Solo Practice University® » Demographic/Economic Trends

What Are You Doing To Help Your Business In This Troubled Economy?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 07 May 2012 11:30:30 +0000

John Jantsch wrote a terrific piece a few years ago called "7 Time-Tested Ways to Dig Out From a Recession". My position, however, is a little different. You should be doing these things ALL THE TIME.

While you can read all seven ideas on John's great site, I'm going to highlight numbers three, six and seven because I know the first two are the hardest for me and the last should be done religiously:

3) Get out from behind the computer – Building personal relationships is always in style. It’s very tempting to sit and write blog posts and participate on social networking sites, and while these aren’t always bad things – sometimes you need to go out and shake some hands. Make it a point to go to several industry conferences every year. Join an industry or chamber type group and go to events where you can make connections with prospects and partners. Join a referral group such as (fill in the blank) and participate. Go visit your customers and ask for referrals.

It is very easy to get comfortable communicating solely on the internet. It's fast, fun and you are not locked into a schedule. However, if you are reading my blog or any blog on a regular basis, subscribe to RSS, sync your e-mail with your IPhone, the fact is you are in the distinct minority of all your potential clients. Most people are simply not as up-to-speed technologically and by the time they figure out what you already do effectively, you will have moved on to something even more advanced.

And while we socialize with like-minded professionals on the internet, the fact is there is a huge gap between us and the many potential clients and referrers of potential clients out there who could use your services. Get out, mingle, physically meet others, professionally socialize even if it is just a few select times a year.

6) Repackage your products and services with offers to act- This goes along with differentiating really, but sometimes you’ve got to give that tired old dog a new look. Find simple ways to relaunch yourself, your people, your products, your services, your packaging, to give yourself a new start in your market. You don’t need to start from scratch, look for innovative ways to repackage, reprice, redeliver, re-guarantee and re-communicate about what you do. Make them an offer they can’t refuse, make it so bold they must rehear you.

This is so true. Give your blog a face lift, create some excitement about a change in your services or products. Promote if you are switching over to a Virtual Law Office or offering unbundled legal services or revamping your pricing from billable hour to value pracing. Try to attract your market in a novel and exciting way. It will not only invigorate your potential client base, it will also invigorate you. Practicing in the same rut only gets you deeper into the ground. When you eventually try to step out you will feel like a neanderthal and overwhelmed at the changes you will now first have to make.

7) Fix the marketing gaps – In every way, shape, and form that your business comes into contact with your prospects and customers it is performing a marketing function – good or bad. You must look at all of your customer touchpoints and turn them into positive, brand-building opportunities. Tear down the lead generations touches, sales touches, service touches, delivery touches, follow-up touches, transaction touches, and billing touches and make sure that every single one of them is a performing a killer marketing function for your business.

Every word you write, every syllable you utter, every piece of paper with your name on it is a touch point with your brand and a business opportunity. You just have to realize it. Once you do you will see all the unconscious marketing opportunities you have available to you and will understand the phrase "you are on 24/7."

Time to take inventory of all your touchpoints with clients and fellow attorneys including your use of social media like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube. You will be amazed how many marketing opportunities you may very well be missing or using incorrently which, when used correctly, can help fill the client pipeline…especially when times are tough.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

The ‘Multi-Generational Living’ Lawyer. What?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:30:17 +0000

Quite often we ask ourselves how we can create a niche, how to be different, how to truly carve out a unique subset of a practice area to call our own and then get known for that area. I always like to follow demographic changes and economic changes to see what can be done. Well, a recent article and an article from 2010 discussing how the changing economy has seen an upswing in multiple generations residing together got me to thinking about this unique twist on The Family Lawyer.

According to this Pew Research Center report, Boomerang adults are most responsible for the rapid increase in multi-generational households. In 1980, 11 percent of young adults (between the ages of 24 to 35) returned home to live with their parents. By 2008, 20 percent of young adults returned home. Interestingly, this age group is the only one in which men make up the greater share. Among the elderly, the reverse is true: Women are a larger portion of those in multi-generational homes. Overall among the elderly, the same percentage as young adults (20 percent) enjoy a multi-generational home, up from 17 percent in the 1980s.

The number of so-called multi-generational households — where adults are living with their elderly parents or grown children — has jumped since the Great Recession forced Americans to rethink living on their own. Demographic experts say it's poised to rise further as baby boomers age, so-called "boomerang kids" walloped by the weak job market stay home longer, and ethnic groups such as Asians and Hispanics, who are more likely to live with extended family, continue to grow.

There are zoning issues. Then there are potential shared ownership issues, estate issues, liability issues, landlord/tenant issues if a family member is a renter, tax issues, privacy issues, roommate issues all under the emotional umbrella of 'family'.

The reality is, this segment of the market will be growing due to the economy. It is also a 'preventive' practice area meaning potential problems should be discussed and necessary documents should be created before the families make decisions on living arrangements and doing so blindly and out of love or obligation.

For example: an aging mother moves in with one of her children, spouse, and grandchildren. An apartment is built for the mother. Who pays for the zoning variance? Who pays for construction? Who pays for ongoing tax liability for increased taxes due to the in-law apartment? Who pays for access ramps for the mother's wheel chair? Who pays for utilities if they run off the same zones? Who get's tax credits? Does the mother's childcare duties for her grandchildren have a value and offset costs down the road? What happens if the mother dies leaving an unfunded increased tax liability on the home which the child (home owner) can't afford to pay? Does the value of the addition become an automatic benefit to the child (home owner) in exchange for rent unpaid on the apartment? Can the apartment be willed to another child giving them an unplanned for interest in the home when it is sold or an automatic right to use against the homeowner's wishes? Or does the value of the apartment get deducted from the child (home owner's) share of the mother's estate? You see where this is going. This is an area ripe with possibilities for preventive and holistic law as well as, unfortunately, litigation.

What about rental agreements between parents (home owners) and adult children and their spouses who live in the parents' home with their little children? Let's take it a step farther and talk about aging sibling's who both have children who decide to live together and pool their resources?

Not only is this area rich with possibilities but it also has many tangential (and feeder) practice areas: trusts and estates, real estate, landlord/tenant, bankrtupcy, zoning and mediation.

