Category: Personal Thoughts
Two weeks ago, I purchased a Motorola Razr Maxx from Verizon and an iPad. I’m happy with both, but both need some adjusting. Perhaps I would be more correct in saying that the owner of the devices needs some adjusting … or relearning.
In any event, I went into Verizon this afternoon, the same store from where the purchases were made., and asked for assistance. I was told that they now have a new policy: They would help me if I want to buy a new device or accessory. But, they would need to make an appointment with me for another time if I want to ask questions or get some help about the devices I already own.
The old policy was to wait your turn until a representative had finished with a current customer and was available to meet with you. That seemed fair.
Apple, a much larger store, will put you on their list and you wait your turn. Yes, they will also make an appointment for you at the Genius Bar. And there are many knowledgeable sales people walking the floor who can answer most of the questions I’ve had … and are willing to do so.
This reminds me of the lawyer who plays telephone tag with a client … to the frustration of the client. If you’re not in when the client calls and cannot return the phone call quickly, have your assistant make an appointment. It’s clearly better, however, to take that call on the first attempt if you’re in the office. Failure to connect is still the #1 complaint against lawyers.
Verizon does not seem to get this simple fact of customer relations! Do not let the customer go away angry because you are unwilling to answer his/her questions about the device you sold. Oh, yes, I forgot. They can be as nasty as they want because they have you tied to a two year contract! Just think what would happen without that contract? I’d be back at AT&T in a heartbeat!
View page
Duh. You think?
Don’t know about you, but I would be half way up the hill before I could even read this sign. 🙂
View page
In the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, two fellows from the Brookings Institute espouse the philosophy for deregulating the legal profession. Let anyone practice law; whether they’ve gone through law school or not, and allow anyone to own a law firm.
These are not new ideas, but the assertion that these ideas are key to lowering costs of delivery of legal services is misplaced.
First, most of the rules in place are there protect the public; they are not there to protect the interests of lawyers. For example, an individual must be competent to represent and advocate for the interests of a client.
Second, technology provides many avenues to reduce legal costs. Removing the licensing requirements has no impact on this issue. Yes, requiring a license does cost money and does cost time (opportunity costs for the student), but it also impacts the quality of services delivered … just as in the case of medicine (oh yes, and plumbing), etc. Why not remove licensing requirements for everyone in everything, from medicine, to plumbing, to driving a car. Licensing assures a minimum standard of quality. Licensing requirements in every area of human endeavor are society’s way of protecting clients to some limited extent. Caveat emptor is acceptable, but not to the degree apparently desired by the authors of the Brookings report.
If lower legal costs is the objective, the argument should focus more on the pricing modalities as impacting the cost of legal services, not governance of the law firm. We’ve talked about this on previous occasions.
Third, the underlying premise that licensing provides an insurmountable barrier to entry and substantially raises costs by controlling supply might be true if one doesn’t look at the facts of recent and current reality. There are many more lawyers than the current demand can accommodate. Many lawyers cannot find work. They do provide legal services at lower rates. Even large law firms find significant resistance to raising their rates. Are legal expenses high? Yes, but compared to what? How low should these prices be before they are acceptable? And, if there is no regulation, we might likely see larger law firms pattern their pricing after one another, just as airlines currently do so that the benefit of lower costs would not be evident.
There is no price regulation now in the airline industry. Yet, it’s remarkable how similar airline prices are. Yes, there are a few low cost airlines such as Southwest. And, yes, there are also lower cost law firms as we sit here today, even with the regulations we have in place. The only benefit of the authors’ "non-licensing" proposal would be the destruction of minimum standards of quality. Caveat emptor might be o.k. if the public had a way of knowing what the quality standards should be … but they don’t and they won’t.
Combining other skills such as accounting into one organization is not required … many law firms already work closely with allied professionals for the benefit of clients. This is merely a non-issue.
Dewey, which went into Bankruptcy Court last night, did not fail for lack of credit. The firm had extended bank lines of credit. It failed for lack of effective management. It’s unlikely that investors or others would have given Dewey more money if they understood the true nature of the firm’s economics and governance. Thus, this is also a non-issue for the author’s arguments.
