Archives

Customer Service – It’s Everything!

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, there was an article about Bert Lahr’s 1956 Broadway performance of Waiting for Godot.

The article was enticing and caused me to go to Amazon.com to order the mp3 download of the performance. I purchased the download, but had trouble viewing it. I went to Amazon’s "help" section and followed the instructions for over an hour … then I saw that I could contact them. They asked if I wanted email response, a phone call later or a phone call NOW.  I asked for the latter and within less than a minute received a call. Now, that is SERVICE!

The person must have been from India (after all, it’s a holiday week-end here <g>), but I could understand him. He offered to give me a refund or download the play again. I chose to download it again … after all, I did make the purchase because I wanted it. But, we still had trouble and what was downloaded did not appear to be what the WSJ review promised. So, without argument, protest or difficulty, the man said I would get a refund.

While I didn’t get what I wanted, my recourse is to go back to the journalist and determine what I didn’t understand. BUT, I was super impressed by the detail to service presented by Amazon. They will now address the issue for me on their end, I was not charged for something I didn’t get and I will sing their praises. (Oh, I guess that’s what I just did.) 

Amazon, thus, is not just a repository of books. That can be had in a library. But, they are a customer experience to satisfies. Congratulations to the folks at Amazon. I am one very pleased customer.

Do the clients of your law firm say the same thing about dealing with you? Is the experience of dealing with your law firm, despite the stress of their legal challenge, more than satisfying? Are they being cared for? Demonstrate that you care for them and care fully.


View page

Love & Other Drugs

Just saw this movie … There are many levels to this film. First, Anne Hathaway, the female lead, is drop-dead gorgeous. It is impossible to take your eyes off of her (if you’re male. <g>). The guy’s o.k., too, but not my type. <g>

I thought this was going to be another "chick-flick," o.k. by me. But, it’s far more. It’s a condemnation of the drug industry on the one hand, and a very serious commentary about Parkinson’s disease and those suffering from it.

I went to see the film without knowing it’s subject. Just thought it would be a feel-good film without violence, a requirement of my wife to see a film together. 

Frankly, it hit far closer to home than I expected or wanted. It’s a film very much worth seeing … and I don’t say that lightly.


View page

Turkey is On

The turkey is on … he is now marinating in wine, stuffed with fruits and veggies. Two and a half days from now,  my family and I will enjoy a very tender bird.

This is the one day of the year that I expect my kids to come to my home, with my grandchildren, and enjoy the turkey that I cook. It’s a great day.

This time of year is when all the stress of the season begins, the retailers seek your attention with great offers and on-line spam/scam seems to increase geometrically. It takes a great deal of meditation, yoga or just good ol’ fortitude to keep oneself calm. Today, the first day of the holiday week, our household seems to be controlling the angst better than usual. Yes, there is still hope.

My wish for you is that you have a peaceful, happy and fruitful holiday season.


View page

Attorneys cannot be trusted to govern themselves

In August 2009, the California legislature enacted a law requiring the State Bar to examine how it governs itself. I don’t think any other state in the Union has a legislature overseeing the bar. This is usually a function for the State Supreme Court. However, in California, since the 1920s, the Bar must get permission for it to send out dues bills to members; thus, the legislature has the power to impact the legal system through the back door.

Does this remind you of law firms whose compensation structures govern what its lawyers find to be important? If the firm emphasizes and rewards new client acquisition more than work performed, that is what lawyers will spend their energy doing  ("eat what you kill").  If, on the other hand, the firm compensates more for hours expended, then focus on new client generation will go down and billable hours will go up.

The same is true in the relationship between the bar and the legislature. Today, with less than 30% of the members in the legislature having a law school degree, there surfaces an animosity between lawyers (the bar) and those (the legislature) who approve the dues to be paid by lawyers to retain their license. Oh, did I forget to say? California is a mandatory license state, meaning that you must be a member of the State Bar in order to practice law. Voluntary bars exist at the county and local levels, not at the state level. The state is mandatory. Voluntary bars exist, but only at the local (county and city) levels.

So, what’s the big deal? The fear by legislators is that a self-regulating body (more than half of the Board of Governors are elected by lawyers; others are appointed by the Governor and others) will serve the interests of their constituencies, not the public interests. I thought that was the whole point of public members being part of the Board; they are, they participate and they have a significant influence from the Board. The legislature wants the Bar to "protect the public" only; the well-being of lawyers is unimportant.

More than 50% of lawyers earn less than $100,000, a relatively paltry sum when considering the number of years of education required and the good that lawyers provide. (Yes, I know there are a few bad apples, but that is true in every profession … hmmmm, even with law makers.

If lawyers were helped by the bar and did earn more money, there would be far less temptation to invade clients’ trust accounts. This would be real public protection.

I have yet to find a set of rules of professional conduct that favor lawyers over the public. And what the rules of professional conduct does not "catch," the penal code does. And sometimes rules are made that hurt the public.  For example, in the loan modification fracas, the legislature enacted a new penal code provision that made it a felony to take money from clients for loan mod work before the work is done … can’t even take money for the clients’ trust account! The rules of professional conduct were similarly altered. But, no intelligent, business savvy, lawyer would now represent such clients unless pro bono. If the client has insufficient funds to keep the mortgage current, what makes legislators believe such clients will pay their lawyers after the modification is completed? The clients didn’t suddenly get flush with money! So, lawyers will not now help the people who need help the most, those about to be kicked out of their homes …

A new wrinkle to this, however, is that the law seems not to apply when a lawsuit is filed. So, the lawyer might take the client into bankruptcy or sue the lender on some pretense, all with the ultimate objective of merely getting a loan modification. This is more costly and adversarial than needs to be … if the law makers kept their hands off! There were already rules on the books sufficient to punish the "bad apples" in the profession who were guilty of fraud on the clients.