Just gets you to thinking, doesn't it?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Do The Math: Nearly 50% of All Law Grads Will Not Get Jobs.

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:30:52 +0000

“In his new book Failing Law Schools, Washington University law professor Brian Tamanaha cites a remarkable statistic. American law schools, he reports, produce 45,000 new graduates each year; but recruiters expect only 25,000 job openings annually through 2018.” Edge International Consulting.

This is staggering! If you do the math this means from 2012 – 2018, if the graduation rates stay the same, there will be 140,000 more lawyers entering the work force than there are paychecks waiting for them. And what of the graduates these past five years and those who have lost jobs these past five years? You're talking about over a quarter of a million graduates struggling to get legal jobs today and into the foreseeable future.

And if you haven't heard about all the law schools being sued for false employment statistics as a result, the list just keeps growing. It also begs the question: if all the law schools are claiming they followed the ABA guidelines, will the ABA eventually be brought into the suit? Is the ABA doing enough based upon this Wall Street Journal article? And what's even more intriguing, it's being suggested rather forcefully:

".. that widespread manipulation of law school graduate employment data may have not only pushed institutions higher in the national law school rankings, but also could be considered "mail and wire fraud under federal law".

The U.S. News ranking of the country's law schools may be so flawed by deceptive or misleading statistics submitted by the country's law schools that "the harm done for many years to thousands of people has been so severe, it should not be hard to recognize the need for investigations by federal authorities to determine whether crimes have been committed," CNN Money, March 16, 2012

I've had many opportunities to speak at law schools and have no intention of stopping. When I meet up with current law students, recent grads, and panelists who share their experiences there are generally three overriding themes which permeate every conversation and every panel discussion - the reality that gainful legal employment will be eluding them, even for those at the top of their class who spent their summers working for free to gain experience; absolute terror about student loans coming due, and being fed up about being told to work for free. As to student loans, of those graduating in the next two years, ninety percent will have law school debt as discussed by a recent panelist I met, Paul Campos, who incidentally authors the blog Inside the Law School Scam. And when students are facing this type of bone-crushing debt it makes you sit up and take notice when, in assessing the discrepancies between actual hiring numbers and stated hiring numbers, Campos states:

"Law schools may be cooking the books, or be incompetent in reporting or it may be that firms are hiring career associates and not partner-track associates," says Campos.

"But it's a huge discrepancy. And it could show a level of arrogance that could mean trouble for law schools." CNN Money, March 16,2012

But class action suits and federal investigations aside, students need help today. Reform will not help them in the immediate future. What they need is different. School representatives I've recently spoken with want to better understand how to keep law students' spirits up about utilizing their law degrees in a meaningful way while still being able to meet their student loan obligations and creating a life for themselves. While I was speaking at University of Georgia Law School in Athens, one panelist on alternative careers intrigued the audience with this comment:

'Don't let your law degree define you or lead you. Stay in front of your degree and control its use.'

His message was clear. Your law degree is an additional tool to capitalize upon when pursuing your 'ultimate' career. Others panelists stated doing what you were ultimately meant to do can be like negotiating a corn maze. Don't limit how you creatively apply your degree. Still others cautioned there are major pitfalls when traveling through the maze. Sometimes just by virtue of having your J.D. it will set off alarm signals to a potential employer you are too qualified for the job or you may be just considering it a pit stop on the way to a better opportunity. As a result, you may never even get the interview.

Another Tier 1 former BigLaw associates says to this day, though he loves what he's currently doing, he feels guilty that he didn't somehow stick it out and make partner, that he's failed as a lawyer. This should never be how one thinks if they want to use their degree in a different way than partnership track at a large firm. But this judgmental attitude is pervasive within and without the profession. Both families and colleagues (who are practicing) think if you are not actually practicing and doing so for a larger firm that somehow you've failed to live up to the potential of your degree. How myopic and dispiriting. Could this be why lawyers who go on to do amazing things other than practice refer to themselves as recovering lawyers or former lawyers?

However, another lawyer who became a judge took his whole family to Guatemala because he was asked to found and run a non-governmental unit designed to protect children from abuse and trafficking. His earlier experience practicing in this area and then every position he held thereafter was just the precursor to finding his ultimate calling. His law degree and his devotion to defenseless children helped him get there yet he is now not practicing law. Later in a private conversation he did say when his work can be passed on to a successor he will come back and look to open a solo practice.

Innovation within the legal field was also a hot topic post-conference. Dining with a newly married couple, one graduating law school this year and the other graduated last year, I discovered they want to travel an entirely different path. They want to create their own business servicing the legal industry. They are not reinventing the wheel but segmenting out a specific service currently performed by lawyers (and not profitable to the law firm) they believe could be profitably outsourced to a provider. This would also be very attractive to solos and small firms in particular because it frees them up to do what they do best – practicing law. They see a defined need and know their business model is both viable and profitable for all involved.. They are very excited about using their degree this way because the degree gives them credibility to do it even though it is not required. Again, the student loans are looming but they are going for it even though others keep telling them they should be practicing law instead of servicing the legal industry because after all…isn't this what a law degree is for?

A legal degree should be viewed as an enhancement, not a limitation, to your opportunities. In and of itself it provides an incredible opportunity to work with others to help them resolve problems and to be part of an amazing profession. But this not the only road, or the end of road.

These people focused on what they love to do, discovered and then followed the single golden thread weaving together their experiences and passions. Quite often we don't know where to find this thread until we've moved on to the next opportunity. But it pays to search for it in everything you do. This golden thread could morph into your own 'yellow brick road' leading you to where you are ultimately meant to be.

So, if you're on the brink of graduating or already out, you have to leave possible law school deceptions, USNWR rankings, and employment stats behind you. Why? If you keep looking backward with anger or regret it's impossible to move forward. Moving forward is the only way you are going to stay in front of your legal degree, creatively resolve your student loan obligations and start building a (possibly unexpected) future career which will be emotionally and financially rewarding.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Why New (And Not So New) Lawyers Should Be Brushing Up On Their Spanish

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:30:15 +0000

First, this is not a political post. I will be laying out facts and projections. The goal is for you to use the information (or not) when thinking about the (very near) future of your law practice. Period.

