Solo Practice University® » Subjective Opinions

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

(OT) Party Like It’s 1960 instead of 2011.

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:30:16 +0000

Last night I got an e-mail from a friend who wanted to let me know a mutual friend’s nephew had committed suicide yesterday by jumping in front of a train. He was 21 years old. I don’t know what drove him to believe that tomorrow couldn’t possibly be better. He had his health. He had a loving family. He was only just starting out in life. And isn’t that what life is, full of challenges that will test us all over and over, again? To give up in the face of challenges…it should never really be an option.

It got me to thinking about how are we truly helping out those in life we love, particularly younger generations and the older generations. How are we helping them to cope with all the confusion out there, the inundation by the media of extremes – extreme poverty to 19 year olds winning $5 million dollar recording contracts and seemingly effortlessly, political parties mud wrestling over our futures but forgetting who brought them to the arena too frenzied in the mud and unable to see clearly. The message our media sends in a relentless stream everywhere we turn is our life is a crap shoot and we really have very little control over it. Those of us who have hit mid-life know that’s not the case for the most part, but we also weren’t raised in a world of information overload, opinion masquerading as news, broadcasting our most private thoughts to satellites to be shared across the world for others to manipulate as ‘the thing to do to be cool’ in a social web world, often to their detriment and adolescent ignorance. There is no time to really mature and adjust into handling life responsibly before others handle it for us. If you are over 40, you had that luxury. Imagine, calling growing up without what we have today ‘luxury’.

Our oldest generation is in many ways far removed from all this technology and as such, is becoming extremely isolated from the world we are creating. One would think with SKYPE and e-mail you would disagree. No, they are isolated and manipulated as they no longer have ‘real’ newspapers so for the most part they rely on televisions news which is overwhelming and mostly opinion and simply a platform for pharmaceutical commercials. Try to get their child or grandchild on the phone to have a ‘visit’. Granny isn’t texting and when she has you over for a holiday meal, are you too busy checking your phone for text messages from your cousin at the other end of the table to share with her about your life? Never mind getting annoyed she leaves you a voice mail that simply says, ‘call me’. You can’t be bothered and you’re rather annoyed she didn’t tell you what she wants. Texting is so much more efficient. Imagine, she just wants to hear the sound of your voice. Crazy grandparents. I know some of you who are reading this would give anything to hear the sound of your grandparents’ or parents’ voices today.

So, on this holiday I have one wish for you all. Put away your smartphone and shut off your iPads, laptops and PCs. Pick up your house phone when it rings. Turn on holiday music in the car as you travel instead of each of you being plugged into your iPods. Party likes it’s 1960 instead of 2011. You might just enjoy hearing the sounds of your relatives’ voices this holiday season because you never know when that chance will be gone forever. And talk to them. Really talk to them. Let them know you will always be their sunshine on their cloudiest of days.

Enjoy your holidays.

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

Will Legal Services Bidding Sites Gain (Real)Traction?

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:00:57 +0000

I’ll be honest with you. I’m not a fan of the concept but I haven’t dismissed it out of hand, either. As I piece various issues together I am seeing this may very well be a serious trend for the future for a number of reasons - least of which is the economy and our country’s love affair with technology and online bidding sites in general.

The question remains – who will do it right and win the race?

As you know, a while ago there was a whole lot of fuss made about a new reverse bidding site called Shpoonkle. It’s a crazy name and there was a whole lot of criticism leveled at the concept of this company, its founder being a law student who wanted to help new lawyers struggling under debt, give them a fighting chance to get clients while helping those with monetary challenges get lawyers to assist them with their legal matters. Established lawyers saw it as a nail in the coffin of professionalism and a new low in legal marketing.

However, legal (and other professional) services bidding sites are nothing new. (This Law Review Note is from 2001 which makes it even more intriguing to me.)

“An Internet market researcher recently predicted that consumers will spend $222 million for online legal services this year and that the market will grow to $2.8 billion by 2004.”7 Lawyers are readily taking advantage of this new market by advertising, providing legal services,8 and even participating in auctions for legal services online.9

At the end of 2001, there were “close to 100 Web sites that aim[ed] to match lawyers with clients online.”10 These included sites that were simply online directories of lawyers as well as online auctions.11 Many Americans see the appeal of online auctions.

According to one commentator, “At least thirty-one percent of Americans who access the Internet regularly, or about thirty-five million people, participate in online auctions.”12

Texas Law Review – Notes
Bidding by the Bar: Online Auction Sites for Legal
Services* December, 2003 82 Tex. L. Rev. 445

Four online legal services bidding sites were analyzed in this law review article to address the various ethical issues: Legal Match, LawyersQuotesFast, eLawForum, and FirmSeek. (These sites existed at the time the law review article was written and in the format described by the Note. They may no longer exist in this exact format or under the name or url posted.)

The point is legal services bidding sites are nothing new and have been reviewed, analyzed and challenged for over a decade and yet the concept persists whether with the companies named above or new companies. This ‘Note’ drew the following conclusion:

This Note concludes that most of the online auction sites for legal services are referral services; therefore, they must be regulated and approved by the appropriate state authority. These auction sites also must be designed to limit the risk of harm to consumers by avoiding the unauthorized practice of law, loss of confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and harm due to consumers’ lack of understanding of their rights and responsibilities in such transactions. These sites are beneficial in that they create competition and may result in a lower cost of legal services; but, given the risk to consumers, the sites that target individuals are generally not well suited for complex legal services. However, using these sites to match consumers with lawyers for routine legal services—name changes, simple adoptions, simple wills, and simple bankruptcies—poses fewer risks to consumers and should be permissible.

While this note concluded the ones mentioned above were referral sites and as such had to abide by rules governing referrals, companies such as Total Attorneys , won a highly publicized challenge to their business model, (which, by the way, is not a lawyer bidding site but does have a lead generating component to its services) getting ethics panels to concur their model fell outside the scope of ‘referral’ as defined under the rules of professional conduct.

The reason I’ve started to investigate further is because in my capacity as founder of Solo Practice University® I am approached frequently by startups (and very established companies) to look at their offerings and whether or not they have value to the solo community.

Recently, I was approached by a large publicly traded company with a lot of money behind them who is about to launch a new lawyer bidding site in their ‘legal vertical’. It’s fair to say they have done their homework about the market place, have more current statistics, and are seeking to capitalize upon it. They’ve also seen the weaknesses in previous models and are planning to rectify them. How successful they’ll be at it, I don’t know.

Many companies like this tend to forget there are two parties which must come together voluntarily – the consumer and the lawyer. Many forget that lawyers can’t be forced but must participate willingly without feeling it compromises the profession or themselves. They must feel they are actually participating in a public good because it is a radical change in their traditional thinking when it comes to reaching new clients.

Over the years, I’ve also talked to or had e-mail with other lawyer bidding sites which have changed their business models to shore up weaknesses or respond to poor perceptions. They have also seen rapid growth in the ‘bidding’ aspects of their businesses.

It was also why I didn’t out-of-hand condemn the concept/introduction of Shpoonkle when a press release came into my e-mail box.

At some point, there is going to be a breakout company/business model that is going to captivate both lawyers and the consumers at just the right time with just the right message and it’s going to capitalize effectively upon this country’s increased involvement (and love affair) with online auctions and need for access to affordable legal services.

I’m now pretty convinced it is inevitable…I just don’t know who this breakout company will be or when they will arrive.

What do you think?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

You’re Not A Real Lawyer If….

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:25:34 +0000

That caught your eye? It catches my eye constantly when I see factions in the legal community measure every other lawyer’s passion for the law or time spent per week practicing law as a barometer for whether or not they are a ‘real’ lawyer.

Some of the popular challenges to ‘real’ status:

You have additional streams of income, whether law related or not
You write a book on 1) ways to help your colleagues with a particular issue or 2) unrelated to law entirely
You don’t practice 100 hours per week, or even 60 or 40
You blog about other interests
You take a break from the practice of law for any number of reasons including, family illness, child birth, a trip around the world, another graduate degree
You’ve practiced for twenty years and then decide to create a service for lawyers to help with systems processing, or pricing strategies, or worse – do both simultaneously!
Your clients are exclusively other lawyers so you don’t have any ‘real’ clients
etc., etc., etc.

The only exception: you can do any of this if your colleagues like you. Then you remain a ‘real’ lawyer in their eyes.

The unvarnished truth is all of these people are ‘real’ lawyers who are practicing (or have practiced) in various degrees. They are choosing to branch out or evolve in ways which work for them.

Those who proclaim ‘real’ lawyers as only those who live and breathe the law – well this tragic stereotyped lawyer is often the one pictured as working 100 hours per week forgoing their families, their health, and other personal or business interests. This scary ‘real’ lawyer is the one most prone to falling into disabling depression, life-altering addiction, deliberately committing egregious acts to get disbarred because they can’t voluntarily slow down or admit they don’t want law to consume their souls anymore or the pressure to sustain the ‘image’ is no longer bearable.

‘Real’ lawyers come in all shapes and sizes and flavors.

There is no guru on any hill anywhere I know of who has been universally recognized and authorized to determine who has the requisite amount of passion and purpose, the right blend of hours worked and the perfect balance of all of life’s activities to call one lawyer over another a ‘real lawyer’… except the bar commissioners who give (or take away) a legal license based upon your ability to do your job and your other activities within ethical boundaries.

As long as a barred lawyer in good standing has the ability to take on a client, he or she is a ‘real’ lawyer. Whether they choose to practice is another matter altogether.

What do you think?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

The Shpoonkle-ization of a Legal Profession w/o Doc Review Jobs

Susan Cartier Liebel — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:10:01 +0000

This New York Times articles has been making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook: Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced By Cheaper Software. The focus is on how Watson-like computers can pretty much eliminate the need for flesh and blood document reviewers ergo eliminating the legions of lawyers who (for the most part) did not elect to do document review but couldn’t find other legal jobs.

Quantifying the employment impact of these new technologies is difficult. Mike Lynch, the founder of Autonomy, is convinced that “legal is a sector that will likely employ fewer, not more, people in the U.S. in the future.” He estimated that the shift from manual document discovery to e-discovery would lead to a manpower reduction in which one lawyer would suffice for work that once required 500 and that the newest generation of software, which can detect duplicates and find clusters of important documents on a particular topic, could cut the head count by another 50 percent.

On the heels of this article, I get a press release announcing Shpoonkle:

Shpoonkle works by having lawyers and law firms place bids on requests for legal work posted by potential clients. In standard auctions people bid against one another, forcing prices up so that the highest bid wins. But in reverse auctions, prices are driven down by individuals bidding to win at the lowest price. For example, a person needing a legal document, such as a contract, will or letter to a creditor, can fill out an online questionnaire and post it on Shpoonkle.com. Interested lawyers then place bids by specifying the lowest fee they would charge for that service.

Here you have a race to the bottom as lawyers bid against one another to pay the lowest fee to anonymous clients with legal problems.

Now, this site was created by an innovative, entrepreneurial law student and I am not interested in hurting him or his spirit because he may have found a way to pay off his student loans by getting lawyers to bid against one another until they receive their e-bay style reward in their inbox claiming, you’ve got it, ‘You’ve Won a Case!’

So, are you signing up? It’s free. After all, document review may no longer be an option unless you share Corinne Tampas’ thoughts on the rise of computer-driven document review:

Aside from the fact that the attorneys this software seeks to replace do not work for pricey law firms, but rather work for agencies as “contract” attorneys, there is no evidence to support whether this software cost savings will be passed on to the client.

To be clear, in a typical high volume document review, the high priced law firms contract with agencies. These agencies in turn hire the contract attorney at the going rate of $25 – $30 per hour, slightly more if the document reviewer has special skills such as a background in finance or engineering expertise or foreign language skills. Thus, while these attorneys are referred to as contract attorneys, they are really contractors since it is the agency that contracts with the pricey law firm. What kind of cost that is passed on to the client is anyone’s guess since attorney’s fees (the pricey law firm’s fees) are often protected by attorney-client privilege.

So, back to the buzz. That’s all that it is, buzz.

So, what do you think? Is the NYT article about Watson taking over the legal industry just ‘buzz’? Will lawyers really bid for cases like matchboxes on E-bay and clients pay $.79 for a will?

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

(Updated) – Solo As A Side Dish

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:30:36 +0000

(Update: 12/15/11) As indicated in the text of this post, this attorney chose solo as a side dish but it also served as a plan B should her full-time position change. Well, thanks to the economy and a change in the dynamics of her employment, she is now practicing full-time as a solo. Developing a plan B while working full time really helped with the transition because she had already worked out many of the kinks of solo practice on her own schedule and without financial pressure. This enabled her to flow relatively smoothly into full time practice.)

I have had an ongoing correspondence with a ‘friend’ whom I’ve never met but feel I can call her ‘friend’ because we have been exchanging intimate, thoughtful, and fun conversations on the phone and through e-mail for a few years, and she continues to have an interesting professional trajectory. At one point, while doing document review, she was planning to go solo. During the planning and networking phase a truly fabulous legal job landed in her lap. (Yes, when you start acting like a peer instead of a subordinate, job opportunities surface!)

She took the job which offered opportunity, security, benefits and tremendous flexibility during her work week which dove-tailed very nicely with her life goals. Even with this economic turmoil she was also just promoted.

When we corresponded last week she said she was really itching to practice the kind of law she wanted to practice in addition to her full time job. She saw starting her solo practice as a ‘side dish’, not the main course. This really got me to thinking about how often we tell people to hold onto their jobs until they can go solo as the ‘main dish’ never contemplating people may very well be happy with their current jobs but want to also have a ‘side dish’ practice

There are some who would say you can’t have a solo practice as a side dish and do it effectively. They could be right if they saw the ‘side dish’ solo practice as just a stepping stone to becoming the ‘main course’ solo practice. However, this isn’t her goal. She just wants to take a few select cases when she chooses while maintaining her current job. I say, ‘why not?’

In her particular situation, she is constantly approached about a very niched area of practice having to do with family formation catering to a particular ethnic group and sexual orientation. Couldn’t get nich-ier than that! It is also purely transactional and doesn’t require normal working hours or a court schedule. I personally believe this type of transactional work is best if you’re doing solo as a side dish.

The nice thing about this approach is she will have a built in Plan B should her job somehow evaporate. But her goal isn’t to build her practice into a full time operation. Her goal is simply to have a solo practice in addition to her current full time job and on her terms representing just the people she wants to represent. There are no external pressures other than her desire to have a client base of her choosing in an area of law she is drawn to and will enjoy.

What is Success?

This also begs the question ‘what is success?’ I am often asked what success is when it comes to practicing law as a solo. So many equate it with something measurable and inevitably this is money. Fair enough. If the goal is to build a sustainable business which pays the bills and allows for comforts in you life, you’re in the majority of those who go solo. Others say satisfaction in servicing clients. Yet others say it is a combination of the two. No one is wrong or right. It’s how they define success.

This example of solo as a side dish is interesting in terms of measuring success because in this particular instance, she is practicing law - just not the type of law that gives her the greatest satisfaction. It pays the bills well and gives her flexibility to try out doing the law she really wants to do. Will her solo practice net her $100,000 a year in legal fees? Not the way she wants to do it. At least I don’t think so. But that’s also not her goal. Her goal is to provide legal services to a defined audience on her terms while keeping her full time job. So, will she be a ‘successful’ solo practitioner?

What do you think? Do you have a full time job but would like to have a solo practice as a ‘side dish’. Do you already practice ‘solo as a side dish?’

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

How Major Changes In Our Daily Living Will Impact Solo Practices (Part II)

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:30:19 +0000

We are continuing to discuss the major societal and cultural changes coming to a head in 2011 and how your clients are going to be impacted by them. You can read the first two discussions here and here to catch up.

This third post is going to discuss changes in housing, $5.00 & $6.00 gas, newspapers, communications and social media.

How Is The Housing Market Going To Impact Your Practice Even If You Are Not in Real Estate?

By now most of you know the real estate market took a HUGE hit in 2008 – 2010. It is still in serious distress even though the talking heads think we have bottomed out. We haven’t. There is what is called the ‘shadow inventory‘ in the real estate market, inventory comprised of all the foreclosed properties still being held by the banks and not yet released into the market for sale.

A good friend of mine who personally knows V.P.’s and Presidents of banks because he has an extensive real estate practice was told by two bankers independently, ‘if we put all our foreclosures on the market today we could financially take down New York’s economy.’ And that’s just one bank’s foreclosed properties. Is this true? My friend heard the same from bankers in southern Connecticut. Again, exaggeration? Just a turn of phrase? Time will tell. What does matter, however, whether they are bankruptcy driven foreclosures or non-bankruptcy foreclosures, people are walking away from their homes in record numbers.

We have at least three takeaways from this:

Your clients still have to live somewhere.
This is a real boon for the rental market and landlord/tenant practices.
This will force very interesting migration patterns throughout each state, regions and the country.

How will you have to adapt your business? As people go to rental living, the transient nature of this lifestyle clearly will impact how people engage service providers as well as their long term relationships with these providers.

A transient and mobile lifestyle changes your client’s center of influence and stability. People go from choosing legal service providers based primarily upon their own geographical location to choosing their service providers in spite of their own geographical location.

Let me give you an example:

Nancy Nomad and her husband, Gideon Globetrotter, need a trusts and estates lawyer. They currently reside in Houston, Texas. Their home is foreclosed and Gideon’s new job takes them to Austin where they become renters.

Gideon is by no means secure in this new position. He has a one year contract for work but no guarantee of renewal. Nor does he and Nancy have a home they own. He is eying a job in Dallas which may provide him more pay and better security and will open up within the next year. They both had a previous relationship with an attorney in Houston and they really liked her. They don’t want to lose this relationship because of their move.

Providing the lawyer utilizes technology to keep the relationship, such as a Virtual (online) Law Office, they don’t have to. If the provider doesn’t have the means to address his clients’ new migratory patterns and transient living, he loses them. Chances are Gideon and Nancy will choose a lawyer who provides this connection and stability in their unstable world, a lawyer who can work with them wherever they locate.

If their Houston lawyer can service their legal needs in Austin or Dallas, neither the lawyer nor Gideon and Nancy have to lose the relationship with the other. A transient client wants the stability of the same service providers just like their phone, cable, and electric. The want portability. Legal service providers are no exception. Stability and long standing relationships will come to mean much more in their unstable world.

Let’s add another statistic into the mix: 27 % of people in the United States have no landlines in their home and are strictly cell phone/smart phone users. How many of you have already made the switch from landline to cell phone for both home and office? (and look at the ethnic breakdown possibly further supporting transient behavior and maybe a socio-economic reality.) My husband insists we keep a land line and I don’t object because it’s part of my cable/internet bundle. However, my business is strictly computer and smart phone and I know many others are switching to smart phones.

So, let’s go back to Gideon Globetrotter and Nancy Nomad. He’s transient with his job and residence. What are the odds they are going to hook up a landline and spend this extra money with every single move… unless it’s part of their cable/internet bundle? And even if this were the case, they don’t really want a new number with every move. It showcases their lack of stability with the job search, too. The only consistent number is their cell phone.

This switch to strictly cell phone/smartphone is going to increase. Why is this statistic important to you? Because without landlines, people are not part of any phone book. If they are constantly moving, they are certainly not part of any geographical based phone book. They don’t need the phone books or any type of paper directory, either. If they have smart phones they are quite capable of accessing any information they require through their data packages available through their smart phones. It is reliable, updated and a constant in their unstable lives.

Where Will Potential Clients Find You?

Less and less in any paper directory or publication.

If they are going to learn about something or someone they are going on the internet, asking family and friends, going to their connections on Facebook or Twitter for referrals to help them get started with their search. They will read your blog, websites, online reviews about your service. You should also note: while they’re looking through these reviews they are getting hit with targeted advertisements for other similar products or services such as yours. The internet has become one constant in their ever-changing world.

What About Print Newspapers?

The majority of young people don’t get a delivered print newspaper. Will they read the print edition online? Yes. Right now it’s free but may not be for much longer. Will they pay for a print edition? Quite possibly.

I’m not going to jump on board with ‘all electronic news will be by paid subscription.’ That’s not a sure thing by a long stretch and if the majority were to go paid, the breakouts that stayed free would grab a lion’s share of readership while supported by advertisers. There will always be checks and balances in delivery of information.

There is, however, something much more telling in this demise of physical newspaper readership. If the physical newspaper is gone, where will lawyers place their traditional print advertising dollars? On line, of course. But how?

Answer: There will be regional or national news delivery agencies which will create hyperlocalized editions of their internet publications. Their advertising will be targeted to a specific demographic community and the advertisers will benefit from this more defined audience. Even if it’s not lower in cost for the advertiser (which it really should be given the reduction in costs to produce) it can still be worth it because the advertiser pays only for the audience they specifically want. (And in doing so, they hasten the demise of the print publication.)

I experienced this recently when I responded to an online contest for my son. I was asked for my zip code. I was then brought to my state senate seat’s voting district’s online news edition created by a national news agency. (How interesting they divided the editions by voting district.) The vendors supplying the prizes for the contest were local to the voting district. Every district edition had the same contest for their local vendors. It was hyperlocalized targeted online content.

Hyperlocalization of online newspapers will be very big. While I’ll miss my Sunday paper, I have already transitioned 95% to online news anyway. The rest of the country will simply be forced to whether they like it or not. So, I ask you rhetorically, where are you going to spend your advertising dollars if the physical newspaper no longer exists? If Nancy Nomad and Gideon Globetrotter are your potential clients and they are transient within your jurisdictions(s), they’ll be accessing hyperlocalized online newspapers and content to learn what is available in their ‘new’ (albeit, temporary) home. They will not be subscribing to print newspapers and canceling and resubscribing with every move. Their trusted companion is their smartphone supplying the information they need when they need it and traveling with them wherever they may reside.

Gideon and Nancy will also be accessing Google Places – the internet equivalent of the yellow pages. Google Places works off of the key word search and is analogous to you looking for ‘plumber’ in the yellow pages then scrolling down to find a plumber based upon the plumber’s proximity to your location. As a solo, you should seriously investigate Google Places and do so soon.

More food for thought: if your potential clients are increasingly giving up their landlines and going with smart phones which allow them to access the internet for contact information, to receive and send email and texts while avoiding voice mail (the average voice mail sits for more than three days before being heard), how do YOU plan to reliably communicate with your potential clients going forward? I don’t have the answer for this right now because there are many confidentiality issues to be worked out. Obviously, one serious choice is through a client portal within a virtual (online) law office.

What you must consider is this: what we’re professionally comfortable doing may be trumped by our clients’ needs and technological capabilities. They may prefer texts over phone calls and e-mail over regular mail simply because they don’t have a landline or a permanent mailing address or the post office has switched to alternate day delivery thereby rendering it untimely. (Note: our post office is not delivering our mail due to massive snow piles blocking our mail boxes. The physical post office is overwhelmed with everyone in town trying to get their mail. Do you want your critical legal documents and invoices to be part of this weather-driven fiasco? Neither do your clients.)

Bottom line: If you don’t have a smart phone which has all these communicating abilities, I suggest you start shopping for one. Also be prepared to create policies regarding confidentiality and texting with your clients. Remember, it’s not just about you saying, ‘I have an office line and I’m not giving out my cell phone number.’ It’s about what the client uses to communicate and how they expect to communicate with their attorney! Younger lawyers may be very comfortable with this development. However, other lawyers need to give serious thought to this, too. You may have to consider getting a separate smart phone just for work so you can give out the phone number while preserving your personal phone! Sounds far-fetched or not feasible? The tail wagging the dog? We’ll see.

What About $5 and $6 per gallon gasoline?

Forget that it adds to an already over-burdened household budget, but your clients are going to be less inclined to come to your office unless it is absolutely imperative. They are going to be budgeting their travel because of the cost of gasoline and parking as well as the cost in time they can ill-afford to spend on non-income producing activities. If they can handle a matter over the internet with a lawyer who provides this option, they are going to be much more inclined to do so. The price of gasoline must be factored in to your decisions as a legal service provider because this problem is not only not going to go away, it’s going to get worse. Of course price due in part to market manipulation. However, there is also a much bigger factor at play – other emerging markets are demanding oil and and they are going to get it. We’ll be paying a premium for a more limited supply and there’s no getting around this. Then add on increased state taxes on gasoline to cover budget shortfalls and you have a serious problem. Your clients are going to demand you make working with you much easier or they will find someone who will.

What About Social Media:

Social Media is no longer about what you choose to do or choose not to do. It’s about where the potential client expects to find a service provider when they look for a service provider.

Years ago, before the internet and cell phones, if you were in a reputable business customers expected to find you listed in the Yellow Pages. It gave your business the perception of legitimacy. Every home had their local yellow pages. So, Yellow Pages sales representatives offered you one line in the phone book for free when you secured your business phone number and this helped their cause which was to promote they had everyone and every business listed which in turn generated more paid advertising.

Today, the internet is the Yellow Pages. Your web presence is your Yellow Pages listing, a must have which gives your business the perception of legitimacy. But that’s not all. Potential clients expect to find you listed on all reputable sites, including Facebook. Do you remember years ago progressive companies listed their website URL along with their regular contact information? I remember thinking, ‘what is this?’. Now those same progressive companies no longer feature their website url prominently but feature their Facebook page url prominently. The goal is to drive customers to their highly interactive site within a community where their prospects congregate. There they can learn more about people who have expressed interest in their product/service and interact in real time. And it’s a great advertising tool (which is for a separate post). It is all about engagement. Facebook is still young but even in its relative youth it has managed to change how we are conducting business and engaging our potential clients . It offers a different type of legitimacy in this ‘connected’ world. It would be wise for you to have a facebook page for your business and to learn how to use it correctly.

One Final Thought:

It’s a sweat equity marketing world we now live in. Get ready to sweat if you want to grow your business.

Two hundred and sixty years ago we were a new country. Ninety percent of all businesses were sole proprietorships. There were no large employers. Entrepreneurs flourished as they created their own prosperity by innovating, filling a void in the community, solving problems with hard work – sweat equity. No one could write a check to have someone else create a persona for them. People had to market themselves to their neighbors by being honorable, doing good work, delivering promptly on a contract, having reliable products and services and when they handled their business well, it often led to prominence and respect in the community. There was no outsourcing of one’s reputation. Today our world is demanding we sweat again, as we can no longer avoid engaging personally when building our practices. We must use the tools available to us and we must engage the way our potential clients want and need us to engage.

We are also going through a major societal change: millions employed to unemployed and then a large percentage to self-employed. And when someone becomes self-employed they rarely return to working for another. This is a radical change. It will forever impact how business is conducted.

While change is nothing new, the speed with which change is happening today is new. What is changing and the scale of the change is new. There is no running from the change taking place. There is no hiding, either. All we can do is anticipate it, embrace it, and run with it. Maybe some think they can stand still and continue to grow. I beg to differ. Welcome to 2011.

What do you think? How are you adapting your practice? Have you considered working with clients online, even just a small percentage of your client base, to get ahead of the curve?

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

All Solo Practitioners Are Entrepreneurs

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:48:46 +0000

It’s Global Entrepreneurship Week. Time to celebrate our future because more and more people will be entrepreneurs then ever before. They will not take jobs. They will make jobs. And the legal profession is no exception:

There is also a timely article in the new ABA Journal which highlights a potential new hierarchy within law schools – those who admit students that exhibit certain traits and characteristics versus strictly grades because law firms are looking for ‘types’ of lawyers to hire who can help them to effectively compete in today’s new economy and legal landscape:

“Sure, lawyers need to be smart,” he writes. “But in this more competitive environment, they also need to be personable, collaborative, entrepreneurial, service oriented, and interested in contributing to the collective welfare of the law firm.”

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

“Obviously, beyond intelligence as applied to legal doctrine, many of the attributes needed for success in the ‘new normal’ legal economy are not attributes emphasized in law school”….

This is a serious (and long-overdue) acknowledgment. Top schools may very well seek the brightest on paper but not necessarily the smartest to survive in today’s new marketplace. Successful solos don’t necessarily come from the top tier schools (maybe because they were smart enough to go to the right school for their goals) and they certainly look at what skill sets they need as not something that’s demeaning (business and marketing) but as a set of valuable skills they need to create a practice for themselves. I’ve railed ad nauseam about the importance of business education at law school to no avail. I’ve never seen Top Tier law schools as necessary for all law students. It all turns on your individual goals, needs and finances. It’s why I abhor U.S. News and World Report’s school ranking system because it perpetuates a dangerous falsity.

Anyway, today is also the fourth anniversary since I started blogging. It has been an incredible adventure into a world I never would have discovered but for the diversity of social media platforms, technologies and the people who sit at their keyboards and bring them all to life with information, fun, controversy and engagement. I started blogging first with Build A Solo Practice, LLC which has now merged with the Solo Practice University blog because SPU is a community and this blog is the face of this wonderful community of lawyers and law students.

It’s fair to say I am an entrepreneur, first starting my own law practice with two others upon graduating law school, evolving into my solo practice, teaching others to create and grow their solo practices through my consulting and then kicking off Solo Practice University, March 2009.

It’s been an incredible journey and it’s also been one where events were initially triggered by a crisis:

More often then not today, solos become solos because of their attitude towards crises in their lives. It is during these times of crisis they discover their entrepreneurial spirit.

Ask yourself this question, ‘If you knew you would never draw another paycheck as an employee working for another what would you do?’ The answer to this question often lights the pilot light of entrepreneurship which burns in all of us.

I dare say most of us would not lay down and die and send our children to shelters. We would find a way. Now imagine you have a law degree? The opportunities to find your way are only as limiting as you permit them to be. Those who succeed don’t think in terms of limits, they think in terms of endless opportunities.

Over the course of Solo Practice University’s 19 months of operation we have found our students referring to us as their ‘home base’, comforting, a ‘private bubble’ of camaraderie and excellent mentorship, a launching pad. You can be an entrepreneur. But being an entrepreneur does not mean doing it alone. It’s quite the contrary!

So, here’s to celebrating entrepreneurship!! If you are a solo, in honor of entrepreneurship week, no matter what is going on with your business at this moment, celebrate that you had the guts to stake a claim and try (and more often than not, succeed.)

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel