6 Tips to turn your commute into valuable time

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Very few people have truly short commutes these days.  I know of only one woman who lives within 15 minutes of her office, regardless of the time of day she makes the trip — and that’s because she’s only a 15-minute walk away.  The rest of us put up with anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours a day in commuting, time that often feels wasted.  A few years ago, I lost my 20-minute one-way commute when I moved to a lovely house that was at least 45 minutes from the office.  If I traveled during busy traffic times (not even rush hour, just busy) the drive time swelled to a minimum of an hour and twenty minutes and often longer.  I was not happy.

Most of us hop in the car, listen to the radio or a CD, grind our teeth (or worse) as we try to cope with traffic, and essentially move through the commute time mindlessly.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

I’ve learned some ways to use that travel time to my benefit, either personally or professionally.  I’m sharing these tips now, in recognition of the increased traffic that tends to accompany the start of the school year.  These tips assume that you’re driving; you have many more options if you’re able to take mass transit or to carpool, which most lawyers can’t, just because of the uncertainty of working hours.

1.  Podcasts.  There are tons of terrific podcasts that will enrich your life, both professionally and personally.  On the professional side, check out David Maister’s work, which you can find here.  These podcasts are organized by topic (the latest being on business strategy), and each is an incisive, immensely practical, and even entertaining take on topics of importance to professionals.  The Wall Street Journal offers a variety of podcasts that will get you up to speed on news, financial issues, and some lifestyle trends.  And NPR always has something new and interesting.

To find podcasts that interest you, visit Podcast Alley or the iTunes Podcast page.  You can find podcasts about current events, religion, history, entertainment, spirituality…. You name it.  Sample some and see what piques your interest.  It’s amazing what you can learn that will be helpful immediately in your professional life, what you can contribute to your next cocktail party conversation, and what might inspire you.

2.  Books on CD.  If you don’t have time to catch up on the latest best-sellers, this might be the answer.  Audio books are available at most libraries or you can buy them.  My favorite solution is Simply Audiobooks, which is a Netflix-style rental-by-mail service.  (And, of course, Simply Audiobooks has a podcast with book reviews, too.)

3.  Thinking time: Plan (or review) your day, practice for an argument, mull over potential case strategies, etc.  It’s often difficult to get time to stare out the window and just think, and yet that’s one of the most valuable things we can do.  If you spend commuting time contemplating a particular legal point — what are the downfalls of the argument you’re considering, and what’s the risk/benefit analysis? — you will often find that the time is profitable.  Even if it’s just mentally organizing yourself for your day or your evening, thinking time in the car will allow you to make better use of your time in the office or at home.  Keep your cell phone handy (hands-free, please) so you can leave yourself a voicemail with your brilliant conclusions, or invest in a micro-cassette or digital recorder if you have an assistant who can transcribe your thoughts for future reference.  Commuting time is also a good opportunity to reflect on your goals, whether what you’re doing is moving you closer to attaining them, etc.

4.  Learn something.  If you’re a lifelong learner, this tip might be for you.  Invest in CDs of lectures on history, philosophy, business, science… Whatever tickles your fancy.

5.  Relaxation time.  Ok, traffic isn’t relaxing.  But if you surround yourself with music you enjoy, make sure you have hot coffee or cold water, optimize your car seat for comfort, and — most importantly — optimize your attitude, it can be somewhat relaxing.  Decide not to worry about getting ahead through traffic since more often than not, arriving at your destination five minutes later than you’d hoped won’t change the course of your day.  (If it does, choose to decrease your stress level and leave earlier.)  Drive mindfully, noticing the sights you pass, the colors of the sky, what people in cars around you are doing.

6.  Vent.  Especially when you’re driving home, take time during your commute to rehash the day’s events and to vent any frustration you may be carrying.  Don’t bring the toxicity into your home; instead, take your private time in the car to say whatever you’d like to whomever you’d like without any negative consequences.  Just don’t be surprised when folks in other cars look your way and giggle… And don’t get so wrapped up in your venting that you succumb to road rage.

7.  Think about whether you should move closer to work.  As you drive mindfully, notice the neighborhoods you pass.  Perhaps one of them should be home for you.  According to Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, every 10 minutes you add to your commute causes a 10% decrease in the amount of time you devote to your family and your community.  There’s a psychic toll as well as a financial toll.

