Tag Archive: Personal Thoughts

Law Firm Fees & Compensation

Our new book will go to press in two weeks:   Law Firm Fees & Compensation: Value & Growth Dynamics  — A LawBiz Special Report

Stay tuned for the official press release.


View page

Innovative law firm management

The legal market is not known – yet – for embracing innovation. And the life of a law practice management innovator can be lonely. That can and will change…  

The College of Law Practice Management (of which I am a member) sponsors the InnovAction Award,  which is designed to identify and honor innovation in law practice management.

If you are in a law firm, inhouse department, or other law practice (not for vendors) that has done something innovative – whether with technology or otherwise – the College asks you to take a moment to review the InnovAction web site and consider submitting an application.


View page

The Red Zone of Your Career

Karen Mathis, immediate past chair of the American Bar Association, focused her year on developing a new awareness for the legal profession. She said recently that 400,000 lawyers will retire in the next 10 years.  That’s the entire current membership of the ABA!

(more…)


View page

Open Letter to the American Bar Association

Most lawyers work on Main Street, not Wall Street. Yet all lawyers are impacted by the American Bar Association’s social and political efforts. In my opinion, the single most important power given to the President of the United States is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. It is unfortunate that this process is so tainted today by political ideology and so very fortunate that the ABA is there as an independent third party to challenge the process. That may be its most important function.

However, as the Executive Director of the ABA, Henry F. White, Jr., at the ABA’s Solo Caucus in Los Angeles’ Mid-Year meeting, February 10th, said, “At the end of the day, it’s all about money, despite the goodness.”  He, and his fellow panelists, M. Joe Crosthwait, Jr. (moderator), Karen J. Mathis (ABA immediate past president), and H. Thomas Wells, Jr. (ABA president-elect), were preaching to the choir. (more…)


View page

Professionalism vs Competence

In a survey reported in the February 6th edition of USA Today, Money Section B, the question was asked: "As long as they are good at their jobs, should rude and unprofessional co-workers be tolerated?"

Respondents said "yes" (15%), "no" (84%) and "don’t know" (1%).  It is clear that people are tired of bombastic behavior, at least in the workplace. Can this be translated into a more collegial, and team-oriented work environment?

Patrick Lamb, a leading proponent of "value billing" has certainly committed himself to the concept of team effort. He opened a new practice with two other partners in January 2008. Collegiality, outstanding client service and billing for value delivered (not time spent) gets promoted one step at a time. Patrick has taken that first step in his new firm. Congratulations and best wishes for his continued success. 

As more lawyers succeed in this business model, perhaps others will follow. Then, perhaps, will civility in the profession be achieved.

As a side note, I’m currently reading (actually, listening) the recently published book about Lincoln and his leadership skills. I’m struck by the number of lawyers who were the leaders of our country and the large percentage of our representatives in government (House of Representatives, Senate, and State legislatures) who were lawyers. At one time, the balance substantially exceeded 50%.  Contrast that to today when only around 25%, if that, of these bodies are lawyers. Perhaps the lack of civility in our society in general and the legal profession in particular, is the reason for the lack of faith in lawyers. I don’t know the reason or the answer to this dilemma. But, I do know that many lawyers are stressed, are "burned out" and are unhappy with their chosen profession.

Given this history, I am quite surprised and pleased that 3 of the viable, now 2, Democratic candidates for President are lawyers.


View page

Civility has no chance to succeed!

Civility is the new mantra for bar associations across the country. In California, last year, the then president of the State Bar created a task force to study the issue and develop a set of guidelines.

But, the legal profession merely reflects society at large. I just came across a 2007 book titled The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t written by Robert I. Sutton, a Stanford professor. Great title!

How about these statistics:

  • The number of homicides in the workplace is up
  • "Boss-icide" has doubled in 10 the last 10 years
  • Workers murder 3 to 4 supervisors each month, double the number of 10 years ago
  • "Going postal" is more than the post office violence
  • "Desk rage" is a new term
  • 27% of workers experienced on-the-job mistreatment, according to a 2000 study
  • One in 6 report persistent psychological abuse
  • 36% of employees reported persistent hostility from coworkers and supervisors, according to a 2002 US Department of Veterans Affairs study
  • 91% of nurses experienced verbal abuse that left t hem feeling attacked, devalued or humiliated, according to a 2003 study.

One factor that seldom is discussed is the "second-hand" impact of tolerating jerks on the rest of the organization. Jerks in any organization need not … and should not … be tolerated. The costs are very high. Those law firms that have been sued, and lost, can attest to one level of cost. But there are many levels, including low morale, lost productivity and high turnover.

If our society is facing these issues, how can we expect lawyers to be more "civil" than others?


View page

Fraud by lawyers

Massachusetts followed similar actions by Connecticut and Rhode Island. Insurance carriers are now required to send a notice to consumers whenever $5,000 or more is sent to attorneys to settle clients’ claims. The objective is to prevent fraud by lawyers; some lawyers resolve clients’ claims without the consent of their clients or endorse/forge the settlement checks and deposit the funds into their own accounts.

The theory is that knowledge by clients will prevent fraud.  I’ve never known knowledge of such settlements preventing thievery.  But, then, I’ve also never known clients who walk away just because a lawyer has one sentence in a fee agreement that they have no malpractice insurance.

First, there is a very small percentage of "bad apples" in the legal profession. Second, remedies such as the "disclosure" requirement are band-aids on a scab. They are not truly remedial of the cause of the problems. While the rubric is "client protection," the real protection will come from better education of lawyers, including practice management education, providing affordable malpractice insurance, and then requiring every lawyer to have malpractice insurance — real insurance, not self-insurance!


View page

Public Defenders Are Taken to Task – For Shame!

In the op-ed of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 29, 2008, R. Konrad Moore suggests that public defenders who choose to strike betray the constitutional rights and liberty of their clients.

Shame on you for thinking that public defenders owe more to society than other lawyers, public officials or average citizen.  Mr. Moore seems to believe that becoming a government employee, a public defender, means that one’s human and normal rights are checked at the door. 

Yes, becoming a lawyer does mean that there are certain rights and responsibilities one takes on that are not required by others.  However, I do not hear Mr. Moore suggesting that all lawyers owe a pro bono obligation to society, or that government officials are not entitled to seek increased compensation or that Corporate America has a social responsibility to its customers and a responsibility to its shareholders by keeping CEO compensation within reasonable boundaries or, for that matter, that the State Bar owes a duty to the public to require that all attorneys have malpractice insurance.  And, I don’t hear that the State Bar owes a duty of any kind to its members, let alone  obtaining a program of low cost malpractice insurance so that attorneys could then better protect the public they serve. That would be spreading responsibilities too far. He’s concerned only about limiting the compensation of public defenders.

Why then showed public defenders not be entitled to come together as any other group of employees in order to seek better conditions of work.  Does Mr. Moore mean that the government can give any compensation, no matter how low, to public defenders and that the public defenders should be grateful to receive it?  What about district attorneys?  If they were to organize, as some have, does Mr. Moore likewise believe that there is a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens?

His argument is disingenuous and should be placed in its proper context. More to the point, why does Mr. Moore not argue that it is the responsibility of government and its citizens to make sure that defendants receive the best possible representation by compensating public defenders fairly and in accordance with compensation generally received in private law firms?


View page

Your Price is Too High

Many folks are complaining about the high price demanded by lawyers. It was reflected in an article in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago and, more recently, by a few corporate counsel in suggesting that they will “fire” their outside counsel because of their hourly rates.

In its December 6th edition, the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal highlighted California’s “Top Neutrals.”  I read the supplement with great interest … and was struck by the very high prices demanded/commanded by these triers of fact. From a low of $400 per hour to the upper reaches of $12,000 per day, I don’t hear the complaints against these rates!

Years ago, our system of independent neutrals developed because of changes in the judiciary’s retirement system causing economic pain to judges who remained on the bench, I lamented the separation of the rich and poor … The poor folks had their matters heard by the judiciary, paid by taxpayers. The rich had their matters heard more quickly by independent neutrals, paid by the parties. Independent neutrals who work full-time earn far more than judges.

Our system of justice suffers when economics plays such a dominant role in the determination of disputes, when the poor receive different treatment than the rich. It’s bad enough when the rich can afford to gather a “dream team” for the assertion of their claims; but, it’s outrageous when economics can determine who will be the trier of the facts.


View page