Lessons at an airport gate

/1 Comment/in , /by

I spent nearly two hours sitting at an airport gate today.  I’d assumed that between business travel and people headed home after the Easter weekend, the airport would be jammed, but I got through security in an astonishingly short time.  So, I sat about 5 feet behind a Delta American Express table.  You’ve probably seen them: a table to the side of a concourse, with various promotional freebies, application forms neatly stacked, and one or two hawkers, trying desperately to get people to pause and fill out an application.

Annoying, right?  I drowned out the hawker’s calls.  But as I sat reading, I noticed that more people than usual were coming up to this table, and they were staying longer than usual.  So I started listening. And I re-learned something useful.

Unlike the average hawker who bombards passersby with the “great offer” they simply “can’t pass up,” this guy focused on individuals and enaged them: “You, miss, in the red shirt!  Where are you headed today?”  I would have thought that his chances of getting responses, especially in a busy airport at peak travel time on Monday morning, would have been slim, but over and over, people walked up and started talking with him.

Some told him about their travel delays.  Others told him about the jobs they were traveling for or the family they were leaving behind.  Several soldiers told him what it’s like to be on leave from duty in Baghdad.  And the marketer listened.  He asked questions and empathized.  He was genuinely present with the people who were talking with him.

After he’d heard some part of their travel story, he’d weave in his offer: “Man, wouldn’t you like to get an extra 10,000 miles so you can get back to see her more often?”  Sure, he was trying to get people to apply for a credit card, but he was doing it by connecting with people, by building a relationship, albeit a brief one.  And almost without exception, the people who stopped in front of the display filled out something, whether a credit card application or a Delta mileage program application.

Observing this guy reminded me of a Maya Angelou quote: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”  What I saw was the power of listening and genuine, though brief and superficial, connection.

The contrast was clear when he went on break and another pusher took his place.  This hawker didn’t engage people.  He threw out half-hearted, “Sir, don’t you want extra some SkyMiles today?  It’s a great offer!  You can’t pass it up!  Sir, you flyin’ Delta today?  We’re giving away 10,000 SkyMiles free — for nuthin’!”  But the busy passengers did pass it by the table over and over without stopping.   Those who did stop received only the sales pitch, and I’d guess this vendor’s application completion rate was much less than half of the other man’s.

Small sale or large, connection really does pay.  And it doesn’t require a tremendous amount of effort.  It simply requires genuine presence.  Not a bad reminder while waiting in an airport.

Are you satisfied with your client development efforts?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I often notice that lawyers with whom I talk have some good ideas about client development activities.  They know what to do, and they implement some of that knowledge.  But when someone hires me to work on business development and we take a good look at what they’re actually doing on a consistent basis, the reality check often leads to some interesting findings.  Much like dieters who start keeping a food journal and suddenly discover that the reason for a plateau is not alien invasion but rather an unnoticed increase in caloric consumption, lawyers who pause to do an honest appraisal of their business development activities may be surprised with what they uncover.

My coaching clients and I go through a 5-page narrative assessment that looks at how the lawyer positions him- or herself, what activities s/he engages in and how frequently, and how s/he serves current clients.  Schedule a 30 minute free consultation with me – no strings attached.

Tuesday Shorts 3/11/08 (Unhappy associates, dealing with mistakes, time)

/1 Comment/in , /by

 

 

The Lost Generation of Associates Former GE General Counsel Ben W. Heinemann, Jr. and Harvard Law professor David B. Wilkins have written an article outlining some of the challenges that associates in large law firms face:

At the 250 largest law firms, the arrows are pointing up for many associate indicators. Summer internships are up. Incoming associate classes are up. Recruiting costs for both summer and first-year associates, in dollars and in partner time, are up. Salaries are up ($160,000!). Bonuses are up ($50,000!). Concierge services are up. Stress management services are up. Twenty-five percent of the 40,000 graduating law students today go to these 250 firms, by some estimates.

But for all this effort, one critical indicator is down. The larger law firms are reported to be losing 30, 40, 50 percent of associates after three to four years-with half to two-thirds of the defections due to associate, not firm, choice. Where do they go? Smaller firms, more competitive firms in the same city, firms in other cities, in-house, government, teaching, nonlegal jobs. The After the JD study of 4,000 graduates in the class of 2000-conducted jointly by the American Bar Foundation, Harvard Law School’s Program on the Legal Profession, and others-indicates such churn.

The more important question is: Why do they go? Some associates just wanted to pay off law school debts and had no intention of staying. Others are balancing two careers and need to follow a spouse. Some are lured away by higher-paying jobs in banking, private equity, or hedge funds. Or they don’t want the Faustian bargain of higher pay for more billable hours and a job that skews the work/life balance too far toward work. Finally, some do not want to stay for the likely rejection four or five years hence at the entrance to equity partner Valhalla-or don’t view it as Valhalla at all.

But on the basis of many discussions with students, associates, partners, and inside counsel, we believe that for a significant number, their first professional experience after at least seven years of higher education is too unprofessional and demoralizing. That disappointment is a major reason for leaving their firm.

They then suggest some solutions, such as allowing associates to observe client meetings (at no cost to the client), seconding 3rd or 4th year associates to clients or government agencies for a year, encouraging pro bono work, and developing a strong, respected professional development training program that would incorporate competency models, training materials, planned experiences, measurable milestones, internal career counseling, and communication with and mentoring by partners.

Mistakes were made… The Snark has written a humorous piece on mistakes and how to deal with them, and it wraps up with good advice:

PLAN C: FESS UP

This is the hardest plan to implement because you fear finally being discovered for being imperfect and possibly over-rated. Will you be fired? Will it go down in your “file” only to rear its head in four years when you are denied admission into the partnership and the only reason they can give is, “Back in your second year, you missed that 1 p.m. meeting with our best client, MegaCorp.”

But I think in the end it is better to fess up. Just don’t do it in a way that makes things even worse: no crying, sniveling or begging for mercy. And no need to shave your head or hold a press conference.

You just need to explain yourself while displaying the appropriate level of remorse blended with confidence that says, “Yes, I screwed up that once, but it was an uncommon lapse that will be rectified. I will work even harder and bill a few extra hours to make up for lost faith in my value.”

Provided your mistake didn’t actually cause lost revenue or client relationships, you likely will be forgiven. But don’t let it happen again. You get paid way too much money to make mistakes.

How do you see time? Stephanie West Allen has linked to an interesting op-ed from the New York Times:

Believing time is money to lose, we perceive our shortage of time as stressful. Thus, our fight-or-flight instinct is engaged, and the regions of the brain we use to calmly and sensibly plan our time get switched off. We become fidgety, erratic and rash.

Tasks take longer. We make mistakes — which take still more time to iron out. Who among us has not been locked out of an apartment or lost a wallet when in a great hurry? The perceived lack of time becomes real: We are not stressed because we have no time, but rather, we have no time because we are stressed.

This reminds me of one of my favorite stressed-for-lack-of-time interventions: find a watch with a second hand, stop what you’re doing and simply watch the clock while the minute passes. For many people (me included) that exercise helps me to reset my brain and realize that a minute actually is a significant amount of time, which in turn helps me to feel less stressed about the minutes flowing by.

Determining decision-making authority

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In my experience, newer associates often have challenges in determining what they do and don’t have the authority to do.  Some may take on too little authority, undermining their usefulness to more senior lawyers who need not be consulted about every decision, and others may too on too much, possibly compromising strategic decisions that should be the senior lawyer’s call.

Senior lawyers bear much responsibility for these missteps, because they should have the foresight and ability to define what authority the lawyers they supervise may exercise.  However, all too often, everyone assumes that everyone is in agreement on what’s appropriate — right until the assumption comes crashing down in a rant of frustration at being disturbed yet again “for nothing” or a ballistic explosion at finding out that an incurable decision has been made without a full appreciation for its impact.

I’ve been reading a marvelous book recently: Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life One Conversation at a Time, by Susan Scott.  In addition to setting forth a valuable approach to conversations that facilitate exploration of the truth and collaborative problem-solving, Scott sets out a Decision Tree that supervising lawyers can use to explain a junior lawyer’s scope of authority — quickly, simply, and in a framework that permits easy shorthand reference in the future.

Scott’s Decision Tree comprises 4 categories of decisions (quoted from page 119, Fierce Conversations):

Leaf Decisions: Make the decision.  Act on it.  Do not report the action you took.

Branch Decisions: Make the decision.  Act on it.  Report the action you took daily, weekly, or monthly.

Trunk Decisions: Make the decision.  Report your decision before you take action.

Root Decisions: Make the decision jointly, with input from many people.  These are the decisions that, if poorly made and implemented, could cause major harm to the organization.

It’s quickly apparent how these categories can be used in the practice setting.  In the context of litigation, for instance, a partner might identify deciding whether documents are relevant and thus to be produced as leaf decisions, deciding what witnesses to interview as branch decisions, preparing discovery requests as trunk decisions, and deciding whether to move for a temporary injunction as a root decision.  As the associate advances, more and more decisions will become leaf and branch decisions, which is a strong indication that the associate is becoming more skilled and thus merits more authority.

This same principle is useful in a wide variety of other settings.  Suppose, for example, that you had decided to embark on a marketing program, and you decided to mail firm literature to some unidentified people and to invite others to lunch, to accept some requests to speak at CLE meetings or to write articles, and to use your box seats at a sporting event to thank or to woo particular clients.  The Decision Tree formula would permit you to delegate this process to a large extent to your assistant by explaining which steps you want her to undertake on her own without reporting back (sending out the marketing materials to new contacts), which you want her to do and to let you know about (setting up lunches with those in a designated group), which you want her to filter and then check with you about (”I don’t think you’ll want to speak at these conferences, but client XYZ always attends this one, so you may want to consider that”), and which decisions require input from you and perhaps others (which clients and colleagues should be invited to the playoffs).

Think today about how you can use Scott’s Decision Tree to clarify your own scope of authority and that of others with whom you work.

Wednesday Shorts 3/5/08

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

I almost titled this post “The Bad Blogger,” because that’s how I feel!  I’ve been away from Atlanta (my primary home) for all but 3 scattered days since mid-January.  I’m accustomed to travel, but doing this much of it all at once is truly a challenge.  One thing I’ve learned is to be a little more gentle with myself on negotiable deadlines, and blogging has fit into that category.  Thus, the unusually random schedule.  I’ve started using a voice-recognition software program recently (unlike just a few years ago, it works quite well!) and so I’ll have more fresh posts appearing soon.

And, I’d like to share a celebration with you: I learned last week that I’ve received the ACC credential (Associate Certified Coach) from the International Coach Federation.  While I’m the first to admit that the path to that credential was nothing like as onerous as getting my license to practice or becoming registered to practice before the Patent Office, it’s a significant accomplishment nonetheless — especially in light of the fact that only about a quarter of ICF members are currently credentialled, and many, many other coaches aren’t ICF members at all.  I know some excellent coaches who aren’t credentialled, so I help certainly don’t intend to cast any aspersions there!  But I’m quite pleased, and happy to share the news with you.  I learned in practice to celebrate at least briefly whenever an opportunity arises, especially since those moments can be awfully fleeting, and I follow that habit today.

Now, on to the legal news!

Leading Big Law Leaders to Lead  That’s the title of a recent article from the New York Lawyer. The article offers a nice overview of some of the leadership training alternatives in which law firms are now investing, ranging from one-on-one coaching to in-hour training to multi-day programs at major universities, including Harvard and the Wharton School.  It raises a few warning bells:

Paul Zwier, a professor at Emory University School of Law [and] author of the book Supervisory and Leadership Skills in the Modern Law Practice (National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 2006), said that in some cases leadership training can serve as an “opium of the masses.”

In other words, what some firms call “leadership training” in reality is a way to get lawyers on board with a firm’s strategy, rather than truly honing leadership skills.