Each of these tips will help to minimize the commuting burden and to maximize the pleasure and efficiency you experience at work and at play.  The key is in making conscious decisions on how to use your time.�

Shape up your communication skills. Now.

/4 Comments/in , /by

The true impact of yesterday’s security changes to prevent terrorist attacks on airlines likely won’t be revealed for some time.  We’re now in the initial period of confusion and revelation, rebellion and adaptation.  That will pass, I assume, and we’ll likely settle down to a new style of air travel, one that will probably be even less convenient that what we were accustomed to as of a couple days ago.

Two things are for sure, though.  First, at least in the short term (and I would suspect in the long term as well), these disruptions will change the calculus on travel.  If it’s possible to drive in 5 or 6 hours, flying may not be worthwhile.  It’ll certainly raise a question, especially in view of the flight delays that can be reasonably expected.  People may begin to question whether travel is worth it even for longer, but fairly mundane, trips.  Especially now that videoconferencing and other “virtually there” technology is so good, people may begin to rely on it more and more.

And that leads to point two.

Communication skills are going to take on even more importance.  Studies show the importance of body language and other nonverbal communication:  7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication.  Those figures explain why email is so often misunderstood (well-intentioned humor being interpreted as an insult, for example) and why word selection is critical.  Although some nonverbal communication is retained in videoconferences, it’s lost entirely on conference calls.  We tend to communicate in the same way regardless of setting — meaning, if we’re in a meeting with clients, we’re likely to communicate in the same way whether the meeting is in person, via videoconference, or via teleconference — and that’s a mistake.  This is an excellent time to sharpen your skills of word choice, your attention to what communication setting is necessary, and your awareness that you’re missing a large chunk of the true message if you don’t get the information communicated nonverbally.

Spend some time playing with this idea over the next few days.  Pay attention to the medium, the message, and how the message is influenced by the medium.  Sharpen your communication and word choice.  Meetings will, of course, continue to take place in person.  But if you’re prepared to communicate clearly regardless of the mode of communication and to spend the effort to make sure that those with whom you’re communicating are conveying their true message regardless of mode of communication, you will be in a much stronger position than someone who doesn’t consider the communication impact of different media.

Internal client development

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Generally speaking, law firms use the phrase “client development” to refer to the process of signing clients that the firm will represent in litigation, transactions, etc.  This blog has previously discussed client development for associates.  But today, I’d like to consider another type of client development associates must consider: internal client development.

As an associate, particularly a junior associate who receives work from more senior lawyers, you must consider two kinds of clients: those who are external, meaning the folks we typically call clients, and those who are internal, meaning those firm attorneys for whom you do work, your supervising attorneys.  The more junior you are, the more important your internal client development skills are and the longer those skills may serve you.  Let’s consider an example.

Two associates, Ellen and Mary, begin with a firm at the same time.  Both are bright and eager to learn.  Ellen is gregarious, always chatting with more senior associates and partners about work, current events, whatever.  She enjoys discussing the cases she and others are working on, and as a result a lot of the firm’s lawyers tend to know what she’s working on and to have some idea of how she approaches her work.  When Ellen hears about someone who’s working on a case that interests her, she finds a time to talk with that attorney and offers to help if there’s anything she can do.  Mary tends to be shy, friendly when someone speaks to her but not someone who will seek out conversation.  She does very good work, and she prefers not “bother” the lawyer who assigns work until she’s finished unless she has a question.  Mary talks often with the other lawyers staffed on her cases, but she doesn’t interact too much with other members of the firm.

When a case comes in that would be equally appropriate for both Ellen and Mary, who do you think is more likely to get assigned to it?  I’d suspect it’ll be Ellen, if all other things are equal, because Ellen has been working on her internal client development.  A partner is more likely to know what Ellen’s workload is, to know how she approaches her work, to know how she gets along with other members of the firm, and to know enough about her to be comfortable working with her.  Although Mary may do equally good work, by failing to put herself in front of the other lawyers in the firm on a regular basis, they are less likely to think of her, and she’s less likely to get the assignments.

So, what do you do if you recognize that you’re like Mary?  First, go back to the business truism that, all other things being equal, people prefer to work with those they know, like, and trust.  (In a law firm, performing excellent work is the baseline, so be sure you meet that standard.  Otherwise, no amount of being known and liked will be sufficient to override the lack of trust that poor work product will bring.) 

