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

From Newsday, I learned that the Nassau County Attorney's office hopes help out in this economic downturn by opening its doors to bring on several volunteer lawyers who haven't been able to find other employment.  Positions range from working with the county's Home Ownership Center to advise in mortgage default situations to defending the county in litigation and appellate matters.  Already, an advertisement in the New York Law Journal has drawn 50 applicants, 80 percent of whom are currently unemployed.

I realize that on the surface, the prospect of free labor sounds eminently attractive.  Indeed, for a few weeks now, I've been considering hiring volunteer lawyers to help out with my trade association but I've been too busy to organize the kind of structured program that would make their time worth my while.  As for my own practice, again, I'd love to bring a volunteer on board, but for the bulk of my present work, the learning curve is just to steep to make this kind of arrangement feasible.  I'd love to take on a few pro bono matters and supervise a volunteer, but finding the work also takes time.

In addition, I'm just not a fan of free labor.  I've had one or two free volunteers at my practice over the past 15 years, but mostly, I've paid even though when I started out, it usually meant a $10/hr salary, with the intern or clerk receiving payment before I did.  In at least one case, I found the free employee unreliable and not really very motivated, but because I wasn't paying her, I didn't feel that I could crack down on her as much as I would have if she'd been paid.  And assuming that  a diligent volunteer were working for me, I'd feel as if I were taking advantage even if I were teaching him or her the tricks of the trade.

I know that Seth Godin has a free internship program but that's a little different. After all, I'm sure that most of us would make time to work free for a Supreme Court justice for a couple of months if given the chance.  But I'm not so sure that the training and contacts that I - or most of my colleagues - could provide are a fair trade for three or six months of work that we might ultimately bill to paying clients (which is another issue - is it fair to hire a volunteer and collect cash for their work?)

So let me know what you think.  If you're unemployed or looking for a career transition, would you volunteer to work for a lawyer or non-profit and what would make it worth your while.  And if you're a solo, have you hired volunteer lawyers (students getting school credit don't count) and how did it work out?  Or would you use a volunteer at all and why or why not?

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

I have a couple of quick announcements about some upcoming appearances. 

On  Monday, March 30, I'll be speaking at American University Washington College of Law on Solo Practice: Why This Ugly Stepsister of the Legal Profession Just Might Be A Prince in Disguise.  We'll cover reasons why solo practice offers opportunities for entrepreneurs and employment-seekers alike and how to get started if that's the route you take.  The event is from 4-6 and it's free, plus there's a reception thereafter.  If you'd like to sign up, click here (go to events for 3/30 and click on the Nuts & Bolts Solo event).  I really look forward to meeting you.

I'll be at the ABA Tech Show from April 2-4, 2009.  You'll find me at various TweetUps and sitting in on a couple of courses.  But if you'd like to meet up, just send me a DM at @carolynelefant.  Would love to see you in person.

Finally, I'm excited to announce that I am teaming up with Julie Tower Pierce, author of Staying at Home, Staying in the Law and the Darlinghill website on what will be the first of a series of in person (and perhaps eventually) online workshops entitled "Pinkslips, Detours & OnRamps: 
Restart, Recharge or Reinvent Your Legal Career On Your Own Terms."  Julie is one of the few experts on women lawyer careers with a view towards the multiple and innovative options, no matter their circumstances.  The first event will be held at Busboys and Poets at 5th & K Street, Washington DC on Thursday April 30, 10-2.  A registration page will go up by mid-week - just wanted to let you know in advance.   In the meantime, feel free to download my e-book, a collection of posts on Moms, Solo Practice and the 21st Century. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: (note - when you sign up, you'll be sent an email to confirm subscription, after which the ebook will be sent.  Depending upon the type of email you use, there may be a short lag between registration & receipt of the confirm message, so be patient. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What I learned from the blog postings on my book, Solo by Choice is that most reviewers apparently don't bother to actually read the entire book.  Now, this might have given me a bit of a complex except now I realize that I'm in good company.  Seems that many readers overlooked one of Richard Susskind's blockbuster predictions about the future of women lawyers that comes at the tail end (p. 283) of  The End of Lawyers.

Given Susskind's emphasis on the dominant role that technology will play in the practice of law,  you might assume that Susskind expects women lawyers to lose ground.  After all, many of us stereotypically associate technological aptitude and love-of-all-gizmos-and-gadgets with men rather than women.  But Susskind recognizes that the quality that we women bring to the table lies in our ability to empathize.  This in turn, enables us to recognize the value of technology not as an end in itself, but as a tool to serve clients more efficiently, effectively and creatively.   Here's what Susskind has to say about the types of people who will be our best lawyers in the future:

the legal world today is dominated by "left brain" thinkers who will not find it easy to empathize.  And of course, there is an interesting correlation between the "male brain" and the "female brain" [in that] the typical male brain systematizes while the female brain empathizes....if the twin forces of commoditization and IT do indeed combine to create a legal environment in which much legal work is standardized and computerized, then we can well imagine that those individuals who are in the future responsible for innovating, designing, marketing and selling a multi-sourced legal service will not be traditional left brain males but far more creative, innovative, artistic an often female lawyers.

Of course, solo female lawyers have always known this secret.  Many of us embrace technology to run contract law practices or virtual law offices or to help lawyers navigate the ins and outs of Web 2.0.  To be sure, these technology-driven practices afford flexibility to spend time with family.  But more importantly, these practices are a product of the "empathetic female brain" that Susskind references because they respond to previously unmet needs, whether it's a demand by clients for affordable legal services or a stressed out lawyer's need for assistance with overflow legal work.   

Sadly, though, (but most typical), women at biglaw continue to look back instead of ahead.  While the well-respected Susskind has essentially handed women lawyers the keys to the castle, they're too busy trying to resurrect the stale, top-down work life balance policies that never worked in the past to listen.

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

Just as then-candidate Obama's campaign offered solo and small firm lawyer valuable marketing lessons on using social media to speak to and genuinely engage clients, likewise, his presidency continues to serve as a valuable source of ideas.  As you probably know, today, President Obama conducted an online town hall, eliciting questions from the public through an online chat-type forum.  So I got to thinking, how would online chats work for law firms?

Very well,  according to the results of a  study by Bravestorm.com, makers of Boldchat.com.  The study shows a direct correlation between live chat and growth in sales for online retailers.  But more significant for lawyers, the study also found that live chat has an even greater importance for service organizations such as law firms, accountants and others.

Of course, lawyers would have to implement live chat judiciously to ensure compliance with ethics rules and avoid malpractice liability.  Among other things, lawyers would need to avoid giving specific advice or creating an attorney-client relationship.  Still, live-chat offers plenty of possibilities.  Why not an "online open house" where a lawyer spends an hour fielding questions on estate planning or divorce?  You could even save the results and make the live chat transcript available as an FAQ on your website.  Alternatively, a lawyer might host a professional in a related field - for example, a divorce lawyer could ask a marriage counselor to answer questions from the public.  Just making a resource like live chat available can generate good will, not to mention, make site visitors remember your firm if they're ever asked for a referral.

Used to be that live chat software was an expensive or complex proposition.  But these days, prices are manageable.  Bold Chat, for example, charges $29 a month.  Even if you don't wind up getting clients, at least you can look presidential.  How many solo and small firm lawyers could say that before?

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

By now, you've probably read some of the press or blog reviews about Richard Susskind's recent book, The End of Lawyers.  So you're probably familiar with Susskind's main premise that disruptive technologies which routinize or automate certain legal tasks will erode the need for traditional legal services or displace them entirely.  Susskind anticipates that clients will always have a need for "bespoke" (isn't that a great word?) legal services that provide trusted expert advice.  But Susskind argues that gone are the days when clients will hire expensive lawyers for tasks just as effectively performed through automation or highly steam-lined processes. 

Much of Susskind's book focuses on how large corporate firms can re-position themselves to retain clients and stay competitive.  But what's a solo or small firm to do to survive in these transitional times?  Susskind offers a couple of good suggestions, such as adding an unbundled virtual law office component to a practice (Susskind uses Richard Granat and his Directlaw product as an example) or setting up a for fee subscription service to provide informatio to clients (here, Susskind cites UK soliciter and solo, Tessa Shepardson on Landlordlaw.co.uk).  Susskind also believes that firms can generate revenue through compliance or preventitive services - somewhat along the lines of the toll bridge agreements which I discussed several months ago. Finally, Susskind emphasizes that a demand will always exist for highly specialized, niche expert legal services and trusted legal advice, counseling or strategizing that technology can never replace. 

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

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.  Robert Frost

Why is it that biglaw is always engaged in a constant game of follow the leader?  A few years back, sites like Above the Law gleefully documented the steady upward march of first year salaries from $125,000 to $140,000 to $165,000, taunting those that didn't keep pace.  Two short years later, as the economy tanked, a trickle of firms with practice areas hit hard by the economy laid off a handful of associates here and there.  But the early round of layoffs took away the stigma and these days, virtually every AmLaw top 100 firm is dumping associates or deferring their start dates.  Of course, either feeling guilty or irrationally optimistic that the economy will turn around, firms are trying to soften the blow of layoffs by extending substantial severance packages and competing to  place laid off lawyers in public interest jobs, overtaxing many non-profits and worse, displacing lawyers who wanted public interest jobs from the outset. 

