MyShingle : Solo and Small Law Firm Management and Marketing

Scott Greenfield's post at Simple Justice about solo immigration lawyer, Frank Liu's disciplinary problems highlights the perils of the volume practice.  Referencing this New York Times article, Greenfield describes how Liu's carelessly written form briefs (where he sometimes neglected to change the sections describing the facts) ultimately landed him in hot water with the Second Circuit, which referred him to the court's disciplinary committee for his "seriously deficient work." 

Not surprisingly, Liu ran a low cost shop - charging a flat fee of $2500 for an appeal, then making it up on volume.   As a result, Liu wound up juggling cases and cutting corners, which is typical for volume practice.  Lawyers who handle large numbers of cases face increased stress - and long hours leave little time to develop other business that might help escape the low margins of the numbers game.  Moreover, as Liu's case bears out, running a volume practice can expose lawyers to grievances and disciplinary actions because there's not enough time for quality control.

Despite well publicized stories about harried practitioners like Liu, many lawyers still fall into the volume practice trap.  And while I don't endorse volume practice as a long term business strategy, I realize many lawyers with volume practices serve a segment of the population who need representation and can't afford high rates - and that's an important role.   Thus,  as a profession, we need ideas to help practitioners make volume practices more efficient - and here are some ideas for doing that.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

One of the five "high impact" marketing practices that I discuss in Solo by Choice is non-traditional consultations, such as house calls or an after hours practice.  Not only are are non-traditional consults a way to stand out and accomodate your clients, but they're also compatible with many solos' business models.  Making house calls or site visits minimizes the need for a physical office, thus enabling you to work from home or in less expensive shared or virtual space.  And an after hours practice lets you keep a day job to keep revenue coming in as you get up to speed, or enables you to stay home with your children and work at a time when your spouse can watch them. 

I didn't give many examples of non-traditional consults in my book because I hadn't found many at the time.  So I was glad to see this blurb about James Perullo's Bay State Legal Services After Hour Law is open for business from 6-10 for convenience to clients.  Many of the lawyers affiliated with the venture, like Perullo, work during the day.  My guess is that these hours will bring in clients who didn't want to lose work time to schedule a daytime meeting with a lawyer.  Why aren't more lawyers developing and implementing other types of nontraditional consultation times.  If you are, let me know in the comments below.

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

Remember the two headed Pushmi-pullyu from the children's classic, Doctor Dolittle?  What you probably didn't realize back then is that the Pushmi-pullyu serves as an apt paradigm for providing information to your clients.  I unveiled this concept last week in my presentation at the ABA Tech Show 2008 on "Using Technology to Retain Clients."

Most experts, the venerable Jay Foonberg included, advise you to bury your clients in paper, sending them every draft you prepare or every document filed in a litigation matter.  Sounds terrific in theory, but in practice, constantly streaming documents to clients creates added stress.  The growing piles of paper constantly remind clients of the looming matter, not to mention the burgeoning legal costs of each piece of paper generated where you bill by the hour.   Paper pushing doesn't just happen in the context of an ongoing matter; some clients find that even after their matter ends, they continue to receive client newsletters, event announcements and other materials from their former lawyer several times a week.

Now, that's not to say that you shouldn't send clients important materials - drafts where their feedback is required or documents that you filed on a client's behalf in a case.  Likewise, sending clients a monthly newsletter or occasional alert about a change in the law will help keep them up to date on a matter.  But you need to exercise restraint with materials that you PUSH on clients.

That's where the Pushmei-pullyu model comes in to play.  Because of technology, we're not limited to simply PUSHING information on clients.  We can also employ tools to PULL clients to information.  Tools like blogs or webinars and teleseminars  give clients the option of reading or signing up for them - but they're not forced to do so.  Likewise, collaborative technologies like extranets, project management tools like Basecamp, Zoho or Google docs let you post documents online in a password protected location where clients can log in and access information at their convenience.   By pulling clients to information, you avoid being an annoyance and you make it easier for them to play an active role in their case. 