In sum, the functioning of a law firm is as is all other businesses. Good, solid business decisions must be made to attract customers/clients and operate cost-effectively. Dewey failed on both counts. The arguments put forth by the authors would not have changed this outcome. But, in the terms of business, by going into bankruptcy, the firm may be able to disgorge its unfunded pension obligations and become a viable candidate for acquisition by another large firm.
View page
Isn’t this the truth …
too bad our current politicians fail to understand that about our environment as well as our body politic psyche to tolerate their misdeeds.
Failure to act when needed is equally a misdeed.
View page
It’s a humongous uphill and equally steep downhill.
Did you ever feel that way when you opened your first law office?
Please bring plenty of fuel … or money.
View page
Have we lost accountability? Have we lost taking personal responsibility for our own actions. Some in the political arena are saying that government has little or no legitimate role in our lives. We need to restore caveat emptor and all will be o.k. again. While we may have more government involvement n some areas than we’d like, we probably have too little in other areas. And if we truly had caveat emptor all over, we would soon have anarchy and civil unrest.
In one area, however, this issue was brought home to me in a very different light. A former military man spoke on television recently (as well as written a book) about the lack of responsibility of the American people. He said this in the context of so many of our troops returning home with maladies, who need treatment of one sort or another, and who need jobs … and their needs are not being met. His assertion is that the American public can ignore these issues because we are not involved in the war. Yes, we pay for it … maybe. But, that’s it.
In the past, there was a draft. If we went to war, the draft increased and many of the people we knew would be called up. Today, we have a professional army and so our daily lives are not disturbed. In the past, when we went to war, there was a special assessment or increased tax to pay for the war. When we went to war in Iraq, there was no such increase. In fact, taxes were lowered, a significant factor in our current deficit discussions.
The point is that we’ve lost touch with our personal responsibility and accountability … and we need to get it back. Not sure how to do this, but we need to have this discussion. Perhaps the forthcoming political debate will address this issue. Just my $.02 worth.
View page
And they say there is no climate warming!
View page
Judge Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York Appeals Court, announced a pro bono requirement to gain admission to the New York Bar. Every new lawyer will have to prove their performance of 50 hours of pro bono practice before being admitted to the New York state bar. Mandatory pro bono is now a reality in New York.
He said, "If pro bono is a core value of our profession, and it is—and if we aspire for all practicing attorneys to devote a meaningful portion of their time to public service, and they should—these ideals ought to be instilled from the start, when one first aspires to be a member of the profession."
His first error of judgement, in my opinion, is to conclude that pro bono is a "core value" of the legal profession. While many lawyers "give" many hours freely of their time and expertise, it is not the essence or "core value" of the legal profession. This has been substantiated many times over when bar associations call on their members to provide free services for low and moderate income people. Many do step up to the plate. But, not all. Thus, it’s obviously not a core value of the profession.
He then said that "We think that if you want that privilege, that honor of practicing law in the state of New York…then you are going to have to demonstrate that you believe in our values." He is really saying that if you want to practice law in NY, you better meet my values. Interesting that he says that practicing law is a privilege, not a right. Seems as though we’re taking a test to get our driving license. Driving a car is a privilege and in order to get you on the streets, you need certain requirements. I guess Judge Lippman equates getting a law license with a driver’s license.
Why does this new requirement apply only to new lawyers? Why doesn’t this requirement apply to all lawyers in NY, even those who have been practicing for a few years? Judge Lippman’s excuse for this discriminatory practice is that existing lawyers’ practices are very diverse and some lawyers already are having difficulty earning enough money to put food on the table. Thus, they should be excused from this requirement. The real reason is that the Judge would have a rebellion on his hands if he tried to spread the requirement to all present lawyers in the state.
View page
I wonder which dog wrote these rules?
View page
In current times, we are becoming more familiar with law firms imploding, collapsing and even going bankrupt, literally. Wall Street Journal and it’s reporter, Jennifer Smith, seem to be taking a great deal of pleasure in highlighting and repeatedly featuring the sad demise of the Dewey law firm.
Dewey highlights the unfortunate interplay of bad luck (the unexpected change in the general economy) and poor management (failure to anticipate alternative scenarios). One or two articles with new information would be illustrative; howevwe, the Journal seems to relish in "kicking the dog while down."
In the future, the Journal might do an article about how a firm in Dewey’s position might avoid collapse. Would that be too much to expect?
View page