Set out on a campaign to become known, liked, and trusted – but start by getting to know, like, and trust other members of your firm.  Go to the cocktail parties.  Eat lunch in the firm cafeteria if you have one, and make it a habit to invite another lawyer out to lunch at least once a week.  Be genuinely interested in the other attorneys in your firm, both professionally and personally.  It makes no difference that the partner has a son who plays Little League, but it does make a difference if you remember to ask how the game was when you know the partner left early to attend it.  Discuss your cases, chew over a thorny legal issue with a colleague, and ask what cases others have going.  With a strong effort and some luck, this approach will put you on good terms with others in your office and you too will be at the top of assigning attorneys’ minds when a new case comes in the door.

And for those who feel that this is a mercenary approach, there’s one other key benefit: your work life will almost certainly improve.  True, you won’t be best friends with everyone (or perhaps anyone) in the office, but spending long days at work is more enjoyable when there’s a sense of camaraderie.  Camaraderie comes from – you guessed it – knowing and liking those with whom you work and fostering a sense of being on the same team.

This internal networking is, of course, only one side of internal client development.  Other aspects of internal client development include building a strong reputation, becoming an expert in a niche area, developing skills faster than your classmates, and last (but certainly not least), asking for the work. 

Be aware of your opportunities for internal client development: as a junior associate, you can position yourself as the go-to person in your associate class and you can get superior experience in a relatively short time.  If you’re one of the rare associates who stays at a single firm for the bulk of your career, internal client development will propel toward partnership much faster and with a much higher chance of success.  If you move to another firm, internal client development can pay off in helping you find a new position and in positioning you for referrals from your old firm in case of conflicts.  It’s a win/win proposition. 

Bob Sutton’s No Asshole Rule

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I’ve been preparing a post about the challenging people we encounter in a legal practice: the nasty opposing counsel, the client who always reminds you of the cliche that with “friends” like this, who needs enemies; and even the rare colleague at work who’s a terrific attorney/paralegal/secretary/whatever but radiates fury or blame or negativity.  We all have bad days, but my thoughts were centered on how to cope when we encounter and have to deal with someone who is truly a jerk.  As I sometimes do, I typed in a few keywords to see what other people say about this kind of situation, and a fascinating blog popped up, all built around Bob Sutton’s “No Asshole” rule.  The post I originally contemplated will be forthcoming on another day, because this rule deserves its own post.

Now, I will apologize upfront for using that phrase — it’s the author’s phrase, and the distaste that the phrase brings with it actually mirrors the distaste that we all feel when we work with one of those people.  But the author uses it, on the grounds that when he sees “a mean-spirited person damaging others, no other term seems quite right.”  Truth told, of course, most lawyers hear and probably use coarser words on a daily basis.

Anyway.

The blog I found is Bob Sutton’s Work Matters.  (Love the photo.)  And in the top right hand corner, you’ll see an Amazon link to Sutton’s forthcoming (February 2007) book, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t.  The blog also links to a tamer-titled Sutton column on Nasty People, as well as a video of Sutton discussing the genesis of the rule, which he first wrote about in the Harvard Business Review.  (I confess that I normally hate website audio and video because it’s so much quicker to read than to watch/listen, but this 4:42 video is very well worth watching.)  Sutton, a Stanford professor, says we can identify workplace assholes through their addiction to rude interruptions and subtle put-downs, and their use of sarcasm and “teasing” as “insult delivery systems.”

In describing a talk on the No Asshole Rule that he recently gave, Sutton identified three interesting thoughts that emerged from what sounds like a fascinating conversation between himself and his audience:

1.  There’s a big difference between intentional assholes and unintentional assholes:

The consensus seemed to be that more forgiveness, patience, and understanding is in order when people travel through life in a clueless state, and need help learning how they make other’s feel.  The consensus also was, in contrast, that certified assholes who demean others on purpose, and who do it because they believe it enables them get ahead at other’s expense, or to simply feel superior to others, deserve little if any sympathy — and that such bullies ought to be punished and banished. This sounds right to me.

2.  Workplace asshole identification is a tricky, inherently flawed concept:

Drawing the firm dividing line between an “asshole” and a “non-asshole” isn’t easy, but I know one when I see one. And although I do offer a definition of workplace assholes, I also realize that the world is messy and that it will overlap with lots of other concepts.

3.  Assholes tend to inflict their demeaning behavior on those who have less power than themselves.  However, peer-on-peer abuse (prevalent in organizations where many share a medium amount of power, such as a partnership) and “asshole underlings” are not unknown.

