Solo Practice University® » Subjective Opinions

NY’s New Lawyer Mandatory Pro Bono is Indentured Servitude

Susan Cartier Liebel — Wed, 02 May 2012 12:28:00 +0000

New York just passed mandatory pro bono hours for all new lawyers before they can be admitted to practice law. This is indentured servitude, not pro bono.

Beginning next year, the 10,000 or so prospective lawyers who pass the New York State Bar exam every year will be required to perform 50 hours of pro bono legal services before they are approved to practice law.

New York judicial system is quite proud of itself for creating this new mandatory requirement feeling it will give new law grads a chance to try out their skills while relieving the state of expanding programs which will actually hire lawyers to provide legal services to the indigent.

The Legal Aid Society, the nation’s largest provider of free legal services, turns away eight of every nine people seeking help with civil legal matters, said Steven Banks, the New York group’s attorney in chief. Since the economic downturn began in 2008, Mr. Banks said, requests for assistance have jumped 40 percent for health care issues, 54 percent for unemployment insurance and work-related problems, 16 percent for domestic violence and “a stunning 800 percent” for foreclosures.

How brilliant. How oppressive. How typical. Add another obstacle to new lawyers before they can earn money with their degree and while they are drowning in debt instead of funding legal aid.

But his (Judge Lippman) latest measure may prove more controversial, some of his admirers said, because it wades into a fierce debate among lawyers over whether mandatory pro bono service is the right solution — and because it could hit the pocketbooks of young lawyers at a time when they are struggling to find jobs. Judge Lippman and the court administrative board have the power to do so because, unlike in many other states, the New York court system, and not the bar association, sets the requirements.

Cloaking it in a shroud of benefit to all appeases those who are so far removed from the reality of today's new lawyer struggles it's crazy!! And it relieves law schools of their obligations, once again, to produce lawyers who can actually practice law. It creates this unacceptable purgatory between law school and a real job. I won't even begin to try and lay out the scenarios which could impact a new lawyer from performing those fifty hours between bar exam and finding out results. And it definitely does not fit the description of pro bono. It is classic indentured servitude.

This is a slippery slope as I've written about before. And what's worse, New York hopes this will be revolutionary and other states will jump on board.

Lawyer's Services Should Be Theirs To Give Away…Not the ABA's

Connecticut Law Tribune – June 8, 2007

(This column comes on the heels of the recent Second Circuit Decision regarding pro bono fees, as a I promised.)

It's been a year since I read an Illinois Supreme Court ruling regarding mandatory pro bono reporting and I'm still feeling claustrophobic as the legal universe we are permitted to function in gets smaller and smaller.

That state's new rule, celebrating it's one year anniversary this month, requires lawyers to "annually report their pro-bono activities, including hours worked and any money contributed to pro-bono efforts." The rationale behind the rule is that, by having to report what they do (or don't do) by way of pro bono work or financial gifts to recognized legal aid organizations, lawyers will somehow be shamed into actually doing some, or do more than they're already doing.

It doesn't take a genius to see where this is really going. Although structured as simply a confidential reporting program for the purpose of accruing an aggregate total of pro bono hours, lawyers who fail to report their numbers to Illinois authorities face possible suspension of their law licenses. With this framework in place, if actual pro bono hours do not increase in a voluntary fashion, is it really a stretch to see pro bono work being mandated in order to continue practicing in the state of Illinois? (Note: Illinois is home to the American Bar Association.)

Who will have the hardest time meeting these requirements? Not large law firms that use their pro bono efforts as a tool for self-promotion. How much does it really cost them, anyway? At most large firms, it's low-level associates who do the majority of the firm's pro bono work. The firms write it off as a loss. At their worst, they take on high-profile cases in an effort to gain incalculable publicity. Mandatory pro bono wouldn't hurt large law firms. Rather, they will profit on many levels.

Solos, however, will be the ones injured. They will look ungenerous and self-serving, as they single-handedly face the everyday struggles to stay in business.

As the pro bono numbers generated by solos, the largest body of lawyers out there, fail to increase appreciably, what will be the next logical step? Forcing them to take on a minimum number of pro bono hours or face suspension? It is certainly plausible.

And as word is spread to the general public regarding an attorney's obligation to do pro bono work, is it unreasonable to believe that lower-income clients will demand lawyers represent them for free or at sharply reduced rates?

Yes, mandatory pro bono would be a great image enhancement for the legal profession, particularly large firms. But for solos, it would be a daily migraine.

Shouldn't Illinois officials be looking to catalog aggregate results rather than aggregate hours if the stated goal of this self-aggrandizing exercise is to actually help indigent clients? If painters took two days instead of two weeks to paint your house, wouldn't you applaud their speed and efficiency? We should be measuring effectiveness through results, not inefficiency through racked up hours.

And, of course, we can't let Illinois get all the glory for being so benevolent when giving away our services. All the states will want to jump on board for fear of looking mercenary and uncaring. They, too, will want to crack the whip and give away our time and money.

As a lawyer, I believe the role of the judiciary and national and state bar associations should be to provide a de minimus framework of what we can't do in order to avoid risking our law licenses. Outside of that, they should be a source of professional support and information.

It is not their job to legislate or mandate how I should aspire to be a better person or lawyer. Nor should they tell me that I must give away my services.

But that is where they are heading. Please don't order me to tithe to the Church of the American Bar Association. I still believe in freedom of professionalism. •

This 'solution' has been approached in many different ways by many different groups. It was inevitable someone would find a politically palatable solution taking it out of the hands of the ABA and putting it in the hands of the judiciary. The tanking economy gave the perfect opportunity to implement this scheme and it has now found its supporters. Shame on them.

What do you think about this 'mandatory pro bono'.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Why You Need To Be Your Own Guinea Pig

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:30:50 +0000

I've always been my own guinea pig. I've been this way since I was a kid. I would tell my parents I want to experience it myself, make my own decisions. I didn't want their experiences. I wanted the excitement of experiencing for myself what would happen, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I didn't want others to tell me what the outcome would be. (As a parent myself now, I have to bite my tongue and look the other way if I want a child who is going to not be afraid to take risks). I also don't wait for the rest of the world to tell me something is alright to do. I decide for myself and generally others who trust my instincts follow suit, usually after I come out of the experiment alive and breathing and not any worse for wear!

Being a solo requires you to be your own guinea pig if you want to break free from some of the restrictions, professional prejudices and often jaded experiences of other lawyers. (That's not to say we don't need guidance. Of course, we all need guidance at times.) And by restrictions I'm not talking about ethical rules. I'm talking about those conventions which the majority use as an excuse to not try anything new . Or they use the conventions to deliberately avoid being different from their fellow class mates or the lawyer down the street for fear others will look to criticize them, most often without any real knowledge about the person they are critiquing or just a cursory understanding about what they are doing. It's simply about their fear of trying something different which makes them question why you are doing something different. But never forget, you will also intrigue these same critics.

By way of example, I'll share one of my more memorable experiences as a solo. I had taken on a very compelling case involving child kidnapping, transporting a child across state lines, the UCCJA and all laws surrounding prior reprehensible acts. I did it as a favor (and fairly new lawyer) because the person had little to no money and my professor asked me to do it. The client was a very young mother not married to the father. They eventually stopped living together. The father then basically took their child at two years of age and disappeared. After five years the mother was able to track him down in Florida. The little girl was now seven. The woman went to Florida herself and simply took the child out of school and brought her back to Connecticut. Wow. I was only told about the case a week after the client arrived home from Florida with her daughter. No one else would take her case feeling it was a loser because of the then four-pronged test of the UCCJA, the strongest historically being the child had her home in Florida for an extended period of time regardless of how she got there and this would prevail. Given she had no money and the case was a guaranteed loser I was told my reputation would suffer. Well, I wasn't worried about any of that. Was that ignorance? False bravado? I don't know. But there were compelling arguments to be made and clearly I wasn't in it for the money!

Everytime I came up with a unique argument and told more experienced lawyers about it, they told me I'd lose. Everytime I asked those I considered mentors whether they could see the argument I was fashioning, could see the tapestry I was weaving, they'd tell me yes, but it wasn't going to work. Why? Because this is how it's done and that's the way it is. Regardless of the fact there were four prongs to the UCCJA only one carried any weight and I should just stop now instead of setting myself up to surely lose, and in front of the family bar, my future adversaries. My reputation was conceivably at stake. Well, my client's relationship with her daughter was at stake and my reputation was secondary.

My opponent was a 20 year veteran, his client could pay his fees, and even he pulled me aside and said, 'you know you'll lose which is why I'm not interested in negotiating an agreement before trial.' (I also never even suggested one because my client was dead set against anything which involved the father in the daughter's life.)

Well, I realized if everyone said it was a loser I had to pull out all the stops to make sure the judge (who I was inclined to believe wanted to find a way to give this woman her daughter back) was given a smorgasbord of options in the brief as well as at trial so she could decide ultimately if she wanted to break new ground. Ok, clearly I'm writing this story because I gave the judge what she needed and she took what she needed to make the ruling she wanted and gave my client her daughter back. (As an aside, the client never even thanked me and disappeared!). The opposing counsel was clearly surprised he lost. But I followed my gut. My client wanted to me to go for it and my instincts said to go for it and it all worked out in the end even though I took some hits from fellow attorneys. Fellow attorneys were not my clients. The truth is, had my client gone to one of these lawyers she would have surely lost because these lawyers bought into their own limiting thinking based upon their experiences and giving full measure to everyone elses's experiences because it supported their own.

There is a moral here for solos. You have to trust your instincts, your morality, and your integrity in all areas of your solo practice. Unless there is a clear, bright line that says 'do not cross or you risk losing your license or harming your client', you have to be willing to step away from the pack, venture forth, maybe take some professional hits. But the further you move away from the pack the more room you have to move freely and be seen as the talented advocate that you are or have the potential to become.

Be your own guinea pig. You may not enjoy it all the time especially when you are going through some of the negatives, but I promise you you'll be happy you ventured forth the majority of the time bringing with it the benefits only those who takes chances can enjoy.

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

(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