To date, we lawyers haven't been able to effectively sell the public on the idea that document preparation services like Legal Zoom are a poor substitute for the services of a lawyer. So, being lawyers, we've done the next best thing to selling: suing. Last month, a Missouri law firm filed a class action lawsuit against LegalZoom on behalf of three LegalZoom customers, alleging that LegalZoom violate Missouri's unauthorized practice of law statute. Likewise, several months back, the North Carolina Bar challenged LegalZoom for unauthorized practice of law.
What's interesting about both actions is that neither cites specific incidents of harm to consumers, such as an individual winding up personally liable for business dealings because of an improperly formed corporation or LLC. Or a widowed spouse losing an inheritance to her deceased husband's ex, because LegalZoom botched the will. In fact, in Estate of George Mounts v. Barrett, a Missouri Court of Appeals case from 2000 on UPL (note - I found it on GoogleLegal, haven't shepardized it), a concurring judge expressed surprise at the relatively few complaints raised over unauthorized practice:
Even so, it appears to this writer there is an alarming increase in the unauthorized practice of law especially in the area of real estate law. Inexplicably, there does not appear to be a prevalence of complaints about this trend (if it is a trend)
So why the crackdown if apparently, there isn't any problem?
Via Dan Pinnington at Slaw.ca, I learned of Merrilyn Tarlton's excellent article, Figuring Out Your Place in the Race (ABA Law Practice Magazine, Jan/Feb. 2010). Recognizing that technology advancements and economic upheaval have rendered extinct the high leverage business model, Tarlton predicts that "the future of the business of law is going to be about difference, not sameness."
Thus, Tarlton offers seven interesting and innovative business models for law firms of the future:
The Virtual Firm: Typical legal services at a better price.
The Retail Firm: Off-the-rack legal solutions with options for custom-tailoring.
The Legal Line: What You’re Selling: Quick answers to questions like “Can I get a divorce without paying a lawyer?”
The Teaching Hospital Firm: What You’re Selling: Top-drawer legal services and elite on-the-job training.
The Firm’s Firm: What You’re Selling: “Shovel-ready manpower,” backroom legal services.
The Drive-Up Mediation Firm: What You’re Selling: Quick and easy resolution of simple conflicts.
(See Tarlton's full article for the details of each model, including its potential target client base and competitive advantage).
Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of social media when used ethically and responsibly. Heck, I've got a book on social media for lawyers with Niki Black that's coming out at the end of next month.
As a shy person myself, I understand the appeal of social media: it's easy. You don't risk huge rejection or embarrassment when you follow someone on Twitter or ask to friend or link with them. It's much harder to call someone on the phone to ask for advice or set up a meeting or coffee date.
And yet, if you don't come offline, you miss opportunities. This past weekend, I spoke on a CLE panel on solo and small firm practice at Case Western Law School. Four of the six solos or "start up" lawyers who participated in the event had either minimal, or no Internet presence in the form of a website, let alone social media. At least one guy boasted that he doesn't even use email.
And yet, these four lawyers could have helped graduating students or new lawyers -- either looking for a job or hoping to start a practice -- if only they'd shown up (despite widespread advertising, the event attracted only around 15-20 people). Here's how. These four lawyers had thriving practices. They'd been in business for twenty or thirty years, and cultivated connections within their respective communities and a deep referral pool from former clients. Three of the four emphasized how much they disliked matrimonial work and referred all family law cases to other lawyers. Likewise, two of the more advanced lawyers, who were modernizing their law firms with technology admitted that they were still learning, and could benefit from lawyers who could help keep them abreast on new technology products or e-discovery developments. At least one lawyer admitted that she planned to pass her law firm on to the next generation in the next few years, and was looking to cut back on her role in the firm and cede more responsibility to other lawyers.
Do it yourself is everywhere, and it's not just for economic reasons. As I describe in more detail at this post at Nolo's Legal Marketing Blawg, consumers are taking matters into their own hands either because they've grown up finding answers on the Internet or because technology facilitates DIY transactions. As I point out, the 21st century version of DIY is very different from the traditional model where, for example, many consumers handled legal matters themselves because they couldn't afford a lawyer. Today's DIY model doesn't seek to displace professional services as much as to supplement them - and that's why it's so important for lawyers to have offerings in place that cater to independently oriented DIY clients.
And in fact, just after putting up that post, I was reminded of another cool (and free, another trend that goes with DIY) site that lets you design your own logo - Logo Ease. The site is fun and simple to use and though it doesn't offer a huge variety of options, at the very least you can create something good enough.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported on a recent Gallup Poll which showed that even in this recession, business owners outrank ten other occupations in overall well being. The reasons aren't surprising -- they reflect the importance of freedom to choose the work you do and how you do it, say psychologists who commented on the study. Even in tough times, business owners hold an edge over other professionals because they're in control. By contrast, corporate managers and executives wonder if they'll be laid off.
I don't know whether the Gallup Poll included lawyers who own their practices in the study, but the findings still apply. Take contract attorneys or law firm associates, two of the unhappiest segments of the legal profession. And it's no wonder; they work under stressful conditions and the constant worry of whether today's job will be around tomorrow. By contrast, lawyers who run their own practices face similar uncertainty: the possibility that their existing clients will leave or new prospects will never call. But having found clients before, most solos usually recognize that they can do it again if they need to.
The Wall Street Journal reports that several coffee shops in Brooklyn, New York and San Francisco are restricting laptop use. With unemployment on the rise, patrons are spending more time and less money in coffee shops, taking up space that might otherwise be occupied by paying customers.
As far as I could tell, home-office shinglers who work out of coffee shops aren't likely to be impacted by the new limits. Most of restrictions on use apply during busy lunch hours, though in at least one instance, one customer reported that she was asked to put away her laptop and leave a cafe on a Friday evening even though the place was empty.
Even where coffee shops don't impose any restrictions on laptop use, if you're a home office lawyer who uses a cafe to work or to meet clients, you should be sensitive to the needs of coffee shop owners, who like you, are also in business to turn a profit. Thus, you should abide by certain rules of etiquette when you use a coffee shop as an extension of your office. Below, are a couple of my own suggestions, but I'd love to have you add yours as well:
1. Always buy something, preferably more than you would if you weren't using the space. When I work at a coffee shop, I make a point of buying more than I ordinarily would. It's a small price to pay for use of space. And whatever you do, don't bring your own food as did some of the people mentioned in the article.
2. Don't be a table hog. When the coffee shop fills up, invite other lap top users to share the space. It's not just good etiquette, but good business: you might meet a potential client. I haven't met clients, but I have gotten friendly with other bloggers and kept in touch via other social media tools.
3. Bring an extension cord. To avoid monopolizing the single two tables near a power outlet, bring your own multi-pronged extension cord. That way, you'll have the option of different places to sit, plus you can meet even more people.
4. Don't talk too loudly on your cell phone. It's tempting to take business calls in a coffee shop, but when you do, don't talk too loudly. Not only will you disturb other patrons, but you may disclose client confidences.
5. Try to repay the favor. Why not ask your hosts if you can sponsor a one hour "meet the lawyer" session where you treat other patrons to coffee, answer law related questions and give our your business cards? It's a win win for both you and the coffee house - more sales for them and potential clients for you, plus a nice way to show your appreciation to your host.
Do you have any other etiquette tips for working in a coffee shop? Or any success stories you want to share about clients you've met by working in a coffee house? Any favorite places you want to give a shout-out to? I'll even feature them in a follow up post.
Not sure how I missed this when it first issued, but via Leonard Sienko of the NYSBA General Practice Blog, I learned about the New York State Bar Association's Solo and Small Firm Report, issued June 18, 2009. I approached the report with some trepidation, fearful that like many others of its kind, it would focus on solos' alleged lack of practice management skills or malpractice incidents and recommend training programs or time management courses. Instead, the Report focused on the realities of being a solo -- from time spent waiting for court to "involuntary pro bono" and evaluates the types of services that can help improve the life and livelihood of solo practitioners.
The Report opens with a reminder that 55 percent of New York State Bar Association 74,000 members are solos and that their needs must be comprehensively addressed. And one of the major problems faced by solos is decidedly unglamorous: the time waste associated with waiting in court. From the report:
It is Abraham Lincoln who is credited with having observed, two centuries ago, that a
lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade. The message still resounds. The loss of significant
periods of time spent waiting in courthouses is costly—for attorneys if they do not bill their clients
out of sheer good conscience, or for their clients when their attorneys bill for those non-productive
hours. Throughout the state, this waste is widely reported to be enormous—perhaps hundreds or
thousands of hours daily adding up to thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of dollars or more. For
attorneys, their clients and others, it is an imposition and a burden on their time and resources.
The Report recognizes that e-filing, teleconferences and other modifications could go a long way to improving this substantial problem.
This week's news brings a handful of law firm start up stories. First, the Las Vegas Sun profiles
two young female lawyers, Tara Young and Elizabeth Sorokac who lost their jobs in February and have already started their own practices. Both had been practicing for only a few years and never expected to start a firm so soon. Though Young had expected to go solo eventually, her lay off forced her down the solo path more quickly than she'd planned. As for Sorokac, she loved her firm and went solo more as a stop-gap method to stay afloat between jobs. But to her surprise, she's taken to solo practice and enjoys it more than she ever thought - a tribute to transformative nature of solo practice.
Meanwhile, the National Law Journal reports on NatoliLapin, a virtual firm that started back in March 2008, offering low-cost legal services for entrepreneurs, artists and others launching new business ventures. Natoli reports that the firm is growing rapidly, given that there are more entrepreneurs because people have lost their jobs. The firm reports that with low overhead, it keeps 80 percent of its revenue as profit. One of the firm's selling points are reasonable flat fees - for example, an LLC starts at $395. The firm is doing well, filling an underserved niche - just like the $25 dollar New York-DC buses that I blogged about a few years back.
So, if you find yourself thinking about starting a practice, check out this site and my book, as well as this summary from Above the Law of a panel on Starting A Practice sponsored by the Vault and City Bar of NY and a recording by Susan Cartier Liebel and myself on Going Solo in A New Economy.
Over the past few months, I've pondered these questions, but I've never seen the answers articulated as powerfully as in this inspiring New Yorker piece by Malcolm Gladwell, forwarded to me by a reader, on How David Beats Goliath. (Full disclosure: I'm a raving Gladwell fan as evidenced by earlier posts, here and here). As Gladwell explains, David beats Goliath for the same reasons that solos succeed: (a) by playing by their own rules and (b) through sheer grit and dogged effort which trumps ability every time.
Over the past few months, it seems to me that the number of lawyers starting their own practice is on the rise. My perception is based largely on anecdotal evidence, from increased traffic to this site (both direct hits and from search terms like "starting a law practice,") a bump in sales of Solo by Choice, announcements of new practices on Twitter and Solosez and (most annoyingly), the near daily launch of all kinds of marketing products and consulting services purporting to help lawyers who want to start a practice. (By the way, if you're considering using any of these consultants or services, read this first).
But now, I've got some hard core evidence as back up my observations. The Charlotte Biz Journal reports that:
About 90 boutique firms and solo practitioners opened in Charlotte in 2008, according to the Mecklenburg County Bar. That’s an increase of nearly 30% from the 70 boutiques and solo shops that opened in 2007.
Most of the lawyers interviewed in the article previously worked at large firms and launched their own firms either by themselves or with another fellow expatriate. Oddly, however, few of the lawyers interviewed in the article said that they started their own law practices because their former law firms tanked. Instead, the reasons they offered for hanging a shingle are the same as they've always been: "a desire for more control over one’s practice; better work-life balance; the freedom to work with smaller clients who might balk at big-firm billing rates."
At the same time, the article makes note of the downturn of the Charlotte legal market. Perhaps the lawyers interviewed weren't laid off, but my guess is that economic uncertainty ultimately served as the impetus for many of these lawyers' decisions to start a firm.
As the saying goes, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. I'll be the first to admit that the freedom of solo practice is far easier to embrace when all other roads lead to nowhere. Of course, once you have your first taste of freedom, you may never want to go back.
The legal profession is on the skids like never before -- though you'd scarcely realize it from visiting a bar association website. As law firms shed attorneys at an unprecedented rate -- 4376 layoffs since January 1, 2008, 2614 in calendar year 2009, and 700 on a single Black Thursday, one would think that the bar association websites would be on high alert, offering discounted CLEs and networking events and otherwise mobilizing to help unemployed lawyers find work. Instead, it's business as usual for the ABA and many other bar associations (stay tuned for my Bars, Reviewed release tomorrow!) with no mention of the burgeoning layoffs anywhere on their websites.
Still, to its credit, at least the ABA isn't making the current financial crisis any worse for lawyers. Would that I could say the same for one of my home bars, DC Bar. Not only is the DC Bar petitioning for a dues increase when its members are tightening their belts, but the Bar is trying to limit at least one resource that could help lawyers find work by launching an assault to shut down Avvo, a lawyer directory site that allows lawyers to post a robust, professional looking profile on-line for free. The profile listings enable clients to find lawyers, but they also encourage lawyers to connect, but giving them opportunities to provide testimonials and endorsements to their colleagues.
Over at her blog, Legal Research and Writing Pro, my friend Lisa Solomon summarizes the recent spurt of posts round the blogosphere on the grim life of contract attorneys, who endure low wages, intolerable working conditions and frequently, degrading treatment from other lawyers. Lisa suggests that these lawyers consider starting their own independent contract lawyering businesses, where they can engage in more substantive work than document review and earn more money by eliminating the middle man - the staffing agency - from their dealings with the hiring firm. Likewise, I've always contended that contract lawyers should think about starting their own law firms instead of settling for low paid and often mindless document review work.
But increasingly, I'm realizing that my advice creates a conundrum for many contract lawyers: with student loan obligations bearing down, many feel that they can't afford to wean themselves from contract lawyer work. Thus, even when a position ends and the contract lawyer uses the downtime to try to start a firm, when another contract gig opens up, it's often hard for the lawyer to resist the steady cash, and so the firm gets put on hold until the next dry spell.
In addition, I'm also aware that contract lawyering has changed substantially since I started my own firm 15 years ago. Back then, there weren't as many contract positions available as there are today, but those contract positions that were available were far more flexible. As a result, lawyers could handle the contract work but take time off to attend to matters for their own practice. However, many of today's contract attorneys don't have that option. In a buyer's market, staffing agencies are cracking down and requiring contract lawyers to work long days, every day with few breaks. Many contract lawyers spend 10 hours on the job and are too exhausted afterwards to do work for outside clients, even if they were able to find it. In fact, many agencies expressly prohibit solo practitioners from applying for contract lawyering jobs, because of concerns that solos may devote time to their own practices on the contract client's dime.
Whereas once, lawyers could use contract positions to get a firm off the ground, increasingly, contract lawyering is becoming incompatible with starting a practice. Lawyers are forced to choose between contract lawyering and hanging a shingle - and those who are strangled by debt often opt for the guaranteed income that comes from contract work.
So what is the solution to the conundrum or catch-22 of the contract lawyer?
Tomorrow and throughout the week, I'll be posting the essays that I received in response to MyShingle's Sixth Birthday contest. But for my first post of the New Year, like many of my blogging colleagues (e.g., Ross Kodner, Neil Squillante,Niki Black and Stephanie Kimbro) I wanted to share some of my predictions for 2009. I won't comment on micro-trends, such as this year's hot practice areas, because I just completed a terrific piece on that topic for a bar magazine and I don't want to spill the beans. Instead, below are some broader thoughts on where I see the legal profession, in particular solo and small firm practice, headed in the year to come.
I view 2009 as a transition year, not a breakthrough year, with the operative theme being trust. Crises like the mortgage meltdown, where borrowers allowed lenders to convince them that they could afford a mortgage triple the size of their income or the Madoff Ponzi scheme, where investors simply took Madoff's word that his returns were as he said, have substantially eroded the public's trust in professionals. Clients are going to scrutinize lawyers more closely than ever and look to third party information such as online testimonials or even the much maligned (not by me) Avvo ratings and those sites will gain traction. (Incidentally, I'm not alone with this prediction -- Richard Susskind, author of The End of Lawyers, p.112 discusses how eventually clients will have access to repositories of feedback from clients just as users have available on eBay or Amazon).
Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'
UPDATE (11/22/08) I wanted to highlight the comment from Ben Glass, a respected and successful personal injury/medical malpractice attorney in Virginia and also the founder of GreatLegalMarketing.com which offers effective, ethical and out of the box marketing techniques for personal injury attorneys. Ben has been successful in large part because he has found ways to help lawyers promote their practices and educate prospective clients while remaining within the confines of today's ethics rules.
Unfortunately, the more success we find within existing rules, the possibility increases that the "old guard" in the bar will try to change those rules to its advantage. Why else would bars try to claim that blogs are advertising? Blogs educate clients - and you'd think that the bar would want to promote education. But because blogs enable solos and small firms to gain market share, they may pose a threat to the existing regime.
Poke the surface of the legal blogosphere these days, and you'll find talk of change bubbling below. Over at Law in the Twenty First Century, Nicole Black is leading the charge, with her three pronged manifesto about how the recession, Gen Y and the new administration make progress inevitable in the legal profession. After five years of blogging about his own personal efforts to change the way law is practiced (among them, leverage technology and dump the billable hour), Enricho Schaefer at Greatest American Lawyer reports that he's finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel and urges like minded lawyers to join the fight. Jordan Furlong's entire Law 21 blog is a running message of how the legal profession must change, or if not, will suffer the consequences such as squandered talent.
Believe me, I want to see the profession change, and things have come such a long way in my now fifteen years as a solo. But from where I sit, change isn't spreading quickly or pervasively enough. Most of the lawyers I speak with from so-called top schools still don't consider solo practice as an option, and would rather quit the law for another profession than hang a shingle. My own law school hasn't even stocked my book Solo by Choice in the placement office. And I still find it difficult to get biglaw partners to return my calls asking to chat about new trends in our respective practice area.
But my cynicism doesn't just flow from my own personal experience. It's more than that. Though we may teeter on the brink of progress, we're still not close to going to the other side. And I know that, because the bars have not yet begun to fight.
Before we enter a new historic paradigm in the legal profession, we will face one last hurdle. The bar associations, either by inertia or intent, will retain antiquated rules or practice, or worse, try to introduce new ones that will erect barriers to progress. If you don't believe me, consider the evidence. A few years back, the Florida bar told an enterprising New York lawyer living in Florida that he couldn't serve other New York "snowbirds" because he wasn't a member of the Florida bar. Sounds benign - but consider the impact on a virtual law office. What if an Alabama barred attorney moves to Texas with her spouse and wants to use technology in a Texas home office to serve Alabama clients only. Would the bar allow it? Doubt it (I know that Maryland doesn't allow this kind of arrangement, and indeed, if the Maryland bar discovers you've been handling DC cases from a homebased office, it could complicate your ability to gain admission to Maryland down the line).
What about a group of independent lawyers who decide to set up a common blog network jointly market for clients, then refer them to the attorney most appropriate to handle the case? Will bars start arguing that this practice violates the ban on paying for client referrals (well, unless the bar refers them and then it's OK)? It's not so far fetched -- again, the backwards Maryland bar won't let lawyers join networking groups like BNI because of concerns that lawyers may run afoul of the prohibition on receiving something of value in exchange for a referral. The point is that as technology enables collaborative efforts between small firms, look to large firms or bar associations themselves to challenge those practices.
Recall New York's proposed advertising rules that would have defined blogs as advertising, thus triggering onerous requirements such as retaining print copies or even seeking bar approval prior to making a change (obviously, a death knell to regularly updated blogs). Fortunately, a large chunk of the rule was found unconstitutional, but it took a court battle to win invalidation.
For some time, I've been surprised about how restrained the bars have been with respect to regulating social networking. Initially, I thought that the restraint derived from a willingness to let the technology and the mores evolve organically and to trust lawyers' judgment to do the right thing. But now, I'm more cynical - I think that the bars haven't yet touched social networking because to them, these uses are just a frivolous form of entertainment, rather than a powerful tool for building relationships and reputation, marketing a practice and improving our ability to serve clients. Once the bars and larger firms understand that these new technologies can level the playing field between newer lawyers and established firms, they'll figure out a way to change or interpret ethics rules to prohibit these practices.
I'm not saying that change won't happen. But if it's going to, it won't be easy, and we must stand ready to challenge the bar. Are you up for a fight?
With the economy tanking and the number of legal jobs declining, now may seem like a good time to leave the law. Whether you graduated from law school last May and still haven't found a job or whether you're one of the growing number of biglaw casualties or a victim of a law firm's forced retirement policy, you may feel angry and frustrated that you haven't been able to make a go of a career in the law and ready to cut your losses by moving on. To you, I say one thing: don't leave, just yet. Of course, if you hated working at your firm or you're certain that you weren't cut out to be a lawyer, then now's as a good a time as any to re-evalute your options. But if you're still committed to being the lawyer you dreamed you'd be back in law school, you couldn't pick a worse time to leave the law. Perhaps in the short run, you'll find a decent position -- maybe if you had a career before law school, you'll return to that position or maybe you'll happen upon a long term document review job. But if you take that approach, realize that you are giving up enormous opportunity and long term earning potential.
Why's that? Because in two years, the economy will turn around. It always does. I've been practicing law for twenty years and went through Black Monday in 1987 that left many of my classmates scrambling for summer positions, the downturn of 1993 or 1994, when I started my firm because I couldn't find a job, the dotcom bust and on and on. Every time the economy has cycled down, it's come back around with each rebound accompanied by better opportunities.
Now, I realize that some of you have no interest in starting a law firm and just want a steady job with steady pay. Nothing wrong with that. But whether starting a firm is your first choice or last on your list, the point is that if you leave the legal profession now, by the time the law biz picks up, you'll find yourself in the worse possible position. When the economy improves, and firms and government agencies start hiring, they're going to want experienced people who can hit the ground running. If you've been teaching elementary school or working as a nurse or reviewing documents, you won't have the skills to compete with your peers. Essentially, you don't bring much more to the table than a new grad, except that what you learned in law school may already be out of date. In short, by leaving the law, you severely limit your ability to capitalize on opportunities down the line.
So what if instead, you thought about starting a firm. Sure, you might find yourself scrimping over the next two years, bunking with roomates instead of getting your own place or biking around town instead of buying a car. But, you'd also get real experience practicing law, dealing with clients, marketing your service and running a business. In two years, you might find that you have a nice little portfolio of clients to bring along to a future employer, or that the experience you gained doing court appointed criminal work got you noticed by the DA's office and yielded a job offer. You might find that you made yourself a national expert in a field like emerging renewables or the law of social networking or employment discrimination in the age of a post-Obama Supreme Court. With a new president and a new Congress, we're going to see all kinds of changes in our laws - and the creation of new practice areas where you can be as much of an expert as someone with two decades of experience because it's a new playing field. Those skills might get you hired as an inhouse counsel or put you on a corporate advisory board.
Of course, there's another scenario. In two years, you just might discover that to your surprise, starting and running your own law firm suits you like no other job ever has. That you've got the talent and the temperament for greatness or a knack for marketing, skills you never realized you had because you never had an opportunity to use them. And in two years, you just might decide that even though you never thought you'd have your own law firm, that you never want to work for anyone else ever again.
If you're still thinking about starting a practice, you can download my ebooks or sign up for Six Weeks 'til Solo Practice (starting November 18- and the class is filling up) at MyShingle on Steroids. Also, if you are a new grad or are currently unemployed, please inquire about special discounts by emailing me at carolyn.elefant@gmail.com or calling me at 202-297-6100.
Back in 1999, seven months pregnant with my younger daughter, I surrendered the Washington D.C. office around the corner from the White House that I'd occupied for half a decade. Though the rent was bargain basement cheap - around $500 including the phone line - I realized that I'd only used the space a dozen times, if that much since my older daughter's birth three years earlier and keeping the office didn't make sense. And since I planned to cut back on my hours even more with a new baby, saving $500 would make a difference. Nevertheless, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was somehow taking a step backwards by moving my office back home where I'd started when I couldn't afford anything else.
Fast forward to 2007, and attitudes, including my own, have completely changed (something that is reflected in my book as well). Now many lawyers and small business folks are affirmatively embracing the benefits of the virtual or home office and using those benefits as a selling point for clients.
Though you're probably already familiar with virtual law-vangelists like Stephanie Kimbro, Grant Griffiths or Chuck Newton, more and more solos and small firms are following this path. A recent example is Rhode Island family and divorce lawyer, Christopher Pearsall. He's proudly proclaimed
that he plans to close his physical office in Cranston, Rhode Island and go completely virtual. All the better, he says that he'll pass the savings on to his clients, many of whom are struggling in these tumultuous economic times. Moreover, Pearsall is using the opportunity to tout his firm's technological prowess - he'll be the first Rhod Island divorce lawyer in the state to go completely virtual and almost 100 percent digital. That's likely to help him draw a whole new category of clients who work in the high tech industry or otherwise adept with technology and clients with busy schedules (which means they're employed and earning money) who appreciate the convenience of virtual access.
When I graduated law school twenty years ago, most lawyers would have turned up their nose at a home office lawyer and most lawyers would have gone into debt just to rent office space rather than work at home. Those days, quite simply, are history, rendered as obsolete as Supreme Court precedent like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. And though I don't like to think about my increasing age (though I have to today since it's my birthday - 44th, to save you a Google search!), getting older is made more palatable by giving me a chance to bear witness to positive changes in our profession.
Everyone starts somewhere, law firms included. Consider this story from Forbes about Jere Beasley, one of the nation's most successful personal injury lawyer who's secured multimillion dollar settlements and verdicts against some of the largest corporations in the country. According to the story, Beasley started a solo practice because he couldn't find a job. Today, Beasley's little law practice that occupied a couple of rooms in an old house fills three buildings, with 44 lawyers and 225 support workers.
I realize that personal injury work isn't everyone's cup of tea. But my point is simply that there are opportunities to grow your law practice beyond just one or two lawyers if that's what you want to do.
What do large law firms have in common with Sesame Street's Kermit the Frog? For both, it's not easy being green. Take a look at the hoops that mega-firm Reed Smith had to jump through when its clients started inquiring about the firm's green initiatives. As described in this article, Reed Smith first created an internal green management committee to provide a list of green suppliers to employees and to manage the firm's $5 million travel expenditure with green goals in mind. Eventually the firm made a carbon offset donation of $22,000 to account for 13.7 million miles flown. The firm's goal wasn't to eliminate the miles traveled, but to make a donation to offset miles used. Aside from travel issues, the article does not mention any other efforts by the firm to go green - such as encouraging telecommuting, going paperless or substituting web based meetings for in-person ones.
In contrast to large firms, green is something that we solo and small firm practitioners are rather than something we do. Many of us work from home at least part of the time, which keeps cars off the road. And we employ virtual assistants or contract lawyers who also work from home, further cutting down on traffic and the corresponding emissions. Working from home allows us to dress as we like, so we can limit the cost of dry-cleaning, which isn't even slightly green (some would argue that you don't even need to change your clothes regularly when working from home, but that's taking environmentalism too far in my view!). Many solo and small firm lawyers are also cutting down on travel costs by utilizing video depositions or affiliating with counsel in other cities who can handle local matters where face to face contact is required.
When I sat down to write Solo by Choice, the context mattered most. One of the my goals in starting MyShingle was to discuss solo pratice not so much as a category of law practice unto itself , but rather to view the role of, and opportunities for, solo and small firm practitioners in the broader legal profession. The Epilogue to my book describes my view of this context, and how it's changing but here is the much more extensive version. I'd be interested in hearing your feedback:
When I started law school back in 1985, most of my classmates were headed to Biglaw, where they could look forward to a coveted partnership after seven years of hard labor. But the Wall Street crash of 1987 changed all that. Summer associate programs were cancelled, and students who had lined up jobs suddenly found themselves out of work. When the economy recovered, those same classmates did find positions at large firms. But by then, the seven-year partnership track had stretched to nine years ... even 11. Soon after, the country suffered another economic blow ... a recession ... and some of the most talented or hardworking of my peers were unceremoniously downsized or informed they were “not fit” for the partnership track. Again, the economy rebounded, and again firms scrambled to hire attorneys, this time to handle a glut of IPO work, only to dump most of the new-hires in the dot.com bust of the early 2000's. And, so it goes, as novelist Kurt Vonnegut used to say.
In less than 20 years, what had been a fairly smooth path to partnership had become rocky and uncertain. But it’s just one of the many factors responsible for the new and growing popularity of law firm start-ups. Continue Reading...
Two factors are conspiring to make 2008 a break out year for starting a law firm. Factor 1: rapidly weakening credit and financial markets are causing law firms like McKee Nelson to offer voluntary severance packages to associates and leading other firms Thacher Profitt to give notice of impending layoffs. Factor 2: rapidly increasing hourly rates at large firms - now up to one thousand dollars an hour are spurring some lawyers to start their own practices to attract clients who can't afford big firm rates.
So, if you're affected by one of these factors - if your job is in jeopardy because you practice in an area that's going under, or if you can't find clients with sufficiently deep pockets to pay your current overhead, why not consider starting your own firm? Sure, there are other options - you could move to a smaller firm, switch practice areas, move to another firm or consider employment in academia or in house. Just be sure to that as you consider these options, think about solo practice right along with them.
And stay tuned for my upcoming book, Solo by Choice which contains a specific section on "Biglaw to Yourlaw," as well as several examples of lawyers who've taken that route, and found financial success and personal satisfaction.
I knew that many law schools and bar associations were developing programs to help women who've left the law re-enter the profession. But have to admit that until I read this New York Times story (hat tip to Lisa Solomon), I had no idea how much these programs cost - as much as $9000. For that price, you could almost go back to law school - or start yourself a pretty nice shingle!
Do these pricy programs really provide women lawyers with the tools they need for re-entry. According to the Timesarticle, the program offers lectures on the law, advice on explaining resume gaps and computer training. And lawyers are also set up with an unpaid internship which can help them make contacts even if it doesn't result in a paying job. At the same time, I felt that at some level, this kind of program exploits women lawyers' fears that they'll never find a job in the law once they've left the profession - and charges extortionist rates to assist them.
As I've posted here for some time, today, there are plenty of options for women who want to work part tiem and keep a foot in the door, or for those who leave the law to raise a family. And you don't have to pay $9000 for them either. My upcoming book , Solo By Choice will have some materials on a part time practice. And you can also check out my past posts here at MyShingle on work life balance and on women lawyers, including Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who found amazing success through alternative career paths. Finally, you can also check out my article on how young women lawyers can take charge of their careers.
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.
At the Ms. JD conference that I attended last week, one woman responded to various remarks on the benefits of starting a firm (by some of us troublemakers in the picture) by saying something to the effect that "Starting a firm is all well and good, but if everyone flees biglaw life, firms will be left stranded as the last bastions of male dominated hierarchy." That comment has been bearing heavily in my mind since, making me wonder whether lawyers have an obligation to fix biglaw.
In fact, from what I gleaned from Ms. JD, part of its mission is to ensure that female lawyers are represented in the upper echelon, power branches of the legal profession, such as the judiciary and biglaw. In other words, at least part of Ms. JD's goals is to help women with fight, not flight. And as I posted here at Legal Blogwatch, another group, Students Building a Better Legal Profession just formed, with a mission of changing the modern law firm business model to make it more sustainable and profitable and also allow for a more balanced lifestyle. I support these students and wish them the best. I'm impressed that they're taking charge of their future and that they're optimistic enough to believe they can change it. That passion will serve them well whether they succeed or not. And in fact, back when I was a student, I would have done the same - and indeed, in some cases, I did. But now, I'd rather just practice law than fight or rescue a system that's comprised of lawyers who ought to be smart enough and savvy enough to save themselves if indeed the system is failing (and I'm not convinced we're at that point).
What's your view? Are these students on the right track in trying to change biglaw from within? Or if you don't like how biglaw works, should you choose another option?
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 postedon 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.
Over at my Legal Blogwatch beat, I wrote about Cisco GC Mark Chandler's speech taking big law firms to task for their "guild" mentality and lack of responsiveness to clients. You ought to read the whole post, which excerpts the speech, but Chandler argues that companies like his are concerned about legal costs, want fixed fees and access to information without having to pay someone to find it.
You may think that if you represent consumers, that Chandler's speech doesn't apply. But it does, even more so. Consumers are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Many want information about their case provided regularly, and expect that lawyers have the technology to provide it at no cost. (Grant Griffiths and Greatest American Lawyer both recognize that, and they've eachimplementedBase Camp to facilitate client access to information). And as David Giacalone points out here at Shlep (self help law express), as technology increases, more and more clients may start taking matters into their own hands.
It's not clear whether it's too soon to call this a trend, but Joel Schoenmeyer at the Death and Taxes blog notes that at least one large firm, Chicago-based Sonnenschein has decided to get rid of its estates group. Shoenmeyer writes:
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see other big law firms start to follow suit (an exception might be firms like McDermott, which are built around their estate planning and probate practices). I enjoyed my experience at Sidley & Austin, but it was clear that the estate planning department generally was treated as second class citizens. My understanding is that compensation for estate planning partners is lower than for litigators and corporate attorneys. I suspect this is true at a number of big firms, many of which view estate planning as a "service group" (there to provide support to other groups, or planning to the firm's attorneys).
Schoenmeyer writes that part of this is money - estate planning, even the largest matters, don't generate the same million dollars in fees as do large corporate clients. It may be that big firms don't need estate planning groups. But at this point, it doesn't matter, suggests Schoenmeyer, because "good estate planners don't need big firms either." Trusts and estates boutiques are likely to be the wave of the future.
Whether you like Harvard Law School or not, you have to agree that virtually every HLS graduate can write their own ticket to whatever job they want. So it's gratifying to see that with so many career options, young HLS grads are still choosing solo practice, as reported in this article from the HLS Bulletin, The Coming Wave (11/5/06). The article profiles Luz Herrera and Eric Castelblanco, HLS grads who each opened solo practices to serve underserved, Hispanic communities. From the article:
For both Castelblanco and Herrera, there was no road map for an Ivy-educated lawyer to start a viable law practice for low-income clients. "Traditionally, if you want to do public service, you are directed to apply for a Skadden fellowship, work for the government or go to a civil rights impact litigation organization," said Herrera. "But for me, none of those options seemed like the right choice. I did not want to spend 90 percent of my time doing research or working in a direct-service organization whose approach I did not completely buy into. Working in my own law office allows me to provide legal services to individuals who may not otherwise have an attorney and tap into my entrepreneurial spirit while being an active member of the community."
But before Herrera could help people navigate the legal system, she had to figure out the nuts and bolts of running a law practice, including how to set up a billing system--problems that a first-year associate at a major firm would never have to worry about. "The first year is very hard," she said. "No one tells you how to set up a practice in law school."
Now, Herrerra has taken a break from her practice and has joined the Community Enterprise Project at Hale & Dorr to develop a fellowship that will help law graduates learn how to start law practices in underserved communities (a project which sounds similar to the Law School Consortium).
I've always likened the rise of modern day independent practice (call it the Third Wave if you will) to the dotcom era. Before dotcoms, small entrepreneurship wasn't cool. But the success of little garage companies forced our profession to look at law firm start ups in a different light.
And because law firm start ups have much in common with tech start ups, from shoe string budgets, to competing in areas traditionally handled by larger players, I was thrilled to read this outstanding post by Jeff Lipshaw at the Legal Profession Blog. Lipshaw writes about a paper in the Journal of Financial Economics, authored by David Kirsch which suggests that the actual failure rate of dot.com start ups was far lower than perceived - roughly 20 percent. But the steady survival of smaller companies was overshadowed by massive failures of sites like eToys and pets.com. (the post goes on to discuss potential business development ideas that might follow from these statistics, so read the whole thing).
So what does this mean for potential law firm start ups? Simply, your chances of success are greater than you think! Get out there and get started.
The impact of solo and small firm practice is far reaching, so much so that in my view, it's helping women attorneys succeed at biglaw. Don't believe it? Consider these two stories that ran in today's news. The first, Deciding to Go It Alone, (San Fernando Valley Business 11/4/06) reports on how more and more, women lawyers are choosing solo practice to accomodate families and to get to the top more quickly than they might by staying at a firm. The article also notes that with technological advancements, it's less costly to open a firm than ever. The second article, Part Timers Find Room at the Firm (Boston Globe 11/5/06) talks about how law firms' part time programs, some which enable women to work from home, are giving women incentive to stay at firms.
So what does one article have to do with the other? Plenty! Used to be that biglaw was the only option for smart women, so large firms could call the shots, demanding that women work full time or leave. No more. As the barriers to starting a law firm decrease, more and more women are successfully starting firms (as I've discussed here) and don't need to settle for the sham part time programs that some firms initially put in place.
The Globe article credits the firms as well as "visionaries" who work towards work life balance:
Effective change doesn't happen overnight, and almost always, it's
powered by group efforts, policies with bite, leadership support, and
visionaries, such as Williams and Henry, who keep their eyes on the
ball.
But that's only a partial explanation. Because of solo and small firm practice (and the technology to run a practice that serves biglaw clients), women have a real alternative to biglaw and they don't need to settle. Programs like The Project for Attorney Retention may never mention solo or small firm practice, but in truth, programs like PAR owe some of their success to the success of solo and small firm lawyers.
One of the best parts of being a shingler is that you can choose where you want to work. And for many who start a firm, that means home. Recently, there's been a spate of posts on working at home, including this guest post by Greatest American Lawyer at Grant Griffiths' Home Office Lawyer, various links to this Rocky Mountain News Story, The Good Fight about solo Curtis Kennedy, a home based lawyer who handles top dollar class action suits and other litigation against big companies (equally amazing to the fact that Kennedy works at home are his billing practices - he recently won an additional $36 million for his clients, but rather than fight for a cut, is merely seeking $40,000 in legal fees. How's that for value billing? (not!)) Finally, though he's been blogging for a few months now, Chuck Newton of Third Wave Law Firm on virtual law practice has plenty to say about home offices and starting a firm.
Are clients and power shifting from large firms to small firms? If the recent slew of blog posts on this topic are any evidence, it seems that smaller firms are gaining a bigger voice - and a bigger cut of big corporation business. Consider this evidence:
From Justin Patten I learned about this post from Kevin O'Keefe of Lex Blog on what has been termed a legal power shift from large to smaller firms. O'Keefe's Exhibit A is is Dan Harris, and his China Law Blog, who recently snagged an opportunity to comment from a big firm which needed to get administrative approval for its remarks. Dan Hull of What About Clients picks up on links by exhorting small firms to:
get off your knees, quit bottom-feeding, chuck both your "niche" market
thinking and your work-life balance nonsense (the first 8 to 10 years
for associates, and lawyering done right after that, should be hard
work for even the gifted), steal the good clients, provide outrageous
service and get rich.
there are a great many superb lawyers practicing
outside the headlines at smaller firms all over the state...They may not have the same name
recognition -- but they also don't usually come with the same price tag.
When I started MyShingle back in December 2002, you didn't see articles like this. Now they're out there all the time. And as technology continues to improve and enable more solo and small firms to increase efficiencies, expect the power shift to gain even more momentum.
Last week, Larry Bodine posted here on a New Jersey ethics ruling that allows a law firm to own another law firm as a wholly-owned subsidiary. I haven't had time to read the decision closely or focus on the implications, which I believe are mixed, but here is Larry's view on what the decision could mean:
* Law firms can buy and sell other law firms as investments.
* Law firms can hire a pinpoint boutique to handle a spike in client demand, and then sell it off or shut it down when the demand falls off. The owner firm wouldn't have to fire any of its own staff, as happened when the technology bubble burst.
* The owner law firm can acquire a smaller firm without having to charge big-firm rates or pay big-firm salaries. A large firm could own, for example, an insurance defense firm, pay the lawyers bottom dollar, and be able to bill out at $100 an hour. This means big law firms won't leave money on the table.
* Owner law firms can acquire less glamorous practices, like collection law firms (which are very profitable and make a 40% commission on debts collected) without having to sully its own reputation. This can be very handy when the big firm has a bank as a client, and is happy to do its securities and acquisition work, but doesn't want to foreclose on mortgages. It makes the owner law firm a full-service firm.
* Big firms can get into profitable areas they won't touch now - like matrimonial law and plaintiff's personal injury law - without having to have their own lawyers do the work. Of course, the subsidiary PI firm would be conflicted out of suing clients of its owner.
* Law firms can market themselves like General Motors, and have separately branded divisions, like Cadillac, Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick.
* Or, law firms can market themselves like General Mills, with individual brands like Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, Green Giant and Häagen-Dazs.
Dan Hull of What About the Clients speads some good cheer for us solo and small firm lawyers with this post referencing a recent study that only 30 percent of clients would recommend their law firm and that poor client service is driving clients away. As Dan recaps:
it's what I've been telling you for 6 months. Good news for smaller
firms and boutiques willing and able to capture, serve and keep BigLaw
clients.
This article Women Aiming for Partnership Face Persistent Problems (NYLawyer 2/10/06) reported on a New York City Bar Association Symposium, attended by a mostly female crowd of 300 that addressed a persistent question: "When will the legal profession see sex equality throughout its ranks?" According to the article, the Symposium apparently bemoaned what we've heard a million times - law firms' stereotypical attitudes towards women, failure to accomodate family and the disparity between the percentage of women graduating law school (52 percent) and the percentage currently partners at biglaw (17 percent). Yet strikingly absent from the panel of speakers was a single representative from the group of female attorneys who are partners and who practice law on their own terms: the solos! (Nor did a single solo participate in preparation of the report, Best Practices for Women Attorneys that was also discussed at the symposium)
Grant Griffiths wishes for electronic filing in his state courts after learning more about the federal e-filing system (now in place in 87 percent of federal courts) where lawyers automatically receive notice of filings . I can't blame Grant. Particularly for lawyers who practice from home, who may not live near the courts, there's nothing like the convenience of e-filing.
Used to be that large firm incompetence was another dirty little secret in the bar. I don't mean to imply that large firm lawyers are less competent than solos, because that's not the case. My point is that incompetence and unethical conduct runs evenly throughout the bar, from top to bottom, with any lawyers capable of misteps. And now, the rest of the bar and clients are starting to realize this, as evidenced by this article, Lawyer vs. Lawyer Becoming Common Corporate Strategy.
The article suggests that conflict of interest and corporate scandals like Enron explain the increased trend in legal malpractice claims against large firms. And the article also notes that disciplinary boards are less likely to go after large firms, thereby opening the door for malpractice as the only option.
But on top of these factors, with the money that large firms charge - upwards of $600-$800 an hour for top attorneys, they can't expect to remain immune from suits. And there's yet another reason that explains this trend. I think that like doctors who lack a "good bedside manner" are more vulnerable to lawsuits, so are attorneys. For attorneys lack of good bedside manner means poor client service - a problem that is significant enough to have spawned several blogs on that topic (see, e.g., In Search of Perfect Client Service, What About Clients, Non-billable Hour and others) Lawyers need to realize that there's a greater cost to poor service than simply loss of the client. It can mean increased exposure for malpractice suits as well.