The relevance of the No Asshole Rule may be lost on some, but just about every practicing lawyer I’ve ever encountered has a story that illustrates the difficulty of working for or with an asshole.  Don’t believe me?  Ask around.

The lesson from the No Asshole Rule is twofold.  First, of course, don’t be an asshole.  We all have an inner jerk who escapes on occasion, but if it starts getting out too much, or if someone lets you know your anger is out of hand, control yourself.  And if you find yourself working for or with an asshole, know that you aren’t alone, call the situation what it is, and do your part in whatever way possible to bring this rule to your organization’s attention.  Unfortunately, abusive lawyers may be permitted to stay on in law firms when they bring in sufficient income, so enforcement is sometimes unlikely.  The tide may be turning, however, as illustrated by Sutton’s story about Perkins Coie, recited in the Nasty People column:

The Seattle law firm Perkins Coie is more specific. They have a “no jerks allowed” rule, which helped earn them a spot on Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” in 2003, and again in 2004. According to a Seattle Times article, Perkins Coie partners Bob Giles and Mike Reynvaan were once tempted to hire a rainmaker from another firm but realized that doing so would violate “the rule.” As they put it, “We looked at each other and said, ‘What a jerk.’ Only we didn’t use that word.”

I’ll be curious to read Sutton’s book when it’s published.  This is one rule I’d love to see gain predominance in the legal profession — and in society in general.

American Lawyer’s Associate Survey;

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’d intended to post today about the American Lawyer’s Midlevel Associate Study, released today, but everytime I try to follow the links on AmLaw’s website, my browser crashes. Here’s a link to the WSJ Law Blog post that discusses the study’s findings.  My strong hunch is that the study will reveal few surprises and not much need for commentary.

Attorney depression

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the interesting things about blogging on WordPress (and, I presume, other platforms) is that my nifty stats area shows what search terms lead readers to my blog.  Sometimes it’s clear how someone followed the trail to get here, and sometimes I couldn’t be more puzzled.

I had not expected to have one of two search phrases show up on a daily basis: “attorney depression” or lawyer depression.  But these search phrases have been listed daily for well over a month now.  Unless there’s one exceedingly persistent, unhappy lawyer out there — and even if that is the case — this is a troubling discovery for me.

(As I’ve said in my previous post on depression in lawyers, I am not a mental health professional and I am not qualified to provide therapy.  If you need help, please contact your state’s lawyer assistance program.)

Out of curiosity, I ran these searches today and found mostly articles and blogs that I’ve previously cited or reviewed.  But I found a new-to-me 1999 Notre Dame Magazine article by now-U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz (no longer available), in which he examines the evidence that lawyers are unhappy and unhealthy.  He concludes, “There‘s no mystery about why lawyers are so unhappy: They work too much.”  (Some readers may remember a previous post that discussed another Judge Schiltz article that postulated that lawyers in private practice are all too easily tempted by a firm’s money-driven culture to engage in unethical practices. Apparently, Judge Schiltz has authored a number of articles in this theme, judging from the number of responses published in 1999 to a previous article.)

Does the cause of lawyers’ depression really come back so neatly to working too much?  I doubt it.  (However, the connection between lifestyle and depression does add another facet to work/life balance discussions.)  Perhaps that’s one part of the equation, but another part is likely that law school and the practice attracts some people who are prone to depression, and another part is that some lawyers who consider leaving the practice anticipate and dread an economic hit, deeming it unacceptable. Ray Ward’s Minor Wisdom blog includes an interesting array of posts on lawyer/law student depression, some of which may cast additional light on the causes.

Particularly because I now know that people have visited this blog because they’re interested in depression among lawyers, I’d really like to present an answer to what explains the unusually high rate of depression in attorneys.  But I can’t.  What I have learned, and what I’d like to pass on, is that depression is not uncommon in lawyers and it is treatable.  Recognize the symptoms and be prepared to seek help for yourself or for a colleague.  Please.

More on work/life balance… Is it just a fad?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’ve run across two interesting blog posts recently that cast work/life balance as a fad or misnomer rather than as something that’s important to lawyers.