I am a Gleek. I admit it. And never was I more Gleeky than the week Ricky Martin made his guest appearance on the show singing 'I'm Sexy and I Know It.'

But, that's not really what this post is about. What it is about is what Ricky Martin's character, the new Spanish teacher, said to his night students wanting to learn Spanish:

… by 2030 more Americans will be speaking Spanish as their first language then English.

I was a little surprised, too! That's less than 18 years away! The stars then took turns singing songs in English and Spanish, the not-so-subtle message being we all need to hone our spanish language skills.

Well, going on the assumption the writers of the show wouldn't insert blatantly wrong information, I started hunting around the internet to find some studies. I've known for quite some time the hispanic and latino population is the second largest ethnic population in the United States. For years we have all been aware how large companies including food manufacturers, utility companies, and the government have printed materials in both English and Spanish and their voice systems give you the option to continue instruction in English or Spanish. What is the language your children are learning in school as early as third or fourth grade? How many Spanish-speaking cable stations are available? And even with all these indicators, I'm not sure the average person fully understands how quickly this shift in demographics will be upon us or how fully and appropriately to embrace it.

While I couldn't find the exact information Martin's Glee character references, I did find support for this fast-moving shift in the U.S. population.

The U.S. population will soar to 438 million by 2050 and the Hispanic population will triple, according to projections released Monday by the Pew Research Center.The latest projections by the non-partisan research group are higher than government estimates to date and paint a portrait of an America dramatically different from today's. The projected growth in the U.S. population — 303 million today — will be driven primarily by immigration among all groups except the elderly.

Even if immigration is limited, Hispanics' share of the population will increase because they have higher birth rates than the overall population. That's largely because Hispanic immigrants are younger than the nation's aging baby boom population. By 2030, all 79 million boomers will be at least 65 and the elderly will grow faster than any other age group.

The projections show that by 2050:

Nearly one in five Americans will have been born outside the USA vs. one in eight in 2005. Sometime between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of foreign-born will surpass the historic peak reached a century ago during the last big immigration wave. New immigrants and their children and grandchildren born in the USA will account for 82% of the population increase from 2005 to 2050.

Whites who are not Hispanic, now two-thirds of the population, will become a minority when their share drops to 47%. They made up 85% of the population in 1960.

This information is from an article in USA today written in 2008. This is a projection which has probably changed, yet again, these past four years. In 1992 projections had the U.S. population at 383 million and White, non-Hispanics at 53% in 2050. The 2004 projections have White, non-Hispanics decreasing to %50.1% in 2050. Bear in the mind the years of these projections. Here is some state-specific information on projected growth and a chart on current percentages by state. However, the trends clearly indicate your state will see a sizable increase in its Hispanic and Latino populations going forward. And this is reflected in the fact that as of 2011 there are almost six thousand elected officeholders in the United States who are of Latino origin. There is also a member of this growing demographic sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Back to your solo/small firm practice. Will you be incorporating this information into your business plan? Your hiring decisions? Your marketing materials? Will you start considering practice areas which address this growing population? Will you bring on 'Of Counsel' or a paralegal or virtual assistant who speaks Spanish? Will you have a translate button on your online portal or on your web presence? Do you have any of this already?

I also want you to pay attention to what was indicated in addition to trending population growth. The Hispanic population is a 'younger' population overall with higher birth rates. This means traditional practice areas which cater to a younger demographic are going to do very well. This includes all consumer law arenas – real estate, bankruptcy, divorce, trusts & estates, personal injury, business, patents & trademarks, special education, fertility and adoption, etc.

Time to start learning that second or third language if you haven't already!

Articles of Interest:

Pew Hispanic Center - information relating to Hispanic demographics, social trends, education, and more

Solo Practice University Faculty Announcement – Vonda K. Vandaveer teaching Immigration Law

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Will 2012 Be The Year of The Legal Entrepreneur?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:30:30 +0000

We all know that 2012 is going to test all solos, their creativity, their stamina, their ability to 'keep it down' when they want to throw up on the roller coaster ride known as solo practice…especially in the years ahead. Rather than prognosticate about all the changes which are definitely happening, I'd rather have you cogitate on this:

By 2019, forty percent of all American workers will be self-employed.
- United States Department of Labor forecast, as reported by Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Well, let's do some basic math. Right now, all things being equal, there is a 40% chance you will be an entrepreneur. But wait. Lawyers already have a disproportionately higher number of self-employed, currently hovering around 50% depending upon who you're listening to. The recent percentage being bandied about for the general working population for self-employed is around 30%. If by 2019 there will be a 33% increase in self-employed in the general working population and you simply (and unscientifically) impute the same 33% bump up for lawyers, you now have those self-employed in the legal profession at around 68% within the next seven years.

It's time you ask yourself this singular, life-altering, tough question: Are you an entrepreneur?

We're going to skip the simple-minded checklists which I find mind-numbingly meaningless. However, this 2008 edition of the National Post has a wonderful piece entitled, " Understanding the Psychology of the Successful" which explains the traits and characteristics unique to the individual who becomes a successful solo entrepreneur. These traits and characteristics clearly are applicable to the lawyer who starts her own solo practice. ( I also discussed this back in 2008 but the topic is timeless).

A recent finding of interest is that contrary to the popular conception of successful entrepreneurs being solely independent, single-minded and devoted to their unique passions, they are also characterized by high levels of social competence and social intelligence, with an ability to build relationships and to connect with others on a social and interpersonal level.

As well, early research has indicated that successful entrepreneurs seem to think a bit differently from the rest of us, viewing the world and the potential risks in it through a different lens. For example, they often have a unique ability to see opportunities others fail to recognize. Or they may judge ambiguous business conditions in more positive, enthusiastic, and optimistic terms. One of the appealing notions of exploring these and other cognitive strategies employed by successful entrepreneurs is they are likely learnable skills that education, training and practice can improve upon.

***********************************

Additionally, evidence indicates startup firms that take advantage of resources such as mentoring, counselling and other small business development assistance have a better survival and growth rate than do their peers.

There is a growing body of work discussing what separates entrepreneurs from employees. There seems to be a unifying theme of creativity and commitment to the end goal, a global vision, and the stamina and endurance to do what it takes to realize the vision. In addition:

Nascent entrepreneurs are often relatively comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and risk, strongly influence events (what psychologists refer to as self-efficacy), and have high levels of work motivation.