Dubbing it “leadership training” can make participants more willing to sign on to a program and feel more valued if they think that they are recognized as special. However, Zwier said that even lawyers without supervisory duties within a firm need leadership skills, since such skills are necessary in dealing with clients.

And, as recognized by Larry Richard, an attorney and psychologist with Hildebrandt International:

To truly change behavior, training must include much more than a few days at an impressive school, Richard said. He divides programs into two categories: conceptual education and skills-based education. Conceptual education models are the popular “boot-camp” executive programs offered at prestigious schools that use mainly the case-study method. Those programs are valuable, he said, but limited. Attorneys also need long-term training, or skills-based education, to enhance specific leadership behaviors, which are more readily measurable.

I’m a proponent of leadership development work (both training and coaching) for lawyers.  Some might question whether expenditures on such “non-essentials” can be justified, especially in today’s economic climate.  My answer is, not surprisingly, absolutely.  More on why in a future post.

It’s About Time II  The Georgia Association for Women Lawyers released its study of flexible and part-time work arrangements this week, following up on the 2004 initial study.  From the Executive Summary:

Results from this study suggest that it is about time. Few working professionals feel the “time crunch” more acutely than attorneys. Billable hours requirements render the business of law virtually all about time. Should it be any wonder then that the issue of time would weigh so heavily in attorneys’ evaluation of the work they do? Our findings indicate that the availability of flexible and part-time work arrangements is extremely important to male and female attorneys alike. Regardless of whether they themselves plan on taking advantage of such policies, attorneys place a high value on the availability of flexible and/or reduced-time work at their firm. Isn’t it about time that firms recognize that value as well?

Interest in flexible and part-time arrangements is particularly strong among women attorneys. Reduced-time work options are so highly valued that women are willing to exit employment to find more flexible work arrangements. Indeed, firms that provide formal, written policies governing part-time work arrangements enjoy higher retention rates of women lawyers and firms that maintain a successful part-time program reap the rewards of retaining highly satisfied, highly motivated, and highly committed attorneys.

The study is based on surveys completed by 84 Georgia law firms, and the results fall squarely in line with national results: flexible and part-time options are important to lawyers, many firms don’t have written policies to solidify those options, many lawyers are concerned that taking part-time or flex status is a career-limiting move, and there’s evidence to support that concern.

The full report is almost 100 pages long.  The Executive Summary is 3 pages.  It’s well worth a read.

Your personal Board of Directors  I always recommend that lawyers develop a group of mentors.  Did you notice that’s mentors, plural?  Because each mentoring relationship is unique, I find that those who have multiple mentors realize significant benefit.  And mentors need not be in your firm or city (indeed, some mentors absolutely should be “external”) or even in your profession.  Collectively, this group of mentors forms your personal board of directors.  Wondering how to fill all the spots?  Michael Melcher, author of The Creative Lawyer (which is on my list of books to review here) has suggested finding people with 25 attributes and narrowing down the nominees to a group of 6 to 10 “board members.”  Attributes include:

4.    Can give you encouragement in tough times
5.    Can talk to you straight about your weaknesses
20.    Gives good advice about office politics
21.    Gives good advice about professional development
22.    Gives good advice about how to get ahead
23.    Thinks you are great at what you do
24.    Thinks you have great talents other than your present career

Check out the whole list.  You may be surprised.

What happens to work/life issues in a recession?

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The economic forecasts seem to agree: we’re in a recession.  Unlike past slowdowns, this recession seems poised to affect law firms as much as other businesses — not a pleasant thought for lawyers accustomed to growth and more growth.  If you’re among those concerned (and if you aren’t, you probably should be), be sure to visit Gerry Riskin’s Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices.  He sounded the economic warning bell early, and he’s providing consistently useful ideas on how to survive the tight times and be prepared to accelerate when the economy improves.

What about lawyers’ efforts to integrate work and life?  Does that go by the wayside in the event of recession?  Should it?

