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

Over at Legal Blogwatch, I posted about how shingler Kiwi Camara of Camara Sibley, not yet 25 years old and just five years out of law school is giving the RIAA a run for its money in the high profile copyright infringement re-trial of Jammie Thomas.  Thomas' first lawyer, Brian Toder won a new trial of the $222,000 verdict entered against his client, but withdrew thereafter citing financial hardship associated with continued representation.  Camara jumped in just three weeks before trial to represent Thomas pro bono. Already, Camara is throwing up all kinds of hurdles for the RIAA by raising challenges on fairly basic and technical evidentiary points, such as RIAA's failure to submit certified copies of its copyright registrations or to prove that the songs that were the subject of the copyright registrations were the same as those for which RIAA claims infringement.   Thus far, the judge has been receptive to these arguments. 

So is Camara merely the beneficiary of a sympathetic judge or beginners' luck?  Hardly.  Instead, I believe that Camara's advantage derives from his status as a newbie:  because he's so green, he has no choice but to geekily dot every i, cross every t, work through every item on the checklist no matter how basic.  While an experienced lawyer might be inclined to slough off a challenge to records that are copied rather than certified, a newbie lawyer can't necessarily make a judgment as to the importance, so he or she will raise a challenge.  And sometimes, as in Camara's case, the challenge may stick.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Each morning as @carolynelefant, I check in on Twitter for my dose of innovation-overload.   Twitter is always brimming with updates on great minds undertaking great change-the-world-or-the-legal-profession ventures and 140-character insights that inspire and offer new perspectives that I'd love to put to action if I only had the time.

As author of MyShingle, I straddle dual worlds - that of legal observers and innovators who write about reforming the profession and that of the independent practitioner with a day job, clients to serve and not enough time to reflect about changing the practice of law, let alone do it on a daily basis.  I must confess though that many days, serving clients, arguing cases or striving for excellence just doesn't hold a candle to the sexiness of being a thought-leader, a trend-setter or an innovator.

So that's why I found the above TED talk by Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love (which I wasn't crazy about) so inspiring.  Gilbert is grappling with the thought that moving forward as a writer, she may never match the success of Eat, Pray, Love, a dehibilitating thought that makes it tough to get up in the morning.   But at the same time, Gilbert recognizes that she's a writer and she's incapable of giving up her life's work.   So Gilbert finds solace and inspiration in the power of just showing up to write every day, and if the gods of creativity show up as well, then it's an added bonus that are beside the point. (you can fast forward to the 15 min. mark for this).

Gilbert's words ring true for those of us who practice law, particularly solos.  Because what the best of solos do best is simply showing up, day after day, year after year.   By showing up, we can make a client's life a little less stressful.  We can change a judge's perspective or reverse an injustice.  We can keep a family in their home or help a client get a fresh start.  Most importantly, we keep the wheels of our judicial system turning by ensuring that access to justice isn't determined solely by access to huge amounts of money. 

So to my fellow solo and small firm colleagues, keep on showing up every day.  It may not seem important and it sure isn't trendy, but wow, how it matters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm only just now getting around to commenting on this recent Notes from the Breadline post by Roxana St. Thomas at Above the Law on the drawbacks of solo practice.  Essentially, St. Thomas focuses on the tougher aspects of going solo, from the potential costs associated with office space to figuring out how to choose a practice area and having to come up with ways to market the practice.  Solo by Choice addresses all of those topics, as do a number of the commenters and I won't repeat those points here. 

Moreover, let's face it:  it's not lack of knowledge about dealing with these nuts-and-bolts practical issues that is standing between St. Thomas and a solo practice.  Rather, St. Thomas' perception of herself as unsuited for solo practice holds her back.  She writes:

I could play the part of solo practitioner/office manager for a short time, I do not believe that I could actually be those things. As Joan Cusack explained in Working Girl, "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will."

Like St. Thomas, many experts also believe that there's some kind of litmus test for a successful solo - certain personality traits or propensities that make someone naturally suited for solo practice or not.  As for me, I don't buy the concept that certain lawyers are inherently cut out for solo practice.  Instead, the very act of starting a practice profoundly changes us, so much so that we become the kind of lawyer we never dreamed we could be.

In my own case, when I started my firm I was a recluse.  I never ate lunch with co-workers, preferring the privacy of my closed office.  I chafed at the thought of company picnics and social activities where I'd be consigned to idle chit-chat and would never have taken the initiative to call someone up and invite them to lunch.  Frequently, I'd grow bored with work and have trouble following through and I was careless with my proofing.

Yet something about starting a firm changed me.  Instead of running from company or dreading social or networking activities, I embrace them.  I take pride in my work and serving clients in a way that I never felt when I worked for others.  I am a completely different person and lawyer (not to mention generally, a far happier one) than the one who reluctantly started a law firm 15 years ago for want of anything better.  And it's solo practice that changed me, not the other way around. 

Life changes us; it's a basic fact.  Some of us can't imagine ever being monogamous until we get married and then the thought of cheating never occurs to us again.  Or we can't ever see ourselves cleaning dirty diapers or joyfully waking up at night to feed the baby, but when the time comes, we do it.  We'd never write off a life experience because we think that we're not suited for it.  So why do we indulge those thoughts when it comes to our careers?

Trust me, even if you believe that you're not suited to start a law firm, you don't have to change and you shouldn't avoid solo practice because of it.  Instead, all you have to do is take the leap of faith and get started and down the road in six or eight months, you will very likely find that you're not just playing the role of a solo, but that you've really, truly become one.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

In response to my post on The DC Bar and Avvo, I received a comment from DC Attorney that angered me enough to write this post.  Specifically, DC Attorney attacked my integrity, and the integrity of this site with the following remark: 

 

Regardless, since it's obvious Carolyn and Josh King have a financial stake in Avvo's promotion, it's not really worth the time to bother with either.

 

Let me be clear:  I do not have any financial stake in Avvo whatsoever.  I have a listing at the site, but  given my highly specialized practice area, I don't generate clients from my listing nor do I ever expect to.  I've previously defended Avvo, however, there, my remarks came in response to the dismissal of a class action against Avvo.  And in my most recent post, my focus was more on the DC Bar's reaction to the site, rather than a promotion for the Avvo itself.

Look, DC Attorney - if you don't agree with my position on Avvo, just say so - and preferably, identify yourself when you do.  But don't you dare attack my integrity.  I realize that it's hard to believe that a little site like mine can offer so much content without financial support from outside sources, but yes it's true.  Because MyShingle has always been, at least in part, a labor love and posting here, even over six years has never felt like work. 

Above all, though, I value, and stand proud of my integrity particularly in a place like the blogosphere where many others are quick to cash in on fame and change their position once cash starts flowing.  So I want to make clear that at least here, my readers can trust that I am fully transparent, as I have been for six years.  If I ever recommend or post favorably about a product or a company, I will always disclose my affiliation and whether I'm getting a financial benefit (in fact, in this post where I recommended Blawging Lawyers, I noted that Grant Griffiths was a friend.  What I didn't say is that Grant has offered me affiliate opportunities which I declined).  And even where I do have paying sponsors (such as the law.com affiliation and Nolo), I am always clear that I retain full control over my site content and my sponsors respect that.  In fact, I choose sponsors carefully, and I'm only interested in those who appreciate my mission: to improve the image of solos and equip them with encouragement to succeed and to serve as an honest broker. 

As some of you may know, I am currently working on a build out of MyShingle, and I will, in a measured way, be taking on sponsors and adding features to help the site generate revenue so that I can continue to provide features like Bars Reviewed.  But no matter what I do, I will always be transparent with readers.

As for DC Attorney, I'd have been happy to take this offlist with him, but he cloaked his email. How  ironic that someone who thought to attack my integrity didn't even have the integrity to identify himself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

If you are a lawyer at a large firm, I know that you are terrified right now.   The carnage at AmLaw 200 is growing:  858 layoffs last week alone, according to Lawshucks.com, for a total of 1528 for the month and 3290 since January 2008.  And even if you're just a law student, we all know the consequences of the cutbacks: more unemployed lawyers flooding the market, snatching up jobs and squeezing out newbies.

Well guess what?  I'm scared too, at least part of the time.  That's probably the last thing that you wanted to hear.  After all, I've had my own firm for 15 years and I've been singing the praises of going solo since 2002, when I started MyShingle.  If being solo in this economy frightens someone like me, what hope is there?

Plenty, if you're willing to think about starting your own practice.  Because if you're able to muster the gumption or nerve or whatever you want to call it to birth a new practice out of the ashes of your career, you realize that you can always do it again.  When you start your own firm, you discover a survival instinct in yourself.  You find an invincibility that you never knew you had, because frankly, it never mattered as you dutifully plodded along the path you were supposed to take: law school, enduring the drudgery of document review for several years at biglaw and then making partner or moving in-house or perhaps even leaving the law to start a family.  But just because you chose a safe route, doesn't mean that you don't have it in you to start a firm.  We humans have an awesome survival capability and most of us find unexpected strength to rise to the occasion.

Don't get me wrong.  Starting a firm isn't a panacea in these troubled times.  Running a law firm is a risky business.  As a solo, from the day I opened my doors, I always knew that I could lose everything the next.  And believe me, I've had some major losses- cases, clients, opportunities - over the past fifteen years.  (Of course, as an aside, the realization that our firms are always vulnerable is what separates us solos from the hubris of biglaw, with its belief that the party would never end). 

Still, if I know anything for sure from having started a firm, it's this:  that I could do it again if I ever had to.  If my clients fire me tomorrow, if my phone doesn't ring, I know that I have it in me to start all over again.  And once you start your own firm, you'll realize that as well.  Perhaps you will fail, but more likely, you'll succeed beyond your wildest dreams.  But either way, once you learn first hand what other solos and I have, your life will never be the same.

I'll be hanging around Legal Tech on Tuesday, February 3 - hope I'll get to meet some of you there.

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

I've finished reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers which argues that a variety of factors, such as luck, era of birth or family support account as much for success as sheer talent.  After all, what explains the break out success of certain individuals with innate talent in comparison to the mediocre performance of those equally endowed? 

If you haven't read Outliers, Gladwell's premise sounds depressing.  After all, what's the point of working hard if our fate is determined by factors beyond our control?  But I take away the opposite from Gladwell and find his observations enormously helpful.  For once we realize that other factors besides merit account for success, those of us who are less talented can replicate the kind of environment that is conducive to success through the company we keep.

Obviously, we can't recreate our own families, or re-live our childhood.  But what we can do is surround ourselves with good company -- friends and colleagues and peers and mentors who support and motivate and inspire us.  That's especially important in solo practice.  I wonder how many talented young lawyers have been deterred from starting a practice because they encountered only naysayers along the way rather than lawyers who supported and nurtured their vision.  How many lawyers fired from a job have left the law in shame, tail between their legs, feeling as if they'd failed when with the right encouragement, they could have opened their own firm and made a real difference in the lives of clients and to our entire profession. 

I'm often asked what matters most in starting a law firm.  Is it resources or sheer talent or powerful connections?  For me, two characteristics matter most.  First, doggedness (another Gladwell success factor) - that persistence to keep at it just like a dog with a bone.  And second, community -- those solos who have spouses who cheer them on or their proud parents who rave about their son or daughter, "the lawyer with his/her own firm."  Show me a solo who's willing to work crazy-hard with a strong support group in place versus one who's read all the latest marketing books and hired the first rate experts to draw up a business plan and create a fancy logo and brand and I'll place my money on the dogged, every single time. 

As for me, I'm fortunate that I've never lacked the support that I needed to start my own practice, and then this blog.  First, it came from my husband who in the early weeks of my practice, bought me the laptop that I didn't think we could afford that enabled me to work in the library or on the upper levels of our house instead of in the damp, dark and depressing basement.  (My husband also had the original idea for setting up this site, originally conceived as a portal, as a blog).  More recently, I've found positive reinforcement in my various on-line communities -- the blogosphere, Solosez, my own little mastermind clique and more recently Twitter -- all of which have kept me surrounded, nearly 24/7  with people who just dazzle me with their writing skills and wit and accomplishments and who generously share wisdom and knowledge and encouragement.  How can anyone fail in that kind of environment?

For 2009, I wish the gift of good company for all of you current solos as well as those of you who are thinking about making the leap to solo practice.  This is my last post for 2008, so have a wonderful New Year.  I'll see you on the other side!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks

I've been reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which explores those factors that contribute to extraordinary success.  Though I'm not quite finished with the book, I've already found so many nuggets that help explain why some lawyers who start a law firm experience wild success while others flounder.  I'll share some of these reasons after I've finished the book, but for now, I'll focus on just one factor that matters:  fulfillment.

Some experts would have you believe that you can snap your fingers and poof - without breaking a sweat, a successful law firm materializes, one where you work four hours a week and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars.   That's not the way starting a firm works, at least not in my own experience.  And in fact (and this is something that in a world full of Four Hour Work Week wannabees, I'm almost embarrassed to admit), I wouldn't even wish for a magic potion that would produce an insta-lawfirm because putting in the work is what makes starting a firm so rewarding to begin with.

Of course, long hours doesn't have to mean drudgery, and that's what Gladwell emphasizes. Those who find grand success don't shirk work; they embrace and celebrate it because it doesn't feel like a burden to those who love what they do.  Writes Gladwell (p. 159):

[...]being an entrepreneur -- as cutthroat and grim as it was -- allowed people like the Borenichts (a successful garment industry business family) just off the boat, to find something meaningfull o do well.  When Louis Borgenicht came home afer first seeing that child's apron, he danced a jig.  He hadn't sold anything yet.  He was still penniless and esperate and he knew that to make something of his idea was going to require years of backbreaking labor.  But he was ecstatic, because the prospect of those endless eyars of hard labor did not seem like a burden to him.  Bill Gates had that same feeling when he first sat down at the keyboard at Lakeside.  And the Bestles didn't recoil in horror when they were told they had to play eight hours a day, seven days a week.  They jumped at the chance.  Hard work is a prison sentence only if it does not hav meaning.  Once it does, it becomes the kind of think that makes you grab your wife [or husband] around the waist and dance a jig.

You know what it feels like to dance, don't you?  Those nights where you spend eight or ten hours on a brief that fly by in seconds, or those mornings when you wake up and can't wait to get to work, or the moments when your thoughts fly straignt from your brain to your keyboard, manifesting in a blog post that rocks your audience. 

Finding work that makes you want to dance a jig doesn't guarantee extraordinary success.  But it's an integral part of being an outlier.  And more importantly, even if you don't succeed, at least you can take satisfaction that the trip was worthwhile. 

 

 

 

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

For some time, I've been wanting to weigh in on the debate over at Simple Justice about lawyer marketing, such as its role in educating the public, whether the focus on marketing has overtaken the importance of honing our craft as lawyers and the extent to which we permit marketing to pervade everything we do (or in Scott's infamous words, turn our blogs into a giant info-mercial).  All great questions, but not exactly what I'd intended to address in a Thanksgiving post, and so I'll pass on these topics for later.  However, lest you be tempted to treat Thanksgiving as another chance to market (for example, by thanking people with the ulterior motive of getting them to send you more business) then take a look at this older piece that I've written on the importance of saying thank you because you mean it.