Bottom line:  when it comes to using technology to cement your relationship with clients, you need a little bit of  PUSH and a little bit of PULL.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Arnie Herz at Legal Sanity offers a great tip, echoed by What About Clients: reconnect with your business network so that you can continue to nurture and reinforce the trusted relationships that produce not only business referrals, but personal fulfillment. Taking a page from Curt Rosengren, Herz recommends that you try speaking with someone personally whom you know via email or the Internet, but haven't actually spoken with. Why don't you give it try?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Even after practicing law for 18 years, underneath my general air of confidence and my excess precaution with much of what I do lies a deep fear that at any minute, I could screw up in a major, big time way.  But now, courtesy of Jet Blue, there's a lesson from the school of real life marketing on how to you can begin to deal with the fallout from those inevitable gaffes (or not).

This article, Jet Blue's Survival School offers a run down on some of whatJet Blue's done right since everything went so terribly wrong with its Valentines' Day Meltdown.  Most significantly, Jet Blue's CEO, David Neeleman has stepped up to the plate to take responsibility and apologize:

But rather than hide behind his desk and speak through a flunky, Neeleman stepped up. He assessed the situation early on and spoke to the press. He explained exactly what went wrong and apologized. He said he felt "mortified" and "humiliated." That culminated Tuesday when he appeared on CNN's American Morning, Today, Fox and Friends and Squawk Box before most people arrived at work. He's been so visible, appearing live on so many media outlets, that it's a quasi-miracle he's been able to traverse New York City traffic to make the appointments.

I've read that good bedside matter often spares doctors, and other professionals from malpractice.  So Neeleman's apology, as well as the compensation (free flights and refunds) and a Passenger Bill of Rights put him on the right track to making amends.  Still, Jet Blue's efforts may not suffice to win back the affections of customers such as the one who started the blog, Jet Blue Hostage and has collected at least 150 stories from other passengers seriously inconvenienced by Jet Blue. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The recent shootings at a Chicago law firm by Joe Jackson, a disgruntled and crazed client have spawned a search for reasons behind the tragedy.  This article, Lawyers balance inventors' hope (12/17/06) explores one rationale: that Jackson, like other inventors who seek patents, hold an unrealistic hope of success.  According to one  patent attorney quoted in the article, "probably less than one in 100" will ever make money on an invention.  As the article describes:

Attorneys tread a fine line between being upfront with clients and killing their dreams.  "If everyone took a negative attitude, if they said, 'It's too hard, or it will take too long,' then where would our society be?" said Paul Juettner, another patent attorney. "Then Thomas Edison wouldn't have done the things he did -- or the Wright brothers."

In patent law, as in other fields, attorneys must act as the bearers of bad news, the ones who put a damper on expectations.   It's probably one of the worst parts of being an attorney, but if we don't occasionally tell our clients "no," or at least ask them to consider a variety of different options, who will?

• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

More lawyers are focusing on managing client relations, adopting techniques from putting ourselves in our clients' shoes to soliciting feedback through surveys to treating them with respect.  But sometimes, no matter what we do, clients get frustrated and angry - often not with their lawyers but with the inherent limitations of our justice system - and this kind of tragedy results. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dan Hull of What About Clients has rounded up twelve of his past blog posts into a comprehensive Twelve Rules of Client Service.  Read it if you want to stay a step ahead of your competitors.

Though Dan's post addresses client service, it's actually a great model for great rules for serving your blog readers.  Many readers may be new to your site and may not have read some of your best top posts.  So why not, like Dan has, repackage them as a "greatest hits" album of a sort and put it out for your readers.  You'll give them a taste of the best that your blog has to offer, and at least for one post, you won't have to search for new material! 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I realize that my posts have been sparse over the past month.   The slow postings are explained by a couple of factors: my day job as a practicing solo has been fairly busy lately, a project that I'm close to finishing that I believe will greatly benefit MyShingle readers and my divided loyalties now that I'm blogging with Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch (I'm also on a partial  vacation at the beach right now)

So, even though I'm not able to write a stand alone post, let me refer you to recent Legal Blogwatch posts of interest to MyShingle readers.  First, if you want to learn more about the importance of client service and how to integrate client service into your practice, take a look at this post, Serve Your Legal Career by Serving Your Clients.  And for more on ways that finding a niche can help build your practice (which I've posted on previously here and here), see my post on Advice for Law Firms Who Want to Be Something to Everybody.

