Articles
Stop the presses!
Illinois, one of the last major States to oppose the selling of a law practice has finally succumbed! You can now sell a law practice in Illinois. The Supreme Court, effective in May 2005 (I just learned of the new rule last Thursday at a meeting of the ABA in Chicago)adopted its own version of Rule 1.17 permitting the sale.
The Court did not adopt the recent modification from the ABA, but rather adopted a modification of the original rule.
Finally! Now lawyers no longer have to play games and create sham partnerships wherein one partner can buy-out the other partner under a retirment plan, this approach having been accepted. Form vs substance. Now lawyers can be above board. And, if the buying lawyer defaults on a pay-out arrangement, the selling lawyer will have standing in court to enforce the agreement.
Congratulations to John Phipps, one of the ardent supporters of the new professional rule. And thanks to Don Rikkli, an Illinois lawyer now deceased, who pushed so hard for this rule but whose widow could not sell Don’s practice when he died several years ago. And, in the background (often the foreground), congratulations to Alan DeWoskin, an attorney in St. Louis who was one of the significant movers to get the ABA to adopt its rule in 1991.
View page
Your marketing efforts will improve dramatically if you spend time applying the Pareto Principle to your firm. Tom Kane in his blog today refers to an article in the ABA’s Law Practice Today.
Look at the steps set forth in the article for good advice to increase your revenue.
View page
Blink suggests that doctors talk 3 minutes longer than other professionals (lawyers) and that doctors are sued less than lawyers. And managing the client experience is marketing. Therefore, marketing lowers lawyers’ risk of malpractice … or so someone suggests! (more…)
View page
Clients ask me questions and, from time to time, I’ll post the question and my response. Here is one:
Question: Should I take a prospective client who wants me to discount my price by 25%?
Response: You must first be sure that your price is competitive (is within the market for your service, your geography and your type of practice). If you are, you might want to be a few dollars lower if you’re new to the practice of law … but not much. (more…)
View page
See Matt Homann’s comments today at The NonBillable Hour.
Matt has agreed to have LexThink be the “idea management” team for the National Speakers Association, LA Chapter’s, Summer Symposium set for September 16-18th in Rancho Mirage. See my earlier posting on this outstanding conference and why lawyers must attend! (more…)
View page
In a recent thread on a listserv to which I contribute, there was discussion about the philanthropic proclivities of lawyers – that they aren’t charitable enough. I was moved to comment, and thought you might be interested in my comments. They follow. You will note that the discussion hit a nerve for me. (more…)
View page
The ABA’s electronic Report discusses a new Wisconsin Supreme Court case that discards medical malpractice limitations for non-economic pain and suffering.
The reason, in part, was violation of the equal protection clause: Those with major injuries will benefit proportionately less than those with minor injuries who total compensation might come in below the cap.
This issue is huge and, in today’s world of politics, is a stunning blow to the medical community that seems to be able to have its own way in everything.
From the perspective of the legal community, it is good news for some personal injury lawyers. While many lawyers are facing a challenge to their very economic existence — see asbestos law changes, among others — Wisconsin (this ruling is State specific) lawyers at least have been given new life for the moment. The medical community will now move to the national/federal level to seek new legislation.
The reasoning of the Wisconsin court was so well crafted, though, that it may be used elsewhere. Let’s hope.
This issue is just one more example of what lawyers need to look out for in the development of their business plans: Consider “threats” to your practice from the outside world. In this case, from politicians seeking to make it less attractive for lawyers as a means of reducing litigation against claimed negligence. “Keep your eye on the ball” to make sure your practice area isn’t the next target for our erstwhile politicians.
View page
Like others, the earlier versions of Dragon left me complacent. I type very quickly and feel I have greater control using the typing modality.
However, I recently went to version 8 (standard), purchased a much better microphone (AcousticMagic) for about $250 and engaged a consultant to set up the system for me. Voila! Everything works nicely now. The real issue is the training of the system with your voice. And this is an on-going process. The more perfection you want, the more time you must spend in the training process. The more you are willing to accept the result as either a draft or as a version that your secretary can clean up later, the more pleased you will be with less training effort.
The total out-of-pocket cost, including the consultant, approaches $2,000. Well worth the cost. The real cost, however, as always, is your time in the training process. No one can do this but you …. And whether this is a valuable use of your time is dependent on the factors mentioned above as well as your own personality, your need for this modality and your level of patience/perfection.
View page
The question is being asked of me: Should I go back to using digital transcription or should I get the latest version of Dragon Naturally Speaking? (Note: I’m frustrated with Miscrosoft’s version and am ready to throw out my computer because of it!) (more…)
View page
Otherwise they would have acted differently!
I find it interesting that people scratch their heads about why lawyers fail to support the Bar. In California, Governor Pete Wilson vetoed a Bar dues bill which would have allowed the State Bar to send out its billings for that year. This is old news.
The new part of it is that the lawyers in the Bar failed to support the Bar en masse; if they had, the Governor would have had to relent. When Governor Wilson, with a very long memory for an old slight, got even with the Bar, there was no one there to defend the Bar.
The Legislature, under a new governor, adopted a bill; the Bar sent out its dues, a couple of years late, but still … better late than never.
As part of the bill, and the negotiation with the Bar that enable the adoption of the bill, law practice management was deleted as a designated category of education for MCLE.
Last year, a committee of the Board of Governors unanimously supported a resolution to re-designate law practice management as study category. For reasons not pertinent to this comment, the committee delayed sending the resolution to the full Board of Governors. Two weeks ago, that same committee reconsidered the resolution. Now the vote was 3-2 to kill the resolution and not send it to the full Board of Governors.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Lawyers in California spend 80% of their dues each year to support the California disciplinary system. More than 50% of all complaints against lawyers involved somre sort of management failure on the part of lawyers.
If studying management could reduce the number of complaints (and all evidence supports this), then the cost savings presumably would also enable a dues reduction.
And you say that that is too logical for a bureaucratic instituion, one that has no profit motive or measurement stick. And they wonder why lawyers fail to support their agenda.
View page