In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving to all of my readers and to all of you current and aspiring solos.  Like the Pilgrims before us, those of you who are starting, or aspire to start a practice will set out on unfamiliar waters.  Some of you leave behind comfortable, though unsatisfying careers, while others have no option but to strike out on our own.  All of you face challenges - hard times when business is scarce, learning how to strike alliances with other lawyers (as the Pilgrims did with the Native Americans), handling unfamiliar tasks like practice management or accounting or filing a complaint in a new court and doing it all within the harsh climate of today's troubled economy.   Yet for those of you with a Pilgrim-like spirit, I am confident that you will endure and ultimately prosper in this new world.

For those who choose to brave this journey, I wish you safe passage over the year ahead.  For those who have already crossed over, I remind you to take the time and celebrate and savor what you have created.  Thanks for reading!

 

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

 As I've written before, too often in solo practice, we're our own worst enemy.   For example, as I wrote here, we'll reject an idea out of hand because it hasn't been done before or because the challenges, at least on the surface, appear insurmountable.   Even worse, we'll paralyze ourselves with regrets about clients turned down, practice areas not pursued, that we blind ourselves to what lies ahead.  Or we'll get so caught up in berating ourselves for things we haven't done that we paralyze ourselves from getting busy. 

So that's why I welcome tonight's Kol Nidre service, which kicks off Yom Kippur, the big Kahuna of Jewish holidays.   As part of the Kol Nidre prayer, we publicly renounce our vows - not vows or promises made to God or to others, but those we've made to ourselves.  In other words, we give ourselves a break.

Many of us in solo practice have started firms after having labored under abusive bosses only to discover that we're actually the worst taskmaster, constantly riding ourselves without let up.  Tonight, as I chant the ancient Kol Nidre prayer, I'll experience the gratitude of getting a fresh start, and hope that I'll make the most of this opportunity in the months ahead.   And whether you celebrate Yom Kippur or not, here's my hope that all of you who need it will give yourselves a break from looking back and find the strength to start fresh.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As much as I love blogging about the nitty gritty aspects of solo practice -- the how-tos, the marketing, overcoming your fears and all that good stuff, I'm just as interested in the role that solos play in the broader context of our profession and what other lawyers can learn from us and vice versa.  So that's why my article in this month's issue of The Complete Lawyer is one of my favorite pieces that I've written in a while.  Below are the opening paragraphs, with the link to the full article at the end:

If you’ve just read this [blog post's] title, you’re probably racking your brain trying to figure out what the heck a lowly solo practitioner like me can teach you about succeeding as a law firm associate.

You probably think that solos simply churn out form documents for simpleton clients who need help with run-of-the-mill problems like estate planning, divorce or landlord tenant matters, while law firm associates grapple with earth-shattering matters, sophisticated business clients and demanding law firm partners. And for goodness sakes, you’re billed out at an hourly rate that matches or exceeds what most solos charge. So what secrets of success can you possibly learn from us?

Plenty. But before we get started, you’ll have to dispel your negative impression of solo practitioners. First, though you may not realize it,  many solos handle complicated, traditionally “biglaw matters” such as tax, corporate transactional work, regulatory and complex litigation. Even solos with consumer-oriented specialties like criminal law, consumer credit, bankruptcy or family law regularly encounter constitutional issues or dissect tricky federal and state statutes. And while solos may charge less than a biglaw associate, because of lean staffing and low overhead, they also pocket a larger percentage (as much as 80%) of that $300/hr billable than you do.

Solos also oversee office administration, manage employees or virtual staff, and constantly market their practices. Once you begin to view solos not as loser-lawyers who couldn’t cut it in biglaw practice but as a blend of independent lawyer, team manager and entrepreneur, you’ll appreciate how solos’ secrets of success can help you succeed as well.

Continue reading here - and let me know in the comments below if there's anything else that lawyers can learn from us solos.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm not much of a political junkie, but I made a point of watching Michelle Obama's speech to the Democrat National Convention.   Michelle (it's tough for me to refer to someone a few months older than me as "Mrs.")  intrigues me, largely because she's a contemporary with many superficialities in common:   we both graduated law school in 1988 (in fact, a high school friend of mine was in some of Obama's classes at Harvard); we both married in 1992 and we both have two daughters with lyrical names (Elana and Mira vs. Malia and Sasha) three years apart, though my girls are nearly 9 and 12 while the Obamas are 7 and 10.   And more recently, Michelle Obama put her career on hold for family, specifically, to help with her husband's campaign while trying to retain a presence in her daughters' lives.  That's the same reason that  I and most of my solo-mom (or solo dad) colleagues have eschewed more lucrative or prestigious opportunities in favor of running our own practices -- so that we have the flexibility to spend more time with our children. 

After Michelle's speech, her daughters trotted out on stage.  Perhaps I read too much into their appearance, but the daughters' confidence was palpable as was their easy familiarity their mom and hers with them.  It was a familiarity that reminded me of my relationship with my own girls (when we're not bickering, which of course, we do) - we share a certain comfortableness born of time spent together,  not really doing anything special but just hanging around.    I couldn't help thinking that even if Michelle Obama had worked at one of the fifty supposedly most family friendly law firms that she would have missed out on this type of experience.  Michelle would have spent her time with her girls in carefully metered segment, from 7 pm when she arrived home until 8:30 pm when they went to sleep.  And if Michelle Obama had brought her daughters to large firm meeting or conference (even on days when she was supposed to be working reduced hours), I'm sure she'd have been met with glowering stares or snide comments rather than the sheer delight that spilled forth from the convention audience. 

Working on my own, I set my own rules for my firm and my family.    No, of course, I don't bring my daughters to every meeting with me, but there have been days where I had no alternatives so they accompanied me to a conference or sat quietly reading while I gave a presentation or attended a meeting.  Over time, my girls have learned how to shake hands firmly, make eye contact and keep themselves busy and (reasonably) well behaved at professional events. 

I know that my experience doesn't differ much from that of other moms who run their own firms.  Yet oddly, you won't find solo practice ever mentioned on the list of "family friendly firms" or even discussed as a family friendly option.  And yet, it's the one place where parents can practice law without constantly concealing our job as parents as well.   

Michelle Obama isn't a solo and probably never will be, so career path is where our commonality ends.  But we've both had the chance to experience the joy of taking our children to work and introducing our work to our children because we didn't hew to the biglaw path but instead, found a way to have it all, all at once.

 

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

Well readers, after a two week absence I'm back.  And in the tradition of previous trips, I bring you real life marketing lessons from London. 

By way of background, this vacation grew out of my husband's two week business trip to his employer's London office.  Rather than spend the last few weeks of my daughters' summer vacation at home, particularly when camp was finished, I figured that we could take advantage of our frequent flier miles and my husband's accomodations to enjoy an affordable trip overseas.  At the same time, I realized that I'd be doing most of the touring with my daughters on my own.  So here's what I learned on our adventures through London.

Continue Reading...

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

Tomorrow, I'm leaving for a family vacation to London and while I'm exhausted from scrambling around trying to finish a brief and get my daughers ready for school (which begins the last week in August, just a week after we return), I'm also incredibly excited.  I spent a semester in London in college, but haven't been back since the summer of 1988, after I took the bar - and that trip was marred by my constant replaying of bar questions in my head (note to the similarly situated:  don't do that!)

I am looking forward to a real vacation, and in fact, I won't even be bringing my laptop - a decision facilitated by policies like these.  However, I also must confess that I'm not a big fan of the work-life smush fad, where rather than separate our life into compartments like work and play, we simply regard work and play as one big continuum.  I've been doing that for nearly 12 years now - writing briefs while nursing babies, sneaking in phone calls while waiting on car pool lines, blogging while interrupted with homework questions - and it's nearly burned me out.  So I'm looking forward to rejuvenating without my computer and I know that my daughters are looking forward to it as well. 

If you catch me posting frequently, you can let me have it!  In the meantime, enjoy the next week and I'll see you on the other side, with lots of news about some new projects that will be happening here soon.

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

You know how it is with yawns, don't you?  When one person yawns at you, it's difficult to resist yawning back.  So now that my fellow solo-blogging colleague Susan Cartier Liebel has yawned, or more accurately, alerted us to the trend of "young and wealthy normals," I'm compelled to yawn back (by the way, for those of you who aren't really interested in my own personal musings, feel free to skip this post).

With my 20th law school graduation just passed, I've been reflected back on my own career path and choices that I've made.  Reading through Susans description of a YAWNing solo made me realize that's exactly the path that I took when I embarked on my firm.

* Extremely low overhead(personal and professional) including serious consideration for the home office option - I started my practice in a virtual office, then moved to shared space a year later for $425/month, an amount that I could easily cover.

    * Smart low-cost operational office purchases which keep them untethered to a phsycial location or traditional office hours  Starting out, I worked on our home computer in my dank basement, until I complained so much that my husband went out and spent $1400 to buy me a laptop (probably 1/20th of the power that today's machines have at twice the cost).  The laptop was an enormous stretch, but it allowed me to leave the confines of my basement and work at law libraries around D.C. and also on my porch. 

    * Paperless office - addresses efficiency, low overhead, being untethered AND environmental concerns

    * Taking on those clients or legal issues which fire up their passion reminding them why they went to law school and also gives them the freedom to serve the indigent or new business owner without putting themself out of business When I started my firm, I took this approach to heart -- so much so, that when asked what types of law I practiced, I'd often respond "I handle cases that interest me."  Back when I started, I handled court appointed criminal matters, business owners done wrong, Section 1983 matters, all while subsidizing the work with energy matters, particularly appeals, which I also enjoyed

    * NOT feeling compelled to network in conventional ways or ways which go against their 'lifestyle' choices My networking choices 15 years ago today seem really old fashioned.  But understand - back then, few law firms marketed at all.  So I was regularly the only lawyer at renewable energy events or trade assocation meetings and consequently, found business there.  Today, that's a conventional, "duh" way to market, but trust me, at the time, at least in my field, it was forward looking.

    * Using social media for both business and pleasure; I started my firm at the cusp of the Internet and learned to program HTML because I enjoyed it but also to set up a law firm website

    * Understanding there is no 'work' life and 'personal' life...but just 'life.'  When my daughters were born in 1996 and 1999, my life became an endless cycle of work with girls, girls with work, cell phones calls in the park, nursing babies on conference calls and looking with amazement at briefs that I wrote while literally being interrupted every five minutes.   Having done that, I have mixed feelings about whether this approach makes sense or not.  I'm glad that I can say that I spent all the time I needed with my daughters, but I also regret the times that I feigned cheeriness while worrying about a deposition or a deadline that I needed to meet.  Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When it comes to starting a firm, fear poses one of the greatest obstacles.  Fear of failure, fear of lost opportunity, fear of embarrassment or cricitism for having made what appears to others as a foolish decision.  My able colleagues in the Solo Space, Susan Cartier Liebel and Sheryl Sisk Schelin have shared words of wisdom on combatting these fears here, here and here. 

Recently, in preparing to attend my Twentieth Law School Reunion, I stumbled across an old essay I'd written about a similar theme - not so much overcoming fear, but how to deal with the thought that a decision has perhaps been a terrible mistake.  I had turned down a biglaw salary to take a position at a government job at a third the pay and began to think, after just a few months, that maybe this wasn't such a great idea, until I had another realization that even a dead wrong decision can sometimes be utterly and completely right.  Here's an excerpt from my essay below, and after that, the entire piece, in all of its dot-matrix printer glory (as proof of age). 

[Your friends] all look so content, full of tequila and wealth and the newfound confidence that invariably accompanies money, while you are filled with a sickly fear that you've made a dreadful, irreversible and costly mistake.  But then the fog in your head lifts and you remember back to the day when you made your ill-fated decision.  Although visions of dollar signs danced in your head, you did not jump like a famished Pavlovian dog just because you heard silver coins clanking.  Instead, you somehow distanced yourself and like a stern courtroom judge, made a rational decision considering all of the evidence and information which you had gathered before you.  In retrospect, your decision may have been dead wrong, but the making of it, then and now, could not have been more right.  Because in passing up that [biglaw salary], you bought yourself something more important - the self-knowledge that you have the integrity not to compromise what you believe is right -- although your choices may be unconventional or finanically unwise.  It's that knowledge that will serve you well as a lawyer and that hopefully will keep you satisfied during the lean years ahead.

Note - you can enlarge the doc or rotate the pages with the arrow tool at the far right corner of the document menu bar

Law School Essay - Free Document Templates

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I apologize for the down time over the past few days - my home office lost power for a couple of days and I needed to prioritize work related matters with the limited Internet access and power that that I was able to find offsite.  Right now, I'm up in Ithaca, New York at my 20th Law School Reunion.   I've always wondered what my own law school experience would have been like had blogging been available.  So I've broken awy from the reunion activities to put up a post about another real life marketing lesson that I've learned here at Cornell, the unlikeliest place to find this kind of lesson.

Like most other law schools, Cornell has stepped up its marketing efforts, branding itself with the tag line "lawyers in the best sense."  The quote comes from Andrew Dickson White, one of the school's founders, who envisioned the law school as a place to educate  “not swarms of hastily prepared pettifoggers but a fair number of well-trained, large-minded, morally-based lawyers in the best sense...” Indeed, a bunch of alumni are even circulating buttons with a picture of a pettifogger and a big red X through it.

My initial reaction was that this slogan is just so typically, quintessentially Cornell - removed from present times, stuck in the past and such.   At a time when lawyers out here in the blogosphere, on the cutting edge of the law, are talking about social networking and building relationships and 21st century practices, here's my alma mater, concerned about stamping out pettifoggers.  And then I realized that's why the brand works.  Because for better or worse, the tag line is genuine representation of Cornell Law School's authentic self.  With it's tag line, borrowed from its past, Cornell isn't trying to be anything other than it is:  a solid, monastic place somewhat isolated from the real world where students can focus on their training.  Some may want this type of education, and others might not, but those who come to Cornell will get what's been put out there.  No false advertising here. 

And that's the real life marketing lesson.  Some lawyers aren't comfortable labeling themselves as twenty first century lawyers or thinking of themselves as entrepreneurs or business people rather than professionals first.  Some prefer to hold themselves out as dedicated or tenacious, as principled or experienced.   Needless to say, you still must find ways to convey those ideals uniquely and market them,  which is what Cornell has done with its tag line.  But you don't have to distance yourself from your comfort zone, even it's distinctly quaint or old fashioned,  to run with trends that don't feel right for you.  

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

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.

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

Chuck Newton has a thought provoking Guest Post  over at Grant Griffiths' Home Office Warrior that discusses the propriety of a blogger taking credit as one of the originators of  the so-called "work at home" revolution.  As Newton points out, the work-at-home revolution dates back to Revolutionary Times themselves, when esteemed folks like Thomas Jefferson worked out of the mansion.  In addition, Newton expresses some disappointment that in the blogger at issue, Wendy Piersall, may have sold out her original mom based audience by broadening her focus to all work-from-homers with her expanded blog, Sparkplugging.com.

I agree with Chuck's objection to staking claim to a movement.  The notion of a leader and a one-size fits all portal site is so yesterday in an age where blogging allows for a multitude of different spins. In fact, the desire to crown someone head of a movement was the source of my objection to being labelled the voice of solos; because there are indeed, many voices.  As for expanding a blog beyond a niche audience, I can understand the appeal of wanting to broaden a message.  However, I think that there are probably ways to achieve that goal without completely abandoning early readers.