******************************

However, another "type" of intelligence is even more important to the outcome of an entrepreneurial venture. Some blend of critical analytical thinking, creativity, and practical implementation of ideas, which psychologists often refer to as "successful intelligence" can also predict outcomes such as business growth rate.

Entrepreneurs with higher levels of successful intelligence are likely to be better positioned to navigate the environment they are in — an environment often characterized by urgency, uncertainty, insufficient resources and rapid change.

This is some pretty inspiring and heady stuff. It also explains why solos persist in the face of professional negativity:

Entrepreneurs with higher levels of successful intelligence are likely to be better positioned to navigate the environment they are in — an environment often characterized by urgency, uncertainty, insufficient resources and rapid change.

It really bore repeating.

In my experience, solo practitioners quite often exhibit these characteristics in abundance. They are disinterested in over analyzing and more committed to getting started. While they may do an informal calculus regarding possibilities, it is just that, informal. It is not meant to be a deterrent. It is simply an assessment of potential hurdles they must clear. But there is something else I am observing. It isn't scientific. Therefore it falls under the title of 'opinion'.

In my opinion, law school education has been designed in a way which deliberately suppresses creativity and spontaneity, the very qualities needed to succeed as an entrepreneur:

One of the appealing notions of exploring these (creativity and spontaneity) and other cognitive strategies employed by successful entrepreneurs is they are likely learnable skills that education, training and practice can improve upon.

Creativity is not rewarded as it should be nor is it enhanced through the current legal education model. So, the question becomes this – do students who go to law school lack creativity and entrepreneurial spirit or does the current legal education model suppress it to the point where graduates actually fear their entrepreneurial and creative sides? After all these years, I'm beginning to believe the high rate of depression in this profession is due to suppression of creativity and those who opt to go solo do so in order not to have their creativity suppressed. They no longer want to feel trapped within the profession's arbitrary and unhealthy constraints. A little anecdotal proof? These same solos are the ones who embrace innovation more enthusiastically and, are in fact, quite often the architects of these innovations.

Quite often others will equate 'creativity' with the commoditization of the law because it challenges some of the traditional methods of delivery of legal services. I beg to differ. What should matter is not how legal services are delivered but how clients' legal problems are resolved. And smart lawyers will never lose sight of this. The end game is the resolution of a client's legal problems, not holding onto to rigid methods of delivery. But change has always been scariest to those who fear it most.

We are going to see a lot of unexpected changes in the profession born out of an overwhelming need for the majority of professionals to survive. I may be in the minority in this opinion, but I do believe (and have always believed) that we are entering a time when lawyers have no choice but to call upon their long-dormant entrepreneurial side in order to build a life and they will become surprisingly creative. Ultimately, I believe it will also change the profession forever and the change might very well be for the better.

So, where do you fit into all of this?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

The Millennial Lawyer. They ARE Our Future.

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:30:49 +0000

(This is a little long but I hope you’ll find it worthwhile)

In a recent article entitled "Startup Generation Ready to Fix Economy" we are learning that today's millennial is not only not a slacker but those who are taking their job security into their own hands is increasing exponentially.

Forty percent of those in Generation Y, roughly defined as Americans born from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s, envision starting their own business, and about 20 percent already have, according to a report published last month by The Affluence Collaborative, a research partnership.

"They understand that if they want security and they want to be assured of having a job, now more than ever, it makes sense to create your own job," Fenn said.

There has been so much discussion about the Millennial in the workforce and particularly in law firms. I need to weigh in yet again because I feel very differently then those in the legal community who have been quite vocal about their disdain for this generation and maybe it's because I'm more involved with those who are actively looking to build their own practices and those who have started their own businesses. I view this generation much differently then many.

Maybe it's because, even though I'm two generations removed from a millennial, I understand some of what they feel. I don't believe the mindset of the Millennial is a new one. I think in large part they just harbor more entrepreneurial drive then previous generations….and I get entrepreneurial. They are not willing to put off starting their dreams. They are certainly less inclined to sacrifice unless their career goal is attainable within a relatively reasonable period of time. But they are very happy to sacrifice when it means working for those dreams. They don't see their world segmented – work life in one corner and personal life in the other. They just see 'life.' And there is a stronger belief in one's self but it has been nurtured on a fast food mentality. They are simply in the fast lane 24/7. It's saying 'no' to the old model of doing business…not to a strong work ethic. And it is by saying 'no' to an old business model that some interpret them as arrogant, disrespectful and dismissive of those who did work within the old model to get where they are today. I believe this is what irks those who have trudged the more traditional path….barefoot through 10 feet of snow…to school…without a winter coat. We can't be mad at an entire generation because they don't want to play by the rules most of us felt we had to abide by or were forced to abide by.

Of course, there is much more (positive and negative about this generation) that can be (in)appropriately broad-brushed. Yet, as in any generation there are those who are driven to achieve who have a strong work ethic and those who are slackers. But for some reason, this generation is really getting slammed. I believe it is unfair.

What role has corporate America (you and me) played in this? Let's see. These kids grew up:

watching their parents slave away at jobs only to be laid off over and over, again,
lose their pensions and health benefits to criminals like Enron, corporate shill politicians, and now to mismanagement of federal, state, and local government;
watching corporate America outsource their jobs overseas while stock-piling cash and NOT creating new jobs;
seeing a corporate culture change from one where employees were valued and shown appreciation to a culture of poor treatment and being told they should be grateful to have any job;
being told if they didn't like 'any job' there's ten one hundred more people who look just like them lining up to take their place.

The days of feeling proud for having given all your working life to one company and getting the gold watch and retirement dinner have disappeared. Today's young worker sees working for another based upon the old model as indentured servitude on a path to nowhere with no realistic brass ring and they want no part of it. This is especially true after being told over and over again that their generation will be the first generation to not do as well as their parents. Now there's an exciting future to consider as they carry $150,000 + in non-dischargable student loans.

