Discrimination against women in law firms?

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Former law firm associate Catriona Collins sued the law firm that had employed her, Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane, claiming that she was passed over for work assignments and ultimately dismissed on the basis of her gender.

Last week, the ABA Journal reported on Judge Kimba Wood’s Order denying (in part) the firm’s motion for summary judgment and permitting the case to proceed to trial.  A New York Law Journal article reports the fact in more detail than the ABA Journal’s summary:

The judge said remarks by Cohen Pontani managing partner Martin B. Pavane that Collins was insufficiently “sweet” in dealing with a paralegal “could be construed as reflecting discriminatory animus.”

“A reasonable jury could find that Pavane’s statement indicates that (1) he holds stereotypes that women should be ‘sweet’ and non-aggressive, and (2) that Pavane believed that Plaintiff did not fit this stereotype,” Wood wrote in Collins v. Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane, 04 Civ. 8983.

Collins joined 30-lawyer Cohen Pontani as a litigation associate in 1997. . . .

According to her November 2004 complaint, Collins was told in 1999 that she would never be promoted to partner, despite positive reviews, because the partners, all of whom were then men, were “uncomfortable” with her. The firm’s Web site currently lists two female partners.

Collins claims she was thereafter passed over for work assignments that were instead given to male associates. This allegedly led to her having low billable hours, which the firm then cited in denying her salary increases.

On Sept. 16, 2003, Collins sent an e-mail to Cohen Pontani partners citing an article about the potential benefits of having women serve as lead counsel in patent litigation. She said Cohen Pontani was “behind the times” because women lawyers at the firm were not being given positions of responsibility.

She was terminated on Sept. 18, 2003. The firm claims it fired Collins that day because she sent a series of “insulting and unprofessional” e-mails to lawyers and paralegals distinct from her Sept. 16 message. According to Cohen Pontani, Collins had a history of clashing with other lawyers and staff and the Sept. 18 e-mails were the “last straw.”

While the suit itself is interesting, the ABA Journal report produced comments that are fascinating.  Many of the comments are brief, concluding that the firm did discriminate against Collins or that a woman who is criticized for being insufficiently “sweet” is no worse off than a man who is criticized for being insufficiently “masculine.”  A few of the comments purport to share stories from women lawyers who were faced similar situations and yet made partner at their firms.  One woman reports being the only woman left from her class by her 5th year of practice and realizing that more junior male associates received preferential treatment:

Later, of course, when I realized what was going on and that the partners weren’t going to lift a finger to help me – and in fact, said that the reason for the problem must be that I wasn’t “nice” – I did get angry. Then, I admit, I wasn’t “sweet”; I came to the conclusion that I could get my job done, or I could have all the staff think I was “nice”, and since their behavior was unfair, I was not so worried about them liking me so I’d get my job done. Nonetheless, this is an impossible position to be in. At one point, our head of secretarial services, the person who was responsible for instructing the staff on what their jobs were and how to do it, explained to me that she fully sympathized with staff who didn’t want to work for women, because after all, they shouldn’t have to do menial work for women. I repeated this to the supervising partner; he thought it was funny . . . .

While it’s easy to line up (largely anonymously) either for or against Collins on the basis of only a small amount of information about the case and the evidence, the comments — and the amount of time the responders took to share their comments — are striking.  I’m inclined to agree with the several commentors who suggested that the case will likely settle and so we’ll learn nothing more, but the conversation is, nonethless, fascinating.

I’ve worked with assistants (plural!) who’ve told me flat out they prefer not to work for women, and I’ve seen a number of women succeed in law firms (of various sizes) apparently without facing substantial gender-based issues.  Anyone care to comment here?

What challenge bothers you most?

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of my favorite questions to suggest to a lawyer who’s in conversation with a potential client or looking to deepen a conversation with a current client is this: When you’re stuck in traffic and you’re thinking about your business, what’s the challenge that comes to mind most frequently?  I love that question because it’s so universal and because it creates an opportunity for someone to share what’s really of concern, which isn’t always the same thing as the surface concern that may have prompted the conversation.  (The question is drawn from James Hassett’s marvelous book, Legal Business Development: A Step-by-Step Guide.).

