There's still time to download a copy of an e-book and win a copy of Solo by Choice. The contest closes May 15, 2008 (you have until midnight) and I'll be drawing two winners on May 16, 2008. I may (or may not) do a public drawing online, but I won't announce the winners pubicly for reasons of confidentiality. To sign up to win, click here.
Not to draw further attention to the Paul Hastings associate, Shiyung Oh's termination, but I'm fascinated by the new information about life at large firms that's emerging as a result of the story. For example, the Wall Street Journal obtained a copy of Oh's review, which showed that Oh excelled at her work, but which also contains some interesting tidbits about law firm life.
For example - Oh graduated law school in 1998, and worked as a litigator. However, on the last page of her review, there's a comment that
Opportunities should be sought for her to become involved in an arbitration and she should get into court if at all possible.
(Oh's bio says that she did assist in "preparing and arguing motions") Can you imagine working as a litigator for ten years and rarely making it into court? Most solos are able to find an opportunity at a court room or a hearing within a year of starting a practice.
I also noticed that Oh was graded as "met expectations" for client development. That's not surprising; apparently, she was so overworked that she didn't have time to go engage in more business development. And that's a problem for most lawyers, us solos included: finding the time to always hunt for new business, even as we're churning out work for paying clients.
However, most of us solos do find ways to do this - either by setting aside time for business development, outsourcing some marketing tasks or administrative tasks - because we realize that our firm depends upon a constant flow of new business for our livelihood. I'm not sure that many large firm associates recognize the importance of business development. But what's worse is that their superiors aren't doing a very good job about helping them to build the business that is vital both to their own futures, and the future of their law firm.
Ironically, the one tangible suggestion to Oh in her review is that she check her record keeping accuracy to make sure that she's not "unwittingly" cutting her time. Which about says it all: firms are more concerned about associates as "billing machines" than anything else.
To those associates who want to change biglaw, more power to them. But maybe it's about time that they consider starting their own.
In this earlier post, I criticized a Paul Hastings associates for outing the her firm for the circumstances surrounding her firing. I agreed that the firm acted boorishly, but I didn't believe that was anything new - and felt that the associate may have burned bridges and harmed her chances for future opportunities. And now, I'm happy, albeit embarrassed, to admit that I was wrong on a few counts.
The comments to my post and the here and here provided more information and also lead me to reconsider initial position. Originally, I'd thought that the associate expressed her views about the firing out of vengeance or anger. However, her motive was to help associates laid off for economic reasons avoid the same self-doubt and loss of self-esteem that she herself had faced. And it's ironic that I missed this intent completely - given that in my book, Solo by Choice, I devoted an entire sidebar to discussing my own firing for the same reason. I wanted people to know that even when you're fired, it doesn't mean that you lack ability and won't find more success at another job.
However, more importantly, what I've also learned from the post and the blogosphere is that in today's internet world, even in burning bridges, you can create new opportunities. Happily, the associate has received an outpouring of support who are willing to help her locate new employment - and that probably would not have happened had she not come forward. And now that she's made herself available for interview, her firm is stuck in the uneviable position of remaining silent and letting its reputation take a hit. I have to admit that after all this time of working outside of law firms, I still underestimate how much pent up frustration and resentment exists against large law firms. And that after all of this time blogging, I still don't always fully appreciate the capacity that the Internet offers us for constant reinvention.
Still, this recent story shouldn't serve as license to go hog-wild when you're let go from a job. As I said, initially I was confused about the associate's motive because I didn't have the whole story - so if you're going to send a message to your firm, try to be clear about the intent so the more obtuse of us out here will understand your position. Several years ago, Denise Howell gracefully discussed her termination by her firm in this post which seemed to strike the right chord. Finally, good luck to Shiyung Oh in taking advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.
On June 3, 2008, I'll be giving a webinar for JD Bliss entitled www.aFrom Biglaw to Yourlaw: The Secrets of Starting and Growing a Successful Solo Law Practice. Like my book, the webinar contains plenty of general advice that's useful to lawyers starting a practice at any stage of their career. But it will focus specifically on some of the issues related to starting a firm that are unique to lawyers presently employed at a law firm. These issues include dealing with the psychological aspects of losing a steady paycheck, figuring out whether you can (or want to) continue your current law firm practice specialty as a solo and how to do so and learning how to negotiate an amicable departure from your firm, without running afoul of ethics rules or harming your chances for future referrals. In writing my book, I discovered that these topics have not received much attention in most of the other literature on starting a practice. So please sign up - I'm really looking forward to this event.
Update (5/10/08) - I have changed my position on this and updated it here.