I'll be back with more regular postings by the end of the month for sure.  In the meantime, I welcome guest posts from other solos about your experience, advice you want to share - or from other lawyers about your perception of solo and small firm lawyers.  Just drop me an email at carolyn.elefant@gmail.com.  

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recently, Allison Shields posted here on the benefits that lawyers can gain from hospitality, which is what excellent client service is all about.  But this article Thou Shalt Not... by Steven Lubet  (American Lawyer, 7/2006) got me to thinking that hospitality and just plain courtesy have other benefits as well:  they can spare you from a lawsuit or ethics complaint.

At first blush, Lubet's article, about a lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations by a disgruntled client spurned by a law school clinic seems to hold little advice for private lawyers running a practice.  Here's what happened.  The North Dakota law school runs a state funded legal clinic that handles civil rights matters.  In 2003, the clinic challenged a public display of the Ten Commandments.  In 2003 the legal clinic's Civil Rights Project represented five members of the Red River Freethinkers in a challenge to the placement of a Ten Commandments monument standing outside the city hall in Fargo, North Dakota. When Martin Wishnatsky, an anti-abortion activist learned about the litigation, he wrote a letter to the editor,  criticizing the litigation as attacking the faith of millions and an inappropriate use of state funds. 

To get back at the clinic, in 2005, Wishnatsky wrote to Professor Rover, seeking help in developing a lawsuit against "Grand Forks County and other relevant parties for having a statue of the Greek goddess Themis on top of the Grand Forks County Courthouse." Themis is the well-known figure of a blindfolded, toga-clad woman holding the scales of justice. Wishnatsky explained: "as a Christian, I find such representations of pagan religious figures in public places very disturbing," and indeed, "I feel like a second-class citizen when subject to such governmental displays." He requested the clinic's assistance "on the same basis as that granted to the [plaintiffs] to bring suit against the city of Fargo over the Ten Commandments monument."

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks (1)

There are a number of blogs like Dan Hull's What About Clients? and In Search of Perfect Client Service  that provide excellent advice on how to serve clients.  At the same time, for some lawyers, particularly new solos, serving clients isn't as much of a problem as figuring out how to avoid falling into what I have termed "the paradox of client service," the fact that we serve clients, but they are not our masters.  In the early years of my practice, I felt this tension between feeling like I'm a slave to my client while trying to stay in charge.  Originally, I chalked it up to a my personality, but now I wonder whether many new lawyers are predisposed to becoming slaves to clients because that's the role we play in law school (performing on command to the Socratic method) and at firms.  Anyway, here are my thoughts below:

Perhaps the most difficult transition from working for others to working for yourself involves figuring out how to deal with the �??paradox of the client.�?�   At a job, clear rules of hierarchy apply: you take your marching orders from your boss or superior, be it a senior partner at a firm or a deputy general counsel at a government agency or corporation.  As for dealing with clients, they�??re just another task on your to-do list, along with researching memos or keeping time sheets or taking CLE courses (continuing legal education).

Starting your own firm upsets this orderly chain of command.  In solo practice, dealing with clients is no longer someone else�??s responsibility. Clients comprise the heart of your business, your firm�??s raison d�??etre. Your livelihood depends upon your ability to serve your clients, because without them, you won�??t have a law firm.   At the same time, serving clients does not make them your boss.  The partner at the law firm could force you to work round the clock or to raise a specious argument in a brief against your better judgment, but clients do not control the way you run your practice.  As we discuss, clients have important rights that you must respect as part of your service to them, but those rights do not include things like keeping you at their beck and call round the clock or ordering you to discount your services or forcing you to take a position that violates ethics rules.

