Bullies cost you money! Addressing this topic is not a "soft skill" but one that goes right to the "bottom line." Tolerate bullying in the workplace and you will experience lost time, lost ncentive and lost resources when skilled staff take time off from work, lose motivation or suffer stress burnout and leave the job for another. The cost to business is in the billions of dollars annually.
The converse is true. Creating a culture of collegiality, cooperation and teamwork creates enhanced performance, greater successes and even higher profits.
Bullying, by definition, is unwelcome behavior including unwarranted or invalid criticism, exclusion and isolation, being singled out and treated differently, and being humiliated in front of others. One study shows that younger women suffer bullying at the hands of older women … but this phenomenon is not limited to women … and sexual harrassment is only one aspect …
Male clients find often find that how they respond to the bullying tactics of their male superiors is a critical feature of whether they succeed in the law firm and whether they make partner or are asked to leave. Irrespective of how they deal with bullying tactics such as imposition of unreal time deadlines and nitpicking of their draft documents, the psychological toll on the lawyer is humongous … including stress in their home life.
In one such experience, I helped a client negotiate his way with the supervising partner through a particularly stressful project. On its conclusion, I suggested that he stop on the way home to buy flowers for his wife. I explained that his wife had been a "passenger" through his recent difficulties … and that since he had come out the other side successfully, he needed to share some of the good times with her … She had supported him without knowing the details and deserved recognition for her efforts. He later reported that his consideration was a huge success!
Had the firm’s culture not tolerated this bully, their productivity and profitability and bonding would have been significantly higher.
Yes, bullying is exaggerated in times of recession and credit crunch, if allowed … But, it need not be.
In a suit, Williams & Connolly, a D.C. law firm, is seeking payment of more than $2 million in legal fees. The client and law firm apparently resolved their differences and created a payout plan, with the client pay 1/3 of the amount … and now refusing to pay the balance or 2/3 remaining amount.
What makes this case more interesting is that a resolution of the fee dispute was achieved. And later, the client refused to honor the settlement agreement. The client ostensibly believes it can harrass the law firm and then settle again for a lesser amount.
Questions for the law firm:
1. Why did you allow fees to get so high in the first place? Collections should have been more aggressive.
2. Did you have a budget for the litigation for the client that the client accepted … or was nothing said about the extent of the legal services to be delivered?
3. Was the size of the legal fee a surprise to the client?
4. Why didn’t you fire the client before $2 mil?
5. Why didn’t you get security for payment of the settlement amount, such as a stipulated judgment in the event of a default or other guarantee such as a letter of credit?
Someone was asleep at the switch…both during intake and during the representation … and seemingly also at the negotiation for settlement of the fee dispute.
News about the health care reform package is getting more interesting. As we get closer to a vote of some kind, the identities of the players and respective positions are becoming more clear.
In today’s analysis, the drug companies are joyous. If universal health care is adopted, the pharmaceutical industry benefits … with more folks insured, more drugs will be prescribed that will be covered by insurance … to their benefit. However, insurance companies will hurt a bit … no one is yet sure how much. With more people insured, their costs presumably increase. With the right to maintain – retain insurance despite the loss of employment, COBRA income goes down. With prior medical history being irrelevant for coverage, insurance carriers will have to take on some risks they would have eschewed earlier. Hmmmm. Sounds a bit like mandatory auto insurance. The details are not so significant to the ideas here and certainly not to some of the stakeholders. Can you name them all?
In your law practice, even if a sole practitioner, can you name all of the stakeholders? How do you seek to reconcile the differences among all of your stakeholders? As I mentioned in an earlier article, providing value is the name of the game in today’s world. And how much more value could you provide with the stakeholders on "the same page," all working together for you and the same goal? And with that, how much more profitable would your firm be — how much more income would you receive — if you could create harmony among your various stakeholders …. such as clients, associates, staff, assistants, et al.?
Is the big firm salary model broken? That’s the topic addressed by Michelle Lore in the Minnesota Lawyer. Associate pay is only one of many areas of cuts in expenses that law firms are reviewing. In our Managing Partners Roundtable, just yesterday, large law firm managing partners said that they are now "lean." They have cut all the "fat" or excess expenses they can, some of which have become evident in 2009 and others which will show up first in 2010 results.
What will the law firm model of 2010 look like? Or will law firms ignore the lessons of 2007-2008 and seek to go back to "normal" as the economy turns around? "Head in the sand" approach usually doesn’t work for long term success.
Can you imagine that Twitter, WITHOUT any revenue stream, is valued at $1Billion! Wow. Not many employees and no revenue stream … and no prospects in sight to get revenue.
Just think what your law firm, with a decent revenue stream, might be worth? What is the difference? And why isn’t your firm worth $1B?
Edward Poll & Associates Receives 2009 Best of Venice Award
U.S. Commerce Association’s Award Plaque Honors the Achievement
VENICE, CA Oct. 6, 2009 — Edward Poll & Associates has been selected for the 2009 Best of Venice Award in the Business Management Consultants category by the U.S. Commerce Association (USCA).
The USCA "Best of Local Business" Award Program recognizes outstanding local businesses throughout the country. Each year, the USCA identifies companies that they believe have achieved exceptional marketing success in their local community and business category. These local companies enhance the positive image of small business through service to their customers and community.
Ed Poll, J.D., M.B.A., CMC, is a nationally recognized expert in law practice management. He helps attorneys and law firms increase their profitability consulting with them on issues of internal operations, business development, and financial matters. Poll brings his clients a solid background in both law and business. He has 25 years experience as a practicing attorney and has also served as CEO and COO for several manufacturing businesses. In 1990, he founded LawBiz® Management Company and is now focused on coaching, speaking, and training law firms.
Various sources of information were gathered and analyzed to choose the winners in each category. The 2009 USCA Award Program focused on quality, not quantity. Winners are determined based on the information gathered both internally by the USCA and data provided by third parties.
About U.S. Commerce Association (USCA)
U.S. Commerce Association (USCA) is a Washington D.C. based organization funded by local businesses operating in towns, large and small, across America. The purpose of USCA is to promote local business through public relations, marketing and advertising.
The USCA was established to recognize the best of local businesses in their community. Our organization works exclusively with local business owners, trade groups, professional associations, chambers of commerce and other business advertising and marketing groups. Our mission is to be an advocate for small and medium size businesses and business entrepreneurs across America.
FTC is interested in restricting bloggers … wanting them to disclose any interest in products they promote … At first I was concerned but then realized that the ruling was no more severe than being applied to broadcasters. So, what is different? Perhaps it’s that this may be the first time that the internet is being regulated.
