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

It's something that all of us practicing lawyers dread: we file a case, and it's lost or somehow misplaced at the court, resulting in a missed statute of limitations. So if you find yourself in this situation, do you (a) try to appeal the dismissal of the case, arguing that the clerk erred; (b) 'fess up to the client and offer to make her whole; (c) seek advice from a trusted colleague on what to do or (d) conceal the mistake and present a "settlement" to the client, purportedly from the defendant.

The lawyer who was the subject of the disciplinary action described by Mike Frisch in this post at the Legal Profession Blog , chose "c" and "d," and received a 2 year suspension. As I'll discuss, I think that's too harsh (and for that reason, I'm not using the lawyers' name in this post, to avoid caching this event in the search engines). At the same time, the decision teaches some great lessons for solos, which I'll summarize at the end of this post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

When I started this blog back in December 2002, I lamented the absence of solo voices from mainstream legal media. But with blogs, we solos have come a long way. The most recent case in point: over at Above the Law, one of the most popular and widely recognized law related websites, solo Billy Merck of Georgia is blogsitting for David Lat. Congrats on this gig, Billy - and hopefully your new visibility will expand the readership of ATL to include a larger portion of the seventy percent or so of lawyers who don't work at large firms (which I imagine is the ATL's present, primary demographic).

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

This is a two part post, for my fellow shinglers, and also for law students. To my colleagues, first: Imagine that you had twenty hours of reliable law student assistance for the summer...how would you use it? Would you have the students help stock your blog with materials, like at SCOTUS Blog? Ask them to ghost write that law review article you've put off? Would you set them to work on billable matters, like Enrico Schaefer, with his wildly successful virtual law clerk program? Would you use them to help handle the pro bono matters you've been wanting to handle, but never had the time for? Or would you delegate marketing, having them identify opportunities to publicize your blog or speak at a conference?

And now, if you're a law student, what would attract you to working for a solo? Would you want to get hands on experience, like interviewing clients, responding to interrogatories and court-watching? Would you prefer enhancing your research and writing skills, by helping to co-author a scholarly article? What if a position included weekly trainings to help you succeed at a law firm or meetings with other attorneys who would talk about their career choices? Would you mind handling clerical tasks? What kind of work experience would make you most marketable? Would you prefer a position where you can work with other clerks, or would you be alright working directly with an attorney? And what's the lowest hourly rate that you'd settle for?

Lawyers and students, please send me your comments below.

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

When you start a firm, sometimes, it's hard to imagine lasting 60 days or months. But some lawyers, like 100 year old, Richard Bird, who's profiled in this article has been running his own firm for more than 60 years! After graduating from Harvard Law in 1933, Bird held a variety of jobs, before starting his firm in 1943 and even now, he still works 9-5, Monday to Friday. And he's even argued a case before the Supreme Court, though for him, it wasn't a big deal, just part of serving clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (14)
• Trackbacks

I've been tagged by Susan Cartier Liebel to participate in Alex Shalman's Gotta Get Goals challenge that's wending its way around the blogosphere.  Like Chuck Newton, I tend to be more of a dreamer than a planner.  That's not to say that my ideas never come to fruition, or that I meander aimlessly, but I've never really charted a strategy or course of action to bring me from an idea to reality, and actually followed it through from start to finish.  So at the very least, this exercise has lead me to wonder whether one of my goals ought to be setting more goals.

As for my other ideas or goals, I've listed the ones that I'm willing to share right now (some are proprietary, others too embarrassing, for prime time):

1.  Argue a case before the Supreme Court.  I see that I share this goal with Inspired Solo.  For a long time, I thought that a Supreme Court case might come my way through serendipitous accident, but now with so many lawyers eager for a ticket to the high court, I think that I may have to engage in some active planning to figure out how to get there as well.

2.  Work on a death penalty appeal and/or reverse a wrongful conviction.

3.  Live abroad for a year with my family.

4.  Come up with at least one killer app that will change the way law is practiced and make millions!

5.  Go to medical school, or more realistically nursing school.  I've never believed that I was cut out for one career, and I think in many ways, law and medicine are analogous in that both professions find ways to solve people's problems.  This is a longer term goal, at least five more years out, and by that time, I'm not sure whether I'll have the energy for a residency, which is why nursing is the more attainable goal.