Q&A: When an assignment goes awry

/in , /by

I’ve begun including a new feature in my weekly email newsletter Leadership Matters for Lawyers, called “Ask Julie.”  Readers can send in questions, and each week I select one to answer in the newsletter.  Last week’s question and response generated quite a bit of discussion, so I’m sharing it here.
The question…
I’ve been working for a partner for two years now (since I started with the firm) and I still have no idea what he wants.  He assigns something to me and tells me what he wants, but when I deliver it, he tells me he wanted something different.  Last week is a perfect example.  He asked me to prepare an outline for a deposition he’d be taking, and he told me that all he wanted was a topic outline with reference to the key documents.  He specifically said he didn’t want any questions.  So I prepared the outline and left it in his office, and about an hour later, he stormed into my office, furious that I hadn’t given him questions!  I ended up working all night.  I’m at my wit’s end with this partner.  What do I do?
 
Julie responds…

You’re in a tough spot, no question about it.    It’s difficult enough when an assigning lawyer doesn’t give enough information for you to know what he or she has in mind, but when you’re told to do something and then told that you should have done something else, it’s a no-win position.
A few suggestions that might help:  
  • Always, always take notes when this partner is giving you an assignment.  If you see him coming and you don’t have a pad and pen, get one immediately.
  • Be sure you ask clarifying questions so you’ve pinned down exactly what he’s telling you he wants.  For example, if he says he doesn’t want deposition questions, you might ask whether he’d like an outline that mirrors how the questions might go or whether he’d like a topic-only checklist.
  • For larger projects, send a confirming email and check in with the partner while you’re in the process of doing the work.
  • To the extent possible, anticipate the changes that he might make.  So, having had this deposition experience, you might choose always to write out questions (or to dictate them for quick transcription) even when he says he doesn’t want questions.  There’s a balance here, of course, between anticipating what the partner might want from you and burning time that will be cut as unnecessarily spent.  But once you’ve identified a tendency, do what you can to prepare for it.
Consider where your breaking point lies.  Your frustration is evident in your question, but how serious is it?  Should you have a respectful but pointed conversation with the partner about his reversals? (“Bob, it seems to me that fairly often you ask for one thing but really want another.  An example is when you told me not to write deposition questions, just an outline, and then asked for questions when I gave you the outline.  I know you aren’t doing this intentionally, and I want to give you exactly what you want and need to advance our cases.  How can I ensure that I’m doing that?”)  Are you ready to look for another position, either inside your firm or elsewhere?
The sole advantage of this situation is that you are learning to evaluate what’s needed for projects independently of what the partner requests.  Learn to balance your independent action with what’s likely to be useful (and therefore billable) and you’ll stand a better chance of satisfying this partner and advancing your own professional development.

Several readers wrote in either to express sympathy for the questioner or to provide some additional thoughts.  Some of the feedback I received included excellent points that I want to share with readers, especially the questioner.  Those comments follow (with the authors’ permission): 

Reader #1

Excellent suggestions.   
 
Only one additional thought for you.  More senior (than the trapped lawyer) supervisors sometimes operate on the afterthought level.  They may not have said what they meant to or the lawyer may not have understood.  It could be helpful for the lawyer to give the senior a copy of the notes.  Or even better to outline briefly what the senior said is wanted and give that to the senior.  And include a request for any suggestions the senior might have about the work outlined in the notes.  In some cases, it may help to send short work in progress reports to be sure there is a record of what the lawyer understood the senior wanted.  
 
Of course, nothing is simple or perfect.  The senior always may say at the end that’s not what was wanted, but going through an iteration process sometimes does help.  Even with the most inept senior.  And as a last resort could help with the review committee if the firm (wisely) sets that process up. 
 
Reader #2 (edited for emphasis)
I read your response to the young associate’s question of how to keep the partner happy if he changes the assignment all the time and felt compelled to respond even though comments were not invited. Frankly, I think the point of view of the partner should be considered by the associate as it highlights the inexperience of the associate in understanding the nature and purpose of the assignment. If the associate wants to take the partner literally and do “no questions” and a “topic outline” then she will never understand an assignment from any other lawyer. I think for the benefit of your readers, particularly young female associates who I have seen over 25 years not “get it” when they receive an assignment, that you ought to give the other point of view.

Here’s my two cents which comes from being a partner during the past 19 years as well as the owner of two law firms and getting my battle scars in a third large firm where I was an associate and worked with a number of partners. A partner is bombarded with more work and demands than can be met in the available time. He/she relies on associates knowing a file, knowing what information must be extracted from discovery to put together a winning strategy, and having the ability to put the facts and theory in a single lucid and useful document that a partner can literally pick up the day before the deposition, review quickly and take to the deposition with the necessary documents to ask questions.

If the partner asked for questions, the associate (as I have seen on too many occasions) would fill the paper with meaningless questions about background and other formulaic material that a partner already knows how to cover (e.g.. what is your name, how long have you worked at the abc co., what positions have you held?) So as a partner I too would say, I don’t want questions from the associate. What I want and need is an outline, by topic, with a listing of issues and subtopics that get to the heart of the matter, annotated with documents that pin the witness down on key admissions that help the case, with the documents attached to the outline in a useable format (such as one copy for every party attending, the witness and the court reporter, and a blank exhibit sticker on it so the appropriate marking can be added at the deposition, all in a folder or clipped together in a way that I can tell what question the materials apply to, and the top copy being my copy, highlighted in the areas I need to focus on); that would be a useable document and superb work product from an associate.

For example, if the topic is “knowledge of the contract in question”, the list of subtopics should include: did Mr. Smith see the contract, learn of it by reference in an email, learn of it by reference in a conversation, learn of it by reference in a meeting, learn of it by reference in a purchase order or subsequent communication from the other party, and after each subtopic (of course there would be more subtopics) a short sentence that indicates what the law firm knows about each of these scenarios, such as: “Mr. Smith was cc: on the email from Mr. Jones of 5/1/08 referencing the contract” and attach the email.      

But in all my years of practice, the associates focus on the boilerplate meaningless questions that everyone learns in law school or can find in any deposition text. The associates fail to think through why they have been given the particular assignment, how it will be used by the partner, and what is the level of detail that would make it a meaningful document for the partner. After all, the partner thought highly enough of the associate to give the assignment to her, and to charge the client for the time, so this strongly suggests the partner wanted something meaningful and useful that he did not have the time to put together himself.
Unfortunately, associates do not understand a partner’s job. If they did, they would have made partner by now. Associates instead jump on the easiest excuse at hand rather than their own lack of introspection of the assignment and its value to the partner and the client.
Your suggestions to the associate make sense but again, taken literally will cause the partner to not want to deal with that associate because it looks more like she is trying to paper a file than do the task at hand. I cannot imagine walking around a law firm without always having a pen and paper with me. One never knows if they will be stopped in the hallway with an assignment, caught offhand with a telephone call while out of one’s own office, or given an assignment simply because they were the first associate in sight and something needed to be done immediately. In any scenario, few things were more frustrating to me than an associate that walked around the busy law firm empty-handed or worse yet, came into my office without pen and paper.
Clarifying questions should be asked, of course. But if done in a way to micromanage the assignment, they are sure to offend. Similarly, sending a confirming email is seen as nothing more than papering the file, and demonstrating one really doesn’t understand the assignment. (e.g. “This email confirms you don’t want questions but want a topic outline for the deposition of Mr. Smith.”) Repeating the words used doesn’t demonstrate real understanding of what the associate was asked to do. Similarly, preparing statements that end with question marks won’t satisfy the partner when the first approach fails and will unleash his wrath when he sees the bill and the time that must be cut.
Too many associates also do not understand that young partners are in the early stages of learning how to delegate and will make mistakes like not explaining what they really need as part of an assignment; if the associate’s problem is with a young partner, she needs to factor this into her assessment of how to clarify assignments so they are done right the first time.
So what is an associate to do? Think. Think about how the document will be used and what will save the partner time such that he has asked the associate to prepare it rather than do it himself. Ask how the partner thinks he will use the document so its format fits the intended use. Ask if it would be helpful to attach a copy of relevant documents and if the partner wants enough copies for all attorneys attending and for the witness and court reporter; don’t just assume. Consider if the partner is senior or junior and whether he/she knows the file or how to do the upcoming task. (e.g. In one case, a junior partner did not know how to prepare jury instructions and asked an associate to do the project, who also had no clue how to prepare the instructions for a state court case. Regardless of rewrites and sleepless nights, neither one was going to get it right until they asked an experienced attorney what the final work product should look like.)
I have seen too many smart associates dig a hole and ruin their career at a law firm by not thinking through their assignments and then blaming it on the messenger. Inevitably, word travels that the associate doesn’t turn in what was asked for, and the assignments to the associate start to dwindle until the associate gets the message that her services are no longer desired at the law firm. Changing law firms will not solve the problem for the associate if she is not applying her own analysis to the assignment and its purpose and case goals because the same problem will occur at the next law firm.
Having defended the anonymous partner, I note that there are lawyers who change every word in a perfunctory letter, rewrite every billing entry, and change their mind as to what they want from an assignment but don’t bother to tell the associate until the last minute. If the particular partner demonstrates that type of behavior, the associate is past the breaking point and should get reassigned immediately. That type of behavior is not the norm, is rarely seen and clearly is unfair to an associate. If a law firm will not initiate a transfer under that circumstance, where it clearly knows about the partner’s track record, then it is time to move on to greener pastures.
Feel free to reprint, ignore or use my comments, in whole or part, if you wish Julie. I would very much appreciate it if the message could get out to the inexperienced associates that as licensed attorneys they have an obligation to think, initiate and improve a case assigned to them rather than work as an automaton whose every move is micromanaged. Associates need to remember that they are valued by the law firm and partner or else they would not have been hired and given the assignment. Too many good attorneys get discouraged early in their career because they do not understand their role in a case and as part of a team with the partner. As a result, the profession is losing good attorneys who get disillusioned early about the practice. The members of the bar need to be proactive and try to reverse this trend whenever possible.
Julie’s final comments
Excellent points, particularly in the second author’s last paragraph.
I’ll also share that, when I was a second- or third-year associate, I was asked for a deposition outline, with no questions and only topics. (My experience is one of the reasons I chose this question, as a matter of fact.) I asked the assigning lawyer whether he wanted any questions at all, or whether he wanted an outline that tied together the facts, documents, and legal positions so he could formulate his own questions, and he said that’s what he wanted. That’s what I prepared and (you guessed it) he was not happy when I provided him the outline, because he wanted questions. I’m not saying that I clarified perfectly, but I do hold that the miscommunication, if there was one, wasn’t attributable solely to my inexperience.
So, the original questioner must inquire which of the suggestions is most on target for his situation. Does he need to clarify, to think more strategically about the assignment, to seek assistance, or something else? Original questioner, please feel free to write in with any follow-up.

