This week, I’m in Cleveland for two distinct presentations to Cleveland lawyers and law firm administrators. When I left home, I had a new cell phone (I really love the Motorola Razr) and everything in my life was “in order.”
On arrival yesterday, my new cell phone stopped working (my first clue that things were about to change) and my wife was desperately searching to find me to give me bad news. First, the bad news: A house that I own and rent burned down. Next, the good news: No one was hurt! The family is now displaced and needs a new place to live, but they are all fine. The fire was during the day and they were out of the house. Now, the funny news: During the aftermath, a fireman asked the tenant if he smoked, thinking that perhaps a lighted cigarette was the cause. The tenant responded: No, I don’t smoke cigarettes, only marijuana! I nearly cracked up. He obviously didn’t have advice of counsel not to make such an admission. He also claims, however, to have a medical prescription. By the way, AT&T fixed my cell phone this morning.
I’ll have to read my own book, Disaster Preparedness & Recovery Planning: A LawBiz Special Report. We just never know from whence or when or what kind of a disaster will hit! To the extent we can, we need to anticipate disasters and plan for recovery and continuity!
View page
Recently, I heard Alpesh Bhatt speak; his presentation was fascinating and he spoke with the fervor and energy of an impassioned believer. He made the following observation:
"The organization of the future is a verb, not a noun." He continued by asking: "Who will own the stock of the organization?" He said that users will control the company; his examples include www.digg.com and other similar Internet operations such as "youtube" and "facebook." Yes, the stock of the company may be "owned" by one or two people, but the control of the operation is really in the hands of the users. He cited examples of where the users did not agree with a company policy and forced the company to retract its stand.
This is an interesting concept. I’m reminded of the phrase, "… the more things change, the more they stay the same!" I’m referring to the fact that, even in the "old days," the real control of a business was and is in the hands of consumers. Unless you have customers willing to purchase your goods or services, you have no business! Unless you have clients, there is no reason for you to have a law practice. Yes, you may technically "own" the company or law firm, but you will have no business … no revenue … without clients.
Thus, the clarion call: Treat thy clients as they would like to be treated, or you will have no clients! This is a paraphrase of Tony Alessandra’s "Platinum Rule" of asking your clients how they want to be treated, or Ben Franklin’s mantra, "… take care of the pence and the pence will take care of you."
Another way of looking at this concept is to suggest that law is a verb, not a noun; that law is constantly changing. Our courts, though they use precedents, constantly interpret the written word to mean something different in different times, always seeking to keep the law relevant to the day’s values. In other words, the law changes or is a verb, not a noun.
At the end of his presentation, Bhatt observed that business used to be about putting together the puzzle. Seven steps to this, five steps to that, etc. We will see how this process orientation is no longer appropriate. We will be asked to solve the mystery, not create a process. And if/when we bring value to the table to help our clients solve their business mystery, we will be their colleague, their "partner " in helping them solve the mystery then facing their business.
Pretty sophisticated stuff … and lawyers who can "get it," will remain the top lawyers of our profession.
View page
The tidal wave has not yet struck! That means there is still time to save ourselves.
The California State Bar Board of Governors voted today on the proposal to require disclosure to prospective clients that they do not have malpractice insurance (if they don’t). Other lawyers who are either exempt under the rule or who do have E & O coverage do not have to discuss malpractice insurance or disclose anything about the subject in their engagement agreement.
(more…)
View page
There is an interesting ABA article and ethics opinion that discusses when a lawyer, with a J.D. (Juris Doctor) can call him/herself a Dr. under Rule 7.1. State jurisdictions differ. If a Ph.D. can be called doctor, why can’t a lawyer. After all, wasn’t that one of the reasons behind the movement for J.D.s?
This is an interesting, though not earth-shattering, topic.
View page
Can lawyers find jobs in today’s market? The Wall Street Journal (page 1, Sept. 24, 2007) suggests that it’s not so easy today. That’s consistent with my earlier blog post that lawyers are “between a rock and a hard place.”
It is also consistent with my assertion that law is a business, or framed in the context of my registered trademark, The Business of Law® is governed by the principles of economics. Yes, law is a profession, but as Tower Snow, once managing partner of the former Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison law firm in San Francisco said, “Law is subject to the same laws of economics as any other business…” (more…)
View page
Recently I was honored by my selection for induction into the Million-Dollar Consultant™ Hall of Fame. I prepared some remarks on the top ten lessons I’ve learned in starting my consulting career; but it struck me that these apply equally to a lawyer starting a new practice. Since nearly 90% of the 1.1 million U.S. lawyers are solos or in small firms, the odds are high that many lawyers will be in a practice startup situation at some point in their careers. These ideas from building both my own law practice and later my coaching practice may provide some pointers for your success. (more…)
View page
In a recent blog post, I suggested that it was o.k. for lawyers to seek profit. One justification that I didn’t suggest, however, becomes very clear when you look at state bars disciplinary reports: Clients’ trust accounts are invaded by economically marginal lawyers (exclude out and out theft from this discussion, a rare event). Thus, when we encourage lawyers to be business-wise, we are actually seeking to protect the public.
Being effective with clients, efficient in the delivery of services to clients and therefore more profitable, we are actually protecting the public by providing sufficient resources to the lawyer to feed his/her family and therefore have no need to invade the trust account funds.
To say that law is a business, a service business, is not to deny that it is also a profession rooted in the highest ideals from the very beginning of our country. (more…)
View page
Today’s LA Times astrological forecast fir Aquarius says:
"As long as you’re on a personal improvement kick, you may as well be recording it in some fashion. Blog it…. "
So, it seems we now have permission from the heavens to blog, to share and to collaborate. Let’s blog!
View page
It seems that the argument about the distinction between law as a business and law as a profession hasn’t yet died. David Bilinsky shares a comment about a new book by David Slayton, entitled Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex and Madness in Canada’s Legal Profession.
(more…)
View page
We’ve gone live today! This is our first post with our new design.
For those who’ve been following my writing … and seen our earlier design … I’d welcome your thoughts and comments.
And for those who are coming to us for the first time, I’d welcome your thoughts on our new design as well.
View page