6.  Pay for my daughters' college education without taking out loans (but of course, requiring my daughters them work (or start their own business) during school and the summer to pay for their own books and personal expenses)

Anyway, that's what I'm willing to share for now.  I'm tagging Jennifer Rose and David Leffler, Nicole Black, Bob Kraft and Allison Shields.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

At Illinois Trial Lawyer , Evan Schaeffer shares a wonderfully valuable resource, The Center for Criminal Justice Advocacy.  The Center was formed as a free, non-partisan training resource to assist new lawyers in becoming competent criminal practitioners.  And one of the Center's missions is to provide newly licensed sole practitioners with materials to provide a structured analytical approach to planning and conducting a criminal trial.   The site is chocked full of resources, including sample opening statements, witness interview forms and even law office management tips for solos setting up a criminal practice.

The CCJA site will help far more solos than those who specialize in criminal work - and in fact, arguably provides a more significant service for those who don't necessarily seek to focus on criminal work.  In my view, whether you want to practice criminal law or not, handling criminal cases on a court appointed basis offers an excellent way for solos to build skills and make some money at the same time.  When I started my firm, I was adamant about getting into court so I signed up for DC's court appointed panel.  Within two years, I'd argued several suppression motions and had a couple of bench trials, two jury trials and sentencing hearings.  I earned some money (enough to pay rent, at least) and acquired the experience that I'd craved.  But I was fortunate:  the DC Public Defender's office offered a two day training program that taught new court appointed lawyers exactly what we needed to do from arraignment through appeals.  That course, combined with a $60 handbook on DC Criminal Practice and a couple of days of court-watching gave me enough of a foundation to actually procure pretty good results, considering my lack of experience.

The CCJA site provides much of the background that I received in my DC training course (though of course, the information is more general rather than jurisdiction specific).  Nevertheless, with a resource like this, new solos who want to sample criminal work either to make some money or get courtroom experience can do so more readily, while still serving clients with the level of competence they deserve.

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

I'm not sure how I overlooked this gem that Dan Hull of What About Clients which asks why are lawyers so shy when it comes to asking for work.  In Hull's experience, his pitch to clients, which concludes with "we'd love to work with you.  How can I win or earn your business" typically wins raves because it's refreshing and direct.

Hull  concludes:

Is the careful, rational, polite, risk-averse "lawyer personality" to blame? I have no idea.....but I do know that business clients--whether or not they buy the image of the fire-breathing lawyer-AlphaHuman they see on television--expect lawyers to have the business instincts and the stones to ask for the work. So ask. Practice first if you must. Get a pitch and a strategy for each meeting. Don't wait until 30 minutes goes by or the table is cleared. Ask.

That's great advice, because after all, the worst the client can do is say no.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks

Many solos who'd like to perform more pro bono work can't do so for lack of time.  So why not multi-task, and make pro bono work part of your marketing activities portfolio?  Consider the example of lawyers profiled in this article, Creating a nonprofit helps others - and doesn't hurt business either (ABA Journal, April 2007), such as Anthony Hayes who created the non-profit organization Wills for Heroes (which provides no-cost estate planning documents for police, firefighters and emergency workers) or Wynnia Kerr who set up an animal adoption shelter in Seattle.  In setting up these organizations, Hayes and Kerr simply wanted to help their respective communities, but their groups have expanded beyond their wildest dreams.  And through their role as founders, Hayes and Kerr have gained positive visibility and developed contacts with other lawyers who have participated in their organizations.  And eventually, these connections and publicity can potentially lead to referrals or generate clients. 

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

At the Ms. JD conference that I attended last week, one woman responded to various remarks on the benefits of starting a firm (by some of us troublemakers in the picture) by saying something to the effect that "Starting a firm is all well and good, but if everyone flees biglaw life, firms will be left stranded as the last bastions of male dominated hierarchy." That comment has been bearing heavily in my mind since, making me wonder whether lawyers have an obligation to fix biglaw.

In fact, from what I gleaned from Ms. JD, part of its mission is to ensure that female lawyers are represented in the upper echelon, power branches of the legal profession, such as the judiciary and biglaw. In other words, at least part of Ms. JD's goals is to help women with fight, not flight. And as I posted here at Legal Blogwatch, another group, Students Building a Better Legal Profession just formed, with a mission of changing the modern law firm business model to make it more sustainable and profitable and also allow for a more balanced lifestyle. I support these students and wish them the best. I'm impressed that they're taking charge of their future and that they're optimistic enough to believe they can change it. That passion will serve them well whether they succeed or not. And in fact, back when I was a student, I would have done the same - and indeed, in some cases, I did. But now, I'd rather just practice law than fight or rescue a system that's comprised of lawyers who ought to be smart enough and savvy enough to save themselves if indeed the system is failing (and I'm not convinced we're at that point).

What's your view? Are these students on the right track in trying to change biglaw from within? Or if you don't like how biglaw works, should you choose another option?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

Thanks to a tip from a sharp eyed reader, here's a link to a story that I overlooked: The Secrets of Million Dollar Solos, (GM Filisko and Meg Tebo, ABA Journal 3/29/07) that features four solos running million dollar practices. There's much that other solos and the legal profession generally can learn from these four lawyers' respective success. Here are the lessons that I gleaned:

Billables alone won't make you rich Some, but not all of the lawyers featured handle contingency cases. But interestingly, even those lawyers who did not handle contingency work offered alternative billing arrangements such as flat fees. The use of alternative billing, be it flat fee or contingency or some other model is significant, because as a solo, the billable hour limits you to the number of hours you can bill in a year. Even if you bill $400 an hour, 30 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, you won't hit the million dollar mark. By contrast, alternative fee arrangements can help you earn more without necessarily working more hours.

Outsource Virtually all the attorneys interviewed outsourced work to other lawyers, paralegals or research companies to keep overhead low. Employees are costly. At the same time, employees can help leverage earnings, which is essentially the model used by biglaw. Outsourcing gives lawyers the best of both worlds: qualified workers at a lower cost who can still be billed at a higher rate. And when and if you decide to hire, do so carefully.

Low overhead At least one lawyer described that lawyers don't need all kinds of fancy trappings to attract clients. And when you keep overhead low, you keep more money for yourself. Many large firm attorneys who leave their firms to start a practice are surprised to discover how much they can earn by charging as little as half to seventy five percent of their big law billing rate, simply because they keep so much more of what they collect.
Of course, for some solos, starting a firm isn't all about the money, but about autonomy and flexibility. The article acknowleges these goals as well. After all, as the disatisfaction at biglaw makes clear, money doesn't always buy happiness; sometimes you trade money for other things that matter.

For more success stories, visit this link at Build a Practice LLC.

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

What do you get when you combine the writing talents of two lawyers, one from New York and the other from Mexico? Staring at Strangers of course, a new blog authored by New York lawyer David Leffler and Jennifer Rose, a lawyer and writer based in Mexico. Leffler and Rose share their observations of life in their different environments, drawing you in with experiences like a ride in a New York taxi cab. So if you're looking for insights on a variety of topics, from a perspective on both sides of the border, take a look at this new blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I don't attract any business through signs or billboards, but I found this story neat. This blurb from the New York Times (4/3/07) reports on a dentist who put her name up in lights. From the story:

This was about 18 months ago, after Dr. Correa had opened an office above a McDonald's, overlooking what was then the TKTS discount ticket booth in Duffy Square. She simply had a sign installed in one of the two windows in her office that faces Broadway. The sign cost $3,500, which is -- what? Three root canals? Now her message crawls by in not-so-little letters, about 20 words every 20 seconds, not counting her address and telephone number. The address -- 165 West 46th Street -- is necessary because the building is also known as 1560 Broadway. But the entrance is around the corner.
How many patients has the sign brought in? A dozen? "More," she said. "When the TKTS booth was there, there was a lady from Korea with a toothache. She got her tickets and came up here. She had very large decay. I wanted to do a root canal, save her tooth, but she was traveling and said, 'Just pull the tooth.' " She has patients who reported seeing the sign on New Year's Eve (when she was in the office, watching the ball drop). She has patients who work in Times Square, including one from Rudolph W. Giuliani's office.

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

Over at Legal Blogwatch, I posted about a case of outrageous billing by Debra Opri, attorney to Larry Birkhead, who claims to be father to Anna Nicole Smith's daughter. Exhorbitant charges included thousand dollar dinners where Birkhead wasn't present, substantial cell phone roaming charges and even expenses for personal laundry. The 112 page invoice totaled more than $600,000. Take a look at my Blogwatch post for more commentary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I can't add anything except a big "me too!" to Susan Cartier-Liebel's exhaustive summary of the recent Ms. JD conference held at Yale Law School yesterday.  The conference gave me a chance to finally meet Susan and reconnect with Lisa Solomon, Brandy Karl and, briefly, Cathy Kirkman whom I'd met previously.

My thoughts on women in the legal profession are too complex to digest in a single post.  I agreed with one of the panelists who suggested that we can't expect much on the law firm front until family structures change and women no longer presumptively play the role of the primary caretaker for children.  I also disagree with the proposition voiced on a couple of panels that women can't "run from inequality" at large firms or the entire big law institution will be left as a bastion of outdated, old boys' clubs.  At a time when law firms are losing associates, both male and female, in droves  (associate retention numbers are absymal), why aren't unhappy male lawyers urged to stay on and turn law firms into cheerier, more supportive environments?

I don't have much more to say right now, but if you're a female attorney, visit the Ms. JD site where you can share your experiences, and read those of others in the profession. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks