Practice skill: resilience (part 1)

/3 Comments/in , , /by

I recently ran across a post by Ruthie on Ruthie’s Law inquiring, “Are you tough enough?”  Ruthie suggests that:

The most successful lawyers are the ones who can accept that occassionally making mistakes is the price of progression, pick themselves up, move on and vow not to make the same mistake again. The most successful of all are the ones who can make the same mistake a second time, pick themselves up and move on (although if you make the same mistake more than twice, you may want to ask yourself if you were really paying attention before).

Her post responds to this one by Dan Hull of What About Clients? that argues that lawyers naturally lack resilience but must acquire it to be effective in practice and in the business of practicing law.  Dan posits that

We lawyers are, in the main, natural-born weenies and squirrels. We are great people. But we sweat small stuff–part of our job, of course–and we over-react. We have amazingly poor defenses to each day’s hard knocks and battles.

. . .

However, without even doing an empirical study, it’s obvious to me that lawyer “over-sensitivity” is a huge problem in our lawyer worlds and workplaces. Our reactions to the sum of small bad stuff prevents us from doing the big stuff or from doing it well. This hurts us as people. But way more importantly, it hurts your client: the main event.

And, for the sake of completeness, Dan’s post was prompted by Mark Bennett‘s post on Resiliency, in which he responds to a post by Ed Poll arguing that lawyers “can’t sell” because they lack resiliency.  Mark, who writes the blog Defending People: The Art and Science of Criminal Defense Trial Lawyering, convincingly excludes lack of resilience as an attribute of criminal defense lawyers.

I find this conversation fascinating and worth some exploration.  My first question is, as usual, is it true that lawyers (as a group) lack resilience?  Whether it’s true as a generalization is much less important than whether it’s true for a particular lawyer, in my view.  And if it’s true for someone, the reason why it’s true is much less important than devising a method for that person to increase his or her capacity for resilience.

So, how can a lawyer choose resilience in the face of a challenge?  Rather than make this post one of mammoth proportions, I’ll provide some strategies on resilience on Friday… So check back!

Pump up your writing!

/2 Comments/in , /by

My major (on my first trip through undergrad) was in English, with an emphasis on creative writing.  When I asked my favorite writing professor for a recommendation to law school, she literally covered her face with her hands and started shaking her head.  After determining that she had slid into despair and was not, as I feared, refusing to support my applications, I asked why she was so appalled.  After all, I reminded her, I’d be writing all the time!  But my professor believed that lawyers tend to lose the craft of writing and get mired in pointless Latin, highfalutin’ language, and eye-glazing prose.  I realized, after I’d been in practice for just a short time, that she’s too often right.  We get wrapped up in the law and lose the story.

Brian Clark of copyblogger has written a terrific post titled Ten Timeless Persuasive Writing Techniques.  Some of you may be thinking that it’s odd to refer to a post from a blog devoted to “copywriting tips for online marketing success” to speak to legal writing, but consider a few of Clark’s suggestions and note their application to the law:

*  Consistency.  “Use this in your writing by getting the reader to agree with something up front that most people would have a hard time disagreeing with. Then rigorously make your case, with plenty of supporting evidence, all while relating your ultimate point back to the opening scenario that’s already been accepted.”

*  Address objections.  “If you present your case and someone is left thinking ‘yeah, but…’, well, you’ve lost. . . Addressing all the potential objections of at least the majority of your readers can be tough, but if you really know your subject the arguments against you should be fairly obvious.”

*  Storytelling.  “Stories allow people to persuade themselves, and that’s what it’s really all about. You might say that we never convince anyone of anything-we simply help others independently decide that we’re right. Do everything you can to tell better stories, and you’ll find that you are a terribly persuasive person.”

Every lawyer writes persuasively, and I encourage you to visit this post and to consider how copywriting techniques may help to pump up your writing.  More broadly… From what other fields might you draw in developing your professional skills?  It’s a great question to ponder.