That is the paradox of the client:  you serve clients, but they are not your master.  If you don�??t serve well, you may lose your clients, but if you subordinate your judgment and business practices to your clients�?? demands, (e.g, working for discounted rates or taking unethical positions), you may also find yourself the subject of a bar complaint or out of business.   All lawyers struggle with the paradox of the clients.  But the paradox poses a particularly difficult problem for new solos:  emerging from the cocoon of the �??boss-employee�?� relationship, many new or young solos are more preconditioned to fall into a subordinate role with clients...

What are your thoughts?  Is this a problem for new solos (as I wrote here, becoming a slave to a client can happen even when more experienced lawyers let friendship cloud their judgment) - and if so, what can we do, in law school and in law firm training to address it?

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (2)

Even if you don't deal with corporate counsel as part of your law practice, this article, GCs Vent Their Frustrations About Outside Counsel (Recorder, 5/23/06) is worth reading, because it can help improve your relationship with any clients.  The article lists what corporate counsel don't like about their outside counsel.  Unpopular practices include (1) surprising clients with large bills; failing to call; raising rates (or not cutting back on costs) during economic downturns and sending a large document without some kind of summary. ermine the GC's position in the company.

Take a look at the article and think about whether you're guilty of some of these practices, and what you can do to change.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Joining a previous and long ago post on housecalls is this piece, Swtiching to House Calls, Hope Viner Samborn (ABA Journal 5/2006).  These days, house calls are viewed not just as convenient for clients but as a way to avoid having an office.  From the article:

Solo practitioner Laura S. Petelle gives new meaning to the moniker in-house counsel--she always meets clients in their homes, businesses or public places. Petelle travels throughout a three-county area around Peoria, Ill. She sits in kitchens or living rooms with families, writing notes while discussing estate planning. Breaks are common for homework, after-school snacks and playing with dogs. And it's common for her to be asked to stay for dinner.  She is one of a new breed of solos who have abandoned a traditional office, instead traveling to clients wherever they may be. Cell phones and portable computers keep them in touch and make this practice model possible.

It's interesting how technology is allowing us to return to the traditional practices of our predecessors.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A few weeks ago, I posted here on the dangers of getting too close to a client.  That issue came to mind again in reading this article Killer Charisma by Glenn Frankel (Washington Post Magazine 5/13/06) which ponders why advocates for Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed for the murder of his sister-in-law, continued to believe in his innocence until posthumus DNA testing proved otherwise.

The article is a lengthy, but fascinating read.  It focuses on Jim McCloskey, an investigator who worked to exonerate Coleman, but it also discusses the legal representation provided pro bono over the course of eight years by Kathleen Behan of Arnold and Porter. 

For those who don't recall the newsheadlines or Coleman's presence on the cover of Time magazine, the Coleman case involved post-verdict challenge to a capital conviction of Coleman for rape and murder of his sister in law.  The Coleman case was regarded as a potential test case which would put forward the issue of whether proof of innocence was ground for overturning a death penalty conviction.  And from the accounts that I recall from the press, it did indeed appear that Coleman had been wrongly convicted. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Dan Hull highlights this great compliment from a client that came to him via Patrick Lamb.  "We don't have their phone number, we have their DNA" is the compliment.   Though some of use might prefer a hefty monetary bonus  for excellent service, let's not forget that this kind of endorsement (particularly one making its rounds on the blogs) is worth its weight in gold many times over with the referrals and future business that it will help generation.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

What do romance novelists and new solo lawyers and bloggers have in common?  All have within them the potential to catapult to success as the result of Internet technology.  Whereas back in the mid-1990s, the Internet and the dotcom boom turned many ordinary folks into gazillionaires in unbelievably short periods of time, today the Internet is now responsible for taking some writers - and potentially lawyers - who toil in obscurity - and   making them stars as reported in this article, Romance, Writ Large from today's issue of the Washington Post.  Listen to this story from the article:

Here again, technology has had an impact. MaryJanice Davidson, a 36-year-old Minnesota writer, described her career as going "from the trailer park to the New York Times bestseller list in zero to 60." She had been trying to sell her manuscripts since she was 21, and "was tired of being told that no one was interested in paranormal or really sexy books." So she turned to e-publishing. Her first book, "Adventures of the Teen Furies," was a young adult fantasy about a group of teenagers who were into gaming and their gaming personalities took over. It was published by e-book publisher Hard Shell Word Factory. "Little did I know," Davidson said, "that the New York publishers were keeping an eye on the e-books." In 2003, Cindy Hwang, then senior editor for Berkley Books, read  Davidson's novel "Undead and Unwed" online and called her, seeking to  buy the print rights and offering her a three-book contract. It was, Davidson acknowledges, "like winning the lottery." The series, which has transitioned into hardcover, is about a secretary named Betsy Taylor who, in Davidson's words, "is turned into a vampire and fired on the same day. She has to find a new job and figure out where she is going to live. . . .

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (6)

Talk to any solo, and invariably, he or she will share a story of a client from hell.  You know who I'm talking about:  the one who won't pay the bills, who calls at all hours, who wonders why a 20 page motion took 10 hours to draft or who complains about how lawyers are money grubbers.  But just as troublesome as the client from hell are the clients who are your pals.  As I describe below, it's these guys, the friendly clients, who pull you in too close, to the point where you may compromise your professional judgment.  And then these clients who you thought were friends and colleagues revert back to ordinary clients, they'll be the first to turn on you when you need their support.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Lawyers aren't the only ones starting to focus on the importance of client relations (as evidenced by the proliferation of blogs like What About Clients and In Search of Perfect Client Service).  Peter Salgo, a professor of medicine at Columbia University, has this op-ed piece The Doctor Will See You Now for Seven Minutes in today's New York Times (3/22/06) where he ponders whether pressure on health care costs has commoditized the medical profession and eroded the "doctor patient" relationship.    

Salgo's article points to little, imperceptible shifts within the profession, such as a young med student referring to a patient as a "55 year old male" rather than a man, reference to patients as "customers"  or  duration of hospital stays as "through put."  To Salvo, this jargon reduces patients to a business school financial concept or items on an assembly line, rather than humans.  Salgo admits that restoring the doctor-patient relationship won't save money, but that it doesn't have to, because it can restore compassion and dignity to the medical profession.

As a lawyer, I know that serving clients is important and that clients complain that they don't get the service they deserve.  But maybe the solution isn't client surveys or enhancing efficiencies or squeezing out every cent we can from clients, but little things like not charging clients every time we talk to them or taking the time to engage them in conversation or showing compassion or empathy for a client in a tough spot.  There's something inherently human about the lawyer-client relationship, and for most of us, it's that human element that makes the practice of law frustrating at times, but ultimately richly rewarding. 

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Are lawyers rocket scientists or what?  According to these survey results, just released by Robert Half (1/11/06), attorneys identify client service as key to long term career success.
Most of us solo and small firm lawyers have always known that client service counts, because that's what allows us to compete with large firms.  Even now that the rest of the profession is waking up to our secret, I'm not concerned.  Solos and small firms have been focus ed on client service for so long, that it's going to take the rest of the profession some time to catch our lead (as GAL's here and here bear out).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Many lawyers tend to complain when our clients try to play to lawyer.  These lawyers either feel as if the client is trying to usurp of exclusive domain or simply don't want to take the time to explain why the law doesn't work as the client believes it does.  Yet as this article, Court:  NY Lawyer's One Mistake Enough to Overturn Verdict, John Caher, New York Lawyer (November 18, 2005) bears out, it pays to listen when your client offers ideas on legal strategy.  The article reports on the case of Herman Turner, whose conviction was recently vacated for ineffective assistance of counsel.  Turner's lawyers had failed to raise a statute of limitations defense that Turner himself had brought to their attention.

