took his life after his firm downsized, our paths never crossed.   As a biglaw attorney and a small fry in a highly stratified town like Washington D.C., lawyers like Mark Levy and I travel in different circles, attend different conferences and represent different types of clients.  Yet in an odd turn of circumstances, our worlds nearly collide this month on the pages November's ABA Journal, which reports on Mr. Levy's tragic suicide in this article, A Death in the Office and interviews me (as well as some of my solo colleagues) in this piece  So You Want to Go Solo?  Are You Sure? just a few pages later.

In reading about Mr. Levy, oh, how I envied his career.  After all, what appellate lawyer walking this planet wouldn't covet a CV that included a prominent position in the Clinton administration, high powered and likely lucrative jobs at AmLaw 100 firms and most of all, multiple arguments before the Supreme Court?  If I'd ever met Mr. Levy at a function here in D.C., I'm certain that I would have peppered him with dozens of questions about his cases, his appellate strategy and at what rate your heart pumps or your stomach flips over when you stand before a podium where few lawyers have gone before, with the prospect of vindicating a client or making history.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

This is a quick video that my daughter, Elana helped me put together (don't you love the blog in the frying pan?) that demonstrates how social media can be used to amplify blogging efforts.  That's the topic I'll be discussing today at the Avvo's Mid-Atlantic Tour here in DC (I just noticed that Avvo launched Avvo Pro which will also allow for redistribution of blog content, but I didn't have time to add it).

The fact of the matter is that RSS feed, which most bloggers originally believed would be the prime source for blog redistribution, has never really gained traction.  According to the eMarketer/Universal McCann study from August 2006, only 14 percent of heavy Internet users employed RSS feed, compared to 28 percent who used social media - a figure which has increased to more than 50 percent.  Meanwhile, my guess is that usage stats for RSS feed (though I've not seen the current ones) have remained relatively flat.

Meanwhile, with the DIY trend gaining momentum, consumers continue to come online, starved for educational resources to to assist them in addressing legal problems. Some may ultimately handle matters themselves, some may want to learn more about the problem to be better equipped to find a lawyer.  So the demand for blogs and other resources that educate consumers remains high.  Social media lets lawyers take information produced for a blog and redistribute it in those places - like Facebook, Twitter or Linked-In - where consumers and potential clients spend the most time.  Sure, redistribution of content on social media will also enhance SEO, but to my mind, what's more important, is that it gets content in front on consumers in the locations where they're spending the most time on line.

I'll do a follow up post on the nuts and bolts aspect of redistributing content through social media (there are automated tools to do it, but a virtual assistant or law student can also help out).  In the meantime, enjoy the show!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A representative from LEXIS responded to my earlier post,LEXIS, You Could Have Had Us Solos At Hello  Unfortunately, I have been experiencing some serious problems with the comments feature of my blog and as a result, have missed many comments.  I would never, ever not post a comment to a site, even if it is critical; any delays are usually a result of problems with the comments feature or my busy schedule.

Because LEXIS sent a response two weeks ago, I am choosing to feature it in the body of this post below:

A very persuasive post with some very good points/criticism. I wanted to let you know that a number of us at LexisNexis are reading and even working on many of the issues you correctly cite.But I also wanted to respond to your post with some corrections and additional information.

First, I need to provide a couple of corrections because despite our effort there were a few factual errors in the Forbes.com article:
- the new TV campaign is actually the second campaign we have launched. We have been on TV (in a small way) for about a year now
- even though we are always trying to promote LexisNexis, the real aim of the TV commercial is to promote Lawyers.com as a lead-generation source for our subscribing attorneys
- Forbes unfortunately only quoted our SEM (pay per click) prices and not our subscription pricing. This made us seem unfairly expensive to a small law firm. In fact, our prices for subscription to Lawyers.com start as low as $50/month for a solo attorney and scale with the size of the law firm, the extent of advertising and whether we are also building the web site or delivering an SEO campaign but at the intro level, we believe our pricing is very reasonable.

At Lawyers.com, our primary job is to bring consumers and lawyers together and our purpose for being on TV is to reach consumers. Our message to attorneys is that with over 2 mil consumer visitors per month, we are delivering significant value and leads. The new TV ad with our objectives explained can be found at www.youtube.com/user/Lawyersdotcom

Your post, however, represents a very important (and widely held) opinion that we could and should do more for solo/small law firms. We understand and are working on addressing these needs.

Your comments were aimed mainly at the research side of our business and while I am in our marketing group, I know our research group will be bringing simple solo and small law packages to market later this year. These packages of research and marketing are aimed directly at the solo and small law firm - a group that we probably have not done enough to help.