I’ve talked recently with more than a handful of lawyers who are feeling the pinch, and with associates who are sensing or even being told flat-out that they should count themselves lucky just to have jobs, to put their heads down (subtext: quit complaining) and get to work.  Especially in the firms that have just raised associate salaries to levels previously unknown, it isn’t surprising that they might get such feedback.

And yet, the shut-up-and-work mentality flies in the face of efforts to help lawyers shore up declining professional satisfaction.  Work/life balance or integration continues to be an important issue for many lawyers, but how to manage those concerns when times get tight?

Cali Williams Yost, creator of the apt “work+life fit” concept, has posted some thoughts about why smart leaders will continue to integrate flexibility.  The short version, according to Cali:

*  Even in a recession, talent will still be a scarce commodity.
*  You can’t effectively service global clients and manage global teams without flexibility that considers impact on work+life fit.
*  In a recession, more needs to be done with fewer resources.
*  Finally, companies that need to cut back will use flex to creatively downsize.

I think she has some excellent points.  My concern is that between the anger that some law firm leaders feel concerning the escalated associate salaries and the remaining somewhat rigid view that law firms sometimes have on flex time and work/life balance (to use the phrase that firms tend to use), firms may be less willing to use flexibility as a management tool.

The word is already out about some firms firing associates for “poor performance” without any warning signs.  Other firms are openly laying off associates and poor-performing non-equity partners and/or de-equitizing partners.  As much as I’d like to believe that firms will adopt flexibility in greater numbers despite the tight economy, I find it hard to believe.

What do you think?

Monday Shorts 2/25/08

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Blawg Review #148  Hosted by Brett Trout of BlawgIT, Blawg Review #148 is devoted to Internet Memes, complete with the requisite YouTube videos.  Who could resist this?

While considering a theme for this week’s Blawg Review, it struck me that lawyers do not spend as much time aimlessly meandering the web as would, for instance, a typical air traffic controller. As a result, most lawyers are woefully detached from the Zeitgeist embodied in the lowly Internet meme. An Internet meme is any amusing video, email, picture, audio clip or other material that spreads virally across the internet. Unlike computer viruses, which spread based upon how many paint chips the people opening them consumed in their youth, Internet memes spread based upon how entertaining viewers find them.

Although blawgers are more aware of Internet memes than your average lawyer, blawgers still find there are not enough hours to stay up to date with each new version of someone reenacting the Thriller video at a wedding. To save you from this critical legal research, I assiduously complied several of the most popular memes for you. While the list might not necessarily “make” your day, at least it might maintain your work/life balance in sufficient equilibrium to stave off the rubber room for another week. The list is not comprehensive, but it is the best I can muster without being served pre-marital divorce papers. For those of you true professional Internet slackers, swing by memelabs and test your meme IQ.

It’s a fun way to organize some of the week’s blawg posts, and it’s certainly worth a read.

What women lawyers think of each other. Or not.  I was all ready to blawg about the recent ABA Journal article titled What Women Lawyers Really Think of Each Other.  The results (presented primarily with graphics in the print magazine) were interesting, suggesting that women under 40 think male supervisors give better direction, give better constructive criticism, and are better at keeping confidential information private.  Women over 40 were reported as believing that women take directions and constructive criticism better than men and have better discretion than men.  And then, just as I was beginning to compose my thoughts, I noticed the critical modifier to each set of results: 58% of respondents said that gender doesn’t matter, and the cited statistics came from the 42% who expressed a preference for working with either men or women.  Sometimes it isn’t the story that matters, but rather the story behind the story.

The client perspective

/0 Comments/in , /by

A couple of years ago, I was a party to some litigation, and I had the mind-shifting opportunity to be a client.  I learned a tremendous amount about what it means to be a client.  Because these lessons would have served me very well when I was in practice, I share them with you today.

1.     Communication is key.  Clients want and need to be kept informed of what’s going on.  If I were to go back into practice, I would make it a habit to dictate a short note describing any case developments to each client on at least a biweekly basis, more frequently if the case is quite active.  And I would be certain to return calls within 4 hours, if only to let the caller know that their message had been received and that I would get back to them with a substantive response on a later date.

Example:  I called a lawyer (we’ll call her Ashley) to whom I was referred by another lawyer I know personally and respect deeply.  Because she was on another line, I left her a voicemail, briefly outlining what was going on — including conflict information — and advising A that I would like to meet with her on a particular date to provide more information and discuss what alternatives I might have.  More than 4 days later, no one from A’s office had returned my call.  Can you imagine what the rate of communication would probably have been if I’d hired A?  I can.  And I called someone else.

2.     It’s a subset of communication, but clients want to know when there’s a problem.  Whether it’s something directly relevant to the case or whether it’s a potential problem you’ve identified while working on the matter, let your client know about it as soon as possible, especially if you can propose a solution.

3.     Be honest.  Although many lawyers pride themselves on saying that they can do anything a client wants — to paraphrase one firm’s slogan, “We don’t tell you whether something can be done, we tell you how.”  That’s all well and good, but clients want and need honest advice.  The fact that something can be done doesn’t necessarily mean it should be done, and that’s something clients must know.

4.     Lawyers know that procrastination sometimes pays off in litigation; if there’s a likelihood that a deadline will be extended for a brief, we sometimes prefer to wait to start writing until we know the date is firm.  This gives clients ulcers if they find out about it.  And, on those occasions when we guess wrong and the date isn’t extended, it reduces the amount of time a client can spend reviewing the filing.  This makes for angry clients with ulcers.  Communicate!  And allow adequate time for client review.

5.     Underpromise and overdeliver.  I’ve blogged on this topic elsewhere in another context, but it’s important.  If you promise a client you’ll deliver a memo, set a reasonable deadline for yourself and send it before that deadline expires.  Even if you’ve already given an oral report on the content of the memo, the client will be waiting for the promised document.  Don’t disappoint him.

6.     Be aware of the context in which you’re providing advice.  If you’re advising a company, know about its business and its officers.  If you’re advising a person, consider her overall situation.  No matter exists in a vacuum, and clients appreciate lawyers who not only recognize that, but who also acknowledge it.

7.     Don’t make excuses.  If there’s a problem, if you’ve failed to communicate as often or as clearly as the client expects, apologize.  Frankly, the excuse doesn’t matter.  Make it right.

I learned many more lessons as a client, but these are the bedrock principles.  How well are you serving your clients, from their perspective?

Is practicing law fun?

/2 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been having some interesting conversations lately with lawyers who demand a career that’s intellectually demanding, satisfying, financially successful, and fun.  Fun?  Can something as serious as practicing law be fun?  These lawyers won’t settle for less.  I’ve discovered 5 common attitudes and habits among these lawyers — how many do you share?

The lawyers I’ve met who insist on having fun (and who are, incidentally, deeply satisfied with their career and practice choices) are a divergent lot.  Some practice in large firms, some are solos, and some practice in a midsized firm, in-house, or in a government agency.  Their practices range the gamut from corporate to criminal to litigation, and their backgrounds are just as variable.  But I’ve noticed 5 key similarities.  Lawyers who have fun:

1.  Are invested in their practices.  Whether it’s a deep commitment to a particular kind of client (those who’ve suffered a brain injury, for instance) or to some agenda he or she advances through practice (representing domestic violence victims or lobbying for stronger legal protection for animals), Lawyers who have fun in practice have something at stake in their work.  There’s an underlying purpose and value to practice for them, and they’re energized by it.

2.  Are able to laugh at the absurdities of practice.  Every lawyer knows how utterly ridiculous practice can be at times.  Experts take completely unsupportable positions and refuse to budge despite the evidence.  Clients insist on the unattainable in ways big and small.  And things just happen.  So much of practice is deadly serious, but the lawyers who have fun know when and how to laugh, and they enjoy the humor.