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

I'm still blushing after all of the compliments and good wishes from my fellow bloggers who linked to this article about my practice and my book, Solo by Choice.  And I won't deny that I enjoyed the attention (as well as the resulting book sales).  But I need to clarify --  I don't want to be the voice of solo practice because there's no such thing as a single voice of solo practice.   Instead, there are many voices - a veritable chorus  who write about or advise solo and small law firms.  Some champion the can-do entrepreneurial attitude of solos and celebrate our independent spirit, some  work to inspire others to make the leap, some had the vision to recognize that we solos are part of Alvin Toeffler's Third Wave, some dream of building their firm, some  help empower Second City start-up lawyers, some are known for their tech savvy, some want to change the way law is practiced and some have discovered that their entrepreneurial talents extended beyond starting a law firm.  Even Dennis Kennedy recognized all of us as a collective category unto ourselves.  And beyond those of us who render advise to other solo and small firm lawyers, lets not forget the hundreds of solos who blog about criminal law, family law, personal injury and a huge array of other topics and in doing so, help educate and current potential clients.

So where do I fit into all of this?  For me, my end goal is and always has been about serving clients and improving the legal profession.  True, I write (both here and in my book) about marketing a law firm and  making money, about how solo practice can help biglaw attorneys can find career satisfaction and how starting a firm can help with worklife balance.  But the reason that I want to help lawyers find worklife balance or career satisfaction or success is so that we can retain talent in the profession.  And in turn, those talented lawyers will use their skills and passion to serve clients zealously and offer an alternative to biglaw practice.  As a result, we can improve the quality of the profession and expand meaningful access to our justice system.  That' s also the reason that I spotlight the positive accomplishments of solo lawyers.  Of course, I hope to give solos deserved recognition and inspire others to consider this path.  But more importantly, by focusing on the good that solos and small firm do (rather than the ethical foibles that the mainstream press is all to eager to highlight), I want to improve the stature of solos so that judges won't disregard our clients' positions simply because hey're not represented by a hotshot, blue chip firm. 

In the five and a half years that I've blogged at MyShingle, I've seen some attitudes about solo practice change, but very, very slowly - and sometimes, not even noticeably.   One voice won't change much at all, but with a village of voices, we stand a chance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In theory, I like the idea of live blogging - at least when someone else is doing it.  When I read through a live-blogged, play-by-play entry, it's almost as good as being at the conference myself.  Plus, even if I actually attended the event, it's interesting to read about it from someone else's perspective.

But in practice, when it comes to live blogging - well, it's a bit of a pain.  You need to tote a laptop around all day, plus  endure the nagging sense of obligation of having to write a post. 

In any event, I have a free moment, so I'm using the opportunity to blog.  This morning I co-presented with David Masters (the Adobe guru) who just released a new book that includes information on Adobe 8.0) on tech for the start up law firm.  More of a turn out than I expected and a fairly hot audience with a decent number of questions.  Tomorrow, though, I'm speaking about a topic that I'm passionate about - using technology to retain clients.  What excites me about that topic is that it involves a disruptive use of technology.  Ordinarily, we view technology as impersonal - so using it to build personal relationships that help bond us with, and bring us closer to clients - is a disruptive, almost counter-intuitive use.  And that's exciting to me.  In fact, it's through technology that I've built relationships with some of the people listed here whom I've had a chance to spend time with at the conference.

By the way, if any of you at Tech Show and are interested in paging through a copy of my new book, Solo by Choice, I'm carrying a copy around.  I don't have any available for sale, but paging through the book may help you decide whether you want to buy it.  And, I'll be hosting one of the dine-around dinners tonight with Jim Calloway  The topic is blogging, but even so, I don't plan on live blogging the meal. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After learning that he's one of the 83 percent majority of lawyers in New York who practice as solos, Eric Turkewitz asks just what does that mean anyway?  Specifically, Eric wonders whether the term "solo" as used in these kinds of surveys means just one lawyer, one lawyer with support staff or one lawyer with a few associates but 100 percent of the equity.  And he also asks a bunch of solo bloggers what definition should apply.

The first part of Eric's question is answered most easily.  At least for New York, the statistics come from the state's Commission to Examine Solo and Small Firm Practice.  The study found that
14.7 percent of lawyers practiced in firms of 2-9 an 1.8 percent practiced in firms of more than 10.  From these numbers and categories, I infer that the category of solos refers to law firms comprised of one lawyer.

To be honest, I don't really see much difference between a law practice of one attorney and one with as many as 3-5.  That's because these days, with the power of the Internet and listserves and virtual assistants and virtual associates and networking groups and bar associations galore, no solo is truly an island.  Nearly every lawyer I know, has at least one close colleague who can act as a back up in a case or can take a quick look at a brief or who can serve as a sounding board for ethics questions.  Likewise, most lawyers I know have on at least one occasion outsourced administrative tasks or used a contract attorney or hired a law student to work at the firm a few hours a week.  Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Terrifying. Scary. Frightening. Those words describe horror movies, but you've probably heard them quite frequently from others in reference to what it feels like to start a law firm. And in part, that's true. Because  starting a firm is scary --  particularly when you don't have a single client, you don't know whether you'll make any money, can't figure out what practice areas you want to handle or you have no idea how to draft a complaint or how to get a motion on the court calendar.

And yet, at the same time, there's nothing quite like those first few months of getting a law firm off the ground: the heady feeling of building something that doesn't exist, the thrill you experience the first time you introduce yourself to "your client" and the wild optimism you feel once you take charge of your destiny. I've had my own practice fourteen years now so the memory of starting out has dimmed.  But  a recent meeting with two new shinglers took me back to the excitement of my firm's early months. Back then, I couldn't afford legal research services so I shepardized cases manually, I couldn't get legislation on line so I spent hot afternoons in the bowels of House Office Building Annex 2 to procure copies for clients or I drove around the seedy parts of DC with my criminal clients in their jeeps with shaded windows.  Today, I just don't do that kind of stuff anymore - I can pay for a legal search tool and criminal practice is no longer compatible with my business model or my family situation. I still enjoy my practice and welcome challenges, but sometimes, nothing parallels the excitement of those early days.

Continue Reading...

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

What advice do I have for a new lawyer?  That's the money question from my friend and colleague, Susan Cartier Liebel who's preparing this week's Blawg Review #142 on that very topic. 

To start, I asked myself what kind of advice I would have found useful two decades ago when I was a new lawyer.   Unfortunately, back then, I disregarded the little advice that I did receive, because I thought I knew better.  For example, one older and somewhat doddering professor at my law school regularly told students that if we wanted a job at a particular firm, we ought do what he did "back in the day" (which for him was the 1930s) - put on a nice suit, march up to the firm's office with resume in hand, ask to see the managing partner and introduce ourselves.  My buddies and I had a laugh over our professor's well intended words of wisdom, mercilessly mocking him as completely out of touch.  But would it have hurt us to try what he suggested?  None of us ever did.  And now...all these years later, I now see the nuggets of value buried in my professor's seemingly outdated advice: the importance of putting yourself out there, taking initiative and most of all, making a personal connection.  So my first piece of advice to new lawyers is that you should keep an open mind.  Most advice is well intentioned.  It may not be right for you, but don't reject it out of hand. 

Other advice, I've addressed in past posts at MyShingle.  It includes:

1. Remember that sometimes the smallest things we do have the greatest impact;
   
   
2. Sometimes you may have to do something desperate to succeed;
   
   
3. While keeping in mind that law and running a law firm is a business, don't lose sight of the higher purpose we can serve as lawyers and;
   
   
4. Like Randy Pausch of the Last Lecture , embrace karma !
   
   

Two final pieces of advice.  First, don't waste effort seeking certainty or waiting for "the right time" - whether it's the right time to change a job, start a law firm or get married or start a family.  Not only does surety always elude you, but in focusing on it with spotlight intensity, you miss the best part of the journey:  living the questions, as Rainer Marie Rilke writes in his Letters to A Young Poet (this is my very favorite passage):

You are so young, so much before all beginning, and I would like to beg you, dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now...because you would not be able to live them.  And the point is, to live everything.  Live the questions now.  Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

Second, always remember that you are a part of a profession that pays homage to  precedent.  That doesn't mean we're bound by old ways, but rather, that we have the ability to create new approaches with lasting effects.  New ways of doing business, of achieving justice, or serving clients.   As a lawyer, you have an opportunity to leave your own personal mark on the law that will remain long after you're gone.  Don't waste it. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As another year draws to a close, do you find yourself thinking about hanging out your own shingle? Perhaps the thought occurred to you the other night while you were polishing up a brief, wishing that you -- not the partner who isn't at all familiar with the case -- were going to argue it.

Or maybe after a year of working the temp circuit, using your Ivy League law degree to perform paralegal work, it occurred to you that you couldn't be any worse off if you started your own practice.

So what's holding you back?

I wrote these words three years ago in this article, Make 2005 the Year You Start Your Own Law Firm. But my advice still rings true today. Take a look and see if I've convinced you to make this year the one that you start your firm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's the perennial question for lawyers starting a law firm - what do you call yourself? As I wrote here over two years ago, Enrico Schaefer maintains that the term "solo" is inaccurate. And more recently, the topic has been discussed on Solosez. As for me, I've always regarded the term "solo" as a catch phrase for lawyers who start a firm - be it one lawyer or multiples. And my upcoming book, Solo by Choice uses the term "solo" in the title because it's the most universally recognized phrase for lawyers who choose to step out on their own to work for themselves, rather than others.

Still, though I don't have a problem using the term solo descriptively, I'd never use it to describe myself. When I meet other attorneys, I explain that I'm an independent practitioner or (more preferable) that I have my own law firm. But even if you have a close attachment to the term solo, please - don't ever sign off on a pleading the way the way that this Phelps Family lawyer did: Margie Phelps, A Sole Practitioner. In fact, the entire pleading makes me cringe - and is an example of why, despite all of our best efforts, we self-starting lawyers still face image problems.

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

I'm not sure whether any of you remember the TV show LA Law . Sometime in the second or third season, the firm's young associate, Abby, was told that she wasn't partnership material so she left to start her own criminal defense practice. A year or so later, Abby had established her reputation as a trial lawyer, and the firm that had once spurned her lured her back (though I don't remember if she became a partner or merely collected a higher salary). Though I watched those episodes before I ever started my own practice, the concept of leaving a firm to build your skills and credentials and then return later, on your own terms struck me as eminently smart.

Back here, I posted on how Supreme Court solo specialist Tom Goldstein brought his practice to biglaw firm Akin Gump - after he'd been on his own for five years and argued more than a dozen cases at the Court. And today, I saw this Press Release about Ely Goldin, a former solo specializing in issues related to the business needs of the Russian immigrant community, who was named partner at Fox Rothschild.

When you start a firm, you may dream of staying small...or building your own empire. But solo practice isn't just an end in itself, it can also be viewed as a phase of your career during which you build skills and increase your value. Making partner after toiling as an associate at a large firm is always a risk. Is it really any more risky to try to make partner after building your own practice?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For me, fall brings a fresh start - both the beginning of the school year and Rosh Hashanna, the Jewish New Year. Back when I was a student, no matter how bad the previous year had been, I'd always welcome the new school year with hope and optimism.

Of course, those of us in the working world don't have the perennial option of a fresh start. We need to affirmatively create one for ourselves as the need arises. Perhaps our fresh start might be as simple as closing out a file of a problem client and promising ourselves that you'll never take a case where you have a gut feeling that there's something not quite right about the client. The fresh start might involve shuttering a practice area that you never enjoyed or learning a new one. And sometimes you may not even make that fresh start at all, but you'll start to sense the need that it's time for change. Currently, I'm in that last category, knowing it's time for a change, but still contemplating my path.

As for my daughters, with their first day (depicted in photos), change still comes easily. My younger daughter who didn't like school much last year has declared that she "really loves third grade." My older daughter's binder is still tidy three weeks into the year; those of you who struggle with a disorganized child (or are disorganized themselves) recognize this as a major accomplishment. And actually, this school year brings a change for me as well: my daughters now ride the bus which means they're out the door by 7:20, which gives me an extra 30-60 minutes every morning. Now, that's a change for the better (and if you are wondering how an extra hour could make a difference...well, then, you're probably not busy enough!)

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

I was looking through some of these relatively new books on getting ahead in business and entrepreneurship that Marci Alboher reviewed in her Careers Column for the NY Times. (If you recall, I reviewed Marci's book, One Person, Multiple Careers back here in February). What struck me about these three books - Anti 9 to 5 Guide: Practical Advice for Women Who Think Outside the Cube; The Parentpreneur Edge: What Parenting Teaches About Building A Successful Business ; and Grindhopping: Building A Rewarding Career Without Paying Your Dues - is that not only do they each have their own website (probably di rigeur for most new titles but they are all authored by women who are pushing the concept of entrepreneurship and jumping off the traditional career ladder as a way for women to get ahead. Contrast that "go get 'em," risk-taking mentality with the initiatives within the legal profession for advancement by women at a law firm - like begging for flex time or waiting for "the firm" to come up with ways to help women network.

All of this made me wonder whether women seeking equality at law firms are behind the times instead of on the cutting edge. Because if these books are any reflection of what's happening in the business context, it seems that in order for women to succeed, they need to break the rules, not follow them and make their own rules instead of forcing others to change theirs.

For a previous, related post on a similar topic, see And where were the women solos?

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

As you've probably heard on the news by now, turns out that obesity isn't exclusively hereditary; it's also socially contagious (US News, 7/25/07). A recent study to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that if you're close friends with people who are obese, you're more likely to gain weight yourself either because you adopt the same unhealthful lifestyle, you don't feel as much pressure to stay thin in front of an obese friend or you alter your perception of acceptable appearance when you see that your friends have gained weight.

All very interesting, but what does a study about obesity have to do with solos? Plenty. The study reinforces a basic concept: that our behavior, action and self-worth are affected significantly by those around us - even to the point where we compromise our health and well being. And we solos and aspiring solos, independent and bold as we may like to believer, are not impervious to this phenomenon. Thus, much as we believe in our ability to start and run a successful practice, if we surround ourselves with naysayers, we may begin to have doubts. And if we've already got a pretty decent practice up and running, we're more likely to look down on our accomplishments when colleagues belittle solos.

So just as you may want to seek out fit people if you're trying to lose weight, you need to seek out supportive, go-getting, self-starters if you're thinking about starting a practice or if you already run one. Doesn't matter if they share your practice area or if they're 20 years older or younger than you, but just that they share your drive and optimism. And fortunately, with blogs and listserves, this kind of supportive crowd is only an internet connection away.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks

My site has been dead for so long, that I couldn't wait to get some new content going. So here it is, in beta...SOLO-formania. What is SOLOFORMANIA? It's a cornucopia of forms for the busy solo - ranging from FREE sample practice guides, fee agreements and retainer letters, to court forms for all 50 states (some free, some fee) to general form files on the Internet. I'll put a link up at the sidebar for now, until I finish revamping the site. (Though the Online Guide should be upgraded soon).

You're free to link to SOLOFORMANIA at your site, so long as you attribute MyShingle.

Update: Caveat on using forms. Forms are a terrific starting place but for your practice, but they are just that - a good start. If you view forms from other jurisdictions (which is useful), be sure to check whether they comport with the ethics rules where you practice. And adapt forms for a particular task. For example, when I draft retainer letters, I always include a fairly detailed scope of work so that clients understand which tasks are covered and which are not.