 

A question to consider

/2 Comments/in , /by

I’ll write more about this in a future post, but here’s a question for you to consider:

Are you playing to win?  Or are you playing not to lose?

Tuesday shorts 7/29/08 (happiness in the law, client relationships, Blackberry malaise)

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m attending a conference this week, so I thought I’d load up a few links to good articles and blog posts some of you may not have seen.

Seven Simple Suggestions for Success and Happiness in the Law  The JD Bliss Blog recently posted a summary of a commencement speech by Stephen Ellis, a lawyer who has happily practiced for 36 years.  The suggestions are deceptively simple:

  • Be there for your clients when they need you.
  • Don’t be obnoxious.  Do a good job on the law, facts, and strategy, but don’t make it personal.
  • Be enthusiastic about your clients’ matters; ask how something can be done rather than rattling off reasons why it can’t.
  • Believe in your brain–some things people tell you really might not make sense.
  • Stay focused and stay with it–renew daily your commitment to good work and reliability daily.
  • Get “outside” yourself and participate in community events.  In addition to being a great way to meet more people and broaden your appreciation for your community, you have a lot to offer, and you’ll have fun.
  • Be nice.  In Ellis’ own words, “Cliche it may be, but being pleasant and friendly makes the day’s good spots better and the rough spots smoother. And that makes everyone’s life better–for sure yours.”

Well said!

Building strong client relationships  Frank D’Amore, founder of Attorney Career Catalysts (a legal recruiting, consulting, and training firm), published a helpful article in The Legal Intelligencer recently, discussing how a first-year partner who has landed a major client can build a solid, long-term relationship with the client.  (I particularly appreciated D’Amore’s reminder not to focus so heavily on any single client that business development efforts slow down or stop.)  To build a strong client relationship, D’Amore recommends:

  • Understand your client’s business and industry.
  • Keep your client fully in the loop about what’s happening in the matter.
  • Make your client look good at all times.
  • Maintain regular contact with your client, even when there’s a lull in the representation.
  • Consider how you might help key client contacts in ways that extend beyond legal services.

Stop blaming your Blackberry for your lack of self-discipline  Penelope Trunk, the Brazen Careerist, has a funny-because-it’s-true post about those whose lives are run by their Blackberries.  Yes, I understand needing to receive and respond to emails immediately sometimes, but anyone who’s ever complained about Blackberry bondage should read this post.  Just a clip (from the end of the post):

Blackberries are tools for the well-prioritized. If you feel like you’re being ruled by your Blackberry, you probably are. And the only way to free yourself from those shackles is to start prioritizing so that you know at any given moment what is the most important thing to do. Sometimes it will be the Blackberry, and sometimes it won’t. And the first step to doing this shift properly is recognizing that you can be on and off the Blackberry all day as a sign of empowerment.

Protected: Workshop Audios (private post for attendees)

/Enter your password to view comments./in , /by

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

What’s in a name?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

During my third year of law school, I was a member of the Lamar Inn of Court at Emory Law School.  For those unfamiliar with the American Inns of Court, it’s an organization based on the English Inns of Court and designed to bring together law students (known in the Inn as pupils), junior practitioners (barristers), and senior practitioners (masters) for education and socialization, with an exclusive focus on litigation.  The Inns of Court, during my involvement at least, created opportunities to rub elbows with some of the celebrated litigators in town, rising stars, federal and state judges — it was a big deal.  I was thrilled to be included, and I was especially excited to have my opportunity to take a “stand up” role in the first meeting, which focused on voir dire.

I will never forget “striking” that jury.  My team had planned our strategy, and we knew what kind of person we did and didn’t want on the panel.  The lawyers on my team took the lead, of course, and then permitted me to take a crack at it after they’d given an example of how voir dire should be done.  After I’d asked a few questions, I wanted to follow up with one of the jurors, a middle-aged man with kind eyes and a French surname that ended in “-et.”  But I couldn’t remember how it was pronounced!  Was it the true French “ay” ending, or an Anglicized “ett”?  I took a guess, and what a lesson it turned out to be.

I tried, of course, the split the difference, but committed to the Anglicized version in the end.  And as soon as I pronounced that “T,” I saw his face fall.  He recovered quickly and answered my question, but in that split-second I learned: you don’t massacre someone’s name if at all possible to avoid it.

After we finished the exercise and the participants and observers had a chance to offer feedback, the juror spoke and said that he felt such warmth from me initially, but that my fumbling mispronunciation of his name broke that.  Not fatally — he said he would have listened to me had it been a real trial, but I lost a point there.  And for years, when I’d see him on the TV news (he was a frequent guest because of his work) I would pronounce his name and feel terrible.  Names really do matter.

And now, I understand.  My last name is the unwieldy Fleming-Brown.  I try not to mind when someone refers to me as “Julie Brown,” but the truth is that I do mind.  I know what a pain it is to give my two last names, but my name matters to me, and its disregard does not go unnoticed.

The point of this rant is to remind you to be careful when using someone’s name.  Almost everyone likes to hear his or her own name, and even if the hearing isn’t a pleasure, hearing the name butchered is unpleasant.  It’s a small thing and shouldn’t be a strike against the fumbler, but it is.

So, whether you’re meeting a new client, a potential client, someone at a networking function, someone you’re interviewing or by whom you’re being interviewed, be sure you catch the name.  Get it right.  If you don’t hear it well, or if you aren’t sure how to pronounce it, just ask.  Most people will be kind.  Using someone’s name correctly is a sign of respect, and mispronunciation or abbreviation can be taken as a sign of disrespect even if it isn’t so intended.  Pay attention.

Do you know the RULER for law firm economics?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Law as business vs. law as profession is a conversation that has largely lost its meaning and relevance, especially in today’s economy.  Lawyers must understand some of the basic law firm economics from day 1, if not before.  I happened across an article that presents these basics along with a handy acronym, RULER:

Rates: lawyers’ hourly (or alternative) fees
Utilization: the number of billable hours a lawyer works as compared with the cost of maintaining the lawyer
Leverage: the associate:partner ratio
Expenses: what a firm must pay to do business
Realization: the amount of fees collected vs. billed

 

Set ’em so you can reach ’em

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When “Carl,” a 4th year associate in a large firm, contacted me about lawyer coaching, he was dreading an upcoming evaluation.  The office rumor was that associates were being asked to explain what they’d done to meet the goals they’d set in the previous year’s review, and Carl was nervous.  He explained that although he’d been working toward the targets he’d set a year ago, he wasn’t sure that his efforts would be viewed as meeting his goals, which he’d written as follows:

  • Improve skill in taking and defending depositions.
  • Improve written work product.
  • Get more experience in advising clients.

Do you see the problem that Carl recognized only in retrospect?  None of these goals can be quantified.  Had he improved his deposition skills?  Well, he could point to the depositions he’d taken and defended over the past year, but he couldn’t prove in any quantifiable way that volume equals improvement.  Same held true for his other goals.  After talking about Carl’s year, we found ways to suggest that he’d met his goals, but he vowed never to make the mistake of setting fuzzy objectives.

 

Unfortunately, lawyers at every stage of practice can set vague goals.  Have you ever said you’d like to “bring in more business” or “increase your billable hours” or “get more exposure to your target clients”?  These ambitions count as little more than wishes, because they’re not concrete and measurable.