3.  Find ways to integrate hectic practice and hectic personal life.  Lawyers who have fun in practice know that all work, all the time is a recipe for burnout, so they strive to maintain boundaries around their personal time.  By intentionally taking time away from practice (whether it’s on a weekly basis or whether it comes in the form of 2-week vacations when they’re absolutely unreachable), these lawyers preserve their energy with time away so they can be fully engaged when they’re practicing.

4.  Enjoy colleagues and clients.  Lawyers who have fun like and trust the people with whom and for whom they work.  Camaraderie lightens the mood (I remember and have heard all sorts of stories about working all night and staying energized by the other lawyers working then too) and offers opportunities to bat around ideas, strategy, and arguments, all of which can lead to great legal results and also great fun.

5.  Relish the bold and unconventional.  Lawyers who have fun in practice enjoy taking a step out of the expected.  Maybe it’s pulling words from The Devil’s Dictionary or making notes on an upcoming argument with a purple glitter gel pen or using dictaphones to record Dueling Banjos on a slow Friday.  Or, as the picture above suggests, maybe it’s getting a little work done in the park on a nice spring day.  The specifics don’t matter, but these lawyers have a healthy sense of play, individuality, and perhaps even rebellion.

 

Tuesday Shorts: 2/12/08

/0 Comments/in , /by

I was particularly interested in Closed Networks & the Problem with Facebook by Steven Matthews.  An excerpt:

This month’s edition of Web Law Connected could be seen as a bit of a rant, but the honest intent here is to explore the underlying marketing value offered to lawyers by what has become the 800-pound gorilla of social networks – Facebook.

It’s difficult to refute the fact that Facebook is the fastest growing entity on the web today, and the adoption rate within the legal community has been no different than that of any other group within the Facebook walls – it’s expanding, and fast. While some law firms are guarding business productivity by blocking access, we’ve also observed firms who see this latest gathering spot as an opportunity to expand their online presence. It should be noted, anytime we find legitimate communities and discussion on the web, the chances are good that individuals looking for business development opportunities will soon follow.

However, the bigger issue for me goes beyond the website blocking debate, or whether there is a legitimate business community here that can be marketed to. But rather, if we compare the relative value of Facebook to all the varying forms of web marketing out there, is it a good use of a lawyer’s online marketing time?

After a lot of consideration, and my opinion wavering, I’ve concluded that Facebook is a low quality marketing investment. And above all the positive aspects this service offers, the deciding negative factor was the closed nature of its network.

And your thought some of your clients were, uh, challenging.  I am fortunate to work with amazing clients now, but I remember a few clients from my days in full-time practice who could ruin a day simply by calling.  But who’s to say what separates a difficult client from the stereotypical “client from hell”?  Robert Sutton, author of the award-winning book The No Asshole Rule and the terrific Work Matters blog, has created the ACHE (Asshole Client from Hell Exam) to answer just that question.  Bob writes:

You can use it to help decide if it is worth continuing to work with a current client or if you want to charge them “asshole taxes.” You can use it as an “asshole screen” for future clients – send it to others who have worked with them to find out if they are a client from hell.  And if you are a client, and feel like most lawyers, management consultant, designers, accountants, and IT consultants that you hire are complete idiots,  you find yourself being gruff with them, and you find that fewer and fewer of them want to work with you –- and those that do keep raising their rates beyond reason –- you might take the ACHE as a self-test.  And you might get some of the people you’ve worked with to complete the ACHE to get some feedback about what it is like to work with you (if they feel safe enough to give you accurate feedback – you may have unwittingly taught them to only give you good news).

In case you need another reason to take care with email addresses: The story has already made the rounds, but as cautionary tales go, it can’t be beat.  The New York Times broke the story earlier this month that Eli Lilly was in settlement talks concerning alleged marketing improprieties of the drug Zyprexa.  Apparently a Pepper Hamilton lawyer representing Lilly emailed a package of confidential documents, thinking she was sending them to co-counsel Bradford Berenson when in fact she emailed them to NY Times journalist Alex Berenson.  Visit the WSJ Law Blog for the full, chilling story.  Just another reminder to treat “auto-address” email features as anathema.