As for me, I've always listened to my clients' questions about legal issues in the case.   After all, as a lawyer, it's my job to do my best for my client - even if my best may mean checking my own ego at the door.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Greatest American Lawyer has at least two posts, here and here on problem clients.  Do you recognize any of those identified as your own?  And what are you going to do about it?

SoloTips

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Both the Legal Marketing Blog and Greatest American Lawyer have been pondering what makes a "perfect client."  I guess the answer is personal.  I know many lawyers who can't tolerate clients who want to review every document that goes out or ask too many questions.  But for me, what I enjoy most is a client who's involved in a case and interested enough to ask questions or force me to explain my strategy.  Plus, I'm not ashamed to admit that from time to time, my clients will bring issues to my attention that hadn't occurred to me initially. 

Any thoughts on what's a perfect client for you?  Send your comments below.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I'm not sure what to make of the story described in this article, Law Firm Sues Couple Over Past Legal Fees (7/23/05).  Seems that a couple spent three years fighting to keep a large subdivision from being built near their home, racking up $92,000 in legal fees in the process (in addition to which, they are $370,000 in debt).  Apparently, they won their battle and received $16,000 in court costs, but not the $225,000 they requested in legal fees (the article's not clear on the difference between the amount of fees requested and amount that the couple seeks to recover).  In any event, now the firm that represented the couple is trying to recover roughly $12,000 in unpaid fees, in monthly installments of $500, which they claim they can't pay.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the past few months, I read an article, I believe at law.com by a large firm associate, complaining about how much she disliked when other people she encountered shared their negative experiences with other attorneys.  (as I recall, in this case, the hotel bellhop had cornered her).  The associate wrote that she didn't quite understand the complaints and about feeling as if the complainers were trying to extract an apology from her.  The entire article had a very "I'm not my brother's keeper" tone to it and as a result, I didn't bother to save it or post it at the time.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Even if you own your own practice, don't forget, you can still lose your job:  according to this article, Law Firms Learn to Measure Client Satisfaction, San Jose Biz Journal (4/8/05),  almost 60 percent of companies have fired or are considering firing at least one of their outside law firms, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Corporate Counsel based in Washington, DC.  To avoid this fate, some firms are starting to pay closer attention to client needs, including conducting client surveys.  Although the article reports that some larger firms are hiring professional consultants to perform surveys, seems to me that the best start is the personal touch; to just pick up the phone and ask how your clients are doing and if there's anything you can do for them.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

This article, In Search of the Perfect Client, Joanne Cronrath Bamberger, Small Firm Business (3/14/05) offers up the standard, perfunctory advice on screening clients.  Red flags include refusal to pay a retainer fee (a sign of future collection difficulties), number of prior attorneys and whether the client seems difficult.  Not much new here.

If you follow these rules, you'll certainly do fine as an attorney.  But every once in a while (not all the time, or you might go bankrupt), you might want to consider throwing these rules aside and just going with your gut.  That's what Gerald Schwartzbach, the attorney who just won Robert Blake's acquittal must have done.  Though as described here, Schwartzbach was Blake's fourth attorney, the two hit it off.  And Schwartzbach's risk has likely paid off because with this high profile victory, his services will be in great demand.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Even if you don't practice criminal law, you should be interested in the U.S. Supreme Court's eventual ruling in Rompilla v. Beard concerning ineffective assistance of counsel which was argued before the Court yesterday. (for details, see Justices Debate Lawyer Diligence in Capital Case, Tony Mauro, Washington Legal Times (1/19/05)).  As with Florida v. Nixon, a Supreme Court case that dealt with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where a client failed to expressly authorize his attorney's strategy (see our prior post ), the Romilla decision will likewise have implications for how we attorneys relate to our clients.

In Romilla, the petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in a capital case because his attorneys failed to review court files documenting petitioner's history of alcoholism and poverty, his low IQ and troubled childhood.  The petitioner argued that had this information been presented at trial, he would have avoided a death sentence.

Now granted, the attorney's conduct sounds pretty egregious until you read the briefs.  Both parties' briefs state that the petitioner's attorney had asked him about his background and petitioner - apparently on several occasions denied his alcoholic history and troubled past.  But even there, the attorney did not rely on his client's word alone - he also interviewed family relatives and sent the petitioner to experts in hopes of finding mitigating circumstances to spare him from death.

A court ruling finding the attorney rendered ineffective assistance won't just impact criminal practice - but will affect how all of us deal with our clients.  Essentially, such a ruling would require the court to find that we cannot take our clients at their word.  Now sure, attorneys have an obligation to diligently investigate a client's case - but that's more to determine whether the case is feasible rather than to continuously question what our clients have told us.  And when clients begin to realize that it doesn't matter what they say because attorneys can't take them at their word, the trust so integral to the attorney client relationship will diminish.

Moreover, I want to empower my clients, not coddle them.  Clients deserve as much.  So, I take my time to explain the applicable law, why my clients must provide me with certain pieces of information and why that information must be accurate.  But if we send a signal to clients that their input doesn't matter, and if they don't provide it, then the attorney and not the client will pay the price, we encourage them to remain  passive bystanders rather than active participants in the judicial process.  And that makes us attorneys caretakers rather than advocates.

I'm not defending the Romilla attorney's failure to check the court files.  I suppose he could have been more diligent.  But the reason that he wasn't was because his own client simply wasn't willing to provide his attorney with information that may have saved his life.  In those circumstances, I don't think that the fault ought to rest entirely with his attorney either.   

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Yesterday's 8-0 decision by the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Nixon found that an attorney's concession of guilt in a capital case does not give rise to a constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel claim even when the client has not expressly consented to the attorney's strategy.  The Court's decision reversed the lower court which had found otherwise.

What's interesting about the case from a client relations perspective is that it gives some insight into those decisions where client input is necessary.  In this case, Justice Ginsburg suggested that a concession of guilt was a tactical decision that did not require client input.  Yet the court went to great lengths to document the attorney's efforts to explain his strategy to his client who simply would not agree or disagree one way or another.  It also appears from the decision that the client did not dispute his inaction with respect to a decision on conceding his guilt.

For me, the decision brought home the importance of (1) erring on the side of seeking client input and (2) documenting a client's decision.  I wonder whether this case would have gotten as far as it did if the attorney had presented the client with a written document to memorialize the client's decision.  Without a document, it's eventually just a client's word against the attorney.  Thus, any time there's a matter requiring client authorization - be it a settlement proposal or a controversial trial strategy, it makes sense to present the options to the client in writing and seek written approval before moving ahead.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Of all of the articles written on how to best deal with clients, I find ones such as this, Learn to Love Your Lawyer , Mark Obbie, Inc.com (December 2004) most valuable.  Why's that?  Because Obbie's article provides how-to advice on what clients should do to manage their attorneys.  By reading articles like Obbie's, we attorneys can stay one step ahead, and provide the types of information that Obbie advises clients to seek - like clear billing agreements with firm fee estimates, understanding of the client's priorities and situations where they're not nickel-and-dimed for every five minute phone inquiry.  If you handle any type of business client especially, this excellent article is worth a read.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

What kind of client is your personal pleasure? Hands on or hands off? A lawyer client? A client in denial about prospects of success? Or of course, the crazy (truly crazy!) client? Those are the five types of client identified solo Kim Fanady's recent article for Small Firm Business, entitled, Close Encounters of the Client Kind (11/8/04). Fanady writes:

Dealing with individual clients is a whole different world [from corporate clients]. You have to be one part lawyer, one part psychologist, one part money manager, one part confidante, one part coach -- and usually play a few other roles as well. The role or roles that you'll have to play will usually be determined by the type of client.

There's a positive side to these problem or idiosyncratic clients, however: they make you truly appreciate when a really good client walks through the door.

• Print
• Trackbacks