Within our Lawyers.com group we have introduced small law packages and even pay for performance pricing for those firms that want to directly link marketing spend with real results.

You are raising very important and entrenched market attitudes. You may see us as late but I wanted you and your readers to know that we are listening, working hard to adapt to market needs and particularly to do a better job of assisting the solo/small law firm.

Your criticisms are on point and fair but I hope you will give us a chance to change your mind - even if in a small way.

thank you - 
Dave Danielson
VP Small Law Marketing Solutions
Lawyers.com/LexisNexis

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What would you do if you were exonerated after spending twelve years in prison for a crime you didn't commit?  Would you spend the rest of your days justifiably bitter, complaining about the injustice of a legal system that could convict an innocent man?  Or would you feel gratitude towards those lawyers who helped to vindicate you and decide to become one yourself.

Wisconsin attorney Christopher Ochoa chose the second option, as described here in this inspiring story.  Though Ochoa initially considered working as a prosecutor (to prevent baseless cases like his from ever going to trial), following graduation, he struck out on his own as a solo.  Before long, Ochoa found that his practice had blossomed into a "full blown criminal law practice."

Starting a law firm gave Christopher Ochoa a second chance to reclaim his life.  If solo practice can help  a guy who spent twelve years in prison build a productive and satisfying life out of total ruin, then maybe, it could do the same for you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

[NOTE:  POST UPDATED 11/8/09 at 2:30 pm.  Jump to end of post for updates]

Turns out that at least three of the five Connecticut lawyers who are the subject of a disciplinary proceeding for their participation in Total Bankruptcy.com's haven't completely been hung out to dry as I described in my earlier post.  I received an email from Total Attorneys' founder, Ed Scanlan (which I'll publish as a comment to the earlier post) in which he described that the company is paying the costs of representation for its attorney customers caught up in this mess. 

Even better, I've just come across a copy of the Pre-Hearing Response filed on behalf of three of the Connecticut respondents by David Atkins and Marcy Tench Stovall of Pullman & Comley, that knocks the Disciplinary Counsel's case right out of the park.  In my view, the Pullman & Comley effort is more persuasive than the Total Attorneys Response (which I hadn't really read closely until now).  Pullman & Comley offer a detailed explanation of how the Total Attorneys site works as well as a tight analysis focusing on the precise language of the ethics rules at issue.  By contrast, the Total Attorneys' response reminds me a bit of the "analysis-lite" of the Bush torture memos.  Just as the Bush memos  attempted to justify the previous Administration's harsh interrogation methods in the name of national security and the President's broad powers as Commander-in-Chief, likewise, the Total Attorneys Response suggests (perhaps unintentionally) that because its pricing model is part of the great wave of innovative and enlightened Internet-enabled marketing practices, conventional ethics standards must give way to progress.  Given the heavy hitters who authored and signed the Total Attorneys' Response (including a law professor and an ethics and professional responsibility "consultant" among others), the end product is surprisingly lightweight on the issues that matter most and as discussed below misses the most persuasive argument.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a fan of Avvo.com, which launched back in 2007.  Though now Avvo has plenty of copycats, when it launched, it was the first service to provide a robust online profile to lawyers for free.  Avvo's generated quite a bit of controversy amongst lawyers, with many like this fellow or the DC Bar wishing that it would go away.  Other bars, like South Carolina are trying to needlessly complicate lawyers' participation in these sites, with a recent ruling making lawyers responsible for ethically compliant profiles.  As Gabriel Miller at Sokolove Success points out, the decision leaves many questions unanswered such as how frequently a lawyer must monitor a site (often client testimonials are posted without notice) or what a lawyer can do where a site limits control over client postings. 

Seems to me that the Bar may be trying to deter lawyers from using these sites in the hopes that they'll go away.  But the truth of the matter is that clients are free to post about lawyers everywhere - on profiles, on independent websites - and there's nothing the bar can do to stop it.  The South Carolina decision is useful to the extent that it offers suggestions on ways that lawyers can craft a client survey to elicit ethically compliant testimonials.  But other than that, the decision causes more confusion that clarification -- making it garbage in the words of My Law License blogger and ethics expert (oops - does he have to make me delete that? I called him an expert) Brian Tannenbaum.

In any event, I look forward to discussing all of these issues and more at Avvo's upcoming Mid Atlantic Tour November 10 (in DC) and November 11 (Baltimore).  Hope to meet you there.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks