Comments on: "Big Solo vs Small Solo?" No. Only 'Solo'.

By: Susan Cartier Liebel

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:56:20 +0000

I’ve never closed nor censored comments in 2 1/2 years of blogging. But the time has come to do so on this particular post as this is degenerating beyond relevance to the original post. This is not Above the Law

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

By: Jeff Rutledge

Jeff Rutledge — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:47:03 +0000

Jonathon – Interesting thoughts…your observation that actual racist remarks are cheapened by analogies is new – I’d like to hear why you think that. It’s worth exploring.

Your claim that you didn’t attack Susan is disingenuous – you say she creates an issue out of a nonissue and that you’re glad you didn’t join SPU. That’s an attack in general and also an attack on Susan’s character. Making a claim that you surrender in the next sentence is a strategic error.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:20:33 +0000

Jeff -

I never said Susan called Ross a racist. I said Susan was wrong for using race as an analogy. It cheapens actual racist remarks when someone uses race as an analogy. And there was no attack on Susan. I am actually impressed that she could create an issue out of a non issue and get herself publicity like this.

Thank goodness I didn’t join SPU!

By: Jeff Rutledge

Jeff Rutledge — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:05:52 +0000

Jonathon – I want to point out that you might not be familiar with the use of the word analogy. If you’ve never heard of this word, it means “A resemblance of relations; an agreement or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely different.” (Pay special attention to the last two words – ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!)

Susan was making an analogy – she wasn’t saying that Ross was a racist BUT that the comment in the blog post in question reflects a basic prejudice, an inappropriate judgment on skill. This observation has credibility and makes sense whether Ross intended the message or not…I’m sure Ross is a nice fellow – the blog post is not nice.

Susan makes a good argument; if you can’t answer the argument (which apparently you can’t), your only option is to resort to ad hominem. I’m not surprised but I am disappointed because your emotions carried you away. I know you have a point to make; I just can’t figure out what it is by your post. Here’s the challenge – make an actual argument; that way, you see, Susan can dispose of you without having to sink to your level of argument by insult.

By: Jackson

Jackson — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:57:34 +0000

It’s a shame the important point of this post is being tossed to the side even though you state very clearly it’s not a personal attack on Mr. Kodner and openly acknowledge his service to the solo community. Others would rather be distracted by what isn’t there to avoid what is – real issues you bring up which could create a division within the solo community. And I find it is in keeping with your on-going championing and defense of the solo.

But such is the nature of commentary on a blog. It’s all about discussion, the good, the bad and the ugly. (But I do know now why people close comments)

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:09:02 +0000

Susan -

Your comments are out of line and ridiculous. You are comparing Ross’ well thought out, insightful comments to racism. And you think that is appropriate? It is a shame that you have decided to attack someone who has given more to solos than most people. And you have decided to do it by making a comparison that is not only inappropriate, but ridiculous and complete BS.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed. Of course, knowing you, I know that you are not because you did exactly what you set out to do: you got your free publicity out of this. Unfortunately, there is a cost associated with that and that cost is respect. I hope the financial rewards were worth losing the respect of many great, successful and influential solos.

By: Neil J. Squillante

Neil J. Squillante — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:30:58 +0000

“Bigfirm Rejects” is offensive — no debate about that. Some of the best people I’ve ever hired were laid off. Being laid off hardly makes one a reject.

By: Susan Cartier Liebel

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:09:23 +0000

The debate continues over at the ABA Journal. Make sure you head over there and read the comments, too. I rest my case.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/smallsolos_could_be_threatened_by_biglaw_refugees_blogger_says/

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:43:43 +0000

How about the term “Bigfirm rejects?” It’s much more accurate, and isn’t that the point of any newly coined term?

By: Bob Kraft

Bob Kraft — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:49:22 +0000

Susan, I’m hesitant to contribute to this already overheated debate, but I must speak up in “defense” of my good friend Ross Kodner. I’ve known Ross many years. He’s been in my home. Ross has always stood with and for solo and small firm lawyers. He’s devoted half his life to helping us. He would never intentionally say anything to belittle solo practitioners, no matter their origin.

I read his article when it originally appeared, and I knew instantly the distinction he was drawing. There is a fundamental difference, surely we can all agree, between practice in a big law firm and practice as a solo or small firm lawyer. The journey from BigLaw (which to me was always a derogatory term) to solo is quite different from the journey most of us have taken.

This is certainly not to say that a solo coming from a big firm is a better lawyer than one who has followed a different path. But a consultant who markets to a “BigSolo” should be aware of that difference, and understand the needs of the new solo may not be the same as the needs of a solo straight from school or entering practice after running another type of business.

I don’t care whether the new term stays, but I think it describes a valid distinction. It may be unimportant to a potential client, but it should matter to a practice management consultant.