First, a recent post (no longer available) on Bruce MacEwen’s Adam Smith, Esq. blog quotes a 10-year old McKinsey study that places “acceptable pace and stress” as an important contributor to job satisfaction for only 1% of executives.  Here are the full stats cited for important contributors:

* firm’s values and culture (58%)
* freedom and autonomy (56%)
* exciting challenges (51%)
* a well-managed firm (50%)
* career advancement and growth (39%)
* respect for lifestyle (14%)
* job security (8%)
* acceptable pace and stress (1%)

Relying on these statistics, MacEwen disputes the conclusion of a Legal Week article (no longer available) that calls for firms to “[e]xplor[e] more flexible career options, develop[] lawyers and their capabilities and help[] them find the best way to make a full contribution to the firm that is in line with their broader lifestyle aspirations,” arguing that “flexibility and lifestyle are almost below the horizon.”

And then I found a post on Tom Collins’ MorePartnerIncome.com blog that argues that, “The Work/Life Balance Issue Continues to Damage the Legal Profession.” (no longer available) Collins’ post appears to have been triggered largely by the discussion resulting from blogger Denise Howell’s firing by Reed Shaw (for more on that story, see Howell’s post, Carolyn Elefant’s post, or any of the host of others that covered the firing that echoed around the blawg world) and thus seems to center on the need for a viable approach to “new mother issues” as opposed to questioning work/life balance more generally.  Without challenging any of Collins’ thoughts on the issues surrounding new mothers (notably, I must add, new mothers and not new parents, despite a comment that a lawyer who returns to practice after an absence cannot assume the seniority they would have had without the absence, regardless of gender), the following paragraphs struck me:

As it is at present, the “in” thing to do in media and among consultants, conference faculty, etc., is to portray the life of the attorney as an abandonment of family, friends, fun, and civic and religious obligations.  At the same time, we note and report the importance that all those facets of life have played for the successful professional in relationship building and rainmaking. 

The success of any “service” business or profession is measured by its service to others.  Client interest comes before self-interest.  That is why we call it a “service”.  The legal profession recognizes the service aspect in spades, charging you with the professional obligation to honor, at your own expense if necessary, the paramount interest of the client.

Successful service professionals, business executives, doctors, and investment bankers all find a way to have family, friends, and fun while also participating in civic and religious affairs.  Lawyering is no different from any of the above—lawyers do not carry a greater burden. Let’s stop pretending that they do.

Let’s turn this conversation around. On the one hand, let’s deal with the child raising years of lawyer-mothers; and on the other hand, let’s start celebrating the benefits of lawyering, including the satisfaction of service to others—of upholding “truth, justice and the American Way!”

It seems to me that when work/life balance is discussed, the conversation is very often preceded by an internal eye-rolling, a deep sigh, and the thought, “here we go again, another lawyer who isn’t willing to work hard and who just wants a free and easy ride to the good life.”  I think that attitude sells everyone short — the lawyers, the firms, and the clients.

Work/life balance, to my mind, is all about finding the balance that will work for each lawyer, finding (or creating) the firm or practice structure that will support that balance, and serving clients well and fully within the context of that balance.  “Balance” doesn’t necessarily mean that work takes on less importance or less time; it simply means that whereas one lawyer may be willing to work 80 hours a week, another is willing to work 60, and another is willing to work 40, and it’s necessary for those lawyers to speak up and find the practice setting that will support their aims.  That doesn’t mean they will work in the same firm, necessarily, nor does it mean they’ll have the same practices or the same financial rewards.  What it does mean is that the lawyer who is willing to work 40 hours shouldn’t put himself in a position that requires 80 hours — and vice versa.  And it also means that each of those lawyers needs to find a practice home that supports the hours he is willing to work.

We all make compromises daily.  Work/life balance calls for knowing and voluntary compromise, whether it’s choosing to be the lawyer who works 10+ hours every day of the week, choosing to set working hours as 5 AM to 4 PM and then 9 to 11 PM so that the hours between 4 and 9 are free for family, or choosing to practice law “part-time” — 35 or 40 hours a week — because other interests take higher priority.  Good lawyers, regardless of the hours they work, will always focus on client service and thus will put client needs ahead of their own when necessary, so long as the overall structure of their professional lives are suitable.  Client service need not, and must not, suffer because of work/life balance.

Nor should we regard work/life balance as being the ultimate measure of practice.  Of course other factors will matter.  But for lawyers, it has been, and perhaps still is, much more “politically correct” to desire those other factors — interesting work, advancing responsibility, increasing client contact, etc. — than to desire balance in the form of reduced or time-shifted working hours. The current attention to work/life balance makes the topic permissible to raise.

Bottom line… I do not think work/life balance is just a fad, nor do I think it signals a decline in lawyer commitment to practice or to client service.  I think it’s a call for more transparency in practice expectations on the part of both lawyers and their law firms, and a call for lawyers to pay closer attention to what they want in their careers and in their lives.

This quote sums it up, in my view — albeit in a most un-lawyerlike way:  “Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, ‘WOW, what a ride!'”  The question, then, is what kind of ride will make your life satisfying?  Figure out the answer, and then figure out a way to get it.  That’s work/life balance in a nutshell.

Good use of time or double billing?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s probably no secret to those of you who read my blog on even a semi-regular basis that I enjoy the WSJ.com Law blog.  Interesting info, with generally good comments.  And that’s where I found the grist for today’s post.

Yesterday, the Law Blog posed the following hypothetical (subscription required):

You are taking a three-hour plane trip from Miami to New York to conduct a deposition in a matter involving client A. While on the plane, you spend the whole trip reviewing materials for a brief you will be filing for client B the following week. You normally bill clients for your time spent traveling on their behalf.

Can you bill each client for three hours?

Sixty-five comments later (which ranged from “Nope” to “We miss the days of the Concorde when you really could have a shot a billing more than 24 hours in a day”), the Law blog posted the answer, drawing on Formal Opinion 93-379 drafted by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility:

The answer: No, say rulings from national and local bar committees. Formal Opinion 93-379 from the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addresses the hypothetical:

. . . it is helpful to consider these questions, not from the perspective of what a client could be forced to pay, but rather from the perspective of what the lawyer actually earned. . . . A lawyer who flies for six hours for one client, while working for five hours on behalf of another, has not earned eleven billable hours. . . . Rather than looking to profit from . . . the desire to get work done rather than watch a movie . . . the lawyer who has agreed to bill solely on the basis of time spent is obliged to pass the benefits of these economies on to the client. The practice of billing several clients for the same time or work product, since it results in the earning of an unreasonable fee, therefore is contrary to the mandate of the Model Rules.

State bar ethics committees have also issued similar rules. For instance, the Alaska Bar Association issued the following:

For example, a lawyer spends 3 hours traveling to attend a deposition in Seattle. If the lawyer decides to spend the time on the airplane drafting a motion for a different client, he or she may not charge both clients, each of whom agreed to hourly billing, for the time during which he was traveling on behalf of one client, but drafting a document on behalf of another. The lawyer has not earned 6 billable hours. . . . In summary, where the client has agreed to pay the lawyer on an hourly basis, the economies associated with a lawyer’s efficient use of time must benefit the client rather than giving the lawyer an opportunity to charge a client for phantom hours.

While the hypothetical is interesting (and a good example of the ethical issues that will confront lawyers almost as soon as they enter practice), what I find fascinating is the debate that the question raised.  Some of the comments are clearly tongue-in-cheek… And I’ll resist the strong temptation to remark on the wisdom of posting an intricate and, as far as I’m aware, utterly unfounded (though breathtaking) comment with one’s name, school, and class year attached.

Most firms do strive to acquaint both clients and lawyers with their policies about billing for travel.  That’s one of the fee provisions that clients frequently challenge, and this hypothethical illustrates the reason.  Clients would be horrified to learn that they paid for a lawyer’s time when the lawyer actually used that time to further another client’s business, just as I suspect most client would be horrified to pay in the hundreds of dollars an hour for a lawyer to sleep, watch a movie, or get drunk, even if those activities occur while the lawyer is on the way to the location for business on behalf of the client.  I suppose it’s possible to come up with a range of justifications for the hypothetical double billing — some of the comments attempted to do so — but looking from the perspective of the client, justification is not possible.  And I would be curious to see how a lawyer would explain to his or her two clients that the block of time billed to Client A was also billed to Client B.

When people ask what I do, I tell them that part of what I do is to coach law firm associates on building profitable practices based on client service and integrity.  Using client service and integrity as the measuring stick, isn’t the answer to this hypothetical clear?

Can associates engage in client development?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the most challenging parts of practice is figuring out the business end of being a lawyer.  In a midsized or larger firm, that usually boils down primarily to client development.  And associates frequently view client development as an activity for partners and senior associates.  It’s pretty common to hear more junior lawyers saying earnestly that they’re just there to do the work and that it’s up to the firm to land the clients.  It’s an understandable mistake… But it is a mistake.

