Solo Practice University® » Solo & Small Firm Practice

Consultations: Free or Fee?

Rachel Rodgers — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:30:50 +0000

Recently, I read an entertaining article by fellow solo attorney, Pauline Villanueva, about what a free consultation is not. It was basically a list that was curated among attorneys on Twitter. Some things they determined a free consultation was not include:

“Free consultation” doesn’t mean spending three hours with you while you tell me your life story.
“Free consultation” does not mean I’m going to prep you for a hearing taking place tomorrow.
“Free consultation” does not mean I’m adopting you or taking you to Walgreen’s at midnight to buy a pregnancy test.

Obviously, attorneys have had some bad experiences with the free consultation. Yet, some of the most respected solo practice authorities, such as Jay Foonberg, highly recommend that solos offer free consultations. Others say solos should never offer free consultations. Still others say it depends. To further murk up the waters, I'll share my experiences with (and without) the free consultation offer.

My Free Consultation Experience

I started out offering free 30 minute consultations in my Gen Y entrepreneur practice (against the advice of my entrepreneur husband). I figured it would be a good way for clients to get to know me and how I could be of service to them and their businesses. Let me say that I did a lot of free consultations. A lot! Some of them even turned into one hour consultations (I know, I know . . . rookie mistake!).

The biggest problem with this time consuming service is that while I had some great conversations with some very interesting entrepreneurs, very few of these potential clients actually became clients. In fact, a pattern developed where I specifically felt that these entrepreneurs had no intention of working with me in any capacity, they simply wanted free legal advice. Who could blame them? However, I am not in the business of giving free legal advice. I do pro bono work with 100 Urban Entrepreneurs and one or two other organizations, but the free consultation was not meant to be pro bono work. It was meant to be a gateway to obtaining paying clients.

One obvious warning sign is when the prospective client keeps mentioning their financial troubles or downright says that they can't afford an attorney. Additionally, lots of questions about pricing at the very beginning of the consult is probably a good sign of a tire kicker and not someone who is likely to become a (good) client. One particularly bad consult that left me feeling used was a potential client who didn't want to have a conversation but wanted me to answer as many of her rapid fire questions as she could get answered in the time allotted. At that point I decided to stop offering free consults. It was clear that the free consultation was not serving its purpose.

My Paid Consultation Experience

So I took the bold step of removing all traces of the free consultation offer from my website and other marketing materials, replaced it with the "Legal Strategy Session" and said a prayer. My Legal Strategy Session is a one hour consultation where I answer questions, provide some initial legal advice and potential clients have the opportunity to get to know me. I charge $250 for this service. If the client signs up for one of my monthly packages or ongoing retainer services (not simply hire me to draft a contract), I will credit the $250 against the cost of the package.

The response to this change was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. Needless to say, I have now done a lot of paid consultations. I realized that, for me, this was an unbundling error. I did not offer a service where clients could obtain unbundled legal advice. Once I did, my clients showed me that this is something they really wanted. Additionally, my clientele is filled with both committed and uncommitted entrepreneurs. One way to tell who's who is to ask questions about what type of investments they've already made in their business such as what their startup costs have been and whether they have hired other professionals such as an accountant. The paid consultation deters those entrepreneurs that have not made a commitment to their business (and therefore are not willing to invest their money in their business) from contacting me and that's okay. In fact, its perfect. Every entrepreneur can't be my ideal client and likewise, I am not the ideal lawyer for every entrepreneur.

Thoughts on the Transition

I will note that during the transition from free to paid consultation, I did have a couple of potential clients contact me via email to request a free consultation because they had previously seen it advertised on my website. I responded to their inquiries by informing them that I now offer a paid consultation and explained how it worked and what type of value they could expect. None of them responded.

Additionally, there is still that dilemma of how do you handle potential clients who would never hire a professional without having some interaction with them first? An important part of the hiring decision for potential clients is whether they like you. And how can those potential clients know if they like you without having the opportunity to talk with you? I address this problem by having an online presence. I blog, I write articles for various websites, I speak at webinars and seminars and I chat with folks on Twitter and Facebook. All of these activities allow potential clients to get to know me and my personality. Additionally, I answer my phone and respond to emails. If a potential client calls, I will be spend 10 minutes or less on the phone with them, giving them the opportunity to get a feel for whether or not they like me. To date, every potential client that I've had a brief conversation with over the phone has become a client.