Time after time, whether it's work-life balance or flex-time or employing contract attorneys to the panicked reaction to the economy, large law firms fall prey to the lock-step monster, taking an action not because it makes sense strategically or serves long term goals but because everyone else is doing it.  From where I and many of my solo and small firm colleagues sit, all we see is biglaw buckling, running scared with no clue of where they're headed. 

That's not to say that we solos aren't scared either.  But having created a firm once, we know deep down that we could do it again if it all falls apart.  Though in an earlier post today, I wrote of the dangers of growing stale in solo practice, truth is, I've also seen solo and small firms heroically reinvent their practices, either downscaling from a volume practice or going virtual or changing practice areas entirely, or exploring prospects for collaborative ventures.  Granted, some of these solutions may not work for biglaw attorneys, but at least, they offer new ideas and a way to stand down that lock-step monster, once and for all.

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

After twenty years of practice, I can do an appeal from start to finish with my eyes closed.  I'm intimately familiar with the Three-Bears like requirements for timely filing (too early can render the petition incurably premature; too late and the petition misses the unforgiving statutory deadlines and gets unceremoniously bounced) to the arguments - standing, waiver, jurisdiction and harmless error - that appeals courts embrace.  I know which side of the aisle to sit and what to say when I open and how to prepare so that I never, ever need to look at my notes but can still cite to the Appendix, nonetheless.  In fact, I've grown so jaded that sometimes, I'll write my opening sentence the morning of argument and most importantly, I no longer need to bite my lip to avoid giggling when the court clerk enters chanting "Oyez, Oyez."

Yet much as I enjoy operating on auto-pilot, many days, I'd trade it for the thrill of take-off.  I remember back when I handled my first federal appeal to the tune of ten dollars an hour, working my tail off to achieve the competency which comes effortlessly now (not perfection, just competence).  I pored endlessly over the court rules, calling the court clerks so frequently that they got to know me and spent many mornings observing arguments in court.  Taking my place at the podium and looking up at judges whom I'd actually read about in the newspaper (that would be the pot smoking Judge Douglas Ginsburg), I felt, for the first time in my five year legal career that I'd really arrived.

But the excitement of the salad days and all of the firsts soon fades and inertia sets in.  Sometimes, it's easier (not to mention more financially rewarding) to stick with the cases that you can process without thinking than seek out new challenges; to keep the same old system in place (because if it ain't broke, don't fix it) instead of striving for ways to improve; to avoid asking questions to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing it all.  And yet, if we don't change, we run the risk of being left behind - like  the sixty six biglaw partners who now earn less than associates after their compensation was slashed or the old lawyer in the hallway. Being a fresh new lawyer may be tough in these trying times, but staying fresh is harder, hands down.

So what do you do to keep your practice as fresh as the day you started out?  Share your thoughts below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'd love to be able to share the specifics about how to start and run a law firm for every jurisdiction in the country.  In part, that was the reason behind MyShingle's The Bars, Reviewed which summarizes the benefits for solos and small firms offered by the 50 bars and the ABA and provides quick links to ethics and IOLTA rules for those bars that maintain them online.  Truth is though that for all the information that I can make available, there's no escaping that the devil's in the details when you start and run your practice because each state has its own finicky way of doing things, which gives rise to fifty different sets of ethics rules.  And that's something that ought to change as the practice of law increasingly becomes location-independent.

Two recent news stories and a reader question prompted me to write this post because in one way or another, all relate to some quirk of state ethics rules.  First, the New York Law Journal reported on a story about a New York divorce attorney who nearly lost his fee for failing to bill his client at 60-day intervals as required by a New York rule,  22 NYCRR 1400.2.  New York's rule differs from many jurisdictions and it's easy to envision a situation where, for example, an attorney who's practiced family law in another jurisdiction and gains admission to the New York bar runs afoul of this requirement.

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

Back when I worked for others, my social interactions were remarkably stratified.  As an associate or a newbie government lawyer, I spent lunches and breaks palling around with other junior lawyers who occupied the same lower tiers of the employment hierarchy as I did.  My sole social encounters with partners or superiors came during polite conversations at the holiday party or at awkward lunches, designed more to discuss my performance than to get to know each other.  But the day I opened the doors to my law firm, I forever liberated myself from this type of stunted social environment.

When working for others or socializing in law school, we often gravitate towards those in our age group, professional level or practice area - a propensity that artificially limits the scope of our social contacts.  But when you start a firm, you're defined not so much by your age or practice area, but rather, your status as founding partner and business owner.  As a result, the range of social possibilities magically expands -  a twenty five year old solo just out of law school now holds business partnership in common with the senior partner at the largest firm in the city; a lawyer running his or her own firm now shares the same interests in running a business as accountants, engineers and small business owners. 

I realized the shift just a few weeks after I started my practice.  I had lunch with a partner at a major firm in town to discuss our clients' mutual interest in an appeal that I was handling, which I'd taken with me when I left my former firm.  Had the meeting taken place just weeks before, I'd have attended as an associate with a partner at the helm, sitting nervously on the edge of my chair and speaking only when prompted.  But now, as proprietor of my own shop, I came to the table on equal footing,  exchanging ideas with the partner as a colleague, rather than reciting for a superior.  Today, I count that partner among my circle of colleagues and friends whom I've met through my practice, a circle which has since expanded to encompass lawyers and non-lawyers of all genders, races and ages.  In fact, I find I have far more in common with other solos, be they 25 or 75 than with some of my contemporaries from law school and college who work in-house or at big law. 

Most lawyers who work for others often feel that they're limited professionally by the types of low level assignments relegated to them.  But  what you've probably never considered is how socially stifling a professional organization -particularly one as hierarchical as a law firm - can be.  It's not until you leave your job and begin by necessity assembling your own human back up that you realize just how much you've been missing.

Note:  Some of this post is adapted from the Being Solo Does Not Mean Being Alone, a chapter that I authored for the ABA's 2004 Flying Solo Book.

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

So what does Mr. Clean have to do with law firm marketing?  Not much, if you're talking about Mr. Clean all by his lonesome -  though I suppose there's some buried lesson there about branding or image.  But what caught my eye about  this cleaning product, however, is that it's a real life example of collaborative marketing - the pairing of Mr. Clean Magic Erasers and Febreze deodorizer - as well as proof of the benefits that collaborative marketing brings to each product.

I love Mr. Clean magic erasers - they're probably one of the best and most effective cleaning products that I've ever used.  But the magic erasers aren't scented and so if your problem is a combination of grime and lousy odor, you might decide against the eraser in favor or a scented, counter-top spray product.  Similarly, I also like Febreze to combat odors (for those of you who've seen my Twitter profile photo, you know I have a puppy who can occasionally stink up the carpet) - but you can't use Febreze as a cleaner.  By combining the best of both products, Mr. Clean and Febreze benefit by keeping existing users happy and potentially attracting other users who might have otherwise opted for a competing product.

So what does all of this mean for lawyer marketing?  Easy.  Perhaps as a young lawyer, you've got the energy and attitude and tech savvy to attract young tech clients, but you lack the expertise to really handle all  of their matters capably.  Why not, like Mr. Clean, bring in your own "Febreze" - an experienced lawyer who can co-counsel on tougher matters.  And like Mr. Clean, you could advertise your affiliation with your co-counsel to let clients know that by hiring you, they can get the best of both worlds.

Or, let's say that you're a family law attorney and you've noticed that newly divorced clients frequently ask you for advice on changing their estate plans.  You could affiliate with an estate lawyer and hold seminars together, maybe even market different packages together (reciprocal discounts, perhaps - though they'd have to be structured to avoid running afoul of evil bar regulations). 

Opportunities for collaboration abound, as evidenced in the real-life world of marketing.  As lawyers, we should look to these ideas for inspiration on ways that we can collaborate so that we can offer potential clients the best of both worlds, and in so doing, realize the best of both worlds ourselves.

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

Who says being solo means being small time?  In Mississippi, two female solos, Constance Slaughter Harvey and Christi McCoy are two of the top contenders for the open seat for United States Attorney General for the northern and southern districts of Mississippi, reports the Northeast Mississippi Journal.  Both women boast impressive credentials.  Slaughter-Harvey was the first African American woman to graduate from University of Mississippi Law School in 1970 and is a former assistant secretary of state for elections while McCoy, earned a law degree from Ole Miss in 1994, working a firm and as a municipal judge before opening her practice.

So if you think being solo may cramp your longer term aspirations in the law, think again.  Solo practice isn't a dead-end, it's also a road that can take you where you want to go, or to places you never dreamed you would. 

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

I know it sounds crazy, but one of the best things that you can do if you're thinking about starting a law practice is...interview for jobs.  I know that to many of you, a job interview sounds like an utter waste of time or an unnecessary diversion when you're focused on starting a firm, but as discussed below, there are a number of benefits that an interview can produce.

First, an interview is often the easiest way to get inside a law firm.  Many times, lawyers, particularly those at larger firms, won't take calls from lawyers or law students whom they don't know.  An interview forces an introduction.  Once the interview concludes, you can follow up with a nice note thanking the lawyer for taking the time to talk and expressing desire to work together in the future, no matter where you wind up.  That leaves the door open to reconnect down the line if and when you start your own firm.

Second, if you make a good impression, an interview may create opportunities for alternative work arrangements that can help you as you start your practice.  For example, you may be able to arrange to work for the firm 15 hours a week, and spend time on your own practice (of course, you would want to disclose this to your employer).  Or perhaps the firm won't want to guarantee you a set number of hours weekly, but might keep you in mind for a project basis.  In this economy, firms may still need help though not full time and they may be open to discuss non-conventional, mutually beneficial arrangements.

Third, interviews are also a form of competitive intelligence, a way of putting your finger on the pulse on the industry.  On interviews, you can ask lawyers whether the economy has impacted a particular area of practice or where they see an area of law headed in the next few years.

Finally, if you're truly on the fence about whether to open your own practice, an interview can help cement your decision.  Nothing like seeing a pale, red-eyed, nervous associate straining to express enthusiasm for document review to make you realize that you spending even as little as a year or two at a firm isn't for you.

So is it ethical to interview for a job that you may not want?  Sure - after all that's what interviews are for.  Many times, a job may seem ideal on paper, but an interview can change your mind.  In short, when you interview for a job, you're never committed to accept an offer.  Likewise, there's always a possibility that a job you've interviewed for wows you enough to hold off on your plans for going solo, at least for a year or two.  There's nothing wrong with that either. 

Further, an interview gives the firm a chance to meet you, someone whom they may not have otherwise encountered.  In fact, after meeting you, the firm might realize that hiring a lawyer on a contract basis makes more sense than bringing on a full time employee.  

So if you see an ad for a position that tempts you or if a colleague offers to set you up with an interview for a firm in town, don't turn it down out of hand.  It might lead to opportunities that you never considered, but nevertheless would embrace.

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

With layoffs increasing, so too are sales of Solo by Choice, and again, it's sold out at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble.  I wanted to let readers know that you can always purchase a copy directly from the publisher at Lawyer Avenue - it's the same price, shipping is free and my publisher processes orders promptly.  If you are in the DC area, I have a few spares that I can sell you (contact me directly).

As for other resources on how to start a law firm, I have tons available on this site, again, all free, but here are a few posts (out of hundreds) that might be most relevant to some of you right now:

Mindmap of Starting a Law Firm [click on the Mindmeister logo to expand the view.  If you prefer a checklist to a mindmap, when you open the file, click "export" and choose the document option, which will generate a check list]

Solo Practice Doesn't Mean Forever (brief thoughts on using solo practice to ride out a recession)

Cold Calling Works (I know you don't want to do it, but if you've just been laid off, you need to pick up the phone...whether you're looking for a job or starting a firm)

Marketing Through Testimonials: Giving and Receiving  (Up at the Nolo blog)

Starting A Firm From Scratch (This is circa 1996 and is my first piece describing how I started a firm out of desperation "to salvage my floundering legal career).

Soloformania Update (I was saving this for my re-launch, but I'll release it now - forms, sample pleadings and other useful materials for getting your firm off the ground).

Tech RoundUp (cheap and free tech that lawyers are using to run practices.  This is from 2008 so there have been new additions (notably, JD Supra.com) but the information is still relevant).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So, how many of you maintain a law library in your practice?  You know, the digests and volumes of caselaw and annotated statutory codes with the annual pocket parts that always slip out and of course, those loose-leaf reporters where you need to unscrew the metal binder clasp with a coin, then fumble around to slip dozens of flimsy sheets off of the metal stem and insert the updated replacements.

Probably not many.  My guess is that rather than buy all of those books and own them outright without any further costs (except de minimis updating fees),  instead, you fork out anywhere between $30 and $300/month for commercial legal research services so that you can access a library online. But horrors!  Doesn't that mean that over a lifetime of use, you'll wind up paying far more for legal research - thousands and thousands of dollars - than you would if you invested in a good set of law books?

Seriously, few of us flinch at the cost of commercialized legal research and willingly pay more on on an ongoing basis for its convenience and ease of use.  So why then, are so many lawyers and technology experts so quick to dismiss software as a service (SaaS) practice management tools because they believe that the ongoing subscription fees cost more in the long run than a one time investment in a desktop based practice management tool that the user owns outright after purchase?

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