Back to the main point: If the legislature removes governance from lawyers, the resulting agency will be merely a licensing and disciplinary agency … and lawyers who volunteered their time and expertise to the bar for the benefit of many in the public and produced much good work will go elsewhere. That would be a grave loss that will hurt the public.

The Bar should push back and fight the legislature … All the more reason for the separation of powers! Let the legislature do its job … and this does not include determining how lawyers govern themselves.


View page

The Symbol of Liberty … Personal comments

When I was in Washington, D.C., I saw two views of the White House, one of which was normal and one of which exhibited a far different personality. If we have to live behind wire, if we have to be strip searched everytime we go into court houses, public buildings and transportation centers, and if we have to watch one civil liberty after another disappear, then we’ve already “lost the war” with only one transgression. September 11th has changed our lives more because of the politicians than because of the actual dangers we face.

 

I find the same mentality being exhibited by state bar associations who see danger in almost every new idea expressed by lawyers in their effort to communicate with clients and prospective clients. There are already enough rules on the books to protect the public. We have penal codes that make stealing from clients (theft) illegal and we have rules of professional conduct that prevent lawyers from doing “bad” (however you want to define lawyers’ conduct) things (moral turpitude. So why do we need new rules that effectively prevent lawyers from helping economically fatigued clients in their effort to renegotiate their home mortgages? And why is it that using technology (social media) to communicate with prospective clients is subject to rules that are different from the existing rules on advertising and client communications? Why is it that truth in advertising is no longer sufficient despite a new mode of delivering the communication? Oh, and I guess a more basic question: Why is it that the single goal of bar associations is to “protect” the public? Why is this not just one of two goals, the other to protect and promote the interests of its members, lawyers?

 

This seems to br a novel concept. When the president of the State Bar of California said the Bar had two co-equal goals, to protect the public and advance the interests of its lawyer-members, people (staff) almost went into convulsions. Well, that novel idea didn’t last very long … and with new presidents, has gone right out the window.

 

No different in other states … except the latter goal never even made it onto the table. Tell me if you see this differently.


View page

Language is everything

From Michael Bryant of CTS Consulting in Baltimore comes these gems of phrases to ditch now:

  1. It isn’t fair.

Translated: I didn’t get my way.

  1. I’m too busy.

You’re not “too” busy; you’re as busy as you are. “Too busy” means I over planned, or over promised.


View page

Value billing in health care: Back to the future for law?

Insurance companies hire lawyers as in-house counsel at reduced (wholesale) rates, pay lawyers in accordance with insurance policies for their insureds, and otherwise have a dramatic influence over the billing practices in the legal community. Wasn’t it insurance companies in or about the 1960s that demanded lawyers submit bills that showed the time expended in matters for which they pay? And then, as a consequence, lawyers began using time increments as a basis for pricing, not just as a management tool. Before then, lawyers based their fees on the value received by the client.

Perhaps the insurance industry will, once again, have a dramatic impact on the legal profession, but indirectly this time. In Rhode Island, it’s reported that the Lifespan hospital group and Blue Cross have reached an agreement intended to overturn the way hospital care is financed. The goal is to promote and pay for health (value) rather than episodes (hourly) of treatment. Currently, when you go to a hospital, you pay (and the insurance company reimburses or pays directly) for your stay in the hospital, for tests performed and surgeries and related care. Does this remind you of the hourly bill that lawyers produce monthly (hopefully no less frequently?.

The agreement is the first to meet Rhode Island’s unique rules concerning health insurance policies and their premiums. Blue Cross, the largest health plan in the state, and Lifespan, the largest provider in the state, have agreed in principle (details yet to be worked out). The program will provide for fixed fees (alternative, or value, billing) for given procedures, thus discouraging tests and procedures that might not be needed – but usually performed because of insurance payments or attempts to make sure “no stone is unturned” in the treatment. Does this sound familiar? Performing more discovery than needed just to make sure “no stone is unturned” and to avoid an accusation of malpractice for failure to uncover the hidden evidence.

The hospital will be eligible for bonus payments when they meet as yet to be determined quality standards. Again, does this sound familiar? Bonus payments for faster resolution of the litigation, payment for results below the insurance company’s reserve or other standards determined by the parties. Almost sounds like a sport’s figure’s bonus payments when playing more games or hitting more home runs, etc. than set forth as minimums in the contract.

Increased and more effective communications and streamlining payment processes to increase the hospitals cash flow are also part of the agreement. Again, does this sound familiar? When lawyers have effective communications in place, it is seldom that the client is upset with the lawyer and it is seldom the client refuses to pay in accord with the engagement agreement, thus increasing realization rates for the lawyer.

Tying payment to quality care is available elsewhere, but to a modest extent and never before to an entire state. The insurance commissioner in Rhode Island is mandating change in connection with premium rate reviews. As they say elsewhere, “follow the money.” In this case, when customers demand change, suppliers change. Here, the review process for payment of insurance premiums and health care will change, not overnight, but quite assuredly … only because the customer (or regulator) demands the change. When will clients of lawyers finally say “enough is enough” and demand change? Until then, lawyers are not likely to alter current billing practices   


View page