So, if they want to do an end run around the old model because they think it's broken can we really fault them? If they want to look up at the sky and see endless possibilities of their own creation rather than the big round butt of a middle manager who blocks their innovation and creativity can we blame them? If they want to try and figure out a new and better way that works for them should we tell them they're wrong and publicly ridicule them for trying? Who are we to say what is best for them? Now who's being arrogant, disrespectful and dismissive? What I have heard over and over, again, is, "I wish I hadn't been so scared? I wish I had their guts.

Bravery, stupidity…call it what you will. But those brave or stupid people created Facebook, Twitter, Google, Zappos, Amazon, SurveyMonkey and today's technology and smartphone apps we live and die by and so much more than we could ever have dreamed because they DIDN'T follow the traditional models and all of these new models are totally driven on customer service and regard for their employees.

In a recent article it was suggested that 65% of grade school children will work jobs that have yet to be created. Who will be creating of these jobs? Today's millennial entrepreneurs, that's who.

And for those who are in management at law firms, have you ever heard of 'internal marketing?' It is a wonderful phrase coined by Sybil Sterchik who discusses the concept during an interview with Toby Bloomberg at the very popular Diva Marketing Blog. She says that when you value your employees, your employees value your customers. Today, the law firms from solo to Big Law who put their client first will succeed.

Internal Marketing is a strategic blend of marketing and human resources focused on taking care of employees so they can take care of customers. While that still sounds warm & fuzzy, nonetheless it’s critical because if your employees don’t feel valued, neither will your legal clients!

Appreciation, involvement in the process, being part of a company's dialog and success, the creation of a community, translates into loyalty by the employee and profits to the company.

And this is not a new concept. It is a forgotten concept, I know because I experienced it in the companies I worked for in the 80′s. I worked at not one, but two, companies who had office happy hours every Friday afternoon hosted by the president. One company president drove his motorcycle through the company offices giving employees rides. This same company handed out turkeys to every employee at Thanksgiving, held birthday parties for each employee. Ten year anniversaries were celebrated with a one week trip to London and a stay at their corporate apartment with show tickets. Was this a small private company? One was small. The other was the U.S. headquarters for an international corporation where I worked for 3 years. This was a time before executives took $50 million dollar bonuses while telling their employees the company can't afford to give COLA raises while simultaneously reducing their health benefits. When I left the company with the motorcycle-riding president, it was the only time I actually grieved for 'family" because the company invested in creating a culture within the workplace…a culture the employees didn't want to leave.

And I believe the companies I worked for are being described by Ms. Sterchik when she states:

I find it ironic that many companies (law firms) who do Internal Marketing well aren’t necessarily aware that they’re using Internal Marketing. These are companies with a workplace culture and operations committed to the value of both customers AND employees. (and I'd like to add – living the company's mission and workplace values)

If a company who has employees really believes they can skip this step and retain employees, either they are paying their employees so well they can't afford to leave or they are deluding themselves.

Despite different generational attitudes in the workplace, companies will still need to engage their employees. And that’s where Internal Marketing comes in – enabling organizations to communicate and reinforce a sense of common purpose, a sense of belonging, and a sense of being part of something special, particularly in workplace that’s becoming increasingly insular. Internal Marketing will continue to be relevant as a ‘high touch’ people-centered management approach in a ‘high tech’ world.

So, you see this isn't a generational mandate unique to the Millennial. This is just good business. And in these crazy times to hold on to quality talent even with unprecedented unemployment is still critical to growth.

This new generation can't work within an environment which does not respect their goals and values, a management hierarchy which can't conceive of, never mind nurture, a new way of doing things which actually benefits the company and the clients foremost. If law firm managers, even solos looking to hire an associate, choose not to recognize this and behave antagonistically, then they are going to lose the talent they have and certainly not attract new talent. If this talent strikes out on their own without regrets why are the law firms so mad? Why should these new lawyers have to take 20 years to figure out they don't want to waste their time at that law firm? There is 'paying your dues' and then there is selling your soul out of fear. This generation didn't create disloyalty. It was the previous generation of employers who were disloyal and dishonest and gave this new generation permission to say, 'screw you.'

So, there are some mea culpas to be made by employers. There are some steps they have to take to create environments to attract today's young worker and get the best out of them. Today's generation is suspicious and self-serving to a degree because they've learned no one is going to look out for their best interests better than themselves (or their parents.) And yet, when it comes to fighting for real change and the welfare of others they are fearless and committed and do things we would never dare for their causes.

This generation grew up (and is continuing to grow up) connected to a vibrant and diverse community through technology and they can no more leave this connectivity when in the workplace then they can leave their left arm. To not capitalize upon this connectivity is just plain bad business.

Employers should capitalize on this connectivity and the freedom they, too, can experience released from the confines of the 9-5 workday and sterile cubicle and harness the additional strengths of the millennial worker instead of straitjacketing them. And when there is a strong work community it mitigates the need for a rigid caste system. The caste system is dead..at least for this generation.

That is why I believe, more and more lawyers will strike out on their own and invent the future law practice. Millennials will be more inclined to pursue their entrepreneurial bend, especially in the law. And you will see those who have worked so hard within the current system who get the boot or law grads who simply get no opportunity or document reviewers who are not rewarded in ways which are meaningful to them more inclined to become solo practitioners.

Then consider the economic times we are facing. In a time of uncertainty, the direction this world is going, extraordinary debt, health care in crisis, climate change, endless war…there is a certain 'live for the moment' feeling which propels them to say, 'if this isn't working for me, I'm outta here.' They don't just say, "time is precious." They live and work knowing time is precious.

Rigidity and lack of consideration for the mindset of this generation is a recipe for economic disaster for businesses of all stripes. Law firms are definitely not immune.

As a solo, there may come a time when you may choose to bring on an associate. Remember this. And remember why you chose to go solo, the freedom to control your own time, your own destiny. You realized you'd rather be responsible for your own financial security and you have faith in your abilities to do this. And when you made (or make) the decision to go solo didn't you, regardless if you are a Baby Boomer, Gen X or Gen Y, basically say the very same thing? I think the phrase was 'screw you.'

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Are We In A Legal Profession (Pricing) Bubble?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:30:24 +0000

Clearly with all the financial turmoil rocking our country, those who have been tracking why we are where we are today refer to the bursting of various sector bubbles. Some even refer to our economy as a 'bubble economy' driven by six major bubbles which include real estate, stock market, private debt, discretionary spending, government debt, and the U.S. dollar bubbles. They've historically not only inflated almost simultaneously but are linked. As such, it is responsible for the past decade's earlier prosperity but is also the reason we are in financial decline. When one bubble bursts it puts downward pressure on each of the connected bubbles threatening to burst them all.

It's also very hard to see a bubble while we're in it and much easier to play Monday morning quarterback after one has actually burst. More importantly, it's impossible to re-inflate a bubble which has burst.

What has this got to do with the legal profession? Well, I'm currently reading a book called 'Aftershock' discussing the future of our economy and as I was reading it I began to wonder if what we are witnessing these past couple of years is the bursting of the legal profession bubble? Here is how the authors describe the real estate bubble – which we should all be familiar with if not directly feeling its impact – and why it burst:

For example, real estate prices are typically driven higher by a growing population (increasing demand) and the growing incomes of home buyers (increasing ability to buy). When populations increase and incomes increase, home prices also increase. On the other hand, if you see home prices increasing, let's say, twice as fast as incomes, then that could mean something unsustainable is happening to the value of real estate. Why? Because home prices that high are not sustainable without a similar rise in the ability of buyers to keep paying those prices.

The United States has lost almost every single job created during the housing bubble – no jobs, not much demand for homes. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Total Non-Farm Jobs 2000 – 2011

When the downward pressure is too great on unsustainable pricing (or another metric)…the bubble bursts. Well, back in 2009 when Big Law imploded it was just coming from an over-inflated pricing binge that was unsustainable. Associates were coming on board with annual salaries of $200,000. Partner hourly rates tipped the scales at $1,000. Clients were rebelling because of their inability to keep paying those dramatically increased fees relative to the value of the services received and what they could afford. The bubble burst. ( This, of course, was a smaller bubble linked to much larger bubbles within our economy). The principle, however, is the same.

Our clients live in this evolving economy. Traditional law firms (and law schools, for that matter) with pre-bubble- bursting pricing structures such as the billable hour are struggling against client rebellion (DIY'ers) and the rise of the Legal Zooms of this world because they have not recognized their pricing has escalated at an unsustainable rate relative to what their clients can afford (and are willing) to pay.

Also, if one expects the legal market to revert to what it once was, consider this: the only way a bubble can reinflate is if the previous drivers of that bubble remain ready, willing and able to do so. Those previous drivers are gone.

It is also why lawyers and law firms who recognize this and get creative will survive against the $69 wills currently being advertised by Legal Zoom in their latest TV campaign.

More than two years ago I wrote we are entering into a 'new economy'* and kept insisting we are in unchartered waters. In Aftershock the authors validate my assertions:

We are not in a typical 'down market cycle'. With so many linked bubbles now on the descent, the impact of their combined future collapse will be far more dangerous than any downturn or recession we've experienced in the past. Unlike in a healthy economy, in this falling multi-bubble economy, the usual strategies for returning to our previous prosperity no longer apply. We have, in fact, entered new territory.

What this means to lawyers is, if you believe we have in fact experienced the bursting of the legal profession bubble, it is now time to rethink your whole approach to building your practice including your pricing strategies. What other lawyers are doing in their practices (including finding out what they are charging to some extent) is less and less relevant to the foundational principles of how you create and build YOUR practice.

With a hat tip to Lawyerist, we've learned about one enterprising lawyer , Alex Bajwa, who took the unusual step of committing himself to one month of letting his clients fix their own fees and to determine if at the end of the representation they were even going to pay him. The reason I was so impressed with this is because he decided to cut through all the rhetoric and advice of others and talk directly to his clients. By doing so he in essence found out what was a sustainable price for his services based upon what his clients could afford. It was a one month focus group. This is how one should respond to a bubble-burst to build a sustainable solo practice for the future.

I have said numerous times that when things come crashing down it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity time to build upon the ashes of what was with something innovative and new. We all know we are in for rough times in this new economy yet in so many ways the playing field will never be more level than it is today. It will also unleash some of the most creative legal minds of the newest generation of lawyers and I can't wait to read about their innovative practices.

We all know Legal Zoom looks pretty on paper but fails to deliver what the clients actually want and need. Take the time to learn directly from your clients what they want and what they need.

In a Special Report published in April (2009), The Economist looked ahead (to today) and saw that “In the next couple of years the businesses that thrive will be those that are miserly with costs, wary of debt, cautious with cashflow and obsessively attentive to what customers want.”

If these companies turn a mirror to their customers and prospects, they may see the exact same traits.

Once you find out what your prospective clients want and can reasonably afford, feel free to create a brand new way to deliver your legal services while building 'the' solo practice of the future. Remember, legal problems are not going away. There is plenty of work to be had. As a matter of fact the need for legal services is actually increasing because of this economy and because of the complexity of our lives. It is the delivery of these services which will be forever changed as well as the price clients are willing to pay.

The rules we are obliged to follow should be seen as a foundation upon which to build your practice, not a box to enclose and stifle your ingenuity. The sky is the limit.

If you've been innovative and seriously thinking outside the box, contact me at susan (at) solopracticeuniversity.com and maybe we'll share your story!

*(If you'd like to catch up on my blog posts regarding the impact of demographics and the economy on the legal profession – particularly solo practice – you can do so here.)

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Your Troubled Neighbor. Your Troubled Client. Your Troubled Practice?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:20:52 +0000

This post is long and filled with a lot of informative links. It also might be a wake-up call for those who have laid low for a while and tried to ignore the economy.)

Those who have followed me for the nearly four years I've been blogging know I have always drawn attention to the client's perspective when one is considering creating, building, renovating and changing a solo practice. I'm personally fascinated (and we're all impacted) by everything relating to global economics and changing demographics and I have had to exercise considerable restraint when writing on this blog so as to keep it in line with my readers' expectations.

As a knowledge worker and one who serves individuals with services, the economics of this country and changing demographics profoundly impacts you and your law practice. If you are not consciously aware of what is going on around you, you can be left trying to sell sunscreen in a snowstorm and wondering why you're starving.

Why 2011 Is Different – A Layperson's (mini) History Lesson

With the threat of a default which many guarantee will not happen (and which, contrary to popular belief, has happened several times in our country's history – 1779, 1790, 1862, 1934 and arguably 1971 when Nixon broke the link between gold and the dollar), there are numerous discussions about the fallout on the United States. Chances are good this will not happen. However, we are still in serious economic quicksand many have likened to the Great Depression. There are two things which are profoundly different than 1929, however, and which will dictate how Americans will come out of it on the other end:

1. During the Great Depression there was no middle class to destroy because a middle class did not exist. The middle class was a post-war phenomenon borne out of #2;

2. Post-Great Depression big money and corporations poured their wealth back into this country – not out of benevolence or patriotism – but because there were no other 'emerging markets' or an interconnected world allowing for less costly production of products. Cheap labor and other incentives to achieve a global position or record profits were not as readily available.

After the World War II we saw the creation of the middle class for many reasons. However, two events are particularly noteworthy:

1. The reduction in the production costs of food making us truly the land of plenty;

2. The abundance of jobs being created through manufacturing on our own soil which put millions to work.

With job creation and, for the first time, disposable income for a significant portion of the population, our economy boomed and the middle class was born.

This burgeoning middle class had money to pay for and sustain the livelihoods of knowledge workers….like lawyers.

Today, with the Great Recession quickly becoming the Great Depression, when we emerge from it life is going to be profoundly different and the distribution of wealth is going to be permanently altered.

1. The Great Recession and world events (including natural disasters) are now forcing our food prices (and other items we use on a daily basis) through the roof eating up our disposable income.

2. This Great Recession is seeing the destruction of the middle class which has fueled this economy for the past seventy years. It is forcing the majority of those once in the middle class to be top-tier lower class or poverty-stricken. The corporations responsible for breathing life back into this country after the Great Depression now have options to increase their profit outside our borders – overseas labor happy to work for pennies and more than three billion newbie capitalists on the other side of the world earning the money once ear-marked for our workers. And they are spending! Our corporations will ultimately build other countries while they become even richer instead of rebuilding the United States. The middle class will be but a memory.

I just want to share some statistics with you…not to depress you but so you can understand what is happening to your neighbor, your client:

#1 Only 58 percent of Americans have a job right now.

#2 Only 56 percent of Americans are currently covered by employer-provided health insurance.

#3 The median yearly wage in the United States is $26,261.

#4 The average American household is carrying $75,600 in debt.

#5 Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.

#6 At this point, American families are approximately 7.7 trillion dollars poorer than they were back in early 2007.

#7 The poorest 50% of all Americans now own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

#8 According to one study, approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States were living below the poverty line in 2010.

#9 Today, there are more than 44 million Americans on food stamps, and nearly half of them are children.

#10 According to Newsweek, close to 20 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 54 do not have a job at the moment.

(10 Facts About the Financial Conditions of American Families.)

Americans are also being told they need to accept that are going to suffer a decline in their standard of living relative to the rest of the world: (Of course, this comes from Billionaire Howard Marks but it doesn't make it any less truthful.)

He says:

"In addition to balancing the budget and growing the economy, I think we have to accept that the coming decades are likely to see U.S. standards of living decline relative to the rest of the world. Unless our goods offer a better cost/benefit bargain, there’s no reason why American workers should continue to enjoy the same lifestyle advantage over workers in other countries. I just don’t expect to hear many politicians own up to this reality on the stump.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/billionaire-howard-marks-us-standards-of-living-are-likely-to-decline-relative-to-the-rest-of-the-world-2011-7#ixzz1T91Cx3Qe

Where does that leave the lawyers who have traditionally built livelihoods servicing the middle class?

I was reading this article from the New York Times called The Start-Up of You which discusses the changed mentality one must have to succeed in this world while focusing on the growth sector of our economy – the Facebook's, etc.:

Look at the news these days from the most dynamic sector of the U.S. economy — Silicon Valley. Facebook is now valued near $100 billion, Twitter at $8 billion, Groupon at $30 billion, Zynga at $20 billion and LinkedIn at $8 billion. These are the fastest-growing Internet/social networking companies in the world, and here’s what’s scary: You could easily fit all their employees together into the 20,000 seats in Madison Square Garden, and still have room for grandma. They just don’t employ a lot of people, relative to their valuations, and while they’re all hiring today, they are largely looking for talented engineers.

Indeed, what is most striking when you talk to employers today is how many of them have used the pressure of the recession to become even more productive by deploying more automation technologies, software, outsourcing, robotics — anything they can use to make better products with reduced head count and health care and pension liabilities. That is not going to change. And while many of them are hiring, they are increasingly picky. They are all looking for the same kind of people — people who not only have the critical thinking skills to do the value-adding jobs that technology can’t, but also people who can invent, adapt and reinvent their jobs every day, in a market that changes faster than ever.

(First, note that this growth sector has nothing has to do with producing widgets. It has to do with the ability to capitalize upon knowledge). These are powerful words for knowledge workers.

You have to be willing to adapt, invent, value-add to that which technology cannot do in order to survive 'in a market that changes faster than ever'.

And our world is changing rapidly.

In addition, word came out today that Legal Zoom is positioning for an IPO. Legal services are always needed. Whether or not this economy will force more DYI's is another issue.

I don't have the answers. What I do know is this New Economy is going to shake up a lot of lawyers who are ill-prepared, rigid in their ideas or smug about the way they currently do business. It is also going to lay the groundwork for tremendous successes for those who understand what is happening and make efforts to be creative, capitalize upon technology and move quickly. Legal problems will never go away for your clients. The delivery of solutions is what is ever-changing. Understanding what you're clients are up against is half the battle.

We can play the blame game but if you are reading this blog, you know I'm a firm believer in being practical. Casting blame doesn't put food on your table, pay your students loans, or build a solo practice enabling a livelihood. Understanding what you need to do to compete and then implementing it as a professional does.

What strategies are you implementing to stay in the game and to stay in the game profitably? If you've read this post you will see all kinds of opportunities for your practice.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

With Walmart Offering Legal Services Where Will You Fit In?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:00:11 +0000

(I realize the original title of this post did not really reflect the content and its importance so I changed it.)

I'm seeing the writing on the wall.

A friend of mine is very involved from a legal perspective with the Medicaid program. I'll decline to say which company and which state because it is actually irrelevant but I was told a little story.

Traditionally, state's pay insurance companies a capitation fee (call it a premium) per Medicaid recipient. This premium goes to the insurance company to cover the risk of a Medicaid recipient needing services the same as any other health insurance policy. The difference is the state is the premium payor versus you or I.

Insurance companies don't always make money on such programs as you can get one or two patients, a baby that needs an extensive NIC stay which can run into the millions or a cancer patient in lengthy chemo, and profits are gone. Losses are common. Well, in order to reduce capitation costs, states are deciding to self-insure – willing to take the risk themselves (meaning tax payers bear the risk) and instead paying the insurance companies a greatly reduced capitation fee per Medicaid recipient to operate call centers and and claims processors. The insurance companies no longer bear the risk, you and I do. This cost savings may look good on paper for the first year because of the traditional length of time for an actual payout, but in the long run it will prove very costly to the states who opt to self-insure.

Now let's take Legal Aid. Legal Aid is traditionally funded by states and is supplemented with a percentage of court filing fees and interest from IOLTA monies. When lawyers are struggling, interest on trust accounts go down substantially. In some states they have lost as much as 80% of their funding due to IOLTA drying up. This costs the state even more then to run a bare bones legal aid operation. It would be very attractive to states to outsource this function.

Now let's get to Walmart, the largest corporation in the world. It was announced July 1:

For the first time in its history, the nation's largest retailer Wal-Mart is providing free legal support for patients at the Arkansas Children's Hospital, many of whom are from low income families on Medicaid.

This type of arrangement means Wal-Mart's lawyers will be helping families as they struggle through Medicaid's bureaucracy. The lawyers will also help families' challenges with landlords and school boards in order to help sick children get access to programs, services and equipment that they have been denied.

This type of arrangement means Wal-Mart's lawyers will be taking on the government and other entities in order to help sick children get access to programs, services and equipment that they have been denied.

As states go to self-insured status, as states run out of money for Medicaid claims because they underestimated the risk, as legal aid services are under pressure because of funding drying up, in steps the largest corporation in the world to take on legal services to protect the rights of Medicaid recipients. Walmart's 142 lawyers are doing it pro bono…. for now.

Many have discussed large companies getting into the legal services business but envisioned lawyers working out of kiosks within the company such as lawyers available in Walmart or Sears or your chain supermarket. Did anyone envision this (brilliant) angle?

We all know Walmart is neither benevolent nor profit-averse. The question becomes as Walmart expands their programs to 50 states (which they will if all goes well), will this behemoth become the state's choice as legal aid alternative by outsourcing their function to a private corporation? Will they be contracting with Walmart making them the preferred provider of legal services for the low-income of this country? And if they do, will they hire thousands of lawyers as payrolled employees or will there be a Walmart-branded network of solo and small firm practitioners servicing traditional legal aid recipients through Walmart legal services franchises? Will solos who traditionally handled legal aid overflow be competing against Walmart or be a contracted provider in their network receiving a flat fee for each case handled? Or will solos and small firms who have traditionally handled this work be shut out if they don't agree to these fees from Walmart and simply can't compete on price?

There are approximately 44 million low-income people, (many of them Walmart employees) including children and special needs patients. And this number will sadly grow over the next few years due to the state of our economy. You do the math. Walmart is run by very smart people.

If the pilot project with the Arkansas Children's Hospital is successful, Wal-Mart's Gearhart said it could roll out nationwide in partnership with other hospitals, companies and law firms.

In the meantime, if Medicaid families from elsewhere in the country approach Wal-Mart for legal help, Gearhart said the retailer will find a way to help them. "The goal is to build a broader network"

Is this an opportunity for solos to reach out to Walmart now? Clearly they are looking to establish a network as they have proclaimed if any one in any state needs help, they will find a way to help them.

Will you be the first in your state to offer to supply these services (pro bono for now) to get in the door?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

What Role Does Your Spouse or Partner Play in the Success of Your Solo Practice?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:33:49 +0000

This post was triggered by a very passionate argument about women's contributions to the collective wisdom of the blogosphere between Crime and Federalism and MyShingle and morphed into Military Underdog's smackdown challenging the idea that any specific genitalia has greater responsibilities to their children all while running their legal practices. While it was kind of devolving into a fist fight, no one threw a knockout punch nor could they. But the takeaway: for the most part, when it comes to parenting responsibilities, gender distinctions are so last century.

However, one message got lost in translation and needs to be broadcast:

The roles you and your partner (and increasingly, your children) negotiate within the family dynamic will increasingly play a major role in the success or failure of your solo practice.

Back in my consulting days one of the first things I asked a client was, 'is your spouse or partner on board with your decision to go solo?" If they weren't, this was a huge though not insurmountable issue. If your spouse or partner does not fully appreciate what is involved in you running a practice and the two of you have not redefined your family obligations accordingly, this can be a tremendous stress on the marriage and impact the children and prevent your business from healthy growth.

I cannot nor will I pretend to know the strains of a court schedule on a solo practitioner's marriage or parenting roles because the majority of time I practiced I was unmarried. By the time I married and had my son my court calendar had been wound down very methodically and deliberately. That's not to say my husband and I didn't negotiate and renegotiate our responsibilities these past years since the inception, birth and growth of Solo Practice University. His support for the venture and his very hands-on parenting has played and continues to play a huge role. If anything, I irrationally and stubbornly keep trying to hold on to traditional 'wife' roles while he is more than willing to take them over. We've even had the conversation (more than once) of not falling into the trap of traditional household duties and defining them as male or female, husband or wife, father or mother. It's hard as it is culturally ingrained. Plus, I enjoy some of them! All of this was and remains an ongoing negotiation but thankfully with very few bumps.

However, once you've negotiated with your spouse or partner, there is also the negotiation with your children, helping them to understand the constraints on your time when building your own business (or working for another, for that matter), enlisting them if they are old enough to participate and hopefully appreciate what you are doing. I know I am always seesawing between gratitude and guilt when it comes to my son. He thankfully seems to get it and that's in no large part to my husband's attitude about my work.

So rather than my going on and on, it would be great if you shared how you've negotiated with your partner on household and parental responsibilities in an effort to make creating and building your solo practice a little easier.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel