MyShingle : Solo and Small Law Firm Management and Marketing

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...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Just like goodbye doesn't mean forever, solo practice doesn't either - or at least, it shouldn't.   Some lawyers who start their own practices are committed to building and running a firm for the long haul.  Others view solo practice not as a permanent end in itself, but as a transition - a way to ride out recessionary times after a lay-off, to develop a new practice area or establish a reputation in a niche market or get courtroom experience or re-entering the profession after time spent raising family.  

In today's times, careers, not just at law firms, but in all professions are fluid, no longer characterized by a rigid career ladder or up-or-out-partnership track.  Today, lawyers practicing at firms and frustrated by lack of experience may decide to start their own practice, build up a skill set and return to another firm - as of counsel or partner years later.  Look at the business models of most dotcoms or serial entrepreneurs - most want to bring a technology along to a point that they can sell it to another company.  Could that model work for your practice?

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

If you thought that large corporations had deep enough pockets to pay whatever fees their outside counsel demanded, you'd be wrong.  Turns out that corporate counsel are positively simmering over the way that many large law firms are ripping off clients with exorbitant mark-ups on contract law attorneys.  Indeed, corporate counsel are so steamed that they voiced their discontent publicly at the recent ALM Legal Tech Show, as reported in this story from Conde Nast Portfolio.

The upshot for solos here is ...opportunity.  For example, some corporate counsel take e-discovery inhouse, but they may still need to hire contract lawyers for review - and may be willing  to pay better after removing the biglaw middle man.  Or, corporations may have a need for more skilled outside counsel to help manage the inhouse discovery teams.  So if you've worked on massive  litigation projects at law firms, and decide to strike out on your own, you may find more opportunities for than you imagined.

Corporate counsel are looking to keep costs down in other area as well.  Although as this post at Law and More suggests that inhouse lawyers are looking for large discounts from brand name firms, if firms aren't forthcoming with lower rates, perhaps these clients will look to solo and small firms.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Who says a solo has to work alone?  Over 3000 solos, myself included, are part of a global virtual law firm, Solosez.net.  If you're interested in learning more about the history of Solosez and what makes it such a special place, check out this article from law.com.  By the way, I'm quoted in the article along with several other 'sezzers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier today in this post, I described my disagreement with Iowa personal injury attorney Steve Lombardi's complaints about misuse of listserves. Lombardi has now weighed in with a responsehere.

Lombardi raises one issue to which I gave short shrift: that lawyers should not blindly rely on advice offered on listserves without conducting their own independent verification. However, those lawyers who willingly accept advice from other lawyers (e.g., "The statute says X") without checking the source are the same lawyers who, in the absense of the listserve, probably wouldn't even bother to research a question to begin with (For example, I know one lawyer who will file a motion without any caselaw and then let his opponent "do the work for him" by researching and citing applicable cases in the response. Let's just say that this lawyer's clients wouldn't be any worse off if this lawyer relied on unverified advice from a listserve).

Lombardi also mentions the problem of too much listserve garbage that he claims don't interest experienced attorneys - the endless stream of "me too's" and political discussion and posts by lawyers in way over their heads. However, information overload isn't unique to listserves; it's a product of the Internet era where we're regularly inundated with a constant stream of information from listserves, blogs, news sources and RSS feeds. As lawyers, we need to find ways to manage that information, to cull the wheat from the chaff in an efficient and proactive manner. Yes, many listserves do benefit from moderators, but we lawyers must take responsibility for moderating information for ourselves. This means liberal use of mail filters, search tools and most of all, the "delete key."

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Under legal ethics principles, a clients' right to the attorney of their choosing trumps even the economic interest of the firm representing the client. For that reason, firms cannot force lawyers to enter into non-compete agreements or impose onerous restrictions that would prevent a client from following a departing attorney to another firm or to his own practice. Were it not for the principle of client choice, the increasing trend of "biglaw to yourlaw attorneys" (that I've described in various posts )here would stop dead in its tracks since most big firm attorneys are generally manage to take a few clients with them, who provide a source of revenue as they grow their new firm (in fact, many large firm attorneys find that the clients who migrate with them provide them with even more work, because the attorney can charge more affordable rates as a solo). And attorneys would be forever married to a single law firm, even if another professional opportunity presented itself that was more beneficial not just for the attorney, but for his client as well.