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

Imagine a lawyer rating system that assigns lawyers different categories of grading and purports to provide an objective way to assess a lawyer and through "third party validation of ethics and legal ability provides that extra level of confidence that the right lawyer or firm has been selected." A ratings system that takes years of experience into account in issuing ratings and removes positive ratings where a lawyer has a negative disciplinary record. A ratings system that even generates enough profit to fund a fellowship. And a ratings system that includes some errors and omissions.

If you thought that the lawyer rating system that I just described would be the subject of class action lawsuits, you'd be wrong. But that rating system sure sounds like this one, which is the subject of a class action lawsuits. And indeed, many of the claims alleged in the class suit (which you can access here) would seem to apply to both ratings systems: such as complaints of arbitrariness of ratings or that the rating service makes deceptive and false representations that clients can rely on the ratings in choosing a lawyer.

So, one of these ratings systems is sued, while the other is not. And if you're wondering about the reasons for the differential treatment, I can think of at least one: consider the ratings of the class action's lead plaintiff by this ratings service and this one.

Note: for the record, I have criticized both ratings services for various reasons here and here and here. In my view, ratings systems aren't worth much because choosing a lawyer isn't like picking a restaurant or buying a house. So if we lawyers allow ratings system, we should explain that they're one of many, many factors in picking a lawyer. But more importantly, if we allow ratings systems, we must tolerate all systems; we shouldn't be able to pick and choose by filing class actions between those ratings systems that we want (because they grade us better) and those we don't.

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

Yesterday, I spent a beautiful Saturday outdoors, helping to build a house with Habitat for Humanity as part of an Energy Bar Association pro bono service project. I have to admit that I didn't seek this project out: my decision to participate was a spur of the moment response to an email that came through my inbox, and was motivated not by true benevolence, but rather, by a realization that I haven't attended many energy networking events in a while and this presented a convenient opportunity. While I can't say that I made many business connections yesterday (it's hard to talk shop when you're trying not to hammer your finger, plus, energy lawyers only comprised about a third of the partipants), nonetheless, I came back with something better - a little bit of color on my pallid lawyer's complexion, a few good lessons learned, and a lot of satisfaction, as I'll describe.

In the past, I've done my share of pro bono for indigent clients, primarily throught the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, representing them in public benefits cases, eviction hearings (I kept two families in their homes), discrimination actions. I even helped crack a scam by a vocational school that would sign up homeless people for the program and student loans. The school would take the money and either fail to follow through on the training promised, and wouldn't let people rescind after one or two classes, leaving the homeless people with insurmountable credit problems and the school owner with a fancy lamborghini (it's funny the things you remember...). At the same time, I'd always ruled out other service projects, like serving food in soup kitchens or cleaning up a dirty river constituted true pro bono because they didn't make use of my legal skills. After my experience yesterday, I still believe that my time spent on pro bono is most valuable when I provide legal services, because that's where my competency lies - but just because I'm best at providing legally related pro bono, doesn't mean that I need to limit my service to law projects only.

Continue Reading...

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

Readers, I just looked at the date of my last post, and I can't believe that I've gone a week without posting. This is a busy time with work still coming in. And I'm polishing up the final draft of my book which should be out by the end of the year. The book has taken me nearly three years to complete (yes, that's a little embarrassing, but I have an annoying habit of actually finishing much of what I start...eventually). And even though my words are frozen on the page, the legal profession hasn't. So now, as I go back over the older material, I'm feeling a little like Heisenberg as I scramble to describe certain topics, only to feel the ground shift as I'm writing.

Once this project is off my plate, there'll be some changes at MyShingle as well. We'll be upgrading, big time, getting the Guide up to date and bringing my old archives from December 2002 to November 2004 back online. I'm even hoping to to hire one or two people for the project, so if you're a student with some time on your hands, a passion for blogs and interested in a little extra cash, feel free to drop me an email here - carolyn.elefant@gmail.com

I am hoping to resume regular posting in the next few days, but until then, you can visit the archives if you're interested in earlier posts, or read me over at my other beat at Legal Blogwatch. And read the other solo blogs that I mentioned back here, as well as those that have come out since - Susan Cartier Liebel's How to Build A Practice; Sheryl Sisk Schelin's Inspired Solo, Solo in Chicago, Chuck Newton, Rick Georges' Solo Lawyer and Dreams of a Solo. That should keep you busy until my return!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

I've just posted this new project at my Offshore Renewable Energy Law Blog, and it couldn't have happened without Nicole Black's terrific inspiration (which I have shamelessly copied, albeit with what I hope is sufficient attribution) and Grant Griffiths' unbridled enthusiasm for the Mac (and you can see my new little accomplice in the left hand of the video). I'm hoping to follow this up with some MyShingle moments as well.

I urge all of you to set up a video and get one up on the screen. Reach out and make a personal introduction to colleagues and clients. Politicians are recognizing the power of video - you should too!

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

Just when I thought that I'd probably found the right formula to work-life balance, I discovered that I'm really nothing more than a neglectful mom.  I spent much of yesterday pushing to prepare a motion already a few days overdue to the client because of more pressing deadlines earlier in the week.  Since my daughters have an afterschool activity on Friday, I could work a little bit past my usual 4:15 stopping point before picking them up.  Even so, I still couldn't finish, so I stopped work and went tearing through rush hour traffic up to the school, about twenty minutes behind schedule.  When I arrived, the school's security guard greeted me at the door and asked "Is there something wrong?  I see these poor girls left here all the time."  As I opened my mouth to respond, all kinds of thoughts raced through my mind.  I thought of my messy house, the nights that I worked on my computer with my daughters working along side me, the school events that I couldn't chaperone because I only have 6-7 real work hours to finish everything.  And my heart sank, because I felt that despite my best efforts to run a law firm and be home for my daughters after school, that I was failing, badly.

Before I could open my mouth however, my ten year old daughter responded for me.  "My mom's not always late," she said.  "She was supposed to be late on Tuesday because she had work but she came on time.  She was only really late once before, a few weeks ago."  The parent part of me wanted to reprimand my daughter for speaking rudely to an adult (which I did, albeit gently), but inside, I felt so proud that my daughter had stood up for me.  And at that point I realized that maybe this work-life balance thing was working after all.

So this post is for all of you who are struggling to keep it together, for wondering whether what you're doing even matters or whether you're giving both work and your kids short shrift, for feeling embarrassed about a messy house or ten minute dinners.  Keep it up, it makes a difference. 

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

Finally, Enrico Schaefer has revealed himself as the Greatest American Lawyer.  I've known Enrico for a while now, ever since he sent me an email in the early days of My Shingle before he launched his successful law firm and blog.  And in April 2005, I met Enrico at the first LexThink conference and had a chance to speak with him for a while at the conference dinner.  Enrico is a terrific person and a real visionary. 

What both amazes and gratifies me, however, is the discretion of lawyer bloggers.  So many people knew Enrico's identity, but no one shared it, even inadvertently.  We all talk about how the Internet and blogging make connections, but it goes beyond that:  these tools build trust, lasting bonds and personal community.  I'm just glad that with his unveiling, Enrico Schaefer can now participate fully in this online community as well.

Continue Reading...

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

Quite often, when I compliment when of my daughters on something she's done well, the other will chime in "But mommy, aren't I good at that too?"  My response, of course, is that praising one of my girls doesn't diminish how I feel about the other. 

More frequently these days, I find myself in this situation with my blog.  Often, my advocacy of solo practice is often regarded as a put down of large firms, a perception that is corroborated by my criticism of many large firm practices (such as bloated billing rates, elistist views and fast and loose conflict of interest standards to keep clients post-merger).  But in truth, I don't hold a grudge against large firms; I believe that they're a great career choice if that's where you can find your passion.  Unfortunately, many don't, but some do.

A few months ago, I read Mark Herrmann's The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law.  Herrmann is a partner and litigator at a large firm.  The book offers a biglaw partner's perspective on issues relevant to success at large firms and the legal profession in general, such as what associates should do to avoid failure, how lawyers should serve clients and some tips on marketing.  (also, the chapter, The Curmudgeon Argues is the best 10 pages I've ever read on preparing for an oral argument).  But what stands out about the book, in addition to the blunt tone (which is part of the curmudgeonly persona), is Herrmann's passion for what he does.  Consider this passage when Herrmann writes about why he loves his work:

I'll quote a movie.  Joe Gideon, the tightrope walker in "All That Jazz" was asked why he risked his life every day for his career.  He answered "To be on the wire is life.  The rest is waiting."

That's the life of a litigator too.  When I'm engrossed in the law, I'm alive.  I'm engaged; I'm attentive, I'm focused.  I can tell you now, decades later and with almost pathological recall, lines of questions that worked and others that didn't at my earliest trials.  I can tell you the one time an appellate judge asked me a question I hadn't anticipated.  I can tell you when, after wrestling with an insoluble issue for months, I finally saw the light.  Maybe those great events don't happen often enough, but when they do happen, they're unspeakably good.  To be on the wire is life; the rest is waiting.

My desire for all of us, myself included, is that we feel the same as Herrmann about what we do.  If like, Herrmann, you've found passion in biglaw, then stand proud.  But if you're still searching for meaning, for a "life on the wire," starting a law firm may be one place to look.  It's not the only place, or the best place - but it may be the place for you.

Editor's Note:  The LPM Committee of the DC Bar is sponsoring a session, Putting Practice Back into the Passion of Law, February 22, 2007, 12-1:30.  Visit DC Bar website at www.dcbar.org for more details (see events to register).

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

The first document that I ever filed as an independent practitioner was a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).  By a bizarre stroke of beginner's luck, I had been retained to serve as local counsel for a major casino which had been sued in federal district court in the District of Columbia.  The issues involved were fairly basic ones relating to long arm jurisdiction, and my twenty five page motion practically wrote itself.  The casino's inhouse counsel approved my draft, and gave me the go ahead to file it.  And so, I signed my name with a flourish - and then sat back to admire my signature, standing alone and proud on the page. 

Even now, fourteen years later, I've not yet tired of seeing my signature on a document, identifying me as the author and guaranteeing the quality of my work.   It's just another one of those small thrills of solo practice that matter so much.

Continue Reading...

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

As you can see, I've been busy with lots of posts.  It's just added up over time.  I know that I should space them out and post them every so often, but once it's written, I want to get it live.  But you don't have to read all my posts at once; come back a few times and read at your leisure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over at my beat at Legal Blog Watch, I posted my opinion  on Assistant Deputy Secretary Cully Stimson's suggestion that corporate clients reconsider their relationship with large firms who represent Guantanamo detainees.  I'm posting some other thoughts here at MyShingle, more from a solo's perspective.

Stimson's comments have drawn criticism from dozens of bloggers, as well as the ABA and 100 law deans.  Indeed, the Pentagon has since disavowed Stimson's comments.  Yet while it's gratifying to see lawyers galvanized over some issue, I still do not regard this matter as clear cut at all.  In fact, there's a strange irony to it. 

I believe that initially, the law firms that signed up to represent detainees cared deeply about their rights.  But soon after, dozens of other firms (listen to Stimson's speech - they're all listed) jumped on board.   And I believe that many of the firms did so for PR and so that they would not be at a competitive recruiting disadvantage.  The firms' decision to represent the detainees was economic, not political, which is why threats of economic repercussions carry the impact that they do.  Usually, when lawyers sign up to represent a client, threats from the government or anyone else about being ostracized or repercussions do not move us.  That is part of our job. And anytime we take on controversial clients, that's part of the risk.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

No...I'm not done with MyShingle, though my infrequent postings over the past few months may have given you that impression.  Rather, I am done with the initial draft of a book project on a topic related to starting a law firm that I have been working on for the past two and a half years.  By my Word Perfect word count, my draft comes in at 363 pages (double spaced, Arial 10 pt. font) and 142,395 words.  Whew!  I know that I'll still have some more editing, as well as a couple of inserts to add here and there, but I am considering my draft officially complete, with just 9 hours to spare before my end-of-2006 deadline.

I'm wishing all of you a Happy New Year!  I know that it will be a good one for me.  I'll resume more regular posting in 2007.

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

When I reflect on my thirteen years as a solo, what comes to mind first aren't my major victories, but instead, my small moments.  I actually have at least three small moments that have influenced the course of my practice, but today, I'll discuss just one:  the day I changed a judge's mind.

Back in the early days of my law firm, I handled court appointed criminal work, about ten to fifteen cases a year, primarily to get hands on experience in court.  After a year, when I had some experience under my belt (but still remained awfully naive) I was assigned to represent a sixty something, petty offender who'd just been released from jail (for some drug or petty theft) and had been arrested in a drug buy, found with a syringe in his sock.  In an effort to secure his release on bail (he'd only been out of jail for a few months and did not want to go back), I concocted some story about how he had the syringe as part of a needle exchange program, and also argued that with his many ties to the area, he wasn't likely to flee.  I secured my client's release pending trial.

Continue Reading...

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

At the Legal Profession Blog, Jeff Lipshaw wonders whether it's natural to spend one's time "the same firm, doing the same kind of work, progressing in the level of oversight and client contact...."  As a solo, I don't often feel that way, since I always have the opportunity to reinvent myself and my practice.  Yet sometimes, inertia keeps me in the same place.

So I got to wondering what my solo colleagues do to keep it fresh.  What do you do to ensure that you're always feeling challenged, that you're open to new possibilities? For a long time, blogging helped me keep my practice fresh, but after four years, blogging feels a little routine as well. 

So readers, any ideas?  Please post them below.

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

I guess when you've been blogging as long as I have (four years  next month), it's inevitable that someone will criticize aspects of your blog (such as its name, MyShingle) as so last millenium.  Which is fine, because while I sometimes blog about solo trends and the coolness factor of solo practice, truth is, trends and coolness aren't my focus, never have been.  In a couple of days, I celebrate my 13th year as a solo, back in the era when solos were regarded as the untouchables of the legal profession and before dotcom entrepreneurs made working from home cool.  For me, solo practice was never a trend, but reality and a lifesaver; the only way that I could find to practice law and accomodate raising my daughters. 

I love running MyShingle, but I'll always be a practicing lawyer, first and foremost.  And that's why I favor the solo and practice blogs that aren't form over substance or full of jargon but those that teach me, by example, how to practice law and deliver legal services to my clients better, faster and less expensively.  Those that help me stay in business just another day so that I can provide an alternative to overpriced, low quality law firms and in so doing, expand access to law.  Maybe that makes me awfully stodgy in a third wave world, but that's My Shingle and I plan on sticking to it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

Like rock and roll, legal work is full of power and passion.  It is about people and their stories, even when we represent businesses, as Justice Louis Brandeis powerfully reminded us.  We help peple find justice, dignity, truth, riches or maybe just a little relief.

Do you agree that your work is full of power and passion?

The above quoteand the accompanying question is one of the thought provoking topics from the teaching DVD, Lawyers Rock, based on the scholarship of Rusell Pearce and discussed further in this post at Legal Ethics Forum.  And it seemed fitting to post on September 11, a day that reminded us of terrible perils of, but also the transformative possibility of power and passion. 

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

A year ago, Hurricane Katrina reminded all of us solos of the somber side of solo practice; how everything we've worked to build can be wiped out in an instant.  Sad to say, a year later, some solos are still struggling to get back on their feet, as reported in  Uneasy Times for Lawyers in the Big Easy, National Law Journal (8/30/06). (h/t to Ernie the Attorney).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks (3)

Today was my daughters' first day of school, full of anticipation and excitement.  As for me, I'll be resuming my longer work days now that they don't return home until after 4.

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

This isn't a post that directly relates to solo practice, though the lessons that it offers will apply.  Instead, it's about the serendipitous way that your passions can lead you to a job that truly fits - which is something that many of us have in fact found in solo practice.

Consider this New York Times profile of Thomas Rogers, a former biglaw attorney who is the president of Tivo.   The profile describes that when he was a kid, he was such a huge TV fan that his parents bought him a subscription to TV Guide.  In addition to the TV listings, the section about the FCC caught his interest as well.  Rogers went on to law school, but turned down an FCC position for biglaw practice.  But TV stayed on his mind and helped him catch his first big break:

In early 1981, I read that Timothy Wirth of Colorado had been named head of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance. I wrote him, and his staff invited me for an interview. I told a top aide the story about reading TV Guide and she said, "At least that's different." I became one of four lawyers on the staff.

From the Hill, Rogers went in house to a cable division of NBC and then on to Tivo, where he became President and CEO.

Sometimes, you need to leave the law to follow your passion.  But perhaps, like Rogers, you can also find a way to marry what you love with your legal practice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

From Susan Cartier-Liebel's piece, For the Brave, There's Life Beyond Biglaw (law.com, August 10, 2006) comes this money quote:

If opening your own practice were portrayed as a MasterCard commercial, it would go something like this: Virtual Office: $150; Cell Phone: $49.99 a month; WiFi laptop: $799; taking your 5-year-old son to his first Mets opening day at Shea Stadium (without derailing the partnership track): Priceless.

What aspect of solo practice is priceless to you?  Send me your comments below.

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

Let me start this book review with a confession:  when I first heard that Jeremy Blachman nabbed a contract to bring his Anonymous Lawyer (AL) blog to the printed page, I didn't have high hopes.  While I read the AL Blog before Jeremy outed himself, I can't say that I was a huge fan; as an egomaniacal blogger myself, I had mixed feelings about my blogging colleagues who didn't have the nerve to back up their thoughts with their identity (though I was wrong that anonymous bloggers don't get book deals!).  And I wasn't all that impressed with the idea of an expose on biglaw.   Seemed to me that it had been done before, in books like Cameron's Stracher's mediocre Double Billing and a bunch of different short stories I'd seen in bar magazines over the years, where the protaganists realize they're wasting their life at biglaw and and decide to leave the law entirely or to seek employment in some public service oriented position like government or a legal aid group (never solo practice, but that's just my own personal gripe).

So I was hugely surprised that Blachman's novel, Anonymous Lawyer, was a far better book than I ever expected, one that in my view will endure as a classic in the law profession genre of novels, along with books like The Paper Chase (with its iconic Professor Kingsfield) and to a lesser extent, Scott Turow's One-L.  As my many blogging colleagues have pointed out, Blachman offers a scathing and hilarious inside view of partnership and taps into today's blogging zeitgeist  by using the blog and emails as narrative devices, all of which make for an enjoyable read in a format now familiar to many of us.  But what gives the novel its staying power is its commentary on the modern day law firm.  Just as existentialists like Albert Camus used their writings to probe the absurdity of the human condition during the 1930s and 1940s, Blachman's Anonymous Lawyer conveys the utter absurdity of biglaw practice.

There's not much to the plot; the book revolves around life at an anonymous biglaw firm during its summer associate program and AL's campaign to ascend to the Top Dog position at his firm.  AL's blog entries paint a picture of the absurdity of biglaw life  - the fifty dollar expense accounts for 22 year olds in law school, the lavish parties and picnics that no one really wants to attend, the stingy time off policies for holidays, the ruse of the "part time family balance programs."  AL's matter of fact and unreflective tone evokes the flat voice of Mersault, who narrates Camus' The Stranger.  But AL's not without opinions; in particular, he disdains his sad, overweight daughter (and fat people, generally) and his wife, who fritters his money on interior decoration and breast enhancement.  (as an aside, someone ought to write a book about the plight of the law firm partner's wife, addressing why so many competent women, many of them formerly attorneys themselves willingly sacrifice their careers to hitch themselves to their husband's rising star as partner at a law firm and content themselves with being "a partner's wife.")

For me, where Anonymous Lawyer shines isn't in the day to day description of the rat race of law firm life or the nasty cracks that AL makes about his partners and the ingratiating summer associates.  The book moved me most at those rare times when AL lets down his guard with himself-- in the pleasurable moments he shares catching snakes with his son, or during his realization at his high school class reunion that no one's ever heard of his firm or impressed by where he works.  For it's there we see that AL hasn't completely lost his soul, just repressed it almost irretrievably in the trappings of a fancy lifestyle and a pile of timesheets - and therein lies the tragedy.

As Camus writes in the Myth of Sisyphus:

The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd.  But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious.

Substitute "biglaw attorney" for workman and you encapsulate the dynamic of the modern day law firm and the anonymous lawyers who inhabit that world. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks

If like me, you sometimes feel a little down that you haven't yet hit your breakout career stride or left your mark on the law, then check out this article, What Kind of Genius Are You?, David Galenson, Wired (7/06) (hat tip to Arnie Herz at Legal Sanity).  As Herz summarizes, Galenson describes two types of geniuses:

The first type he calls conceptual innovators. These people "make bold, dramatic leaps in their disciplines. They do their breakthrough work when they are young." On the other end of the creative genius continuum are experimental innovators who, "like Auguste Rodin, Mark Twain, and Alfred Hitchcock proceed by a lifetime of trial and error and thus do their important work much later in their careers."

I know that solo practice has lots of late bloomers, lawyers who never found a niche at biglaw or other permanent employment or lawyers for whom biglaw simply wasn't big enough to accomodate big ideas on how law ought to be practiced.  And after spending years wasting away, they now blossom at solo practice.  For you lawyers who think it's too late to make something of your career, remember the geniuses who took a long time to figure out their way - and remember that solo practice is always an option where you can bloom, no matter how late in the season.

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

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY from MYSHINGLE! 

Ah, Indepedence Day, a solo's favorite holiday.  After all, think of the parallels.  Just as England and King George taxed the colonists without allowing them a say in government and stifled individual speech and religion, so too, law firms dominate young lawyers, sapping their creativity and amassig huge profits on their labor until, like the colonists, they just can't take it anymore.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the Declaration of Independence:

It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

That's what we solos should do: commemorate and celebrate the day we started our firm.  How many of you take the time to celebrate your firm's anniversary, to think back on what you've accomplished over the year and take the time to appreciate what you've created?  Why not start now?

Happy July 4, fellow Shinglers and to others, may this be the year that you set yourself free!

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

Many state ethics codes talk about the duty to zealously represent clients, but if that's the case, where has all the zeal gone?  That's the topic of an intriguing paper by Anita Bernstein entitled The Zeal Shortage that I read about in this post at the Legal Ethics Forum weblog.   

Here are some excerpts from the post:

Zeal is hard to define, but for Professor Bernstein it includes "enthusiasm, energy, and benevolent effort," and is negated by boredom, indifference, and detachment (109).  It is a disposition (an "aspect or attitude") that, in the context of an agency relation, "makes the agent's relationship to the principal more focused, fervid, and intense."  (112)

Professor Bernstein is pro-zeal.  She thinks it ranks with care and loyalty among lawyerly virtues (105), but gets a bad press in legal ethics circles.  People confuse zeal with zealotry, meaning too-aggressive lawyering (110), she thinks, and this is wrong:  Zeal is to zealotry as faith is to fanaticism.  It would not, for example, compel a lawyer to whitewash or justify torture. (113) [...]

But Professor Bernstein also thinks there is a zeal shortage, in school and in practice, and I do not think that is right.  I will start here and then note a few other points on which I differ from what I see as the thrust of Professor Bernstein's argument.

According to the post, Professor Bernstein suggests that lawyers may re-discover their zeal in pro bono work.  Nothing wrong with that suggestion.  But my belief is that if you want to see real ZEAL at work in the legal profession, have lunch with a bunch of solos at a local solosez lunch.  Read the many, many solo practice blogs (even more than noted in the link) where the zeal and the passion for practicing law the way it should be or changing the profession leaps right off the screen.  Maybe biglaw killed the zeal in our profession, maybe not.  But I know that zeal thrives in solos.

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

OK, as regular readers know, I'm not a huge fan of the ABA. So I didn't feel badly to learn about this somewhat underpublicized announcement (6/23/06) about the ABA's agreement to pay $185,000 for violating a 1996 antitrust consent decree.  From the  Department of Justice press release:

The consent decree prohibited the ABA from misusing the law school accreditation process. The Department also filed a proposed order and a stipulation in which the ABA acknowledges the violations alleged in the Department's petition and agrees to reimburse the United States $185,000 in fees and costs incurred in the Department's investigation. The proposed order is subject to court approval.

I guess if ABA dues go up next year, we'll know why.  Seriously, who pays when the ABA gets itself into this type of a mess? 

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

With all of the terrific solo blogs, I'm still amazed that people still don't get solo practice.  Among the prime offenders are Ann Israel, who writes the Advice for the Lawlorn column for New York Lawyer and her correspondents.  Israel would rather advise folks to leave the practice of law than to give solo practice a chance.

Consider this recent exchange here:

[excerpt from writer, emphasis added]:  We already have too many good lawyers - why encourage bad ones to keep on plodding through the system? [...] As for the impact of law school grades on a job search, I do think that the vast majority of employers (law firms in particular) care very much about grades. Frankly - anyone who graduates at the bottom of their class should just find something else to do because their grades will always be the hurdle that prevents them from earning a decent salary and getting challenging work. The only exception that I can think of is if the lawyer has a huge network of contacts and can practice on his own.

[Ann Israel reply] Your thoughts are worth far more than two cents. In fact, what you have to say is priceless advice to someone like our hapless friend, "Dreamer." [Dreamer, who admittedly has a victim mentality, had flunked the bar several times and after four years, could not find legal employment]

Law school grades may preclude lawyers from law firm jobs, but they don't dictate success.  Solo practice provides an opportunity for success to those willing to work hard, no matter their grades in law school.  In fact, sometimes people who performed poorly in law school find that they do well in practice because they're not dealing with hypothetical questions that are tricky for the sake of being tricky, but with tangible problems and real people where the right answer really matters.

Continue Reading...

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

Here's a huge public thanks to Ed Poll, one of today's preeminent law practice management experts and coaches, for sticking up for solos.  In this post, Ed joins the chorus of bloggers speaking out against the New York bar's recently proposed restrictive advertising rules.  And in this post, Ed takes on the California bar, lambasting it for requiring lawyers to disclose whether they have malpractice insurance without taking concommitant steps to ensure that affordable malpractice insurance is available to attorneys.

Ed's posts couldn't be more timely for me (same is true for Jim Calloway's take on the NY Rules).  Just today, I was lamenting that many law practice management experts prefer to use new regulations as an excuse for offering new service instead of using their stature and expertise to speak out against rules that don't make sense.  For example, I've seen a couple of comments on various listserves from marketers proposing to advise NY attorneys on new PR techniques to circumvent restrictions on client testimonials.  But Ed is the first LPM expert I've read who apparently, isn't looking to profit off the rules by accepting them and then charging solos to help them comply.  Rather, he's using his expertise to help our profession achieve the right results.

There are many gurus who "talk the talk" of solo practice.  But Ed Poll is out here in the trenches, walking the walk along with us. 

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

It's not often that practice areas like family law, primarily the province of solo and small law firms merit attention from a legal commentator of Dahlia Lithwick's stature.  But Lithwick tackles issues like the problems with an adversarial family court system and how well you really know your clients in her op-ed piece in the Washington Post entitled The Fall of the Father of the Year (6/18/06). 

Lithwick's article discusses the issues surrounding last week's shooting of Reno family court Judge Chuck Weller.  Darren Mack, the suspect, was involved in a divorce and custody dispute before Weller - and, he's also one of Lithwick's former clients, from her days as an attorney with a family law firm in Reno, Nevada.  Lithwick writes:

You may think this random connection would give me some insight, some ability to say, "He seemed like the nicest guy," or "I suspected something like this would happen." But neither statement is true. I wish I could say this gives me a new window into the perils of family court, or the special laws of physics that apply to a disintegrating family. But all I can say is that someone allegedly snapped, and I happen to have known him a little.

Still, for someone who says she has no special insights, Lithwick uses her experience representing Mack to describe the dilemmas that family law practitioners face every day:

The lawyers I worked for did everything in their power to help clients maintain perspective and foster sanity. But if you are the sort of person who desperately wants to use the courts to crush your opponent, you don't always hear that[...]

If I hadn't known Darren Mack, I'd be rounding toward a tidy conclusion about the increasing lethality of the attacks on the judiciary. But because I did know him, I am left with dozens of much harder questions: What did we miss, if indeed he did what he is suspected of doing? Were we such bad readers of human nature, or was he a perfectly normal client who just snapped? Is there some metric by which one can determine which of the thousands of people you think you know will snap?

Maybe someone like Darren Mack -- who spent much of the past decade in the family court system -- had no business being there. The more you want it and are willing to suffer for it, the greater the chance you'll be disappointed. Or maybe, and this is the worst possibility, while we thought we were helping our clients stabilize their fraught situations, we were somehow becoming their sherpas to madness.

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

Each week, the ABA e-report has been featuring some of the runner up entries in its Ross Essay Contest.  One of this week's essays, Opening My Mouth by Elizabeth Streit caught my eye.  Streit doesn't write about solo practice; she's a government litigator.  But what she's written about how government practice transformed her life as a lawyer is equally true of solo practice.

From her account, Streit was a shy kid, "too afraid to open my mouth.  I was not a leader."  Streit's dad was a lawyer who encouraged his children to join him in the profession.  So after college, Streit gained admittance to a prestigious law school, joined a prestigious firm, but still never found passion in the law.  She had married before law school and began to think that once her children arrived, that she would abandon the profession.  But then, Streit experienced her aha moment:

But something happened to me as I continued to practice law. I started to open my mouth on behalf of clients. I left the prestigious law firm practice and became a government lawyer, where I found I represented interests I could become passionate about.

I felt the same way about solo practice that Streit felt about her government job. Solo practice gave me a chance to open my mouth on behalf of my clients, but more importantly, I started to open my mouth behalf of me.  Has solo practice transformed you and ignited a passion for law that you'd lost along the way - or never believed you had in you?  Let me know how, in the comments below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sure, I don't like when the state bar grievance committees apply a double standard between biglaw and solos when it comes to lawyer discipline or ethics rules on networking.  And I understand when many ABA honchos are completely out of touch with solos' abilities or that biglaw attorneys on the NACDL Board who want to monopolize Supreme Court practice will denigrate solos' performance at the Court to force them out of the way.  I accept that many state bars, the ABA and even high profile pro bono interest groups are dominated by large law firms who endorse agendas that favor their own interests. 

