Lisa Solomon today hosted a webinar where I presented on the topic of the Business Competency of Lawyers. More than 60 people signed up for a new experience. Technology is great when it works. 🙂
No one had to leave their office. And anyone with a question could ask it immediately. Great experience for me as the presenter and my thanks to both those who joined us and to Lisa for managing the webinar process.
For those who missed the program, it will be available within two weeks after the post-production process is completed. If interested, contact edpoll@lawbiz.com for further information.
Let’s take another look at what general counsel are searching for when they hire outside law firms. This time, Thomas S. Brooks, Vice President of AT&T Law & Government Affairs, shares his views on the subject.
The question was asked, "What is the difference in the marketing activities of large and small firm lawyers?"
To be effective, irrespective of the size of the law firm or the firm’s marketing activities as a whole, each lawyer must establish his/her expertise to entice a prospect to become a client. This is done in many ways including, but not limited to (the former lawyer in me just came out), writing, speaking, using the internet and sometimes advertising (in any medium that is cost effective), among other modalities. And, with this expertise, each lawyer must create a personal relationship with the prospect before he/she becomes a client.
A law firm was held to be a public figure. A law firm sued a legislator for defamation when the legislator said the law firm received exhorbitant, unauthorized amounts of money for work they didn’t perform and that the firm also exceed political contribution limits to a particular legislator. The politcally connected law firm was held by the state court to be a public figure which required that the law firm must meet an actual malice standard, thus making plaintiff’s case harder to prove. Read more about this in the current edition of ALM’s Small Firm Business.
In today’s USA Today, their survey shows that patient (you can read this as client) satisfaction is of greater concern in 2006 (51%) than in 2005 (44%). I suspect that the same trend is true for the legal profession (even if the numbers are different).
In "Talking Tech," the Wall Street Journal reports on a Microsoft study. The study suggests that productivity improves by 9% when workers have 3 monitors on their desk and can have various pieces of information they need immediately available on the screen as they work, without having to minimize the current screen and looking for additional information. An interesting conclusion. Of course, while productivity may increase, what about the cost of increased real estate? That is, to have 3 monitors on the same desk at one time, each worker will likely need a larger desk which means a larger office. Will this increased cost offset the savings of more technology?
Ashby Jones writes in the July 10th edition of the Wall Street Journal an article entitled, “Survey Says: How Three Law Firms Aim to Boost Associate Satisfaction.”
His article on law firms’ associates’ satisfaction was interesting. However, until the business model of the large law firms changes, there will be no change in the satisfaction of associates with their law firms. It really is irrelevant whether one large firm scores a little better than another. Very few associates from any of the large law firms is satisfied. (more…)
Question: When buying a law practice, why should I pay any price that is not calculated on a percentage of the revenue that actually is produced from that practice after I take charge? (more…)
Rates on students’ loans increase, effective Saturday, July 1st.
According to USA Today, some students will take their entire professional careers to repay the loans. The rates will increase from 4.75% to as high as 7.14%. Some will refinance their loans; others will pay them off (if they can); and the others will be saddled with almost twice the interest cost!
Without the loans, the students would not complete their education. And we wouldn’t have their talent. Yet, listening to some of them talk, it seems as though they feel entitled to a reduction or elimination of the obligation, an obligation they voluntarily took on for themselves.
Not all of these students get employed with top firms with large salaries. What will happen to the others? How and when will they deal with this debt, a debt that might be as large as $500,000 for some who go on to graduate school?
We have not had experience with this before. How our country will deal with this issue may impact the way legal services are delivered … and who delivers them.
Some wisdom from Tony Alessandra, author of The Platinum Rule:
"The ability to communicate well can make a critical difference in life, and especially in your career. A study conducted by AT&T and Stanford University revealed that the top predictor of professional success and upward mobility is enjoyment of and ability for public speaking. Yet surveys also show that our number one fear — even more than death — is speaking in public."
Other words of advice from FDR: Be brief. Be short. Be seated.
Words of wisdom that are difficult for lawyers to implement. We need to learn more of this.
Ed Poll interviews attorney Rick Simses on the subject of alternative fee billing. They discuss sharing the risk of a matter with the client… what it means and how it should impact the client’s fee.
Mike McKee of The Recorder wrote an interesting piece on the issue of insurance disclosure.
While I continue to oppose the adoption by California of this new provision, it is becoming clearer to me that there are competing interests at work. First, is the perception that the Bar is a licensing agency and protector of the public. That’s it. Second, there are the few, perhaps naive, lawyers who believe that the State Bar also owes a duty to its members.
Bars across the country in recent decades have leaned toward the first, to the almost total exclusion of the second. I had hopes that California had finally turned the corner and was placing its duty to the lawyer population at the top of its priority list, understanding that the public protector role had already been appropriately addressed (and will always be important, but not uppermost for the moment). (more…)