But now comes this seemingly benign article by Professor Robert W. Hillman, entitledClient Choice, Contractual Restraints and the Market for Legal Servicesthat lays the groundwork for upending the existing scheme. Hillman writes that client choice doesn't justify the present bar to non-compete agreements because client choice is only a myth. Hillman writes that as a practical matter, the only clients who have choice are sophisticated large firm clients, while clients of lesser means may not be able to afford lawyers at all, or are forced to settle for those who charge the cheapest rates. Because client choice is a myth, Hillman suggests that there's no basis more basis in law than in any other profession (such as medicine or accounting) for prohibiting non-competes or other restraints on lawyers' ability to take clients with them when leaving a firm.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Worth Magazine just published a list of the top hundred lawyers who serve some of the nation's wealthiest individuals, with net worths ranging from $2 million to $200 million. (H/T ABA Journal News). The wealth of these lawyers' clients ranges from In particular, the editors sought out "lawyers with great tact, discretion and stellar interpersonal skills, enabling them to explain a client's options in the face of incredibly complicated legal and psychosocial issues.

Solo and small firm lawyers comprise at least half of the list. Of course, give the characteristics that Worth was looking for, does that really come as a surprise?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My buddy Kevin O'Keefe is raising a toast to America's blogging lawyers and their "dedication to learn, exchange information, and market themselves in an upbeat and professional way." But there's another part of Kevin's post that caught my eye - the line where he adds that "Blogging lawyers, age 35, are going to be blogging for the next 25 years."

I started my blog when I was 38 and I'm fast approaching the five year blogging mark. While I can't imagine abandoning blogging, I also can't fathom the thought of blogging twenty more years, churning out content two or three times a week. Would I find enough new inspiration to keep my writing fresh? Or turn into some kind of blogging-egomaniac, forever citing my own self-created body of work, or harking back to the "good old days" when bloggers had to walk ten miles through knee deep snow to post...(oops, that's the speech I give my daughters when they balk about the three block walk home from the bus stop). And worst of all, will changes in technology render my old posts inaccessible?

Right now, the blogging phenomenon lives so vibrantly in the present that it's hard to contemplate the future. And like everything else with the Internet, some next big thing will come along in another ten years that will displace blogging entirely. The challenge that I see for lawyers isn't so much committing to blogging for the long haul, but having the ability to embrace blogging for now, while keeping our eyes and mind open for the next big thing on the horizon.

Where do you think blogging is going? And will you be blogging 25 years from now? Post your thoughts below or at your blog.

• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

Thanks to a lemon of a credit market, associates at McKee Nelsonhave the opportunity to make a huge vat of life-changing lemonade. Above the Law's David Lat is reporting here that NY/DC based McKee Nelson, in an effort to avoid economically-induced, forced associate layoffs, is offering associates two options: (1) a full bonus, plus four months pay to anyone willing to leave the firm voluntarily or (2) a full bonus plus a year's sabbatical at 40 percent of the $160,000 salary. Option 2 carries two caveats; first, the firm cannot guarantee employment at the end of the year and second, the firm wants associates to use the sabbatical to "make the world a better place."

Lat suggests that associates use the time to fulfill their dreams of finishing a novel, or studying painting. But I've got a better idea: what about starting your own law firm and becoming the lawyer you always wanted to be?

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Nader Anise has just put out a "save the date" for his upcoming, annual "Lawyer Appreciation" free teleseminar. The seminar is scheduled for Thursday, Nov. 15 from 12:30 pm to around 2:00 pm EASTERN, with 800 lawyers expected to call in. This year's topic is "Making it BIG as a high-profile, celebrity lawyer," and there's a surprise guest.

I've called into Nader's previous teleseminars and they're excellent, for two reasons. First, even though the calls are free, they offer valuable, stand alone information. They are not "teasers," intended to force you to purchase Nader's materials, though I imagine that many lawyers do purchase it after this informative phone call. Second, the advice that Nader has offered on his past calls is not expensive to implement. Many of his suggestions did not involve any outlay of cash, only time. So if you're on a shoestring budget, you'll want to listen in on these tips.

The final details and call in numbers haven't been announced - I'll either post them here, or visit NaderAnise.com.