But when it comes to judges buying into the double standard, well, that's another matter.  Yet that's what one federal judge did, as described in this article, Second Circuit Rejects Blended Rate for Solo's Work, though the judge was  reversed by the  Second Circuit.  (Anthony Lin, NYLJ 6/7/06). From the article:

Manhattan lawyer Edgar Pauk successfully represented James McDonald in a suit charging that the former longshoreman's union pension plan failed to properly calculate the years in which he accrued benefits.Pauk had requested $425 an hour for his work, but Southern District of New York Judges Naomi Reice Buchwald and Kevin P. Castel, who presided over different portions of the case, set respective hourly rates of $325 and $390.  The 2nd Circuit panel of Judges Guido Calabresi, Jose A. Cabranes and Richard C. Wesley, in McDonald v. Pension Plan, cv-05-1435, 1630, 1749, 4140, 4288, vacated Castel's award on the grounds that he inappropriately applied a blended rate.  Such a rate is intended to take into account the different billing rates of partners and associates within a firm, but the appeals court said it had never before seen a blended rate applied in the case of a solo practitioner[...]

There is simply no support for the proposition that a district court can decide what legal tasks could have been done by a hypothetical associate attorney working for or with Pauk in order to calculate a blended hourly rate of $390," the court said in its unsigned opinion.  The panel approved Buchwald's award and agreed with her reduction of Pauk's requested rate based on her finding that his performance "though effective, was less than stellar." The trial judge had found the lawyer frequently inefficient and "occasionally vexatious."The appeals court also noted that Buchwald felt it was "of great significance" that Pauk was a solo practitioner with lower overhead costs than a firm. 

Though the 2nd Circuit did not reject this finding, it cautioned in a footnote "that district courts should not treat an attorney's status as a solo practitioner as grounds for an automatic reduction in the reasonable hourly rate."

Continue Reading...

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

Ah, Mothers' Day.  A time when my daughters leave me free to blog uninterrupted. (though I guess I should worry a little when my younger daughter's mother day note reads like this:  My mom likes to hug me.  She always works on her computer).   Today, I've rounded up a couple of articles of interest to mother-lawyers.

First up is Do mothers make better leaders than women without children? originally printed in USA Today (5/12/06).  For the record, I don't buy that women with kids are any better or worse leaders; it simply depends on the person.  Anyway, one interesting tidbit in the article for lawyer-moms was the descripton of how Jennifer Wolfe, founder of the largest woman owned law firm in Ohio got her start:

are notorious for long hours and inflexible schedules, so when Jennifer Wolfe was bedridden with pregnancy complications three years ago with her son Jack, she wrote a business plan that led to the largest female-owned firm in Ohio. Seven of the firm's 10 attorneys are women.

One of her lawyers, Jennifer Livingston, works entirely from home, where she cares for her 19-month-old son, Mason, and is expecting her second child in October. Jeanette Dannenfelser is a trial attorney who works Monday through Thursday to spend more time with her 1-year-old son, Aidan, adopted from Kazakhstan four months ago.

Wolfe, whose husband is the firm's operations manager, said she has had to "pick up Jack, face cooking dinner and doing laundry, and deal with temper tantrums and potty training. I don't know how you couldn't go through a transformation."

She has installed a system that lets her lawyers more easily cover for each other. Yet, flexibility is not a free pass, and Wolfe said she expects no complaining if they are needed on a Sunday.

In another piece, Stay networked to return to work (May 14, 2006), there's advice on
how to keep your foot in the door even if you decide to stay home full time. For lawyers, that advice includes keeping bar membership current and possibly working on pro bono matters or keeping up with other lawyers.

And finally, thank you, David Giacalone for remember us lawyer-mother-bloggers.  To be honest, I always feel a little silly celebrating Mothers' Day; it seems strange to be honored for the one thing in my life that's so far brought only pleasure and fulfillment and not a single regret (wish I could say the same about my legal career!).  But enough of these thoughts -  Happy Mothers' Day to moms and lawyers everywhere!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (27)
• Trackbacks (27)

I've spent much of the past three weeks in seclusion, almost exclusively focused on a 75 page response in opposition to two summary judgment motions in a federal civil rights matter that I've been handling for close to four years.  During the process, I had a chance to read some classic Supreme Court and Circuit court decisions by Justice Harlan and Judge Posner, among others, who write not only with precision, but with panache, who always include a couple of "money quotes," that pop off the page.  And that got me to wondering - why don't legal writing classes ever teach the art of writing "the money quote?"  Here's what I mean...

Continue Reading...

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

David Giacalone reminded me that it's cherry blossom time here in DC.  Unfortunately, I have been so busy with a very important brief that I don't think I will have a chance to see them this year.  But here are some photos from 2005:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This past weekend's New York Times article Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?   (Timothy O'Brien, 3/19/06) makes me ask the question "Why Should We Care?"  The article describes the oft-cited problem of why women aren't making it to the top at large firms or why they prematurely leave, blaming the usual suspects such as lack of mentoring, ingrained gender discrimination and even billable hours.

For starters, I'm not sure that I understand the problem here.  Large firms are profit making entities, where billables and rainmaking count more than anything, for anyone.  Large firms apply billable requirements across the board.  Sure, large firms aren't willing to accomodate women who want to work part time - but they don't accomodate male attorneys who seek a more balanced lifestyle either.  In fact, if male attorneys asked for the same types of schedule reductions that their female counterparts demand, they'd probably be bounced out of the firm even more quickly.  If women attorneys are willing, as some of those cited in the article, to come back to work full time after 6 weeks of maternity leave, to hire full time nannies and skip dinners with their kids, the gap would shrink.  Most women lawyers aren't willing to do that - and more power to them for that.  Indeed, many of my solo male colleagues weren't willing to make those sacrifices either - which is why they're working for themselves as solos instead of tethered to a desk in a big fancy New York or DC or Chicago office.

The other problem I have with this genre of articles is that they make it seem as if biglaw is the "be all and end all" of a legal career.  In truth, only a small percentage of lawyers practice at large firms and real law is made day by day by solo and small firm practitioners and the clients we serve.  But for some reason, when a woman heads her own firm, it's still regarded as an inferior position to serving as one of dozens of partners at a large firm.  In fact, these articles almost never make mention of the hundreds of women making it on their own as heads or partners of solo and small law firms. (I highlighted this problem here). 

I know it's not PC to say so, but ultimately, the problem with large firms is that everyone, male and female, is held to an equal standard:  generate more billables, bring in more revenue.  It's an inhumane standard, sure, but it's gender neutral.  The real success stories aren't the women who continue to whine for accomodations at large firms that aren't available to men, but rather, the women who go out and create their own firms so that they can have the best of both worlds, on their own terms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks (4)

Ben Cowgill has a two part expose (here and here) on a new era of stock content (and stock links) in blogging.  David Giacalone reminds us that he addressed the issue of ghostblogging (wondering whether it will ruin the authenticity and personality of blogging); David also notes Joel Schoenmeyer's post here (arguing that bloggers who don't reveal their alter-ego ghostbloggers are liars). 

Questions like whether ghostblogging unethically deceives readers (though not sure how it's any worse than the senior partner who takes lead billing for an associate-written article) or destroys the authenticity of blogging are interesting, but they don't really get me all that riled.  Here at MyShingle, I blog for love and to spread the gospel of solo practice; if a bar association ever decided to start a blog with canned material on starting a firm, I know that it would never duplicate my passion.  And even though I do blog for love, I'm also thrilled that this tool that gives me personal pleasure can be used by other solos to make money. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks (2)

Just a warning, postings will be a bit on the light side for this next week or so.  Nothing to do with my new gig at Legal Blogwatch; just a combination of what's seemed like a slow news week, coupled with a huge summary judgment motion response that is consuming me.  I will be back up to speed soon, I hope.

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

This past month has been crazy-busy, but busy in a good way.  Many new opportunities have come my way and I'm optimistic about what's ahead.  But I'll be the first to tell you that my practice has not always been this way.  I've had slow months when I felt frustrated enough about earning the equivalent of ten dollars an hour that I was ready to throw in the towel or stressed over the fear of malpractice or from dealing with difficult clients.

I admit this all publicly for all of you solos out there who are struggling today.  Maybe you started your firm, brimming with enthusiasm, but now a year later, you still can't find a steady stream of business.  Maybe you just made what you think is the world's stupidest mistake in a case and you can't sleep at night because you're so afraid of what might happen.  I've been in that place (as recently as 2 months ago, in fact!), all of us solos have.  Yet we keep it secret, never admit our weaknesses to our colleagues or seek out help.  To each other, we all look as if we have the perfect practice, which is almost never the case, all the time.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

I'm not sure where my own personal opinion on the death penalty lies.  I've always believed that it's incredibly disparately and arbitrarily applied - I'm just not certain whether the remedy is wholesale elimination of the death penalty or reducing its random application by improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants. 

But now, apparently, Ken Starr has another reason for eliminating the death penalty - because it puts too much strain on biglaw.  Here's the exact quote in the Hamilton Spectator (2/22/06):

"Society is not equipped to handle death penalty cases because of resources. Large law firms are not willing at this stage to take these cases on, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, in order to make sure that if the public wants the death penalty, it is not administered with arbitrariness and caprice."

There's a solution, of course, but most large firms don't want to hear it.  If large firms targeted their pro bono efforts at representing indigent defendants or providing resources to court appointed lawyers where it matters, i.e., at the trial phase, they wouldn't have to face the burden of taking on costly death penalty cases down the road. 

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

I've been thinking alot about my colleague  Jon Stein's recent post complaining that there are too many bloggers complaining about the practice of law and urging them to focus more on the positives.   Like Jon, I don't have much tolerance for complainers (as exemplified by this earlier post).  But at the same time, complaining is a necessary part of bringing about change in the profession.

I'm not sure how long Jon has been practicing as an attorney, but I graduated from law school in 1988.  Back then, I'd say that 90 percent of my classmates assumed that they'd go on to work at a challenging, intellectually stimulating biglaw job, make partner in seven years and be set for life.  Back then, no one ever really complained about the drawbacks of large firm practice, the drudgery for young associates, the sacrifices you make for your family, the lack of experience and training that you actually receive at a large firm, and the seeming randomness, and sometimes even inequities of partnership decisions.   Blogging is changing all of that.  Blogging, even that of a whiny, complaining nature, exposes the dark underside of biglaw practice that so many lawyers were ashamed to talk about.  And more positively, blogs show that there are other career paths, options other than biglaw practice.

If it weren't for the dissatisfaction and complaints of large firm lawyers, blogs like mine and Jon's wouldn't even be here.  One reason for our success is the unhappiness in the profession and the desire, the yearning in many biglaw attorneys to really practice law rather than shuffle papers and research loopholes.   I'm willing to put up with the complaints, now anyway, because this is just the beginning.  Someday, all of this complaining will lead to changes, changes that we're already starting to see.

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

You know the indignities that you sometimes put up with as a solo, particularly when you work at home?  The comments like "wow, must be nice to do whatever you want all day long" or the implication that you are available to babysit or take a trip spur of the moment?  Sometimes, they're enough to make you feel like you really don't have a job.

Well today, I had payback for all of those comments.  My daughter Elana (far left, with my adorable baby niece Leila in the middle and my younger daughter Mira at right) asked me today, somewhat intentionally, if she would make a good lawyer (we had just finished another one of those annoying may/must debates - me: you must do homework neatly, her: no, the teacher does not say must, only try).  I responded that yes, Elana, you will make a good lawyer if that is what you want to be and then Elana asked where she would work if she were a lawyer.  So I began by saying that she could work at a firm, at the government, at which point, Elana cut me off and said "Mommy, why can't I have my own firm like you?"  Which made my day.

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

Can any biglaw associates answer this question for me:  why would you write posts for a biglaw blog?  Recently, I've been checking out some of the biglaw blogs, like Sheppard Mullin's Antitrust Law Blog, Davis, Wright & Tremaine's Telecom Law Blog or Preston, Ellis, Gate's e-Discovery Blog.  Though presumably associates write the bulk of the posts, none of the blogs give any attribution to the individual writer.  In that regard, associates are far better off writing a traditional article, where at least they can show authorship.   

None of this is surprising, of course, in light of the phenomenon of the "invisible associate," discussed here or here.   This isn't anonymous blogging by choice, but by fiat.  And what's both troubling and sad is that smart, young attorneys would so willingly forego ownership of their writing and analytical work, one of the few things that gives us any currency in this profession, simply because the firm demands it.  Yes, I may be a lowly solo in the eyes of biglaw, but at least I can say that not only is my name on the door of my firm, it's on my web posts as well, every one of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks (1)

The recent outing of formerly anonymous Opinionistas as biglaw associate Melissa Lafsky , close on the heels of the reveal of David Lat as Underneath Their Robes and Jeremy Blachman as Anonymous Lawyer has Orin Kerr wondering whether the trend of blogging anonymously and snagging a book deal might provide a a new career path for unhappy lawyers.

Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled for my colleagues who've found notoriety through blogs.  It's just more proof of the power of the blog.  But at the same time, the anonymous-lawyer-turned-celebrity has too much of a fantasy feel to it for my taste - which is probably why it appeals to large firm attorneys, the excitement of the dotcom start-ups in the 1990s lured so many biglaw attorneys away from their firms.  It all kind of makes me wonder whether anyone at biglaw really wants to be a lawyer or whether they're biding their time, waiting for a book deal or stock options or a winning lottery ticket.  Did biglaw attorneys ever want to practice law to begin with, or was law just an easy way to suppress other passions or avoid a deeper exploration of their desires.  Or does the large firm, through its merciless, grinding caste system, kill young lawyers' vision of law as a noble, empowering career that can change lives and promote justice?

It makes me sad that so many really, really smart young people are so readily seduced by fantasy - first the fantasy of a high power biglaw job, later the fantasy of escape to celebrity.  When there's an option for satisfaction right in front of them, one that Greatest American Lawyer discovered when a year ago, he left the comfort of a cushy firm job "for the feel of the breeze in my hair and a goal to change the way law is practiced."  Maybe GAL isn't as sexy as Opinionista, but he inspires me more by standing his ground and not leaving the law, but staying; staying to reclaim the vision that made him - and so many of us - want to be lawyers to begin with. 

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

Via Stay of Execution and Rob Hyndman comes this link to a great piece by Paul Graham on
How to Do What You Love.   Because after all, that advice to "do what you love" is easy, it's finding what you love and figuring out how to do it that's a life work. 

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

This past weekend, my husband and I attended the thirty fifth anniversary bash of the firm where I worked over a dozen years ago, the one that sent me packing and in so doing, pushed me on to my present path.  I've stayed in touch with all the partners (never burn bridges if you can help it), and our relationship over the years has improved, from subordinate and boss to actual colleagues who enjoy each others' company.  The founding partner created a slide show with photos from the firm's history.  Looking at the slides and what the founding partner (with his partner, who is now deceased) created - municipal electric systems, law offices in Africa, mining codes for numerous countries, a legacy of top energy lawyers, many of whom work at other firms but comprise an elite group at the top of the field and a firm that despite some hard times remains intact when so many others have failed - I wondered what my legacy will be when I've practiced for thirty five years, what my slides will show.  What about you?

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

I do plan on joining the podcast world before the first quarter of the year is out.  But for now, I'll have to content myself with my 15 seconds on Legal Talk Network's Coast to Coast, hosted by fellow bloggers Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (3)

An article I wrote several months ago, Treating Family Like Business, just appeared in Law.com's new Career Center.  Primarily, my article reacts to pieces like this which advise attorneys seeking a home-work balance (mostly women) to pussy-foot around and beg for accomodation instead of taking the bull by the horns and advocating, strategizing and negotiating for their needs as vigorously as they would for a client.  Does this mean that I think lawyer-parents should be strident or whiny or express a sense of entitlement in asking for alternate work schedules?  No way!  I endorse proactive, creative approaches where you take the initiative, as well as advance planning to make yourself sufficiently indispensable so that you can write your own ticket. 