From the firm’s perspective, worker bees are rather fungible.  Sure, it’s easier for firms to hang onto the associates who know the clients, know how the partners operate, have already hit the crest of the learning curve.  But for every worker associate in a firm, many others are available on the market.  Legal proficiency, reliability, client service skills, integrity, and a sufficiently pleasant personality are basic requirements for most firms (though perhaps we can argue about acceptance of personality quriks)… But what makes an associate truly valuable is the ability to contribute something above and beyond ordinary work.  An associate who adds substantially to client satisfaction by becoming the client’s go-to person is useful.  An associate who brings in new clients is worth her weight in gold.

This month’s ABA Journal features an article that’s subtitled, “Associates Can Contribute More to Client Development Than They May Think.”  (Regrettably, this article isn’t available online… So trot out and get yourself a copy of the July 2006 ABA Journal.  You’ll find the article on page 26.)

The article quotes Hughes & Luce chief marketing officer Rick Davis describing associates as the firm’s “secret weapon,” able to harness their flexible, energetic attitude and their contacts with lower-level corporate employees to get the inside track for presenting a business proposal. The traditional client pitch is made by partners who focus on themselves, their past successes, other lawyers in the firm, and their familiarity with the area of law at issue.  Using knowledge about the prospective client mined by associates prepared to make the most of their contact with the client’s employees allows the firm to target the pitch to the prospective client and to make the client’s needs the center of the pitch.  To prospective clients, legal proficiency, reliability, client service skills, and integrity are basic requirements (this should sound familiar….) and lawyers/firms who actually care enough to understand the client’s needs, who communicate effectively with the client, and who offer value are worth their weight in gold.  Nearly 70% of clients are dissatisfied with their lawyers.  That’s a tremendous opportunity.

So, what’s an associate to do?  Network.  When you meet someone who’s an employee of a potential client, develop that contact into a relationship.  (Be aware of what kind of companies are potential clients by knowing both the scope of your firm’s practice and who engages in various areas of practice.)  Business rarely, if ever, results from a single, shallow contact, so it’s important to follow up.  Send articles that would interest your contact, invite him to lunch or a ball game, look for ways to be helpful.  And be sure to put the focus on the potential client so you can learn important information such as how the company operates, what it needs, and the identity of key decision-makers.

Although an associate generally lacks the track record necessary to present the traditional lawyer/firm-focused client pitch, sheer likeability and common sense can carry the conversation a long way.  Do find lawyers who can mentor you in client development — at least one of whom should work at your firm so she can guide you on the firm’s policies for client development and so you’ll have someone to ask about ethical boundaries in business development.  And strategize how you’re going to identify and approach the potential clients you encounter.  As the saying goes, chance favors the prepared mind — but don’t leave your contacts to chance.

Remembering the bar exam and considering your own life at the bar.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

For most of the people in the United States, today is just Monday, July 24.  But for thousands of would-be practitioners, today is something far more sinister: the day before the bar exam.

Assuming you’re a member of the group sitting on the other side of the bar, the Promised Land of Practice, the bar is just a distant bad memory.  (Not distant enough for some of us; though I took my first bar exam over 13 years ago, my most recent — dare I say last? — was just one year ago.  Not distant enough.)

And what of the Promised Land of Practice?  How’s that treating you?  This is a good time of year to get back in touch with what brought you to a legal practice.  Remember being that kid, with a head crammed full of black letter law, not to mention plenty of bar review lore?  Why did you put yourself through two (or, in some states, three) days of agony?  Did you want to be a big-time litigator?  Did you want to help victims of domestic violence?  Did you plan to set the world on fire with your legal scholarship, after serving a few years in a law firm?

And where are you now?  Are those dreams still alive?  Granted that you’ve learned a huge amount since you took the bar and perhaps changed your goals; are you expressing the values that made you willing to endure that grueling experience?

If not, you aren’t alone.  What one change can you make today that will bring you additional satisfaction?  Some ideas: improving your client development skills so you can move closer to your dream of making partner; committing to attending NITA training so your next trial may run more smoothly; working on time management; perhaps making a job or career change to build a work life that works for you.  Sometimes it takes only small changes to reap big results, something as simple as deciding to go to the gym before work so you build more stamina.  Sometimes it’s making a short-term sacrifice, like deciding to volunteer for the big case that no one else wants to work on so you can get two years of experience crammed into nine harried months.

While you’re at it…. Can you still quote the Rule in Shelley’s case?