• Print
• Comments
• 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?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since women lawyers pull their own weight in the genre of solo and small firm blogs (along with me, there are my colleagues and friends, Susan Cartier Liebel and Inspired Solo's Sheryl Schelin, I was surprised to learn that Few Women Choose to Practice Solo (NLJ 9/13/07). A recent study released by NALP revealed that women comprise only 34 percent of solo practitioners, while 77 percent of lawyers working for public interest groups are women.

Why don't more women choose solo practice? After all, you'd think that women looking for work life balance would find solo practice appealing, because when you work for yourself, you gain control over the hours you work and the hours you handle. My own belief is that women themselves are driving lawyers away from solo practice. As I posted here previously, when women demand equality in the profession, they're usually referring to equality at big law firms. Women who start and head their own practices, no matter how prominent, simply don't count. As a result, younger women don't view solo practice as an option.

• Print
• Comments (7)
• 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?

• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

It's difficult to fully respond to an article like this one,
The Snark: Flying solothat discusses the drawbacks of solo practice because I can't decide whether the author is trying to be funny or is truly pathetic, and pathetically uninformed.

Basically, the article is intended to discourage unhappy associates from making the mistake of starting their own firms. Fair enough. Leaping from biglaw to yourlaw is a major step, one that shouldn't be taken lightly. In fact, if an associate left a large firm to open his own shop and didn't feel apprehensive, I'd be worried that he hand'nt given much thought to the move.

But this article goes beyond highlighting some of the drawbacks of solo practice: it screams about them, loud and clear. Unfortunately, the article is rife with the sorts of stereotypes that I'd assumed that my blog and at least a dozen other solo practice related blogs had put to rest. Consider a few:

Tech Support From the article: But when you go to log in to your new laptop, and it can�t detect your wireless Internet because your router is improperly configured, you can�t just dial the IT Hotline folks, who will solve your problem in five minutes or rush up to your office with a new computer.
The truth: Hello?! Ever hear of outsourcing? Many solos outsource tech support functions. And computers are so inexpensive, that they often have two machines, so that if one goes down, they can keep working.

Client Developemnt From the article: "But without partners to delegate document reviews, memos and revisions to contracts, you�re on your own to find clients and convince them that your skills are worth your freshly discounted $175 rate: Big Firm Lawyer, Small Firm Price!� But convincing people you�re worth that rate is harder when all knowledge and networking and rainmaking must come from you alone. No more team for you."
The truth: When did the firm team ever try to sell anyone's experience but that of the senior partner?

Getting Information From the article: "If a client called with some random question, one little firmwide email later you had the answer." Apparently, this author has never heard of Solosezwhere a network of 2000 solos can find a response just as quickly as a colleague at biglaw - and they won't bill you for it!

Practice AreasFrom the article: So when your old Big Firm clients don�t follow you and hire you to draft their employee handbooks anymore�your particular sub-specialty in the Big Firm days�you better quickly learn how to draft a will, apply for a trademark, and cross-examine a cop on the calibration of the Breathalyzer 2000. The truth: More and more clients are leaving biglaw to for smaller firms because of poor client service and bloated fees. And guess what? Lots of lawyers actually want time in a court room and before a jury - it's experience many so-called litigators at large firms don't have.

Getting PaidThis is the most hilarious of all. From the article: The same is true when you try to collect your own fees from your new clients. Sadly, your letterhead doesn�t scream, �I Am Part of a Firm of 1,000 Lawyers Who Will Hunt You Down Until You Pay.�" The truth: Hello? Ever heard of money up front? Evergreen retainers? Withdrawing if clients don't pay? Is this Cog-Author really a lawyer?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to stay at a large firm. Maybe you're at a point in your life where you'd really be struggling without the money and fear that you'll risk your large salary if you leave. Maybe you've finally found a comfort spot after a bumpy ride through law school and other jobs. Maybe you truly enjoy working on complex pieces of a case with other people and don't mind the long hours. I don't denigrate the choices that biglaw attorneys make. But you've got to be honest with yourself - and that's something this article isn't. It's one big, sad and uninformed rationalization of why lawyers at large firms should suck up the downside of large firm life, to toil in obscurity and loan your talent for the rest of your life when you should be owning it instead.

• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

Back in 2003, I wrote a post (not presently available online) entitled the Bar's Dirty Little Not So Secret Secret. The article highlighted how most bars' disciplinary systems disproportionally target solos, when there's plenty of incompetence to go around. But there's a problem far worse than disparate enforcement - and that's disparate impact, i.e., where the very design of the bar rules unduly burden solos.