Designing your personalized professional development plan

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A lot of law firms are working to make their associate review processes more useful — and some are even succeeding.  Over the last 2-3 years, it’s become quite vogue to require associates to design a professional development plan so that they and the firm can track their progress.  Although the plan is designed to be co-created by the lawyer and the firm, it’s obvious that the firm has a strong interest in the program and that the lawyer is likely to accede to the firm’s “suggestions.”

And please understand: I’m not knocking the firms that insist on such a co-creation.  It’s appropriate for the firm to bear a strong interest in ensuring that its employees develop the skills that the firm believes necessary for the employee’s development and his contribution to the firm’s development.  And devising such a plan is certainly a huge advancement over the stereotypical reviews in which a lawyer is told everything is “going just fine” right until things fall apart because no one is comfortable with confrontation or honest feedback.  (This is a real, if counter-intuitive, problem in many firms!)

But while the firm-sponsored professional development plan is a great start, it’s insufficient for most lawyers.  Given the associate attrition rates and the ease with which lawyers can change firms, it’s a mistake to assume that you will remain with a firm for your entire career no matter how happy you may be there today.  And even if you do stay at the same firm for the entire length of your career, it’s a sure bet that you won’t do so as an employee.  Instead, you’ll develop your own practice (albeit within the firm’s structure) and in so doing, you’ll be running your own “business” in a very real sense.

So, what’s the answer?  Designing your personalized professional development plan.  Starting with the plan co-created with the firm makes for a nice running start, but if you don’t have such a plan (or if you’re unhappy with your plan), consider the following questions:

*  What are your professional strengths?  How can you maximize them?
*  What are your professional weaknesses?  How can you best compensate for them?
*  What can you do to develop your strengths even more?

*  What do you want your practice to be composed of?  Consider substantive law and the mix of practice areas, type of work, what you want your days to look like, etc.
*  What kind of practice will be fulfilling at the apex of your career?  Describe the setting, the financial aspects, etc. as clearly as possible.
*  What is your practice goal in 1 year?  5 years?  10 years?  Again, describe it in as much detail as possible.

*  What skills and experiences do you need to develop to reach your 1-, 5-, 10-year, and apex practice goals?  If you have trouble with this step, consider gathering data by asking your mentors and successful colleagues, researching in practice development books, etc.  Remember that your answer will change over time.  Nothing about your plan will be written in stone, but the more clarity you can gain now, the better your gameplan and the higher likelihood that future changes will be adjustments rather than complete reworkings.

*  What habits, attitudes, or mindsets do you need to develop to attain these goals?  For example, do you need to break free from the sense that the firm owns you and to recognize that you are designing your practice and your professional life in conjunction with the firm?  Do you need to develop your confidence to increase your client development opportunities and/or your presentation skills?  Do you need to break your procrastination habit or to put your perfectionistic tendency in its proper place?

*  What will you choose to focus on from these lists over the next year?  I recommend a mix of skills/experiences and attitude/habit development goals.  For instance, you might set goals of becoming the go-to person on a certain area of the law within your firm and in the outside world, handling a client matter by yourself (with appropriate supervision but little direction if any), learning how to delegate work effectively to more junior lawyers and to staff members, and how to design and implement a business development plan that works.  (Note that this final goal has a number of subparts that are focused on developing skills and habits/attitudes, and it’s likely a multi-year goal with progress and its measurement changing each year!)

The key difference between your personalized plan and the plan that you may co-create with your firm is that the personalized plan is keyed to your goals without attention to the firm’s goals except to the extent they support your desires.  Your plan should be designed to fit what you — as owner of your practice and “CEO” of your career — want.  The two plans might be identical, or they may be quite at odds.  If you know that in 10 years you’d like to have a personal injury practice with a partner ready and willing to buy you out so you can compete in the America’s Cup, for instance, that’s almost certainly a goal that you’d be wise not to share if you’re working in a mid-sized insurance defense firm because your goals and the firm’s goals don’t mesh.

Finally, I suggest spending time in the fall roughing out your personalized professional development plan.  It’ll give you a good idea of where you’re headed when you have your annual review, and you’ll be ready to suggest the developmental areas that you’d like to work on in the next year.  In addition, you’ll be ready to incorporate the feedback you get into your plan.  So, start now.  Set aside time on your calendar, and mark it in ink.  Designing your plan will move you forward like little else.  Don’t miss this opportunity.

“She stabbed me in the back!”

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I’ve sometimes talked with lawyers (especially associates at large firms) who believe that another lawyer has stabbed them in the back: withheld critical information, misrepresented some aspect of the lawyer’s work to a more senior lawyer or client, or taken credit for the lawyer’s work.  These experiences are enraging and painful, and it’s easy for an affected lawyer to become suspicious of colleagues as a result.

Surviving and getting past such an event requires quick action.  First, the hard truth: whether the stabbing was intentional or purely accidental, your reputation is on the line and your response may well determine how others will see the situation.  Think quickly and dispassionately so you can find the best possible resolution.  Given the situation that currently exists (regardless of how it got there), what do you need to do to serve your client?  Take that step immediately and decisively.

Only when the client (internal or external) is fully protected can you return to the backstabbing itself.  The first step is to look unemotionally at what happened (ideally, with a mentor or unbiased assistant of some sort — certainly not someone who will agree with you regardless of the facts) and see whether this event really was a stab.  If you weren’t given important information, for example, look carefully to see what happened.  Perhaps the person who should have conveyed the information intentionally withheld it, or perhaps he simply forgot.  Is this event part of a pattern of behavior?  What does your intuition tell you?  How does your dispassionate observer see the situation?  Backstabbing does happen, but it’s critical to be sure that’s really what happened before you react.

Your next steps depend on whether what happened was done to you maliciously or negligently.  If malicious, consider (1) whether there’s any correction necessary and (2) what steps you can take in the future to avoid falling into a similar situation.  For instance, if someone assigned you work but left out a critical piece of information that caused you to present a memo, brief, or other product with a gaping hole in it, after you revise the work appropriately (to serve the client and to make the necessary correction), you might consider restating your assignments in a “confirmation” email to that person.  There’s rarely any point in confronting the malfeasor, unless you have incontrovertible evidence and are willing to pursue it to full resolution.  Generally speaking, your best response will be to note the problem, to work around it if possible, and to create avenues to avoid it in the future.

If the error was an accident (as, honestly, most are), consider whether a conversation could help to turn up a safety mechanism for the future.  Do you need to check in with that person on a regular basis to be sure you have the latest information, do you need to request to be a cc on all emails related to a particular case, or something along similar lines?  The trouble avoidance technique may be the same as it would be if the error were malicious, but conversation about an oversight is likely to be both productive and important to a good working relationship in the future.

In either event, if a third party (a partner or more senior associate, perhaps) is involved, you may need to have a conversation with her to clear the air.  Blaming the person who did wrong might feel good, but it won’t look good — so don’t do it.  Instead, address what happened on a factual basis and explain how you’re going to avoid a recurrence.

A word of warning: pay attention to your intuition.  A client once described to me a series of events that left him with an odd feeling about a coworker.  Although their interactions were professional and cordial, my client said that he always felt that his colleague would gladly “throw him under a bus” if need be to protect his own interest.  Unfortunately, his sense proved to be accurate; fortunately, my client had taken preventative steps to establish that he had provided certain information to that colleague.  Although 99.5% of the lawyers you work with are professionals with integrity, if your intuition signals that a colleague falls into the other .5%, take proactive measures right away.  Done with care, there’s no downside, and you’ll be protected if a problem ever arises.

Inspiration for those considering a new career; can practice be easier?

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

One of the curious things about my coaching experience is that the topics that arise (with current and potential clients) seem to move in cycles.  Right now, the top two issues on which I’m coaching are (1) making partner (long-term strategy as well as short-term “beefing up” in preparation for the decision and (2) leaving the law.  For those thinking about leaving practice: the JD Bliss Blog has done some marvelous profiles of lawyers who’ve left the law for other pursuits, and I commend those to anyone who’s considering a move out of practice.  Nice inspiration, in short bites, for anyone wondering what might be next.

Meanwhile, for those committed to staying in practice (or at least not committed to leaving), here’s something for you to consider: can you create a practice that’s any easier for you than it is now?  This weekend, I was gardening (and by that, I mean tending parts of an unruly 1-acre yard) in 97-degree weather.  Adjusted for the high humidity, the heat index topped 107.  It was not fun.  I noticed two tendencies that made my work harder than it had to be, though: I was holding my breath every time I tried to pull out a large weed, and I was drinking a bottle of water only every hour or so.  Nothing would have made the work fun under the circumstances, but when I started breathing better and carried a large water bottle around the yard with me, it started being less unpleasant.  I also stopped yardwork entirely between 11 AM and 6 PM; had I not done that, I doubt I’d ever have been willing to set foot in the state of Maryland again!

What’s the practice analogy?  It’ll vary somewhat for each lawyer, but here are some examples:

**  Use the concepts of full engagement and selective disengagement for better energy management.

**  Make sure your office is arranged for maximum utility (good chair, good light, not cluttered, supplies and resources you need at hand, etc.).

**  Commit to raising your practice skills.

**  Identify the habits or tendencies that are detrimental and figure out how to turn them around.

**  If you goes through your days with a negative attitude, consider whether there’s an alternative.

**  Find mentors who can guide you through practice development, office politics, etc.

Top firms for women or leaving the law: it’s all about perceived satisfaction

/2 Comments/in , , , /by

As announced in a flurry of law firm press releases yesterday, Working Mother Magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers LLC have announced the top 50 firms for women, as measured through “groundbreaking programs to help women strike a better work/life balance and climb to the top” and “implementing penalty-free flex schedules and mentoring, networking and leadership programs.”  Large firms are heavily represented, and I’m curious whether that reflects their success with these programs or whether it reflects the presence of the programs.  Would a smaller firm that promotes work/life balance as a matter of course but doesn’t feature woman-friendly programs come out well on the survey?  This inquiring mind is curious.

Meanwhile, a recent article in Toronto Life magazine describes one lawyer’s exit from the practice and touches on the variety of issues that lead lawyers to choose new careers.  Replace the names of top Canadian firms with American firms, and it becomes clear that the problems so many identify are a cross-border phenomenon.  The author paints a rather bleak picture of the profession, laying the blame on “the crush of billable hours and the constantly buzzing BlackBerry,” which have in turn destroyed intellectualism, civility, mentoring, and work/life balance.  It’s a painful (but important) article to read.

Are lawyers unhappy?  Sure, some are.  And some aren’t.  Before deciding anything about the state of the profession (or the morale of its lawyers) it’s important to step back and ask what’s behind the pain and the pleasure of practice.  What do you expect to see when you think about practicing law?  Or, to put it another way, what happens when you remove the rose- or smoke-colored glasses?

David Maister on business development

/0 Comments/in , , /by

All writers have their favorite pieces, and while I wouldn’t necessarily elevate blogging to author status, I certainly have my favorite posts.  One of them is Relationship or one-night stand: how law firms view associates(and clients).  It’s a favorite for two reasons: first, it draws on an article about client development by David Maister to explore associate retention, and second, because I always chuckle when I see that someone has stumbled across this blog by searching “one night stand.”  Imagine what they must think!

Maister’s thesis is that lawyers must decide whether they want to develop relationships and trust for long-term client development or whether they want to engage clients on a case-by-case transactional basis.  The former requires sincere interest in the client and builds a connection that leads to the lawyer’s status as (to borrow the title of one of Maister’s books) a “Trusted Advisor.”  The latter is more difficult to create and to sustain because there’s nothing supporting the engagement beyond the exchange of services for money.

The mindset that Maister explores constitutes a worldview that will color the approach of a lawyer or law firm not only to its clients, but also to its associates, partners, and staff as well.  What worldview do you choose?

Habit: the enemy of entropy

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

I’m not a physicist (I can barely spell the word) but as I remember it, the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy, which for purposes of this post only might be a synonym for chaos or disorder, tends to increase.  Another way of saying this is that systems tend to move from a state of higher organization to a state of lower organization.  I see that law play out, albeit in utterly non-scientific ways, in my life and in those of my clients.  A simple example is the level of order in my office.  At the beginning of the day, my desk is fairly tidy, and by the end of the day, it’s typically a mess; if I don’t neaten it at the end of the day, the cycle will just start again the next morning, with eventually disasterous results.  But when I do take the time to discard the things I no longer need, to stack papers, to return files and books to their proper spots, I have the pleasure of walking into a (relatively) orderly office.  And so, habit is the enemy of entropy.

Most of us have routines that allow our lives to function.  We typically brush our teeth in the same phase of getting ready for the day and for bed, we tend to drive to work or home in the same way, etc.  Professionally, the same kinds of activities keep our work lives on track: tidying the office, noting appointments on a calendar or PDA as soon as we make them, completing time sheets on a regular basis.  Although these tasks are in themselves rather small, they keep things running.  And that’s something to consider both in creating routines and in adhering to them.  Building a habit that supports you is a key skill for any lawyer.

Likewise, it’s worth noting that we all stray from our habits on occasion.  There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as we get back to the beneficial habit.  An example from my own life: last year, I joined a networking group and attended regularly.  If it was the third Thursday, I was at the meeting.  I enjoyed it, I made great contacts that produced business, and all was going well.  But then the group skipped a meeting.  And I was out of town for the next one.  Before I knew it, 8 months had passed, and I hadn’t been to the meetings.  Returning wasn’t hard, but it did take more effort than going as a part of my regular weekly habit.  I had to miss last month’s meeting, and I made sure that I’d made my appointment for the next meeting and that it was marked on my calendar in ink.  A part of suspending my regular practice is now planning to resume it — not because the habit itself is so important, but because it produces great results that I won’t get otherwise.

What habits or practices support you in being healthy, productive, happy, etc.?  Once you’ve identified them, pay attention when you stop following those routines.  There’s no harm in pausing; the key is to have a plan that will support you in resuming those patterns.  What’s yours?

Warning: first impressions linger!

/8 Comments/in , , /by

I’ve been making a lot of calls this week, not only to lawyers and law firms but also to doctors’ offices and a variety of businesses, and I’ve discovered something disturbing.  On a distressingly high number of these contacts (including some in-person contacts as well as phone calls), the people who greeted me and who handled my initial inquiry did not make me happy I’d contacted their office.  Instead, I felt that I’d interrupted something important and burdened the staff.  And just in case anyone is thinking perhaps the less-than-favorable reception was because I’m a dreaded cold-calling service provider seeking business… Nope.  I was a client or customer of each business.

The most notable example of this behavior occurred at a doctor’s office.  I hadn’t been to this doctor in a while, and when I arrived for my appointment, the receptionist gave me new patient forms without explanation.  I told her that I had been visiting this doctor off and on since about 1983, and she asked if it had been more than 2 years since I’d visited.  Yes, I said, about 2 years and 2 months.  “Well,” she said as she turned away, “we purged your file after 2 years.”  Not welcome back, not we’re delighted to see you again, not even a throw-away “apology lite” for purging my file.  When I paid my bill after my appointment, I discovered that my previous patient information was printed on it, revealing that they hadn’t purged my information after all.  Fortunately, I still like and trust the medical staff and will return because of that, but next time I call, it’ll be with a sigh because I’ll have to deal with the front office first.

How’s your firm’s welcoming committee?

We so easily fall into the trap of thinking that we lawyers provide client service and that receptionists, legal assistants, secretaries, and other staff members provide administrative support that really doesn’t constitute client service.  While that may be true on one level, it’s wise to consider how much contact the average client has with your staff as opposed to with you.  Unless you’re a really sole practitioner or a third wave lawyer who operates without staff, chances are good that the first person your client speaks with is staff.  I assure you that the client will engage with you with that impression in mind.

It’s easy to identify and weed out those who deliver obviously unacceptable client contact.  The example that comes to mind is one I overheard a few years ago while waiting for a colleage to get off a call so we could talk: “Well, [Mr. Smith], I know you think you’re [lawyer’s] only client, but you aren’t!”  Fortunately, someone who would make a comment like that is generally either retrained or fired with haste.  What about the subtle effects of less-offensive but thoughtless behavior?  Have you ever stepped back to observe how non-attorney staff in your office interacts with your clients?

Here’s a counter-example.  Janette, a receptionist at a large firm in Atlanta, is a ray of sunshine.  Everytime I walked into this firm’s reception area, I’m embraced by her warmth and welcome.  One time, when I was waiting while the person I was to meet was stuck in traffic, I had the opportunity to watch her for a half-hour or so.  She engaged every person who walked in.  She knew returning clients, asked how their travel had been, and made them feel welcome.  When she met someone new, she exchanged a few comments with them — not the kind of chatter that can annoy someone already on edge, just some niceties that paved the way for further conversation if the visitor so desired.  Every person who walked in was greeted, made welcome, and appreciated.  I’m sure the clients and other visitors engaged with the lawyers they were meeting there with the effects of that first impression still lingering.  Janette is clearly an asset to that office, and (fortunately) the firm knows it.

What does the staff at your office contribute to client relations?  Notice what’s happening when your clients and potential clients interact with your staff.    If it’s a negative contribution, how can you help to create a shift?  And if it’s a positive contribution, do you acknowledge and reward it?

Long-term career options

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When I finished law school in 1993, the expectation of joining a firm, making partner there, and staying for the entirety of a career was beginning to fade.  By this time, it’s almost an anomaly for a young lawyer to walk that path.  In 2006, a NALP study (reported in a Law.com article titled Firms Losing Top Talent to Clients) showed that 19% of associates leave their firms after their first year in practice, 40% leave by their third year, and 78% leave by their fifth year.  Where the departing associates go varies, of course — some to other firms, some in-house, some outside the law entirely.  But the bottom line is that for the majority of large firm associates, becoming a homegrown partner is no longer the presumed outcome of joining a firm as an associate.

The often-repeated “joke” that partnership is like winning a pie-eating contest only to find that the prize is more pie may well cast light on why the career path has changed so dramatically.  Equally likely is the emphasis on profits-per-partner and the rising level of what’s an “acceptable” profit.  Whatever the reason, an associate is well-advised to consider early what path she’d like her career to take.  Although the paths don’t necessarily diverge completely (because, for instance, building credibility and respect with colleagues and clients pays dividends regardless of which career path the lawyer selects), it’s possibly to think strategically toward a goal only if that goal is clear.

This month’s Law Practice Magazine is one of the best resources I’ve seen recently for hitting the highlights of the career route decision in short firm.  Articles include Making Partner — or Not: Is It In, Up or Over in the 21st Century? (reviewing modern alternatives in law firms to the old rule of make partner or get out), Is There Life After Law Firms?: Getting Off the Partnership Path (reviewing some options outside law firms), Going In-House?  Prepare for Culture Shock and Partnership Criteria: The Ground Rules of Moving Up (criteria and issues involved in making partner).  Also included are two articles written by lawyers who’ve chosen careers outside the practice: From Antitrust Lawyer to Executive Coach (written by Deborah Katz Solomon, a remarkable coach whom I’m delighted to call mentor, colleague, and friend) and From the Courtroom to the Classroom (the story of a lawyer who has moved to teaching after 25 years in practice).

While the articles included are probably not sufficient to inform career decisions fully, if you’ve been considering your long-term career plan, this issue is a must-have.  For newer lawyers who have perhaps been drifting along and hoping for the best, this issue will help you think strategically and clearly about what you want from practice and what you’re willing to put into it.  It’s great weekend reading.  Enjoy.