So Which Is It? Free or Fee?

I agree with the "it depends" crowd. There are practice areas where it makes a lot of sense to offer free consultations, such as contingency fee personal injury cases. However, whether you offer a free or paid consultation should be based on a business model that works for you AND your bottom line. How do you know what works for you and your bottom line? You test. And guess what works as a great way to test your service offerings, your presentation, different sales pitches, etc.? You guessed it – the free consultation.

My experience offering free consultations was very valuable. It enabled me to identify the characteristics of my ideal clients (and my not-so-ideal clients) as well as a service they wanted that I wasn't previously offering. While I spent a lot of time on this "test," I am currently reaping the benefits.

So, now I ask you – Free or Fee?

Written by Rachel Rodgers

(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

YouTube, Video Marketing and the Solo

Susan Cartier Liebel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:00:11 +0000

Your Internet presence has the ability to be much more exciting. Imagine, potential clients can click on your web site and be linked to your personal video introducing them to your services, philosophies and mission, all for free? Imagine your own infomercial without the cost of running it on television, more targeted to your potential client base and all available for just the cost of creating it?

Many know YouTube as a search engine for anything BUT professional videos. Yet it is the #1 search engine out there and offers this free service not just to musicians and kids and amateur videographers illegally shooting concerts. It is also for the professional. And you can create your own YouTube channel. You can link to your YouTube channel through your own web site, permitting your potential clients to get an "in person" introduction to you and your services.

This may seem old news to some. But it remains a decidedly untapped vehicle for lawyers. And now we are hearing from the most respected Google analyst, Eric Schmidt, discussing the future of the net and this includes YouTube:

"We're starting to make significant money off of Youtube", content will move towards more video.

Clearly we believe strongly in lawyer videos and it is why we have Gerry Oginski teaching solos how to do so effectively at Solo Practice University.

There are more and more lawyers starting to create video to tap into the very crucial 'know, like, trust' factor which the internet can help increase. Yet one of my favorite examples remains this one from more than three years ago. One very ingenious young lawyer out of California used video to give herself a competitive edge. Allison Margolin, a newly minted Harvard Law School graduate, who concentrates in criminal law, is very passionate about the decriminalization of marijuana. Her video highlights not just her criminal practice, but has testimonials of her and a client on the courthouse steps. The video allows her to showcase her mission through a medium her client base would most likely use. And she is decidedly authentic…the key to her success.

Now, this might not be for everyone, but YouTube lets you take the concept of an electronic educational brochure, your web site, to a whole new level.

When I did a YouTube search of lawyer videos three years ago, I found 81; at least 10 were from one law firm, 30-second spots each highlighting a particular practice area within the law firm. Others were amateur videos mocking "late night cheesy lawyers."

Today, when I put in lawyers it indicates there are 74, 100 (I won't take the time to figure out legit and cheesy.) But percentage wise, you do the math. The upshot is, this is still virgin territory for smart lawyers who understand the value of video and utilizing YouTube, this powerful search engine preferred by millions.

The wonderful benefit of an Internet video is it can be as long as you would like and plays for free on the computer for each individual who specifically goes to your web site (or searches your name on YouTube) to do some preliminary research on you. Therefore, with each hit to your web site (or search in YouTube), you are getting the opportunity to present your own educational marketing piece over and over again. This laser-focused advertising is powerful and cost effective.

Getting this type of targeted advertising for minimal investment is an amazing opportunity for the entrepreneur who is smart enough to grab the horns of this bull and ride it until the "legal advertising police" come with sirens blaring. And you know they are coming. The right to advertise is to the American Bar Association what the right to have an abortion is to the Republicans. It's a hot button issue that remains very divisive.

Given all the fuss recently about lawyer advertising, Internet communications, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Lawyer Directories, video advertising like YouTube will certainly raise more than a few paternalistic graying eyebrows. But why? If it is a commercial like any other commercial, should it matter where it is played? As long as it passes muster like regular TV and radio "commercials," it shouldn't.

We've got to stop hog-tying every lawyer when it comes to competitive and creative presentation of their skills and philosophies under the ever-broadening (some would say suffocating) umbrella of public protection. If the judiciary and anti-lawyer advertising crusaders really want to protect the public, make them the gatekeepers of pharmaceutical advertising. With their zealousness I may, once again, be able to watch the evening news without 20 commercials encouraging me to become a prescription drug addict nervous about oily-discharge as a possible side-effect.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Should You Create A Niche Practice? (Part II)

Susan Cartier Liebel — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:00:06 +0000

In Part I we defined what a niche really is and discussed the concept of natural community to help you carve out your niche.

Now let's talk about the traditional definition of 'niche' in the legal community – a given practice area, a specific type of law you want to practice because your motivation is enjoyment or profitability, or a particular motivation which makes you believe you want to limit yourself to that particular practice area.

The conventional wisdom is one MUST limit themselves to one or two areas of law in order to be truly skilled at it or to be able to navigate the complexities. The other piece of conventional wisdom is you will be perceived as an expert in that area if it is all you do. Can we all see how flawed this logic is? Practicing one area of law doesn't make you good at it. (neither does many years). It just means you practice one area of law (and possibly repeating one year of knowledge 10 or 15 years!) and there is a perception you must know what you are doing. Do you know a lawyer like that?

Either you're a good lawyer or you're not. Limiting yourself to one practice area does not automatically make you brilliant in that practice area. Is there a higher likelihood you can be more competent if you only practice one area of law? Probably. Can you be perceived as competent because you only practice one area of law? Probably. But neither one is a foregone conclusion. And it also doesn't mean a lawyer who handles multiple practice areas is not qualified to do so or not highly skilled. Perception and reality are two different animals.

However, as a rule most lawyers do like to concentrate in one or two practice areas but there are some pitfalls. First, as we are seeing with the struggles in the economy, if you are married to one practice area and economic times change, your practice may take a hit or need to be radically transformed in order to adapt and stay profitable… unless you are absolutely on the top of the heap in your practice area or have a captive market which generally results from being 'highly' specialized.

Second, sometimes we are so fixated on practicing one area of law we foreclose other opportunities which find us in surprising ways.

True Story: One of my clients was absolutely committed to health care law representing doctors. His background was in health care law and his family was filled with physicians. He felt this was his 'natural community' combined with his interests. When he opened his solo practice clients were referred to him in areas of law he thought he had no interest. I encouraged him to take the cases and try them on for size. One was a divorce, another probate. He disliked the divorce, liked the probate. One man he had known for a long time asked him to handle a few landlord/tenant cases and some debt collection. He figured, "why not." Well, today he has a six figure landlord tenant and debt/collection practice with a healthy dose of probate and his name has become synonymous with these practice areas in his county. That was just three short years ago. (And, as an aside, he regularly is approached by headhunters to interview for jobs in healthcare law…he goes, but just to feed his ego and then says, 'no thanks.')

The moral of the story is this:

There are many kinds of niches and they are driven by:

your natural community; or
demographics; or
practice area; or
a combination of some or all of the above

some by design, some by accident.

But regardless your efforts to absolutely plan, don't disregard opportunities because of the plan.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel

Why Partnerships May Seem Good But Can Be Costing You Money

Susan Cartier Liebel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:09:34 +0000

I am working with a very committed client at the moment who has been sharing stories with me of her partnership experiences and why she knows she will be leaving her firm and is working towards this goal very soon. And her story is probably more common then most realize.

She is the partner in a five person law firm in a well-heeled town in Maryland. She has been the partner in this firm for more than 8 years. She is the youngest partner and does very well in her two chosen practice areas. She made partner because she was good, really good at rainmaking and handling her clients. This is perfect. However, as typical, her partners are second wave with extraordinary overhead, support-staff heavy and associates overpaid to the point they are disinterested in learning rainmaking activities themselves. They are just very comfortable with their paychecks and she is just one voice. And this typical partnership expects the younger partners to start buying out the older partners in a few years while pushing the associates up through the partnership track. That's the model.

In 2007 she alone brought in $400,000 more in billables than any other partner. She took home only an extra $106,000 from all her work. The following year, believing she may have to go overseas because she is in the reserves, she wanted to spend more time with her family, took fewer cases. Yet her partners relied upon her to do all the heavy lifting. When she didn't they responded typically not realizing they had an obligation to up their game as well and said, 'wassup?'. They just depended upon her for their income and got lazy.

This was when the lightbulb went off. She realized if she can generate this type of revenue and is just giving it away because the others aren't pulling their weight, why should she be in a partnership? And so she is breaking free.

If her partners weren't so archaic in their thinking, billable hours, high overhead, support-staff heavy, they would be more profitable. But their behaviors aren't going to change. She recognizes she needs to be out from under this way of thinking. This is also the mindset of a solo – if I'm going to work this hard, I'm going to do it for myself.'

I bring this up now because as more and more people are being forced into going solo (I get at least two e-mails a day of stories of lawyers being laid off and frantic about what to do) they are also going to make decisions based upon fear. And fear drives them to form unhealthy partnerships without understanding what partnerships really are.

So, I am going to resurrect an older post as it is timely today:

To Partner or Not To Partner – That Is The Question.

I remember reading years ago about a marriage prenuptial agreement that was so specific as to each spouse’s responsibilities, right down to the husband’s obligation to put the toothpaste cap back on the toothpaste tube, that most people thought it was a prenup on steroids. The spouses, however, clearly loved it because it laid out all the expectations each had of the other so neither one was in the dark about their responsibilities in the marriage.

Well, partnerships are like marriages. Half will last a lifetime, the whole being greater then the sum of it’s parts; growing together, getting stronger through adversity and filled with compromise. The other half will end up in a bitter and nasty separation and dissolution fighting over assets and the custody of the children (read "clients"). Therefore the burning question that’s always asked and must be answered is, "to partner or not to partner?"

Like marriage, partnering should be for the right reasons. However, most lawyers enter partnerships for the wrong reasons borne out of fear of the unknown, doubt about their own capabilities and a lack of understanding about what partnership truly means. Do you really need a partner and all of the emotional and financial entanglements it entails in order to assuage those fears? The answer is a resounding "no."

These are the wrong reasons to partner with another lawyer:

"I want someone to bounce ideas off of." As a rule, most lawyers are very generous with their knowledge and will give invaluable guidance if asked. It is important to maintain relationships with your peers, law school alumni, your bar associations and the like and you will get all the guidance and mentoring you need. Continuing legal education will provide a great base for practical knowledge and an opportunity to network with others in your area of concentration. Depending upon your office selection, should you choose a shared suite, you will have a built-in sounding board without the financial intimacy.

"I want to be able to take a vacation and know my clients are being taken care of." (And from the client’s perspective, "who will take care of my case if you are not available?") Any solo will tell you they have strong reciprocal relationships with other solos and cover for one another when necessary. It is very important you have a dialogue with your clients about a planned or unplanned absence even if the client never asks because it is a legitimate concern of clients who hire solos.

"I don’t want to take all the financial risk." If you are going out on your own, you are taking a calculated risk, period. If you wish to defray cost, how you set up your office, whether working in a suite of other lawyers with shared services or setting up shop by yourself, will determine your cash outlay and financial risk. If you’ve already invested nearly $100,000 in your education is a few more thousand any riskier?

"I’m not very good at (fill in the blank)" Sharing your profits with someone simply because they have an accounting background while you can’t balance a checkbook is not a reason to take on a partner. It is a reason to hire an accountant. If they don’t work out you get another. Not so easy with a partner.

"I want to partner with someone who can teach me." Again, sharing the profits in exchange for guidance you can pretty much get for free if you are properly networked, belong to the right associations and taking continuing legal education, is just giving away your hard-earned dollars.

Do not take on a partner out of fear. You will be living and breathing this partner morning, noon and night. You are depending upon this person for your livelihood while making them the caretaker of your professional reputation.

The short list of the right reasons to take on a partner is: You share a similar vision of where you want to go with your law practice and how you want to get there and are committed to being in it for the long haul. You respect each other's ability as a lawyer and trust the other to make decisions in your absence which will be binding upon you. Each of you has something of comparable value to bring to the partnership, skill sets which compliment and enhance each other. Both of you recognize your equal responsibility to develop business and bring in clients. You share a work ethic and morals. (Partnership brings both benefits and liabilities and you do not want to be vulnerable to the ethical missteps of a partner who does not necessarily share your values). You work well together.

Partnerships can be a wonderful experience when entered into for all the rights reasons and with the right partner. If you decide to partner, make sure you have a partnership agreement that clearly spells out all the financial agreements between the partners not just while you are together but also should you part company….right down to who puts the toothpaste cap back on the toothpaste tube.

Written by Susan Cartier Liebel