How do effective leaders frame their intentions?  They set SMART goals, and they write down those goals.  A SMART objective is:

Specific: define what you intend to accomplish with sufficient detail to be meaningful.  Instead of planning to improve his deposition skills, Carl might have decided he wanted to get comfortable with the “funnel method” of questioning witnesses.

Measurable: a quantifiable definition of what you intend to accomplish.  (As Peter Drucker said, “What gets measured gets managed.”)  Carl might have said that he’d like to take 8 depositions over the course of the year and rate his comfort and skill in using the “funnel method” on a scale of 1 to 10.

Achievable: design a goal that’s a stretch, but a stretch within your reach.  Carl might realize that he’d be unlikely to take 8 depositions over the next year, and so he’d scale back to 4 depositions.

Realistic: create a sensible plan to attain your goal, considering your abilities and limitations.  Carl might approach the partner with whom he worked the most to share the goal he’d set and to get the partner’s buy-in, which would include agreement that the goal was realistic.

Time-based: define the time in which you’ll measure your efforts to determine whether you hit your objective. 

When you know what you want, you’re much more likely to seek out and accept opportunities to reach your goals.  Take a moment to recast your #1 objective as a SMART goal and write it down somewhere, perhaps in your calendar.  And then notice what happens over the next few days and weeks.  Chances are good that you’ll take steps toward your goal that you wouldn’t have taken without being concrete and clear and what you wanted to happen.

 

Financial freedom

/2 Comments/in , , /by

An anonymous email I received shortly after I began coaching haunts me.  This person (I don’t know whether male or female, but I’ll assume male here) wanted desperately to leave the practice.  He was responding to something I’d written, and he explained that he’d practiced law for nearly 20 years and hated it.  He never liked it, even in the beginning.  And yet, he wrote, he had no other choice, due to financial constraints, geography, and family expectations/requirements.

He felt destined to toil until his dying day, expecting that his stress level would keep him from living to retirement.  When I wrote to ask if he’d be open to a conversation, free of charge, to see if he might have some alternatives, he thanked me but declined: his children were in college and someone had to pay those bills, he had to finance retirement on the off chance that he’d live to see it, and he had no choice other than to continue plugging away and hoping for some unknown change to make things better.  It was, at the risk of being melodramatic, like a suicide note from the soul.

Fortunately, most of my clients are relatively happy in their careers and are seeking a tweak or to develop a strategy to improve their professional success and satisfaction.  Even those who consider leaving the practice are upbeat about their options, though challenges do pop up along the route.  I’ve noticed that some of the happiest lawyers are those who have created reasonable financial stability that allows options — in other words, financial freedom.

Is it possible to be financially free with as much as $100K in student loans, nevermind the other costs of living?  Yes. It’s not only possible, it’s necessary for a sustainable career.  And freedom absolutely does not require millions in the bank and no debt.  It requires careful choices and attention.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in new lawyers, especially those pulling down the $160K “big firm” salaries, is living the lifestyle full out.  The new BMW, the gorgeous condo, all of those nice accoutrements that seem like a fair reward for the hard work required to reach that earning level — if not purchased carefully, they turn into the proverbial golden handcuffs.

Some of the most disappointed professionals I know (this isn’t at all limited to lawyers) are those who literally bought into the lifestyle and then found it impossible to leave.  Others work as hard as they can, not to advance their careers, but because they fear that if they let up even a little bit they’ll be fired.  Sometimes that fear is realistic, especially in the current economy.  Handling it comes through taking an objective look at the likelihood of getting fired and working to create value.  Creating a contingency plan with a cushion of savings and a good network (in case a new job is in order) often helps as much or more.

Now, let’s be honest: anyone who knows me knows that I enjoy travel and impulse buys as much as the next person.  I’m not urging an ascetic lifestyle, nor am I recommending the kinds of budget cuts that reduce reasonable day-to-day comfort.  What I do recommend is living with enough of a financial cushion that a brief period of unemployment, whether voluntary or otherwise, wouldn’t be a catastrophe.  Living the $160K (or $100K or $250K or whatever the figure may be) lifestyle requires you stay at that level of income and eliminates a host of choices that would otherwise exist.

Are you wearing golden handcuffs?  What changes can you implement today to begin to build your financial freedom?  And remember not to look at this question just from the perspective of what you might eliminate: business development activity may create a book of business that will give you a measure of security worthy of the investment required to get it.