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

OK, I've had my law firm website online for almost ten years now, longer than the wayback machine goes.  And in all that time, I've been hobbling along with a clunky URL, http://www.his.com/israel/loce (the "Israel" is my husband's last name, who holds the HIS account, not the country).  Though I regard the URL as a badge of honor that evinces my Internet longevity, after a decade, I realize that it's time to cut the ties to the past and move into the present.  So, for now, I'm using CarolynElefant.com though I will probably soon register Elefant Law (or will this be considered undignified animal advertising?) or some other designation to show that the URL belongs to a law firm website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

Like all of you, I've made many New Year's resolutions, long lists of ideas and tasks that I intend to pursue and complete.  So far, I have already accomplished one of them.  Ever since, BlawgThink, I've been smitten by the concept of possibility of the wiki.  Seems like they offer a cheap and efficient way for solo and small firm lawyers to collaborate on projects with each other and with clients. 

But the first wiki that I set up is for a trade association that I helped found this past year.  There's an important rulemaking that issued a couple of days ago that can potentially make or break this particular industry.  As a result, our nascent association must mobilize and file comments.  Ordinarily, filing comments in rulemakings involves numerous meetings, phone calls and hundreds of billable hours - which require time and resources that our group simply doesn't have.  So, I created this wiki here , using the free and incredibly easy PB Wiki  application.  Members can post their responses to the questions posed in the rulemaking right online - which will help eliminate repetitive topics and allow us to collaboratively refine our approach.  We'll have a teleconference for members next week and introduce them to the wiki and see where it goes.

Continue Reading...

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

Desperation isn't the greatest trait to display if you're trying to meet a mate.  But if you want to succeed in starting a law firm, desperation, or more accurately, the willingness to do something absolutely desperate to bail out a case or save your firm can serve you well.  I was reminded of the power of desperation when I read this article about a woman who dove into a disgusting fast food dumpster to salvage her thesis.  Yes, she should have had a back up copy so the mess was partly her fault anyway.   But sometimes in the practice of law, things go wrong despite our best efforts:  a client may neglect to tell us a critical fact until the eve of trial or a major client that accounts for a huge portion of our business may choose another lawyer or our practice area may dry up due to regulatory or legal changes.  Any of these events can put us in a desperate situation from which it seems there's no escape.   We can allow our desperation to overcome us - or like the dumpster-diving grad student, we can use our desperation to overcome our circumstances.   It's been my experience that the solo and small firm lawyers who've got it in them to take the latter path almost always succeed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I came across this article, Lawyer killed head-on in accident (12/9/05, NH Republic) about Massachusett criminal defense lawyer Geri Laventis tragic death in a head on car wreck.  I did now know her at all, but here is how she was described by her colleagues:   

Judge William B. McDonough, who presides over Holyoke District Court where Laventis frequently served as a bar advocate, said he was saddened to hear of her death.

"She was a tireless worker for her clients. She often found very imaginative ways to view the law and the facts, quite successfully for her clients. She will be sorely missed by her clients and members of the bar," McDonough said.

David G. Mintz, a defense lawyer in the area for the past 18 years, said Laventis was notable as "one of the most vigorous and relentless advocates for criminal defendants."

"She was smart. She was tough. She was incredibly thick-skinned. She was just unparalleled. She went to the mat for everyone. She was shrewd and savvy and creative and always determined to see that justice was done for her clients. She had a big heart and was very generous with her time," Mintz said.

Judge W. Michael Ryan of Northampton, who also sits in Holyoke District Court, said Laventis maintained her passion for her work for many years.

"She was very aggressive in representing people who had very little. She seemed to have boundless energy and enthusiasm and optimism. She gave great representation and a lot of hope to people who don't have much," Ryan said.

Continue Reading...

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

Three years ago last night, MyShingle made its entry into the blogworld with this inaugural post and our declaration of intent:

We seek to serve a broad audience -- solos and small firm lawyers foremost of course, but also lawyers who dream of hanging out a shingle and law students for whom solo and small firm practice might some day offer a career option. Here's the place to learn the basics about starting and running a law practice, read about solo and small law firm concerns, learn about solo and small firm accomplishments, discuss new models for collaboration between large and small firms and ponder the place that we solos and small firms occupy in the legal universe.

Three years later, we're still doing that, but now, we're no longer the sole voice of solo practice, which is probably the best birthday present ever.  Thanks readers and fellow bloggers!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

Every four months for the past fifteen years, I've avidly read the Alumni Notes section of my alma mater's publication,the Cornell Law Forum  to see what my classmates have been up to since graduation.  In addition to alumni notes, the Forum publishes a couple of articles by professors and students.  While some have been moderately interesting, none have really captured my attention until now.

This month's issue includes Amie Ely's (Cornell Law '05) convocation speech entitled In search of Truth and Justice - Without Becoming An Empty Suit.  The speech describes Ely's own personal quest for truth, as she sought to uncover the story behind her father's murder in 1979 and his killer's eventual acquittal, and justice, in embarking on a career in law to change or improve the system that failed her family.  But more powerful than her personal journey is Ely's reminder to all of us of our responsibility as lawyers:

At the same time, law is built on what came before it - on precedent.  And so are we.  Without knowing where we've been, we can't chart where we're going.  Without remembering what drew us to the law, and feeding that fire no matter where we go, we risk losing a sense of purpose, of urgency and of grace[...]

We matter.  In our hands, we will soon hold other people's lives and hopes, and their last chance for justice.  Let's hold on to what brought us here, honor what came before us and do all that we can to never become empty suits. 

Continue Reading...

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

I love the blog The Practice, written by three practicing solos, Jon Stein, Shane Jimison and Barry Kaufman.  And generally, I generally agree with most of the advice that the trifecta dispenses.  But I part company with Jon's recent post that the value of a top law school is overrated for those who want to be solos.  Jon points out that most clients never ask lawyers where they went to school, which is true enough, but it's only one side of the equation.  The reason that I feel compelled to devote a post to respond to Jon is that his view, which I believe is shared by most in the "how-to-start-a-practice" field, is not just inaccurate, but is probably one of the greatest deterrents to biglaw associates and top law grads who are thinking about starting a law firm.

Lest you all attack me for being a "school snob," let me start with the caveat that I believe that solo practice is one of the greatest equalizers in out otherwise strategied legal profession.  A last place graduate from the lowest ranked law school in the country can succeed just as big in solo practice as a top grad from from an Ivy League law school.  And in fact, I am certain that there are dozens of examples of lawyers from lower tiered schools with successful solo or small firm practices who out-earn their upper tiered peers ten times over.

At the same time, the fact that lower tiered graduates are successful in solo practice doesn't mean that a degree from a top law school (which I'm going to define as Top 25 or First Tier) doesn't matter.  Here are some reasons why a degree from a great law school can provide you a ticket to success in small firm practice.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• Trackbacks

As most of my readers know, I started my law firm twelve years ago, after five years of practicing as an energy attorney, first for the government and then as an associate with a boutique practice.  My firm unceremoniously gave me notice and six months to find a new job, saying that I wasn't partnership material...and that's how I came to start my firm.

I think if I hadn't started my own firm, I probably would have wound up leaving the law or taking a dead end job in government.  At the time I lost my job (in late 1992), the economy was in recession and law firms weren't hiring much.  As a result, when I learned that I was losing my job, I wasn't able to find other employment or even temp work (back in those days, the ginormous document review project that keep unemployed associates busy now weren't very common).   So my guess is that had I not started my firm, I'd have kept trying for government jobs until maybe one came through - or might have tried getting pregnant sooner, had kids and left the law entirely.  And after my kids were older, I probably would have changed careers, maybe going to nursing school like one of my sisters (still one of my goals).

Continue Reading...

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

I've been having a lousy week, with one matter continuing to generate all kinds of knotty issues.  So it was a real pick-me-up to get a call from the editors over at Lawyer and Business Executives in the News to inform me that I'd been selected  Person of the Week.  And even though as Person of the Week (and a Brandeisian, just like one of the editors), the Lawyer and Business Executives in the News looks like a really interesting blog that covers a bunch of different law, business and political topics. 

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

I've been back from BlawgThink for a few days, but for various reasons, haven't been able to post my thoughts until now.  First, everything that's already been written by my fellow BlawgThink attendees here and here and here -- about the energy and the passion and vision  pulsing through the conference, not to mention the plain joy of meeting other bloggers whom you've read and admired from afar face to face -- well, it's all true.  And what I've taken home from BlawgThink is that same spirit of exhilaration and optimism that pervaded my first year of law practice, my early days on the web (this doesn't even go back far enough) and my entre into blogging as I'm once again reminded of all of the promise that blogs hold for solo and small firm lawyers and the entire legal profession.

So now that I've had time to Blawg-think about all of these possibilities, it's time for me to Blawg-do.  I've spent this evening (see how late I'm posting?) playing around with wikis and getting familiarized with Mind Manager so that I can put on cool presentations like this one.  I am going to finally figure out how to podcast and develop an approach to assess the "return on blogging."  And I want to use these tools to help solo and small firm lawyers improve our practices, increase our revenues and better serve our clients.

Thanks so much, Matt Homann and Dennis Kennedy for another fabulous conference that has rekindled my excitement for blogging all over again.
 

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

Well, readers, here's what I did today to fill my stomach:  spent a great fall day at a farm with my girls.  And since I'm posting pictures, I couldn't resist including the second photo of my other girl, our deaf and shorn Old English Sheepdog puppy Francesca aka Frisky.

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

My readers have probably realized that for the past couple of months I've been posting in spurts and clumps at a rate of two to three days a week.  I've been too busy to post every day and after much effort, am too disciplined to allow myself to spend any daylight hours getting carried away with blog updates.  However, the conventions of blogging suggest that I post date my posts and set them up so that they're more evenly distributed throughout the week.  Yet while that makes sense rationally, it fails to take into account my tendencies to continuously edit until a brief's out the door or a post is online. 

Does anyone have any preferences on the frequency of posts?

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

I was interviewed last week by a writer from Law Crossing and surprised to see the article appear so quickly in the Law Stars Hall of Fame.   Another benefit of blogging, that's for sure.

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

So, the American Bar Association says that it wants us solo and small firm lawyers to consider joining?  If that's so, it's going to have to do a far better job of understanding the abilities and needs of solo and small firm attorneys than it has.

Consider this article, Solos Lead the Wireless Way, ABA Journal (September 2005).  To the shock and surprise of the ABA, solos (gasp!) have lead the way in implementing wireless networks while midsized firms have lagged.  Imagine - solos being in the forefront of technology!  What's even worse is this quote from an ABA official, trying to explain this trend

The result was one of the most dramatic trends found in this year's survey. "I was surprised how many solos adopted wireless in the office or use it to get onto the Internet away from work," says Catherine Sanders Reach, associate director of the ABA's Legal Technology Resource Center. "Solos typically run behind large law firms and use bare-bones technology. Maybe wireless provides a bare-bones service solos need."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (20)

I know that frequently I'm regarded as an avid advocate (some of my blogging buddies would even call me a cheerleader) for solo practice, focusing primarily on the benefits of going solo rather than the risks or drawbacks.  But in the wake of Katrina, I'm reminded of the somber side of solo practice:  how many of us solos operate at the edge, with little margin for error.

Continue Reading...

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

Not sure how I missed this earlier, but Bob Ambrogi of Legal Line Blog recently posted  here on ABA President Michael Greco's commitment to solo and small firm lawyers.  Greco writes in his piece :

"We have created a new portal for solo and small-firm lawyers to enter the ABA, and we have thrown open the doors to our more than two dozen substantive law sections, recognizing that these colleagues practice in many areas of the law and work on behalf of a diverse group of clients. Now constituted as a Division of the American Bar Association, this new entity will help guide its members into appropriate substantive law sections and provide practitioners the best resources and expertise that the ABA has to offer.

What does the ABA offer a solo or small-firm lawyer? Lots of things. Advice on building and managing their law practice. Access to a wealth of publications and electronic information to keep their skills sharp and knowledge up to date. The best CLE programs in the country. Opportunities to network with other lawyers and legal experts throughout the country. And a wide range of benefits, including health insurance, travel services and discounts.

I'm glad to see that the ABA at least acknowleging that it could be doing more for solos.  That said, the ABA could do much more if it would invite me or any of my fellow blogging colleagues to blog the upcoming Fall GP Solo Meeting.  But given that no one even blogged the ABA Annual Conference, I'm probably expecting too much.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At four p.m., my workday ends , at least until late at night.  Four p.m. is when I leave the house to pick up my daughters, nearly 6 and 9 from the bus stop around the corner.  I walk them home and we talk about their day.  The older one generally blurts out a million events a mile a minute while the younger one needs a little more prodding.  Some days they're grouchy or tired and don't say much; some days they're angry that I didn't bring the car or cook the dinner that they wanted. 

I have my own practice so that four pm is mine.  Sure, there are days every so often when I'm delayed downtown or have a lengthy deposition where my husband or mom have to step in for pick up instead.  But in general, the four p.m. deadline is etched in stone, it's one of those aspects of my practice (probably the only one!) that I'm committed to not compromising. And because I'm committed, I've been able to make it happen.

Continue Reading...

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

I've always been intrigued by he concept of the Everlasting Gobstopper, the Willie Wonka invented candy for children with "little pocket money" that can be sucked and sucked without ever getting any smaller.  Well, what if we could create an Everlasting Gobstopper of tips for solo practitioners that would be constantly replenished and never outdated?  Obviously, the ABA isn't up to the task, but nor am I on my own.  While I've tried to maintain a fairly current  Guide to Starting a Law Firm, the list grows stale too quickly.  And it relies on a collection of published material, overlooking the rich source of advice that comes from the diverse universe of law blawgers.  So, here's what I have in mind....

Continue Reading...

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

Spent the past week on a family vacation here which accounts for the blogging lull.  As you can see, we're back on track.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday was the start of the ABA's Annual Meeting in Chicago.   Bob Ambrogi reports that the Litigation Section will be blogging the highlights of the conference which gives me some reassurance that the ABA has entered the twenty first century.

Still, with so little buzz about the ABA on law related weblogs, I can't help but wonder whether the ABA really serves any purpose any longer.  The debates about John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination have been thoroughly covered by bloggers that who even knows or cares whether the ABA has chimed in.   And the bar has become increasingly specialized; those with niche practice areas are far better served by dedicated bar associations than somewhat costly ABA membership.

But even though the ABA doesn't benefit my practice directly, that's not to say that I wouldn't consider attending a meeting if it could offer me some excitement.  But the ABAin most cases still adheres rigidly to the lecture panels, where speakers talk, I listen, maybe have a chance to ask a question and leave with five sheets of paper with three talking points on each (and the law firm name and contact information, prominently displayed, of course!)  In comparison to the Lexthink or Blogher conferences with their unique, informal formats and vibrance, the ABA conferences are just too dull to get me interested.  Hint to the ABA - have Matt Homann organize a conference for you. 

Then, there's also the cost.  Whereas Lexthink and Blogher both came in at $200 and $99 respectively, with meals included, the ABA conference costs $570 for a full day of prgrams or $295 apparently for a few programs.  And I don't believe that even includes meals.   The ABA brass will claim that the meeting cost is worth it, and of course it is for them - ABA speakers are reimbursed for travel costs and conference expenses.  Why can't the ABA milk its willing sponsors for fees to subsidize meeting costs and make it more accessible for solo and small firm lawyers?

Which brings me to another point - the role that the ABA plays for solos and small firms.  To its credit, the ABA does sponsor the Solosez listserve which has roughly 1200 members.  But that's just a small piece of the population of solos nationwide.  I know that the readership at MyShingle exceeds the Solosez listserve membership and reaches a far broader scope.  If the ABA had asked me what it could do to make itself more relevant to solos, in addition to lowering cost of attendance (see above), I'd have told it to have live blogging of all of the GP Solo sessions.  I'd have paid a couple of solos to fly out to Chicago to attend the meeting and to blog their experience.  I'd have invited blog vendors and had them cosponsor a blogging training, where lawyers could set up a weblog on the spot.  Maybe podcasts as well. 

Why all this focus on blogs?  Sure I'm biased.  But also because blogs are interactive and they're live and they're now!  They make meetings and events relevant in real time.  And more than anything else, that's what the ABA needs now, to be relevant in real time.  Otherwise, it's going to wither away and frankly, neither lawyers nor non-lawyers will miss it very much.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks (1)

In the interest of disclosure, I'd have to admit that I probably would have never thought to attend the first ever Blogher conference on women and blogging but for the invitation of our fearless law.com affiliate leader, Lisa Stone.  As another woman admitted in the closing remarks, I've never attended an all woman's event or joined a woman's bar association or taken Women's studies classes in college or law school.  Truth be told, I don't really have that many female friends (though having three sisters compensates for that) and though I'm a mom, I'm not very capable at organizing playgroups or involving myself in the PTA.  But the Blogher conference intrigued me, so I went, had a blast and now, like my fellow bloghers, I'm back to share some of my thoughts, what I've learned and what I plan to do (solo readers, listen, there's practice tips mixed in here, I promise!!). 

Continue Reading...

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

I'll be catching a flight out to the West Coast tomorrow, headed for the Blogher conference where I'll be on one of the panels.  This is all very new for someone like me who attends  conferences predominated by lawyers.  At Blogher, while I'll be in the gender majority, seems that I may be in the professional minority (i.e., few lawyers!) - which is fine by me. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hello, readers!  I'd like to put together a Top Ten List for my sidebar of reasons that lawyers should consider hanging out a shingle.  GAL posted something similar here, a list of the benefits of being an independent practitioner.  For me, the reasons for going solo include autonomy, flexibility to achieve balance with family, an opportunity to learn about different fields of law and the ever present possibility that you'll stumble across the case that might catapult you from obscurity into the limelight.

But that's just me.  I'd like to gather ideas from readers as well.  You can send your contributions to me at elefant@myshingle.com or post them as comments below.  Submissions can be anonymous, but I'd be interested in learning whether you're a solo (and if so, for how long), large firm or government attorney, academic, student or not an attorney at all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks (1)

I've always been a smiling lawyer.  During the later round of my first year moot court competition (where I made it, out of 80 students, to the finals!), one of the judges told me that he appreciated my smile when I started my argument and since then, I've always smiled in court, to juries and even lawyers who I absolutely can't stand.  I smile in my website photo and other news photos (except one hideous picture that appeared in the ABA journal because the photographer told me that the Journal editors would prefer a serious shot).    I find the smile particularly effective with dour judges because it disarms them and I can take advantage without having to be particularly aggressive or rude.  And smiling forces you to feel happy even when you're not.

Turns out, my smiling may be good for business as well.  In this post at Start Up Nation (thanks, Lexthink), Joel Welsh encourages business owners to "hire the ones that smile."  I know that many clients might prefer a scowling, angry lawyer to a smiling one, but that's not necessarily the type of client who I want to attract.  I'd rather target those clients who want the smiling lawyer - me. 

Continue Reading...

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

Sometimes I just know that I've been practicing solo too long.  One reason?  I've completely forgotten how to converse in "partner-ese," that obscure language used between partners and associates where associates must read between lines, jump through hoops and do everything else short of just asking direct and time saving questions.

Consider these encounters described in From Appealing to Scary:  The Zen of Partner Contact (Sharon Brooks, law.com 6/22/05).  In the first, an associate is called into the partner's office with a request to research whether a claim for breach of contract could  be brought in a certain state.  At that point, horror of horrors, the associate asked if there was a written record of negotiations for the contract so that he could research the issue more effectively.  Apparently, a substantive request for context for a research assignment which is ultimately fact dependent (one would think that issues like where negotiations took place or in what state they were initiated would be relevant to a question about jurisdiction for the suit) is a fatal faux pas in partner-ese.  Instead, associates should only respond with simple questions regarding when the assignment is due or the appropriate format for submission.

Another associate not fluent in partner-ese also embarrassed herself by having the gall to share her knowlege about a legal research topic that the partner assigned and which she'd happened to have researched for a moot court case during law school.  The associate's mistake here:  she did not realize that the partner himself had argued the seminal case on this issue and further, that the law had changed.  How awful to share your knowledge only to face correction by the partner!  And worse, think of the the time  that the associate saved (and all those foregone billables) by being corrected on the spot, instead of spending several hours getting up to speed on a matter that the partner already knows about!

Honestly, I had to read this article several times to figure out that it was serious and not intended in jest.  No wonder associates are so unhappy at law firms.  In addition to long hours on dreary, mundane projects, they have to master an absurd new language which doesn't facilitate communication and interaction but instead, hinders it.

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

The musical baton and its five questions that I must answer have made their way to MyShingle, via my fellow bloggers and sezzers Stephen Terrell of Hoosier Lawyer and Bob Kraft of P.I.S.S.D.  Since I rarely blog about anything not law related, this baton gives me a chance to share more about myself, including some responses that you probably won't believe...

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

This week, you can catch a bunch on my posts over at Law.com's Legal Blog Watch, where I'll be guest-blogging.  Of course, I'll be straying from my more limited solo and small firm beat to keep consistent Legal Blog Watch's goal of offering a sampling of what's happening at the law.com affiliate bloggers' sites.

What I find ironic about this gig, however, is that when I started MyShingle back in December 2002, I hoped to fill what I perceived as a void in the mainstream legal media (like law.com and National Law Journal publications) with respect to solo and small firm practice.  Three years later, many of these publications now offer special features and sections on solo and small firm biz - and here I am, maven of solo and small firm practice blogging for law.com.  And while I tend to agree, on some days anyway, that bloggers (particularly law bloggers) may be guilty of triumphalism, at the same time, I'm been practicing law long enough to know that this kind of opportunity would have never come my way but for blogging.

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

Thanks to David Giacalone of f/k/a for this post on Lowell Komie's fiction about law practice, including what it's like to be a solo (see this one too).  David also quotes from Komie and his apparently mixed feelings about whether a solo practitioner is truly "free." Consider these two views expressed by Komie in an interview and story, respectively:

"If I had it to do over again, I would probably still choose the law as my profession. . . .   My biggest satisfaction in being a lawyer is being my own 'boss.'  I have freedom, as a sole practitioner, to pretty much come and go as I please.  It took me many years to achieve this freedom and I survived s everal "partnerships" where I was a slave to the "time sheet" and to the senior partners in these associations. I should have gone off on my own earlier, but I've been alone now for perhaps 20 years."

[A] solo practitioner is relatively free. But you're never really free from the pressures of money or the demands of clients; the freedom really is a relative concept. If you're worried about paying your office rent, you're hardly in the mood to debate the relativity of freedom. Also, if you have become tyrannized by irrational clients, you're not on your way to becoming a Philosopher King."

Continue Reading...

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

To my readers who visit this site and dream of starting a law firm but are precluded from doing so because of your present circumstances,  one's for you.  Because it's never too late, as this article, More Lawyers Flee Megafirms, National Law Journal (5/31/05) suggests.  Though the bulk of the article reports on large firm lawyers opting for a smaller firm, the article closes with mention of a 49 year old biglaw attorney ready to hang a shingle: Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (2)

Well readers, the day is finally here:  The facelift for MyShingle.com is finally complete.  Readers can finally access our OnLine Guide and pre-November 2004 archives (menu, upper left column), enjoy reading stories without endlessly scrolling through long narrow columns and navigate a page that's fresh looking and properly aligned.  Todd Chatman (a law student who blogs at Ambivalent Imbroglio) handled the redesign in accordance with my requests and I recommend him highly to anyone who's in need of similar services.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks (2)

This sad story, Lawyer, 35, Dies After Winning Swimming Race, New York Lawyer (5/5/05) drives home the importance of following one's dream.  The article reports that Brendon Wen, a young attorney and solo criminal practitioner, died of heart failure after winning a masters race with his best time ever.  But the article also described Wen's career, how he left an established law firm in 2001 to start his own solo criminal practice where he tried 40 cases because he "missed the rough-and-tumble of criminal cases," a colleague said (Wen had previously been a  public defender).  What if he'd never left?

What mark do you want to leave in the law?  What kind of lawyer do you want to be remembered as?  And is your present career taking you in that direction?  We should never think it's too early, or get too busy to ponder these questions - because we never know how much time we'll have to fulfill our dreams.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

This week, JD Bliss is a profile about MyShingle and me.  Though I wouldn't necessarily refer to myself, as JD Bliss does, as a "success story" (more a work-in-progress story), I certainly don't mind the exposure.  For those readers who haven't checked out JD Bliss, take a look - it's an interesting site and the various profiles may inspire you to take you practice in a new or exciting direction.

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

Hey readers, I'm dispatching this post from a computer at the Washington College of Law Library of American University in Washington D.C.  I'm posting from here just to show that I can but also to make this point.  For solo and small firm lawyers, the law library can serve as an antidote to the isolation and loneliness that many of us experience toiling alone in a home office or behind closed doors in an anonymous suite.  Even if you don't talk to anyone while you're here (and perhaps you're better off not, as I've been hit up for legal services by some pretty odd ducks), you're surrounded by people with purpose - students scrambling to get a paper in on time or strutting about in business attire for the first time, en route to a job interview or moot court.  Up in the cafeteria, I might run into law faculty lunching with spouses and small children and daydream about whether academia might be a preferable career option (assuming of course, that a practicing attorney who was never on law review could ever be hired to begin with!)  Taking a break, I browse the stacks and the law reviews, seeing what new ideas are taking hold or wondering why some of the articles were ever written at all.  Sometimes it's a wonder that I ever get any work done here what with all the distractions but at some point, the urgency kicks in and my malaise slips away.  Being in the midst of all of these young people eager to start or law professors embedded in scholarship and remembering the excitement and promise that I felt back when I was a law student myself (16 years ago, now) rejunivates me enough to get back to my day job (just can't be blogging all the time).  That's where I'm headed now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ever make mistakes?   If you do, don't despair.  Mistakes give you two opportunities:  one to make the underlying correction and one to show what type of lawyer you really are.  That's the theme of my most recent Small Firm Business Column, When Lawyers Make Mistakes .

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

In the past few months, we've acquired some new readers who may not be aware that this site has been around for two years, not just the two months that the archives would indicate.  I am still working on bringing the old site on line, but if you'd like to take a look at what we used to be like (still in testing mode, so it may not always work), click here.  If you want to access older postings, you can either search the site or go to the "Older Stuff" menu item in the upper left hand corner box.  Our online guide is still available there too.

Note, since the site is still in test mode not all of the internal links may function.  But this is what you have to look forward to.  What do you all think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am a maven.   I'm not so sure that it's true, but it's very cool, nonetheless.

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

Matt Homann has issued this challenge to solo and small firm lawyers to collectively raise $100,000 for tsunami victims.  Visit the link and see how to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the things that I love most about running MyShingle  and writing my column for
Small Firm Business is that it's put me in touch with dozens of readers - law students and practicing attorneys - who aspire to start a practice.  As much as I enjoy the stability of my practice now, there was nothing like the heady excitement of starting out, just me and  a handful of business cards and the home computer and the crazy belief that I would make it work, spinning a real business and actual dollars literally out of thin air.  Though I can't go back to those early days, I can live vicariously through other lawyers and readers who contact me on the cusp of that journey. 

If you want to share the excitement of the birth of a new practice, take a look at these two new weblogs, aspiringsolo.blogspot.com by Amy, an aspiring solo in the DC area and Greatest American Lawyer , who just announced his separation from his current law firm.  My best to both of them as they start on this exciting adventure...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our long time readers will recall that our site has been in operation for two years and had working links, deep archives and a nifty On Line Guide to Starting a Law Firm.  Unfortunately, we still are not able to make these amenities available yet.  Please keep checking back for when MyShingle returns to its true days of glory.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you're dreaming of a solo practice, get busy making it happen!  That's the crux of my latest Small Firm Business column entitled Make 2005 the Year You Start Your Firm.  (by the way, my last two pieces have been heavily edited.  Not sure whether I like the changes or not - so let me know what you think)

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

On December 10, 2004, MyShingle turned two.  Of course, for now you'll have to take my word for it since I still can't access my archives to prove it (right now, the old system is being tested and will hopefully be ready for prime time by the end of next week).  Thanks to all of our readers for supporting our site. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yes, it's been a week since joining the Law.com Blog Network and we're still scrambling to repost nearly two years of archives.  I have finally located a server company which seems capable of helping MyShingle make the transition - and which I will thank publicly and frequently if it can get this to happen.  Still, with Thanksgiving this past weekend, it's probably going to be another week before this is all straightened out.  In the meantime, to our new visitors:  please keep reading - there's much more here than meets the eye.  And to our old audience, hang in there for us - the site that you've supported over the past two years will be back soon, better than ever!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the holidays approaching, we can expect an onslaught of marketing articles reminding us to send our clients and colleagues holiday cards and gifts to keep the flow of work coming.  But sometimes it's nice to say thank you not to get something in return but simply to express gratitude.  That's the subject of my recent  Small Firm Business article entitled Saying Thank You Because You Mean It.

Update:  The first of the do-business at holiday time has just arrived.  Check out this piece by Linda Laufer in the NYLJ on using holiday parties to drum up business.

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

Biglaw firms want clients to believe that they have the resources and brainpower to outgun smaller opponents - but that's not always the case as reported in Want to Beat a Big Firm in Litigation? Turn its Tactics to Your Advantage, Meg Tebo, ABA Journal (November 2004). But why doesn't more manpower necessarily translate into victory? First, there's the "underestimation" factor. As David Kaufman, a litigator who frequently triumphs in disputes against big firms, theorizes in the article:

Attorneys from big firms assume they are smarter than small-firm lawyers and that their superior resources can be used to simply exhaust the opposition. "The level of arrogance is really quite extraordinary," he says. (as an aside, David's both a friend and a first rate litigator who's helped me out on numerous occasions. The last thing you'd want to do is underestimate him!)

Kaufman also explains that big firms often engage in document dumps and file multiple motions - tactics which work against the firms in the long run. If small firms take the time to go through reams of documents, valuable nuggets often emerge. And most judges don't tolerate frivolous motions so large firms will gain reprimands or sanctions from their efforts.

As with any case, superior preparation and familiarity with the facts will always win the day. And you don't have to be big to do either of those well....

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