It's interesting how mobile technologies, like the cell phone or Blackberry, pager or laptop can serve as a leash or as liberation, depending on context. This article, Blackberry: High tech Ball and Chain for Lawyers, Boston Globe (12/22/05) reveals that law firm Burns & Levinson uses Blackberries to keep lawyers on a tight leash, always tethered to the law firm. At least, that's according to a memo from Bill Bixby, one of the firm's partner's to firm attorneys:
''[Blackberries] are not just accessories or collectors' items," Brian D. Bixby, cochairman of the firm's private clients group, wrote in his memo, which became public after being sent anonymously to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. ''They are not to be used only when you feel like sending an e-mail. They are supposed to make you more accessible for receiving e-mails after hours and on weekends."
This article from the Sacramento Bee (12/26/05) reports on a new service by Legal Zoom: online preparation of a small claims case. According to the article, for $99.00, the company will draft up a small claims complaint based on an online questionnaire and for $60 more, will serve the defendant as well.
So why would an attorney support this service? Because, I sometimes get calls from clients who want to sue for a small home improvement matter or wages owed and from an economic perspective, it's not worth it for them to have to pay even $300 (which is two hours of almost any attorney's time) to recover maybe $800. But they might be willing to pay $150 to bring the suit themselves and not have to wrestle with legal forms and figuring out service of process.
One of the best things about a weblog is that it gives you proof that you said something first or spotted a trend way back when. In my case, I first blogged about the outsourcing to India trend in this January 2003 post. Now, almost three years later, outsourcing continues to grow. As this article from an Indian newspaper (December 25, 2005) reports:
The revenue from outsourcing of legal services from India is growing every year and is estimated to grow ten times in the next five years from the current level of US dollar 61 million. In a recently released report 'Offshoring
Legal Services to India', ValueNotes, a leading provider of
intelligence and research services, estimated that the sector employs
around 1,800 professionals and expects this to grow to 24,000 by 2010.
The increasing interest in offshore services shows that firms are pressured to keep costs low - and that should be good news for us solo and small firm lawyers, because it may open up new opportunities.
Yet another article, Smaller Can Be Beautiful for Some Lawyers, (bizjournal, 11/2005) on biglaw attorneys leaving their firms for smaller - or in this case, mid-sized pastures. But what I found so sad about this piece is the reason that some folks stay on at biglaw: not because they prefer the work but rather, they love the view. Here's a quote:
Jenkins, the lawyer who joined Jeffer Mangels, said that while she has fond memories of Littler Mendelson, she thinks she is a good fit with her new firm. She even finds she doesn't miss some old creature comforts. "I used to be on the 27th floor of the Littler building," which offered sweeping views of San Francisco Bay. "I used to think 'How am I going to get up in the morning?' without that view.
Seems to me that if the only reason that you're going to work is to stare out the window, that doesn't sound like reason to stay...but reason to leave.
We frequently associate solo and small firm practice as populated with small clients who can't pay the bills. But that's not so, at least according to this recent article, Petra Pasternak, NY Lawyer (11/7/05). As the article reports (and not surprisingly), a recent study by Worth Magazine found that wealthy clients are "migrating...to smaller firms that heed the personal touch." (no link to original study) The article also noted that many large firms are not interested in serving wealthy clients or lawyers have left the firm to start their own practice, presumably, where they continue to service wealthy clients.
This past post on comments by a solo deconstructing biglaw salaries (basically saying that the hourly rate is more along the lines of $30/hour if an associate works 90 hours a week) has generated many comments which I thought I'd address in an additional post. First, thanks to readers who have pointed out that a 90 hour work week at biglaw is an exaggeration and that hours are are much actually far less. Yale Law School's Truth About the Billable Hour shows that on average, an associate will work 50 hours a week to bill 37.5 hour. Thus, to bill 1800 hours over a 47 week year, an associate must work around 2350 hours (the study, I think adds commute time but I've not done that here) which comes to around $58/hr based on a $135,000 salary. My commentors said that actual time at work is less, with some calculating an hourly payment of as much as $71/hr for a sixth or seventh year associate making at least $185,000. And they also point out that law firm associates receive benefits, including health care (a biggie), malpractice coverage, office space and CLE, all of which comes out of a solo's paycheck.
This article, Long Law Firm Names Grow Short and Snappy (Sascha Pfeiffer, Boston Globe), 9/28/05 reports on an issue that doesn't affect us solos at all: how to reduce the number of names in a firm's moniker. According to the article, some firms are reducing multiple names to a mere letter - like Orrick, which for whatever reason, wants to refer to itself as O (as an aside, the Big O logo at Orrick's website resembles a zero. Whose idea was that anyway?).
This article, Allee Offers Business Experience, Acumen, Mary Beth Smetzer, reports on a Fairbanks, AK solo Rita Allee who's running for City Council and touting her skills as a solo as the characteristics that qualify her for office. Says Allee:
"I feel practically my whole life's experience, education, business experience and background in Fairbanks makes me real suited to serve in this capacity," Allee said. "I think I can be a help and have considerable business acumen having run my own business since 1978 with tight budget constraints. You have to say 'no' more than you can say 'yes,' regrettably when it comes to financial issues."
Business experience and the ability to operate within a budget may seem common place to most of us solos, but they're rare qualities in government. Maybe more solos should run for office!
The Harvard Law School newspaper put out a career guide which included all kinds of articles like Why Not to Be A Government Lawyer (as a former FERC attorney, I've got to agree with that one), the downside of biglaw and careers in public interest. Sorely missing from the list of possibilities is the one that's My Shingle's raison d'etre: starting your own practice. Maybe to figure that one out, you need to have graduated from another Boston area school like Alice of a Mad Tea Party who's just revealed her identity as a recent BU law grad who's gone solo. (hat tip to Denise Howell for the link).
And yet another biglaw attorney downsizes, as reported in this article, Law Firm to Serve Smaller Businesses (Grand Rapids Press, 9/10/05). According to the piece, Barry Kane, a large firm partner and Vince DeYoung, former attorney for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Harrahs' have launched a Michigan law firm that specializes in business counseling, intellectual property law and franchise law. One of the firm's goals is to keep rates affordable for smaller business clients. Here's Kane's description of his firm's business model and why he believes it will work:
"By reducing your overhead . . . you can reduce your hourly rate and still be a viable business. It's pretty straightforward problem-solving to me," said Kane, a former shareholder at Miller, Johnson, Snell and Cummiskey. And the firm's small size enables quick response to changes in the marketplace, Kane said. What stays the same, regardless of office size, is the quality of legal work, De Young said. The practice charges $225 per hour for basic business counseling, a rate above industry norms but more than one-third less than what Kane said he has charged in the past at larger firms.
So even as law firms merge and go global, threatening to fold into four or five ginormous entities, stories like this one remind me that it's still a small [firm] world after all.
This article, A Local Woman With A Plan (8/31/05) reports on former city attorney May Ann Karns new private practice in Edmund, Oklahoma complete with pink velvet armchair. After serving as a fulltime city attorney for Edmund and Stillwater, another municipality, Karns' will In Edmond, represent developers and residential clients in her private practice and will also serve as a city attorney or consultant for several small rural towns. Sounds like a successful niche practice.
It's always bittersweet when I read articles like this one, Work Family Divide Keeps Numbers of Women Low, Rachel Osterman (8/20/05) about women attorneys leaving firms because they find them incompatible with raising a family. Without sounding too much like John Roberts, I'm all in favor of attorneys - male or female - who choose to forego their careers short term to stay home with children so long as they're aware of middle of the road options for balancing law and family. But I wonder how many women leave the law without knowing about other options - like solo practice - (or those described here) that might offer the best of both worlds.
Will we soon see a wave of new solo practice opening in the Pittsburgh area? Perhaps, if there's any truth to the recent survey by The Vault which found that associates at Pittsburgh law firms have the least job satisfaction (Tribune-Review, August 17, 2005). So Pittsburgh associates - maybe it's time to shingle.
Thanks David Giacalone for this post that lead me to an article from the Washington D.C. Bar Journal entitled, Time Out, time Off: Lawyers on Sabbatical (August 2005). The article describes that many large firm allow lawyers to take sabbaticals but that few lawyers take advantage of them. I had a couple of thoughts.
First, I'd always thought that the purpose of sabbaticals was to allow lawyers to pursue professional endeavors. Seems that some lawyers are using their sabbaticals to stay home with children for a six month or year period. Seems to me that more lawyers should be taking time off for their kids regardless of whether a sabbatical is available or not.
Second, I think it would be great if large firms encouraged young associates to take one to two year sabbaticals and use the time to start their own law firms. During that period, the associates could take on court appointed work and gain court time and would develop more hands on experience at running a business and generating clients. Associates would get real world experience, with the comfort of knowing that they could always return to the firm (though some probably never would) while law firms would save all that money they spend on mock trials and marketing classes that try to simulate business development or trial work for associates. Sabbaticals for biglaw lawyers to try small firm practice - it's a great idea waiting to happen!
From this Press Release, I learned about a new book, Urban Lawyers, by John Heinz and University of Chicago Professor Edward Laumann, that examines Chicago's legal profession using data gathered as part of an American Bar Foundation study conducted in 1994/95. That's too bad, because while the book sounds intriguiging and confirms much of what I've observed about the legal profession here in D.C., it's also on the verge of being outdated because of the way that blogs are changing the practice of law.
Tony DiRomualdo has this interesting article, Why Corporate Culture Counts, at the Wisconsin Technology Network. (7/7/05) that discusses the relationship between corporate culture and values. He identifies examples of companies like Southwest, where positive corporate culture boosts employee morale, giving the company a leg up on competition. But on the other side of the scale, he uses the large law firm as an example of a corporate culture which lacks the ability to tolerate accomodation of family life.
In the past, we've posted some articles on unbundling of legal services because it offers revenue possibilities to solo and small firm lawyers whose clients may not have the resources to fully fund legal services. Here's another article on unbundling, Law Firms Find Revenues in Unbundling, National Law Journal, July 6, 2005, that reports on the current status of unbundling in various states:
In the past six years, nine states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming -- have adopted unbundling rules.
New Hampshire and Utah are in the process of changing their rules. Iowa, Illinois and Ohio are not far behind, while Connecticut is in an earlier exploratory phase, the results of which are unpredictable.
We've more news to report about former biglaw attorneys who, like the biglaw attorneys here and here, have put out their shingles. What's unique about all of these new law firms is that they focus on practice areas like securities law, business transactions and communications which have traditionally been within the domain of large firm practitioners. As an energy regulatory attorney who's also been competing with large firms for years, I gladly welcome the company.
Fellow small firm lawyer and former solo, David Leffler takes readers on a trip in the Solo Time Machine (GPSolo Magazine - June 2005), revisiting key moments in the history of the Internet. David recalls 1995 - the first year that he put an email address on his stationary (I put email on my business cards back in 1994) and how he began using email to deliver documents to clients rather than fax (email transmission became de rigeur for me in early 1997 when I started doing per diem work for a local attorney). In 1997 and 1998, David wrote articles for the New York Law Journal on useful websites for lawyers and one piece on securities law was cited in a Senate subcommittee report.
Go and read David's piece to find out more about how the Internet changed the practice of law for him - and legal practice continues to evolve as new technologies emerge.
Get Big Fast was the motto for startups, because big companies can
go public and get more access to capital and use that capital to get
even bigger. Big accounting firms were the place to go to get audited
if you were a big company, because a big accounting firm could be
trusted. Big law firms were the place to find the right lawyer, because
big law firms were a one-stop shop.
And then small happened.
Enron (big) got audited by Andersen (big) and failed (big.) The
World Trade Center was a target. TV advertising is collapsing so fast
you can hear it. American Airlines (big) is getting creamed by Jet Blue
(think small). BoingBoing (four people) has a readership growing a
hundred times faster than the New Yorker (hundreds of people).
Big computers are silly. They use lots of power and are not nearly
as efficient as properly networked Dell boxes (at least that's the way
it works at Yahoo and Google). Big boom boxes are replaced by tiny ipod
shuffles. (Yeah, I know big-screen tvs are the big thing. Can't be
right all the time).
I'm writing this on a laptop at a skateboard park... that added wifi
for parents. Because they wanted to. It took them a few minutes and
$50. No big meetings, corporate policies or feasibility studies. They
just did it.
Today, little companies often make more money than big companies.
Little churches grow faster than worldwide ones. Little jets are way
faster (door to door) than big ones.
And Seth adds:
A small law firm or accounting firm or ad agency is succeeding because
they're good, not because they're big. So smart small companies are
happy to hire them.
Not surprisingly, I've always believed that solo and small firm lawyers have been the ground breakers of our profession, from billing practices to advertising to technology. And now, as this article, Lawyers Leap Into Blogosphere acknowleges, we're setting the pace in blogging as well. As the article state:
So far, most blogs have been published by solo or small-firm lawyers. But large firms such as Shepherd Mullin are quickly jumping on the blogwagon.
The article also describes why blogs are a better and more cost effective means of achieving presence on the web than a conventional website.
According to this Press Release of May 25, 2005 by legal placement agency Robert Half, 93 percent of lawyers polled said that they would not establish a law firm even if they had the necessary capital. OK, I'm biased, but frankly, I don't believe the survey at all. Here are some of the problems I see.
First, according to the press release, lawyers were asked "If you had the necessary capital, would you start your own law firm." 93 percent of respondents said no, up from 84 percent in 2002 and 78 percent in 1997. To begin, I wonder about the phrasing of the question. If attorneys "had the necessary capital," it's likely they'd decide to do something that's not legally related at all - or to stop work entirely. The poll might have value if attorneys were asked to choose between starting their own firm and continuing in legal employment. In short, the poll does not inform as to how solo practice compares to other jobs in the legal profession but rather, that it's not a top choice against many other potential career and business opportunities.
Janell Grenier a solo who writes both Benefits Blog and Erisa Blog has let me know that the Department of Labor has included her blogs as well as others in its resource list, as she describes in this post. As Janell has suggested (and I concur), this federal recognition of blogs, particularly those operated by solos, is "an amazing development
They say that necessity is the mother of invention. But motherhood itself is also the mother of invention - or more accurately, the engine behind creative, entrepreneurial ideas to make motherhood more compatible with legal practice. This article, The Lawyer Moms, Boston Globe (5/8/05) reports on on such mom-lawyer-inventor, Patty Campbell Malone, who along with law partner David Lewis, has started a practice that will rely on stay at home mother lawyers as a primary source of labor. The article doesn't discuss whether Malone with stick with this model permanently - or whether it's just a way to keep a hand in the law until her children are older. But no matter what the future holds, Malone is able to enjoy "face time" with her children now.
The concept of mothers striking out on their own when their profession won't accomodate their schedule is not unique to the legal profession. This Business Week article (5/4/05) notes this trend:
Working mothers who can't get employers to offer flexible working arrangements are striking out on their own. "Women are starting businesses at twice the rate of all businesses," says Sharon G. Hadary, executive director of the Center for Women's Business Research, a Washington (D.C.) nonprofit. The center also found that from 1997 to 2004, employment at female-owned companies grew by 24.2%, more than twice the rate of the 11.6% logged by all businesses, and the pace of revenue increase was also higher -- 39% vs. 33.5%.
I know many moms who believe that by working grueling schedules at law firms, they set an example for their children, particularly daughters, that women can succeed. Maybe so. But the message that I'd rather send I hope is one better: not just that I can succeed in my legal career, but that I can do so on my own timetable and not someone else's.
I came across this March 2005 article by my colleague here in the D.C. area, Mark del Bianco entitled Being on the Cutting Edge. Among other things, the article offers both an amusing and realistic assessment of the benefits and occasional drawbacks to a small regulatory practitioner with a wide reaching Internet presence.
If you're a biglaw associate, do you stay at your firm and let the partners get rich off your work and credentials? Or leave and take advantage of that market yourself? The latter approach is the one taken by five young African American attorneys and former associates at prominent large law firms who struck out on their own to fill a niche for an African American firm to serve both Fortune 500 companies and black owned businesses in Atlanta. (full story in Lawyers Form New Practice (2/21/05).
Almost a year ago, this article Courting Shell (American Lawyer/law.com 6/24/04) reported on how large corporations are now demanding more diversity of the lawyers who serve them. Thus, corporations are turning to firms with female and minority attorneys - and firms are scrambling to respond by increasing diversity in the ranks. But isn't this just a little too late? After all, there have always been talented female and minority attorneys - but law firms never wanted them until their clients did. And now that there's a demand for sophisticated female and minority attorneys, why should they go to large firms at all?
To those of you toiling at large firms, wondering whether you could make it on your own, this post's for you. Here's two examples of attorneys with large firm backgrounds and large firm specialties (securities law and complex litigation) who took the solo plunge.
This article from the Kansas City Star (4/19/05) profiles Jane Stafford, a securities law veteran of 20 years who just opened a boutique securities law firm, making her one of few women and solos in a male dominated, large firm practice area. According to the article, Stafford plans to initiate an investor literacy program to educate people -- particularly young women, working women and the elderly -- about investments.
And from law.com is this article, Large Firm Associate Goes Solo To Serve Spanish Speaking Clients (4/12/05) reports on Jose Rojas, a former fourth year biglaw associate and Spanish speaking attorney who's betting that his new firm will meet an untapped need in the Hispanic community in Hartford County.
Here at MyShingle, we wish these two lawyers all the best as they embark on this exciting adventure.
I've always explained that the reason I went solo was because a big firm wasn't big enough. Not big enough for my ego or
aspirations, not even big enough to fit two tiny words - my name - on the
door. Apparently, these days, a big firm isn't big enough (in heart,
not size) to include associates' names on the firm website either.
There's a great post here from Dennis Kennedy on the utter stupidity of this new law firm policy to keep associates anonymous - as well commentary from my new ALM blogger-colleague Bruce McEwan here.
Big firm partnership. In many legal circles, big firm partnerships are regarded as the brass ring, the peak of the legal mountain. Law students dream of them, young associates sacrifice their personal lives to 80 hour work weeks to vie for them while even federal judges leave the bench for them, succumbing to the temptation of high six figure profit draws. But partnerships aren't just about money and lavish lifestyle (as Anonymous Lawyer would have you believe). Partners are the boss, but more than that, they're owners - members or shareholders (the new trendy terms for partners these days) in multimillion dollar global enterprises.
Or are they? Just as the Anonymous Lawyerexposed the empty soul of law firm partners, now, an EEOC lawsuit draws the curtain back further, revealing that partners aren't partners at all, but mere employees who have little control over the actual workings of the law firm they purportedly own. As reported in EEOC Sues Top Firm Alleging Discrimination, Anthony Lin, New York Lawyer (1/14/05), the EEOC has sued biglaw powerhouse Sidley, Austin for engaging in age discrimination by demoting or forcing the retirement of 32 partners in their late fifties and early sixties because of their age. But since age discrimination laws only apply to employees, the EEOC has argued that demoted partners were effectively employees because they had no real say in how the firm was run. According to the article:
In an opinion by Judge Richard Posner in 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the EEOC had sufficiently shown that the affected lawyers could be considered employees in order to proceed with its investigation and subpoena the firm.
Judge Posner pointed to the highly centralized management of the law firm, in which partners never voted on issues, and a self-selecting executive committee that made all major decisions, in suggesting that the partners could, in fact, be employees.
The judge said that, while Sidley Austin was clearly a partnership, the "question is whether, when, a firm employs the latitude allowed to it by state law to reconfigure a partnership in the direction of making it a de facto corporation, a federal agency enforcing federal antidiscrimination law is compelled to treat all the 'partners' as employers."
After reading this article, I had two thoughts. First, I was troubled that law partners would need to portray themselves as employees to prevail in this case, just as I was also troubled that contract attorneys needed to portray themselves as unskilled hired help in their fight for overtime wages. That skilled attorneys would have to degrade themselves by portraying themselves as less than what they are to bring a lawsuit (even if the principles behind the suits are correct) just seems so sad. But perhaps even more sad is to spend one's life believing that you're an owner of an organization only to have it throw you out when you're too old or undesireable. That something like that can happen to people as hardworking and able as large firm partners just goes to show that large firm partners really aren't owners - they really are nothing more than humble employees at the mercy of others like everyone else.
I may never earn the $875,000 annual profits that the Sidley partners did (though perhaps I will - beauty of solo practice is you really never know). But at least, my law firm belongs to me - as my daughters would say, it's mine, all mine. And that gives me a sense of satisfaction and independence that even $875,000 in profits apparently can't buy.
This article, Web site tells of woes of attorneys (SF Chronicle 1/8/05) reports on the Anonymous Lawyer phenonenom, speculating that the site may "make you feel sorry for lawyers." The article then goes on to describe the grind of the large law firm, working hard and deferring gratification until the big payoff of partnership:
Although most of us nonlegal types probably didn't know it, this month is a time of critical mass for many budding attorneys. Traditionally, this is when partnerships are handed out in the big firms. After six or seven years of forgoing social life, family time and sleep, this is when it all pays off.
Or it doesn't.
"That brass ring," says Daniel Binstock, managing director of the Washington, D.C., bureau of BCG Search, a national firm specializing in placing partners and associates, "can turn out to be a mirage."
Frankly, these kinds of articles about the hard lives of young people earning $125,000+ embarrass me; it's hard for other people (even other lawyers) to feel badly for those earning so much money. People make choices; sometimes biglaw is the wrong choice and sometimes it's not. If it's the wrong choice, change it and when enough people do, we'll find that the face of our profession has changed as well.
Fellow blogger Janell Grenier of Benefitscounsel.com tipped us off to this article, Tech Revolution: Change or Die by Laura Owen, Director of Legal Services for Cisco Corp. Dennis Kennedy and Ernie the Attorney recently posted about this article as well, respectively over here and here.
Owen argues that corporations want law firms who "get" technology and the need to keep costs low. She advocates measures such as moving work to lower cost centers in the Midwest and South, commoditizing and using technology to perform repetitive legal work (she cites one firm that has developed a do-it-yourself contract form that a firm attorney later reviews) and moving away from the billable hour.
These same arguments would also bode well for smaller firms which can implement these types of measures more flexibly and provide cost effective service. Still, I'm not as optimistic as Dennis that larger firms that don't adapt to clients' needs will eventually fall by the wayside. Even as forward thinkers like Owens or Dennis argue for lower costs, at the same time, firms continue to merger growing larger and larger. I simply don't believe that a ginormous firm will have the same efficiency as a smaller one if only because it relies on the power of hundreds of associates and multiple levels of review to generate revenues. So how to reconcile the merger trend with the increased calls for flexible billing and the like? In five years, will the legal market be dominated by ten giants (who will rewrite conflicts rules to enable them to retain more clients?) Or will it be populated by small, lean high tech operations responsive to client needs? Naturally, I'd love to see the pendulum swing to the latter but I am not always so sure that is where we are headed.
David Giacalone has this post on how law firm associates ought to start taking responsibility for their long hours rather than expecting the "powers-that-be" to do it for them. David offers this qutoe by MCI counsel Anastasia Kellfrom a recent article in Washington Lawyer (Jan. 2005) (the D.C. Bar magazine) on The Tyranny of the Billable Hour:
Referring to lawyers who work for her at MCI, and who reported to her when she partnered at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Kelly says emphatically, "The quality of your life is your responsibility! It is not my responsibility to give you a quality of life. If you don't have a quality of life, it's your responsibility to come to me and say, "I don't have a quality of life, and it's because you're making me work 80 hours a week. So many people say it's the responsibility of a law firm or a company to make sure that their people have a quality of life. It is a two-way street! "Moreover, says Kelly, any lawyer who feels an employer?s demands on his or her time are too burdensome always has the option to walk out the door and go find a place that gives you quality of life. That's your responsibility: to go.
I couldn't agree more. Quality of life isn't the reason that I went solo but it's one of the reasons I've stayed put. And portraying solo practice as a viable and appealing option for lawyers unhappy with the drudgery of the large firms is in large part my motivation behind My Shingle.
Car dealers, advertisers and lawyers. Results of a recent survey present these professions as the most unethical and dishonest as perceived by respondents and reported in this article, No Respect, Asbury Park Press (12/27/04). By contrast, more than 70 percent of Americans gave nurses, grade school teachers, pharmacists and military officers high ethical marks.
Arnie Herz of Legal Sanity (a great blog, by the way, if you're looking for more satisfaction as a lawyer) has a post about flex time options for attorneys and a link to this article from the Wisconsin Bar Journal. I've always been a proponent of flexible schedules, particularly for attorneys with young children or other non-delegable family obligations - and that's one reason why I so strongly endorse the solo practice option. But as the article posted by Arnie describes, there are other flex time options as well.
This past weekend, I came across four articles about lawyers - mostly those who've started their own practices - who've found success but nevertheless left the law for non-legal careers. There's Noah Lippman, a 45 year old criminal defense attorney on Wall Street with his own lucrative practice who's now a high school history teacher (though still of counsel at his firm). There's 50 year old Florida criminal defense attorney Ed Stafman who did well enough after 25 years of law practice to throw himself into a Rabbinic program where he's studying to become a Rabbi. And in the entertainment field, lawyer Dan Neal recently released a CD while 40 something Roger Schroeder who teaches law part time at UCLA will see his screenplay, A Boyfriend for Christmas as a Hallmark holiday television special.
For Neal and Schroeder, they continued to practice even as they pursued their entertainment careers. But Lippman and Stafman made almost a clean break, realizing over a period of time that their legal careers weren't generating enough satisfaction to warrant staying. So for those who've wondered, I guess that's how to tell when it's time to go.
Anyone else out there ever pursue a second career or thinking about leaving the law? Send us a comment and share your experience with us.
Many lawyers resist working from home, worrying primarily about image, as in this article here. But a professional home based office is possible, as demonstrated by Nina Kallen and Lisa Solomon, the two sucessful attorneys profiled in Home Alone, Margaret Graham Tebo, ABA Journal (November 2004).