What set me off on this post was this article in the ABA e-journal (5/21/07) discussing ABA Formal Opinion 06-444 (Sept. 13, 2006) which allows law firms to condition an attorney's retirement benefits on acceptance of a non-restrictive covenant. Traditionally, firms are prohibited from forcing lawyers to sign non-compete agreements because non-competes interfere with the clients' unfettered right to a lawyer of their choice. As the article describes, the ABA Ruling creates a difficult choice for retiring attorneys, who must forego retirement benefits if they choose to open their own practice (presumably where they compete with their former firm or where they take firm clients) Because I wasn't able to read the opinion (the ABA stupidly charges for this kind of stuff) I can't tell how it would impact older biglaw attorneys like those at Sidley Austin who were demoted when they ceased to make enough rain - after all, they too might decide to start their own firms, rather than face the embarrassment of staying on where they're mistreated. Perhaps the ABA opinion is intended to deprive older lawyers put to pasture by big law firms of the option of starting their own practice as well.

As I pondered the ABA decision further, I realize that it's not an isolated case. To the contrary, there are a myriad of bar policies that quite simply, make it more difficult to go solo, or to succeed in solo practice.
Consider for example: the Maryland bar's rule prohibiting lawyers from joining BNI or similar type referral groups, , while permitting large firm lawyers to create
affinity practices, which are the same concept as a referral group, with a fancier name. What about the extensive restrictions on advertising, such as the
New York Bar's rules which could restrict lawyers' ability to blog imposes other limitations on lawyer advertising or other advertising rules "http://www.myshingle.com/my_shingle/2006/01/ohio_bar_wont_a.html"> (such as in Ohio) or Nevada ;the DC bar's gall in even
suggesting that a solo lawyer is not a bonafide "law firm", prohibitions on firms using virtual associates from holding themselves out as a larger firm and rules against multijurisdictional practice that
prevent solos not licensed in a state to work as a lawyer in that state when they only handle matters in the jurisdiction where they're licensed.

As associate attrition increases at law firms, solo practice is an attractive option. But rather than try to retain lawyers by making biglaw a more inviting place, large firm lawyers, which dominate most bar associates and have substantial influence over ethics regulation, are simply making it more and more difficult to succeed as a solo. Call me a conspiracy theorist is you want - but if you do, you need to tell me what explains the bar rules that I've just described that disparately impact solo and small law firms.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

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

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

We all know the song, Lawyers in Love, but did you ever wonder what happens to lawyers in love? With many of the dual lawyer couples whom I knew from the law school, once the couple had children, the woman either left the law or went on to an alternative career like teaching, while the man stayed in a high power job. That's certainly one work-life balance possibility, but as this article, Couples in Law Are A Case Study in Work Life Balance points out, a number of husband and wife lawyer couples have discovered that starting a firm provides a way to spend time together. The article notes that these kinds of partnerships aren't for everyone, but the lawyers profiled in the article do indeed seem happy together in life and law.

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

One of the unintended consquences of the expansion of large law firms is that this trend may drive more lawyers to start their own firms. Think about it - though large firms hope that increased size will foster economies of scale and result in savings, there's still a whole lot of overhead involved in running a big firm. So to increase profits, firms will cut non-producing partners from the ranks and raise hourly rates.

So what's a lawyer to do when his clients can no longer afford him? Most of the conventional wisdom that I see here on the web would counsel lawyers in this position to cut clients who can't pay and raise rates even more as proof of value. Fortunately, most lawyers, myself included, don't buy that logic; we realize that there's a market out there for rates that are lower than market but nonetheless substantial enough to make big profits. And that seems to have been the motivation for Simon Bloom, a former attorney at Biglaw firm Powell Goldstein, who just put up a shingle, according to this article, Powell Goldstein Lawyer Steps Out to Open His Own Firm (3/15/07).

Listen to what Goldstein had to say:

"It's always been a dream of mine to go out on my own and offer my services to a wider market," said Bloom, 35, of his decision to open his own firm. He had practiced at Powell Goldstein since 1997. He explained that big-firm rates were pricing him out of what he sees as a "huge middle market."
He said that at Powell Goldstein he billed clients $385 an hour, adding that his rate there was about to increase to $405 an hour. "Only the Fortune 1000 could afford my rates -- and there are only so many of those clients to go around that have real estate issues," he said. His new rate is $295. "If you want a Powell Goldstein-quality trial lawyer, you're not going to get a better deal," he said.

My thoughts exactly.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

If you hang around the blogosphere long enough, you'll bump against the same themes but with a different spin.  Back in June 2005, I first posted on whether small is the new big, applying some of the themes from Seth Godin's book of the same name.  This week the discussion on small as the new big has re-emerged, with plenty of new voices and insights, but the same old optimism about what small firms have to offer even in the face of the ever expanding large firms.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Susan Cartier Liebel posts about how Gen Y women are saying no to biglaw because it doesn't afford the kind of work life balance they demand.  I've posted on and written about this theme before, as well.  But what I don't think I've emphasized sufficiently is that for women, starting a firm isn't just a great way to accommodate work and family, but it also provides far greater business opportunities than are available at firms to begin with.

Consider this article, Three Longtime Buchanan Shareholders to Start Own Firm , (Legal Intelligencer, 2/7/07), which reports that Mary Kay Brown, Antoinette R. Stone and Jami B. Nimeroff will leave Buchanan Ingersoll Friday to start their own boutique on Monday.  And here's one of the reasons:  as a woman-owned business, the firm can qualify for set-asides and capitalize on large corporation's desires to increase diversity among outside counsel.  In fact, that's why other  women and minority lawyers have started law firms: to capture new business, either through diversity opportunities or the ability to avoid conflicts.  So despite all of the complaints about glass ceilings at biglaw for women and minorities, from where I sit, there's never been more opportunity for these groups than now.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Via Stephanie West Allen, I learned about this article, Who Says Being A Lawyer Has to Suck? from a recent issue of San Francisco Magazine.  The article describes how Gen Y lawyers are making "lawyering something that doesn't bore everyone to death at a party?"  And guess how they're doing it?   By starting their own law firms.   

Consider the case of one attorney mentioned in the article, former firm associate, Joshua Ridless.  From the article, here's his story:

"Before I started my own firm, I was depressed, overweight, and didn't have time for a personal life," he says. Now, Ridless spends almost half his time doing something he's always wanted to do--advising clients on their business plans. He complains if his work is interfering with the hours he needs to spend each day training for triathlons, fulfilling his duties as president of the Barristers (a group for lawyers who've been practicing less than 10 years), or doing pro bono work for local community centers. "I have time to do everything I want to do," Ridless says.

Two other biglaw expatriates, Kassra Nassiri and Charles Jung also started their own firm, litigating "multimilllion dollar cases."  And they're doing even more good by hiring stay at home moms who found life at biglaw too demanding to allow for a decent work life balance.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

Professor Alan Childress of Legal Profession Blog emailed me a link to his post on an article by Brenda Bratton Blom entitled Cause Lawyering and Social Movements: Can Solo and Small Firm Practitioners Anchor Social Movements?  My answer to the question posed by Blom's title is that solo and small firm practitioners by our very being and the ideas that we put into action already anchor social movement and drive change in our profession.  However, the impression that I get from the article is that solo and small firm lawyers aren't truly cause lawyers because we're not adequately integrated into fights for social justice, such as the civil rights movement of the 1960s or (possibly), the big impact cases that advance big causes (personally, I always thought that was what lobbying, not litigating was about).  If that's the definition of cause lawyering, we solo and small firms aren't cause lawyers, nor can I see why we'd want to be.  My  lengthy analysis follows.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With so many large firms moving towards a "one stop shopping model," what can a small firm r solo with a more specialized focus do to compete?  You could try to become a jack of all trades, but in expanding your capabilities, you may compromise quality.  Or, you could take the approach of the Birmingham, AL law firms described in this  Business Journal story (9/25/06) and join forces to compete without formally merging.  From the article, here's a description of the arrangement:

Goodrich Law Firm LLC, Cunningham Firm LLC and Hahn Law Firm PC announced Monday the formation of Red Mountain Law, a network that will provide expertise through the individual firms in a broader range of legal services. Areas such as wills, trusts and estates and probate will be handled primarily by the Hahn Law Firm. Commercial and residential real estate and loan closings will be assigned to attorneys at the Cunningham Firm. Work involving securities law will be overseen by the Goodrich Law Firm.

Is there a strategic alliance that you can form to expand your business opportunities?                             

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

This short piece, The not so lonely lawyer (WV Record 7/20/06) offers a couple of quick thoughts on solo practice.  Some of the views are positive; for instance, the article takes the time to dispell the myth that solo practice is a greater risk than staying at biglaw:

However, for law firm marketing guru Mark Merenda, remaining with a mega-firm is the risky decision. "As an employee, you can be fired at any time for almost any reason," Merenda began. "In your own practice, one or two clients might fire you, but they're not all going to fire you at once. "There is actually greater security in having your own practice."

At the same time, it's obvious that the author hasn't been reading MyShingle or noticed the changes that have evolved in the profession over the past few years.  The article notes:

Small firms are often characterized as "minor league law." Often, solo practitioners have to work harder than lawyers in larger firms to make sure that their firm image matches those in the "majors."

Honestly, I think much of that has changed.  Sure, there's "bet the company" litigation where corporations want a bigname firm (not just for the name, but to handle the size of the litigation), but many other companies are choosing smaller firms with more personalized service and lower costs.  The change is evolving slowly of course, and perhaps, but it's a real phenomenon just the same.

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

For many lawyers, reaching the top of biglaw is enough.  But not Corliss Scorggins Lawson, former chief of biglaw firm Lord, Bissell & Brook's Atlanta office, who's just left her post to strike out on her own, as reported in  Lord, Bissell's Top Atlanta Attorney Leaves to Start Her Own Shop, Fulton County Daily Report (5/25/06).   From the article

Lawson, 43, caused a splash two years ago when she became the first African-American woman to head a large law firm office. But she resigned from the firm on May 9, ending her career-long tenure at the firm.  She said she's starting her own firm because she wants the freedom to chart her own course -- a desire that seems reflected in her decision to use her given name for the firm, which will open June 1 in the Fayetteville, Ga., historic district, near her home.

Lawson now knows what most of us solos have realized for a while:  biglaw may be a big place, but it's not big enough to fit your name on the door.  Here's to the addition of another distinguished lawyer to shingling.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Gender disparity at large firms is not unique to the US; our colleagues down under in New Zealand share these problems also, as reported in Flexible work practices avoid gender disparity (April 21, 2006); NZ Lawyer Issue 38.  According to the article, women comprise over a third of all law practitioners, but less than 20 per cent of partners are female.  (which may be a better record, proportinally, than the US). 

The same problems plague New Zealand's women attorneys; long hours make it difficult to balance work and family.  But at least, the New Zealanders recognize a practical alternative (as opposed to many in the US who overlook the most obvious solution of starting a firm):

Practical alternatives to the burden of meeting chargeable time expectations include starting up a law firm with like-minded partners or becoming a sole practitioner or barrister. North Shore law firm Lewis Callanan is managed exclusively by female partners. Partner Rowena Lewis stated that managing a small law firm provided greater flexibility and the ability to opt out of overtime. She succinctly summed up the firm's view on working hours: "I don't do weekends". If she works less, she earns less.

Maybe it's time we look to see what other countries are doing to address gender disparity here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In her article Small Shops Do the Heavy Lifting, Lovely Dhillon quotes a statistic that I've known for a long time, that in fact was my impetus for starting this site:  a majority of firms in the U.S. are solo and small practices, a whopping 89 percent in fact.
Even though solo practitioners and small law firms constitute such a significant part of the legal profession, there traditionally has not been as much training and support as one would expect for solo and small-firm practitioners.  The article goes through the obstacles and also points out the important role that we solo and small firm practitioners play in the judicial system - expanding access to justice.

• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks (1)

Greatest American Lawyer posts on the mostly good of independent practice and links to this post by Russ Krajec on a similar theme.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Peter Olson, Solo in Chicago expresses the sentiments that drove many of us to solo and small firm practice in this post.  And Peter offers a follow up link to an article from NALP on achieving work life balance.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A couple of years back, we posted about  New York's formation of a committee to examine difficulties facing solo practitioners.  As this article describes, the Committee's Report has now issued, recommending a variety of chances including improving the efficiency of calendar calls and scheduling conferences which often waste solos' time on waiting and figuring out ways to "to strengthen lawyer professionalism and law office economics support." (I've not yet seen the report which is 95 pages).  The report also recognized that many facially neutral policies adversely impact solos - a topic that I've been harping on here at MyShingle for over three years. 