Update (5/7/08) - a commenter points out that the associate did not send the memo to Above the Law, but instead, that it was circulated by another attorney. This makes the story more unfortunate, because the associate may not have wanted so much widespread publicity. On the other hand, in an Internet Age, most of us have to assume that any inflammatory emails that we send are destined for broader publication.
Make no mistake, mega-law firm Paul Hastings acted insensitively, boorishly - and possibly even unlawfully - in terminating this associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage and then pretending that the firing was merit based. But by publicly venting about about her termination at the heavily trafficked Above the Law website, the associate made her own situation far worse than the firm that let her go. Here's why.
According to its website, Paul Hastings has 1200 lawyers, some of whom might have tried to help this associate find a new job. Some might have sent her referrals had she gone to another law firm or started her own, thus helping her build a porfolio of business which could advance her career. And while the work might have come because of a belief in her merit or out of guilt for having done her wrong, what's the difference? In any event, this associate will never find out what could have been, because she burned those contacts with her incendiary post.
I've written previously about the importance of saying nay to the naysayers - you know, those folks, some jealous, some just well-intentioned - who tell you that you won't succeed in starting a law firm. Pesky as these external naysayers may be, the truth is, they're only part of what's holding you back. In many cases, the biggest naysayer is you!
For example, how many times have you rejected a marketing technique out of hand, such as cold-calling (too cheesy) or blogging (too time consuming) without trying it or coming up with a way to make it work for you? If you practice at a large firm, do you simply assume that you can't handle the same lucrative, biglaw practice area on your own because no one else is doing it? And believe me, I'm as guilty of naysaying myself as anyone. Indeed, just now, I am training myself not to reflexively reject ideas out of hand merely because they're off the beaten track or out of the box or contrary to conventional wisdom.
What's really inspired me to stop naysaying myself, however, is this recent story about Randy Pausch, the former Carnegie Mellon professor dying of pancreatic cancer whose on Last Lecture about living your childhood dream has captivated and inspired millions. Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal reporter who helped break the story, asked Pausch to memorialize his lecture and other life lessons in a book. But Pausch initially declined, explaining that he wanted to spend his remaining time with his family. So Zaslow and Pausch came up with a plan. Each day, Pausch rode his bike an hour a day as a way to maintain his health. It was time spent away from family anyway, and necessary to Pausch's well-being. Pausch would wear a cell phone headset during his rides, and during that time, he'd talk about his life, his family and his lecture to Zaslow, feeding him information for the book - which was just released.
If a dying professor intent on spending every waking minute with his family during his last months on earth can find a way to write a book, well then, there's hope for all of us. So long as we focus on figuring out how to do what seems impossible or infeasible, rather than complaining about why we can't.
Imagine having your bar licenses suspended for two years over a measly $175. Sadly, that's what happened to this unfortunate Ohio attorney (Respondent) who accepted referrals from United Financial Systems Corporation (UFS), a national wealth management company. As described in this grievance decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio, UFS representatives used non-lawyers to meet with prospective estate planning clients. The non-lawyers would obtain personal and financial information, which they would transmit along with the the $2495 payment to UFS. At that point, UFS would assign client files to attorneys to prepare the estate documents.
In this case, the Respondent, who was barred in Ohio, handled matters for UFS clients who lived in Ohio and continued to do so after she relocated to Michigan in April 2005. She received $175 for preparing estate planning documents. In March 2006, she ended her affiliation with UFS in March 2006, after realizing that her conduct violated disciplinary rules, such as the prohibition on fee-splitting with non-lawyers, failing to safeguard confidential information and aiding in unauthorized practice of law by non-lawyers.
Still, the Respondent's resignation did little to quell the vengeance of the Ohio Bar Association who filed a complaint against her in August 2007, more than a year after she ceased taking UFS clients. And even though the Respondent had no prior disciplinary record or dishonest or selfish motive and cooperated during the disciplinary proceedings, she was suspended from practice for two years!
Though I fault the bar entirely for the suspension, there's much that the Respondent could have done, and which other lawyers can do, to avoid this fate. First, even though legal ethics are complex, you can't check your common sense at the door. This kind of arrangement - where a lawyer gets a $175 piece of a $2495 fee - should have raised a red flag. Likewise, delegating collection of personal and financial information to a UFS representative rather than having the task done by the lawyer or one of her employees should have triggered questions about confidentiality.
When it comes to arrangements with non-lawyers, if you can't definitively confirm that the arrangement passes ethical muster, then walk - no run - away. Losing $175 is a trivial price to pay to keep your license and preserve your career.
Enter keywords:
| An Affiliate of the Law.com Network |
||||
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
||||