While I don't like the sound of the goal of "strengthening lawyer professionalism" (which to me is a code for disciplining more solos or forcing us to pay for and sit through CLE), I'm encouraged by the move to make courts more efficient.  At the end of the day,  it's really not us solos who suffer by waiting - it's our clients, who lose work time or pay higher fees. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You'd think being vice president and corporate counsel for a large corporation is a pretty good job.   But it wasn't working for Jonathan Mannand so he went From In House to His House (Perri Capell, WSJ 2/06).  Not only did Mann leave his job to start his own shop, but he also moved from New Jersey to Massachusetts.  Yet six months later, Mann already has a decent portfolio of corporate clients and no regrets.  And while the article reports that he's only making 75 percent of his former $200 K salary, that's not bad six months into the game.  Let's revisit Mann in six years...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

First Washington D.C., now the Pennsylvania legal press are reporting on the increasing trend of Young Attorneys Who Go Solo (Hope Cantwell, The Legal Intelligencer
February 6, 2006).  No more comment, except read and be inspired, again.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The January 2005 DC Bar's Washington Lawyer Magazine has this article Going Solo by Joan Rigdon.  I'm profiled in it, briefly (though not much but a passing mention of MyShingle), as are many of my DC solo colleagues.  The article reflects a great cross section of solo practice, with old timers like Joel Bennett (editor of Flying Solo, in which I have a chapter on "How Not to Be Lonely") and Linda Ravdin, biglaw converts and former government attorneys.  There's also lots of good quotes from fellow blogger Reid Trautz.   The article's a good read for anyone, but especially for DC area practitioners to give a sense of the kinds of opportunities out there (by the way, if you get the hard copy edition, you'll see that my photo even includes my deaf puppy, Francesca, who was cut out of the online picture)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

It's not just biglaw attorneys who are hanging shingles these days.  This article,  AUSAs to Start New Trial Firm, Justin Scheck, the Recorder 11/23/2005 reports on a pair of former US Attorneys who'll be hanging a shingle in Northern California and foregoing biglaw practice.  The reason?  These guys want to be trial lawyers.   And they're probably  going to  be darn successful ones for sticking to their dream - welcome Ramsey and Erlich to shingle-dom!

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Macolm Gladwell's tipping point phenomenon is probably way over-referenced, and yet I can't help but wonder whether the idea of solo practice is reaching a tipping point in the legal profession.  Indicators abound everywhere.  Consider:

• the proliferation of solo and small firm blogs (by solos or bar law practice management folks) on small firm practice in the past year, including Jim Calloway's Law Practice Tips, Reid My Blog, Steve Terrell's Hoosier Lawyer, The Practice, Home Office Lawyer,  Greatest American Lawyer, Brandy Karl's bk! and Innovative Legal Solutions (have I missed anyone?) 
• The recent inclusion of MyShingle as a resource (along with biglaw venerables like The Vault) at Westlaw's Five Hot Tips for Your Job Search, aimed at Westlaw's law school audience.  Back in my days at Cornell Law School (1985-88), solo practice wasn't an option that anyone talked about.
  
• The seemingly unrelated reaction of underwhelment to former biglaw attorney and bar honcho, Harriet Miers; her large firm credentials really didn't impress anyone.  In short, biglaw's not the prestige ticket it was back in the late 1980's when I graduated from law school.

The rise of biglaw mergers hasn't quelled the growing interest in solo practice; if anything, it's heightened it.  And that's because even as firms grow and grow and salaries grow along with them, even young lawyers are relegated to less inspiring work, the yearning for self-determination and autonomy can't be extinguished.  You don't see many biglaw bloggers dispensing advice on how associates can succeed at big firm practice, partly because biglaw attorneys may not be so benevolent, but partly because frankly, there's no audience for that topic:  no one is particularly interested in learning how to speak partner-ese.  By contrast, look at how many independent solos are dishing out advice on starting a firm, not because it will help us gain clients or referrals in our "real" jobs but in the hopes of helping others discover what what will soon no longer be the legal profession's best kept career secret.  And it looks as if we are succeeding.

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

Funny contrast in this week's news.  This article, How Women Can Develop Business, National Law Journal (9/29/05) bemoans that women at large firms have it tough when it comes to business development, citing obstacles like lack of effective mentoring and  difficulty of striking a manageable work-life balance.  (The article does offer many useful suggestions for women to build a portfolio of business)

Yet that same week, I came across this article, Building a Better Law Firm, Smart Money (9/29/05) about the fabulous success of former biglaw attorney and mom of two girls, Joanne Sternlieb.  After a decade at a prominent New York firm and a part time position as an estate planner at a large trust company, Sternleib started her own firm that handles wills, trusts and other estate planning matters.  What's more, Sternleib has four former biglaw associates working for her firm part time as independent contractors as well as two legal assistants and a law clerk.  Right now, she's making half of what she did as a firm, but it sounds like she's working half the time - and running her own ship.

Which route sounds better to you?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

At least one small firm lawyer isn't very impressed by the recent news that first year associate salaries at some firms will increase to $135,000.  In a listserve post, attorney Robert Hughes noted that:

Let's see.  $135,000 per year equals $2600 per week divided by about 90 hours per week equals $28.85 per hour.  What a deal.  I pay contract lawyers this much.  I rate in the top 1% of law firms nationwide in my payrates.  Hooray!

So if you've turned up your nose at small firm practice because you thought it couldn't match a large firm salary, you may want to think again.  $135k a year is plenty of money (which you might really need if you have family or loans).   But how long is that kind of pay worth it to you?

• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks (1)

Matt Homann of Non Billable Hour has run his cost benefit analysis and gives us his conclusions here:

Poor health and strained family relations are both "business expenses" I'm unwilling to pay.

Are you willing to pay that price?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This article, Less Conflicts, More Freedom (Connecticut Law Tribune, 8/22/05) describes the experience of two former Pepe & Hazard lawyers, Jennifer Cox and Jennifer Osweiki, who left a large firm to find greater freedom to build a health care practice.  The two lawyers, who'd been asked by Pepe to develop a health care practice found that their efforts to represent hospitals on health practice matters also conflicted with the firm's longstanding construction practice.  In addition, the firm's large construction litigation practice also meant that Oswiecki was pulled into an area that she did not feel was her calling. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This article from New York Lawyer (August 19, 2005) tells us solos what we already know -- that going solo takes versatility and courage -- as well as something we don't --  that the number of lawyers willing to risk hanging a shingle has dwindled.  (I took issue with this survey in this prior post).  Still, prospective solos will find much in this article to encourage them; the shinglers interviewed therein, while harried, are all happy and successful in their practices.  And really that's what matters at the end of the day: not so much whether solo practice is a popular option or not, but whether it's one which is right for those who choose it.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Greatest American Lawyer ponders a fascinating question:  what should we call practitioners who are not in a partnership based law firm, if not solo practitioners?.  GAL writes:

As many of you already know, I have taken issue with the term "solo" for practitioners who do not practice in a partnership setting. Solo has the negative connotation of being alone. When I was working in a partnership, I had no more resources than I have now. In fact, I arguably have more resources now, since I can easily look outside the walls of my own firm for answers to important questions.

As I posted in GAL's comments, when I started my firm, I referred to myself as an independent practitioner.  These days, when asked what I do, I typically say that I have my own law firm - though I might say that I work for myself.  Of course, here at MyShingle, I often refer to those of us who run our own firms as shinglers - though that's not a great description outside of the parameters of a weblog.

Do you think the term "solo" has negative connotations?  And what do you say when you're asked where you work or what you do?

• Print
• Comments (16)
• Trackbacks (1)

Evan Schaeffer of Legal Underground has this entertaining post on Anonymous Solo, the weblog on the day-to-day life of a solo that never quite got off the ground.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

This article, Young Lawyer Builds Her Practice One New Gig at a Time (NYLJ - 12/22/04) reports on the budding TV commentator career of new solo Harjot "Ginny" Walia of San Francisco firm Puri and Walia.   A chance meeting with a Fox News Channel Producer at the local courthouse lead to about a dozen appearances by Walia thereafter.  Would an associate two years out of school get that kind of exposure at a large firm?  (By the way, MyShingle's own Mark Sindler, a Pittsburgh solo has also appeared as a commentator on Court TV and Fox News)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks