Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

We were recently retained by a client strictly based on the above. It felt quite good actually. This is an entity client and the point person in charge of finding an attorney happened to be an old friend of mine. Sadly (but not particularly unusual) she’d had some poor experiences with a number of attorneys they had worked with recently so they were looking elsewhere. This person had known me for several years, although we had lost touch for several years too, knew I used to practice in the area in which they needed representation and….great, we’ve got ourselves a new client.

Do you have clients like these? Do you want some? I wouldn’t mind a few more myself. I think this concept and client-type is very much at the core of Clients for Life which is a great read and something I’ve written about in the past. Because these sorts of people who just trust you and your judgment implicitly are the sorts of clients who will be your clients for like 30 years and probably refer another 30 clients to you over those thirty years. I call that cost efficient advertising.

And yet I observe many habits in lawyers too often that specifically undermine a client’s trust. Some examples:

Lawyers OVER-Promise & UNDER-Deliver. I see this most frequently in simple timing stuff…suggesting something will be done more quickly than is realistic but also in putting forth unrealistic predictions of a case result. Talk through all possible scenarios realistically.

Lawyers DON’T Tell Clients What They DON’T Want to Hear. I find that if I’m agreeing with a client too much there’s often a problem. The problem being I’m sugar-coating things instead of laying out some tough realities that may not be pleasant for a client. Good clients like good leaders want competent and strong advisers around them who are tough, smart, and are leveling with them about ALL possible scenarios.

Lawyers That Aren’t Thorough or Detail-Oriented Enough. I just spoke with a lawyer friend in the last week who called asking me about a post-divorce situation where this new client’s divorce settlement documents included 2 provisions regarding these parents’ (ex-spouses) daycare expense obligations that were wholly opposite of one another. Meaning, in one place the judgment said mom pays for all daycare expenses and in another place judgment said mom/dad split these expenses 50/50. Would you trust the lawyer scrivener of that document again in the future?

These Really ARE Clients for Life. So treat them that way! And beyond just the above, don’t be nickle-and-diming them for the occasional phone call, but be constantly be looking out for their interests and sending them related notes/articles.

These sorts of clients are BIG. Look, I do plenty of my 1-time, quick legal representation…it’s good work sometimes and necessary. But these great clients who really like and trust you are the clients who make your practice thrive for the long term.

Saw this comment left recently and I thought I’d make light of it. I don’t mind doing a little advertising for the guy if it helps SIC readers:

I just stumbled across this blog and thought it was the right place for this info. I am a criminal defense lawyer in New York and use the number 1-800-ARRESTED. I have started licensing the number for other cities and states. It will make existing advertising far more effective and is an amazing cornerstone around which to build an ad campaign. People always remember the number and it tells people what you do in an instant. If you’d like to talk just dial the number and if my firm answers it means no one has it in your area. Ask for Ken and I’ll go over how it works. It’s cheap, yours for as long as you want it and is the best number for a criminal defense practice without question. Give me a call. Ken Keith

I’ve never been an “800 Number” guy but that sounds like a good one for criminal attorneys. In the family law practice area I’ve heard of a person or two who’ve retained their lawyer by calling 1-800-DIVORCE. I know a lawyer friend of mine actually who has the 1-800-DIVORCE telephone number for the Chicago area and I think he does pretty well. Personally, I don’t like divorce and think it’s something vile and something to be avoided so not something I want as my most visible marketing strategy.

Personally I’ve given greater consideration to various vanity Web domains and redirecting those sites to our Firm’s main Web page. I think that will be part of our marketing strategy as we add a new practice area in comings months…more on that to come.

Anyone using domain redirects successfully??

Seriously, it’s the most often repeated question I see asked again & again & again & again….on lawyer listserves. Some version of the following:

QUESTION:  What do I do if a court filing deadline falls on a holiday/weekend??

ANSWER:  Look at the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.11) and read this 2nd District case, Bertell v. Rockford Memorial Hospital.

The statute reads:

(5 ILCS 70/1.11) (from Ch. 1, par. 1012)
Sec. 1.11. The time within which any act provided by law is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is Saturday or Sunday or is a holiday as defined or fixed in any statute now or hereafter in force in this State, and then it shall also be excluded. If the day succeeding such Saturday, Sunday or holiday is also a holiday or a Saturday or Sunday then such succeeding day shall also be excluded.

So in your typical situations if there’s a filing deadline that falls on a Saturday, your filing would be timely if made on the following Monday. But what if Monday is a “legal holiday” pursuant to the State Commemorative Dates Act (5 ILCS 490/60) and yet it’s not a “court holiday” in the relevant circuit court where the case is pending? Well, that’s why you as a lawyer need to keep updated on reading appellate cases like Bertell (or you plan ahead a tad more and don’t wait until the last day for filing).

In the case the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had improperly detained him and that Defendant had failed to file a timely petition for involuntary commitment. Defendant had to file its petition within 24 hours of detaining the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was initially detained over a weekend so the weekend days were clearly exempt in terms of the 24 hour deadline. Defendant eventually filed the petition for involuntary commitment on Tuesday. The “strangeness” of Monday’s holiday was the cause of this case.

Monday was Lincoln’s birthday and a legal holiday according to the State Commemorative Dates Act but the 17th Judicial Circuit Court was open for business. Well, both the trial and appellate courts held for the Defendants that even though the court was open since Lincoln’s Birthday is designated a legal holiday, Defendant’s petition was timely.

Good piece on the above from Illinois Lawyer NOW.

Although my interest in the NBA has waned a good bit since Jordan’s game-winner over Byron Russell and the Jazz back in ’98, it was difficult to avoid the media circus surrounding LeBron James’ announcement that he would sign with the Miami Heat and the fallout therefrom. I was just the slightest bit surprised and disappointed that he left Cleveland because personally I most admire those coaches and players who’ve stayed with a team or location for the long-term and really built a meaningful and successful legacy, through the highs and the lows…Paterno, Wooden, Bird, Magic, Jordan.

Isn’t it a bit like the lawyer who jumps to big law for the money, security, and anonymity instead of building a practice that involves going through the lows and highs yet in the end having birthed a living company?

I like this nugget from the Washington Post’s Micheal Wilbon:

Something my friend Charles Barkley said on NBA TV the other day resonates with every single old-school player I’ve talked to. “In fairness, if I was 25 I’d try to win it by myself,” Barkley said. “Not technically ‘by myself,’ but I would want to be the guy. LeBron is never going to be the guy.”

Kinda like an “Associate” at Biglaw, no? You’re never going to be the guy. Being a follower and not wanting to be the centerpiece in your career isn’t always bad, right. Good money and employment security are powerful draws, just ask LBJ. Just be sure it’s what you really want.

Sure, the early years for a legal entrepreneur aren’t too glamorous earning $20,000 per year for a year or 2 but if you learn, grow, and stick with it there’s some serious accomplishment at the end of the rainbow. You’re building something; you own something; accountability…the buck stops with you; you’re a job creator; and, you’re a Leader!

Here’s a reminder from my 12/19/09 review of Small Giants:

The book concludes with an inspiring chapter, The Art of Business, and profiles the founder of Inc. magazine, Bernard Goldhirsh and his quotation…

I kept thinking that the entrepreneur is like an artist, only business is the means of his expression. He creates a business from nothing, just a blank canvas. It’s amazing. Somebody goes into a garage, has nothing but an idea, and out of the garage comes a company, a living company. It’s so special what they do. They are a treasure.

I thought I’d share a little tale from a recent courtroom hearing experience I had that worked out great for my client but not so great for the other guy (or woman in this particular case). And not as a matter of immodesty but rather because I could see something like this happening to me and it’s a good reminder of the importance of doing at least a little client preparation before your next court hearing. Because I know with me, there are 2-3 hearing types that I do ALL THE TIME (contempt defense, child support modification, dissolution of marriage prove-up) but my clients don’t.

My issue last week was a parentage case for retroactive child support and there was potentially some $30,000 at stake. Simply, this was a case where the mother of 2 children filed for child support some 8 years after the children were born and the Parentage Act potentially allows for retroactive child support to be awarded for that time period between the date of filing and the date of the birth of the children, so in this case some 8 years. That’s a lot of $$$ at some $1,000 per month in child support.

Well, one of the factors that a court must weigh in deciding these retroactive cases is:

(5) The extent to which the father would be prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action (750 ILCS 45/14(b)).


OK, so if you’re not an Illinois domestic relations attorney you might be asking yourself, and why do I care? CLIENT HEARING PREPARATION.

The lawyers representing the mother in my case repeatedly asked her whether her delay in bringing this case would “prejudice” the father (my client). And she repeatedly answered, YES! And there were several reasons why the judge in my case ruled in the father’s favor but the “prejudice” factor was one of the 2 primary reasons the judge cited. And why did the mother say that, yes, the father would be prejudiced? SHE DIDN’T KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD PREJUDICE! Something just a bit of CLIENT HEARING PREPARATION may have taken care of.

And Now, the Tricky Part:  Naming Your Business. We’ve written about the ethical issues related to law firm naming in the past here but it still seems to me that there’s a real dearth of creativity when it comes to the law firm names that I see.   Quick, how many firms do you know that don’t simply include some lame/uncreative use only of a practitioner’s or various partners’ last names? I think I know two, other than the gentleman profiled in the WSJ article. The piece includes 12 examples of different companies and their strategy in company naming. I’d suggest that is an area ripe for innovation and an instant marketing advantage for someone starting a practice.

Divorce lawyers:  Facebook tops in online evidence. Not a bad place to start if you have a dicey case particularly with child custody issues.  Good old social media! The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years. I have. Some examples from the piece:

– Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.

– Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his “write something about yourself” section: “If you have the balls to get in my face, I’ll kick your ass into submission.”

– Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook’s Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.

– Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.

How to get more business:  20 tips on marketing the small law firm (page 10). Plenty of ideas, pick a couple and implement now. A couple easy ones:  *Get out of the office & *Get your newsletter on track on a consistent basis (at least quarterly).

Taking the Leap to Self-Employment. Good piece really taking a hard look at the challenges of self-employment. You must be motivated to sell a product or service for which there’s demand & the business idea should be based on expertise you already have. Good teaching point for lawyers, you’ve got to be marketing like crazy early in the history of your practice and can’t be learning your business idea from scratch at the same time. The light at the end of the tunnel:  Even in the face of failure, most entrepreneurs are not willing to give up. “Once they taste having more control over their lives,” he said, “they almost never go back.”

In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That. And finally a mildly humorous story from our current, touch economic climate (perhaps I need to take a look at my law school transcript)…

One day next month every student at Loyola Law School Los Angeles will awake to a higher grade point average.

But it’s not because they are all working harder.

The school is retroactively inflating its grades, tacking on 0.333 to every grade recorded in the last few years. The goal is to make its students look more attractive in a competitive job market.

Specifically, what should be the “niche” subject matter of my law practice…that’s the question. I’ve been puzzling on this for some time with concerns that my practice might be too general and not niche enough. Plus I’ve read a couple nice posts from Chuck Newton and Martha Newman about boosting profits by going niche. And I often find myself returning to Jim Collins’ “Hedgehog Concept” from Good to Great.

Over at Top Lawyer Coach Martha’s post is, A Niche Practice Positions You as Expert in Your Field of Practice. Her 5 reasons for going niche:

1) You’re perceived as an expert; 2) You’ll make more money; 3) You’ll dominate with less competition; 4) Your marketing will get easier; and, 5) You’ll be remembered.

Chuck lists 4 Steps to Snowball Your Law Firm Profits and look at reason #2…Niche Your Practice. Here’s his definition of a “niche practice” and why:

This is a matter of taking your strongest and most profitable practice area or cases types and concentrating on those. The purpose is to increase those cases that pay you more, and take less of your time, while decreasing those cases that pay you less and consume most of your time.

Sounds great, more money and less competition. So what’s holding me back? Why is it difficult to narrow my practice towards a very specific niche?

I think my trepidation stems from 2 concerns:

A.  Narrowing my practice areas will limit my potential pool of clients.

B.  What if I pick the wrong niche.

Currently my practice is some 70% family law and 30% real estate transactions. I’ve been thinking of dropping my real estate practice for a while…it’s not particularly profitable and I’m not particularly passionate about the subject matter (See Jim Collins re:  PASSION). But 30% of my income is still a decent chunk of change. Do I just lop it off in 1 fell swoop? How long before the niche momentum (marketing/expert/less competition) replaces that 30% or more?

Letter B may be scarier…I think a part of me hangs on to my smaller practice areas as a way of hedging my bets.

So, I’m moving towards a niche practice, likely slower than I should be. I’ve been branding our firm as the Family Law Office of Peter Olson on the Web and telephone marketing for a while. With me, the question likely shouldn’t even be between family law and real estate but rather how can I get ever more niche within the family law field.

Hard questions; touch choices…my search continues.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Thanks for the great comments and links to some other articles on “niche practice”…there must be something in the water this week. Checkout MyShingle & Build a Solo Practice.

No, this isn’t about corruption in Illinois politics…that’s on display live in at least 3 courtrooms at the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois down the street. The issues I’m talking about are systemic inadequacies that affect all 25,000 or so litigants within the state court system within Cook County on a yearly basis. The issues reared their ugly head again in a case I had this week…

1.  An inadequate court case filing system

2.  No electronic or human transcription system within most courtrooms

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse on this…it is a critical issue. And hey, we did eventually get the Daley Center law library to add WiFi so somebody must be listening/reading. First the facts and then the legal consequences and then my personal experience in court this past week.

THE FACTS: The Cook County Circuit Court Clerk uses a primarily paper-based filing system that is difficult to access and more importantly isn’t secure whereby old filings/court orders are lost and gone forever. Due to the storage needs required by a paper-based system, the even inadequate case files are rarely in court when a case is heard in court thus making judges wholly dependent on what attorneys/litigants produce. Finally, there’s no real-time electronic transcription occurring within courtrooms and the Cook County Official Court Reporters office simply cannot staff the hundreds of court rooms throughout the county.

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES: Simply, incorrect rulings/judgments are entered and that’s the injustice. And it’s not the individual making the ruling/judgment, it’s the inadequacy of the data upon which individual is forced to relay in making the ruling/judgment (See THE FACTS) which causes the incorrect ruling/judgment. A fair analogy would be the President relying on intelligence that in retrospect is like a 25% snapshot of reality in making foreign policy decisions…not a good decision-making environment.

I don’t think a lot of non-court attorneys or lay-people grasp the very large percentage of current and future litigation that relates wholly to the enforcement/vacating of/modification of previous pleadings and orders thus making the accuracy of a court file and case history critical. Within the domestic relations division I’d say 40%+ of the cases in court every day are in the enforcement/vacate/modify box. I don’t know the exact number that 40% translates into but I’d surmise it’s somewhere between 500-1,000 cases every day in Cook County Circuit Court.

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE/EXAMPLE: This week I had a Motion to Vacate an old court order heard in court this week and it’s a great practical snapshot to illuminate the gravity of the problem. And in the end justice actually prevailed but not until some 6 months of wasted time and the potential for injustice was very likely despite my and a client’s best efforts. So here’s what happened…

Some 6 months ago my then pro se client sets several pleadings for hearing on court date #1. Next, opposing party files a motion to dismiss my client’s pleadings at court date #2 and motion to dismiss is set for hearing. Here’s where the system’s inadequacies first raise their ugly head because the hearing date originally set at court date #1 was supposed to be stricken at court date #2 but the wrong date got stricken because no one was in a position to view the actual order entered at court date #1 while in court at court date #2. Also at court date #2, various response times were set forth and the opposing party’s motion to dismiss was set for hearing a couple months after the hearing date set at court date #1 (note, this date was intended to be stricken but wasn’t so it’s still out there as an active court date). On court date #3 (which is the hearing date originally set at court date #1 that should have been stricken) the opposing party’s lawyer appears but my pro se client does not thinking this hearing date had been stricken. Well, this fine, upstanding lawyer goes ahead and by default has my client’s various pleadings dismissed with prejudice despite the fact that she surely knew the Motion to Dismiss had a subsequent hearing date set at court date #3.

Well, to some degree all is well that ends well and the court did vacate the dismissal order entered at court date #3 this past week. But I’m sure there are hundreds of cases where the opposite occurs. And I’d surmise that if the Cook County filing/transcribing system is better that this simply would NOT occur. Because if the judge has the 2 orders from court dates #1 and #2 in front of him at court date #3, there’s no way the dismissal occurs at court date #3 because the order entered at court date #2 clearly sets a hearing day several months after court date #3 & my client’s time to answer the motion to dismiss had not even expired yet by court date #3.

I know we’re in tough budget times, but this IS a BIG DEAL!

I’m pretty surprised at many lawyers’ inability to avoid discussing certain topics with opposing counsel that in my opinion make themselves look bad or more importantly, weaken their clients case. Personally, I think discernment when it comes to topics to discuss and facts to volunteer is in like the top 3 “must have” skills for lawyers. Yet I come across many lawyers who suffer from diarrhea-of-the-mouth. It’s a common American malady but Jane Public just makes herself look like an idiot whereas Jane Lawyer potentially weakens her clients case immensely.

Here are two that stick in my craw…and one is VERY detrimental to your client too:

1.  Complaining about not getting paid by your own client. I don’t see this a lot but I had it come up just this week and it’s really what motivated this post. I have a fairly small $$ case regarding return of some personal property from a client’s former commercial tenant that has dragged on for a while. Well, in court this week the Plaintiff’s lawyer complains that his client has only paid him some $500 and is way behind on paying attorneys fees and the lawyer didn’t sound too confident in ever getting paid. It’s not that I don’t empathize with his plight because I have client payment problems too and it’s likely the most important topic discussed on SIC. But when you discuss it with opposing counsel I don’t think you’re acting in your client’s best interests. Because now I know this lawyer is hanging by a thread and if it’s in my client’s best interest to get him out of the case I wouldn’t hesitate to flood him with a little paperwork to push him out.

2.  Personal attacks on an opposing client. Individually, I just find this utterly tacky and unprofessional but generally NOT AS hurtful to your client as #1 but it can hurt your client too (so why do it?). This comes up more than #1 through little snide comments by so-called professionals who can’t help over-personalizing a case. The worst I personally experienced was at Cook County’s primary parentage courthouse (32 W. Randolph, Chicago) a few years back where there was a visitation dispute and my client was the mother and the opposing female attorney just got in my client’s face attacking her about allegedly hurting the child’s relationship with her client (father). The only reason I can think of as to why this sort of behavior ever occurs is perhaps a lawyer trying to create the perception that she’s “aggressive” to her client. Of course the real result is damaging the relationship with the opposing counsel, hurting communication, and likely hurting a client’s case…not to mention likely causing the case to be a more expensive endeavor too.

Don’t forget about the meaning of the relationship:  Fiduciary Duty. It means acting in your client’s best interest…not just doing what feels good.

I recently finished up Ken Gormley’s, The Death of American Virtue, an excellent and balanced analysis of the Clinton Impeachment saga. Mr. Gormley is the dean at Duquesne’s law school and a former biographer of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox.  Just briefly on the subject of the book, it’s a wonderful, descriptive read dredging up those 1970s Arkansas land deals through the early and undisciplined Clinton Administration, the rise of Newt, appointment of Independent Counsel Ken Starr and the Senate’s failure to convict President Clinton of the articles of impeachment. Personally, I spent two years of my life working on Capitol Hill, 1998-1999 so I have more than a little first-hand knowledge of the initial Drudgereport leaks in January ’98 to Clinton’s “I have never had sexual relations with…that woman” and Newt’s subsequent demise after the November ’98 elections.

But why am I posting here about political trivia when Solo In Chicago is all about the practical steps necessary to grow a great law practice?

Two words:  Bill Ginsburg (Monica Lewinsky’s first lawyer). I wasn’t a lawyer back during my Washington years so perhaps I didn’t care about Ginsburg too much but now it’s a great and instructive point for lawyers everywhere. And that’s where this post’s title comes from. Ginsburg was one of the best attorneys in the business when it came to defending hospitals and physicians in nasty, high-stakes medical malpractice litigation (pg. 369). In early years of practice, he had defended swimming pool manufacturers in horrible death and accident cases, racking up an astounding won-loss record (pg. 394). So he was likely primarily a California state court litigator. But of course Monica was facing a potential federal, criminal indictment regarding her possible perjury in only the most publicized legal proceeding of all time.

But put aside the media maelstrom, and it’s the same decision we all face every so often…when to take and not to take that case that’s outside your “regular” practice area.  So what’s the answer…should you take that case? Consider 6 questions/factors:

• Would the case involve practicing in a totally “foreign” court/legal system? Meaning a different state/county or federal vs. state court or civil/criminal.  I think this might be the first level and most challenging hurdle and one that should be crossed most carefully. Personally, I do get to multiple counties although not too frequently…it’s awkward but doable since the underlying state law is the same but the different local rules and customs need to be known too. However, the federal to state court and criminal to civil practice (or vice versa) are far more challenging. I’ve handled 5-10 low-level criminal matters and even those have been dicey, not in terms of results but just the criminal procedures and proof standards and the potential criminal punishments/ramifications.
• Is the case/subject a logical or potential future extension of your current practice? If yes, I think this would be a great reason to take a case outside your regular practice area. For example, my practice is some 75% involved with parentage, divorce, and various modification/enforcement issues involving parentage and divorce cases. If someone calls about an adoption or child abuse related allegation to me those would be obvious extensions of “family law.” Further, our firm has thought about some non-family law areas of expansion such as elder and immigration law due to certain demographic trends. Again, new cases come in those areas, I’m takin’ them.
• What are the ramifications if you screw things up? It’s true and critical. I wouldn’t take on any felony level criminal matter because I don’t want many years in prison on my conscience for the next 40 years. A few years back I took over a real estate transaction for a friend of mine who been trying to handle it for a relative of his and he had really had not known what he was doing. So I picked-up the ball, there was a slight delay in the deal and because of the delay the Buyer (I had the Seller) got a $2,000ish price drop out of it, but the deal eventually closed uneventfully. Was it mishandled? Yes. Were the potential ramifications serious enough that he shouldn’t have taken on the matter? I think not.
• Do you have access to people/resources to help you? Here I think you need to balance the difference between the occasional question that you might pose to a mentor or an online group which we always have vs. the need for constant hand-holding which might be too much to expect. Second, simply how are your legal research skills and do you have access to the proper resources to handle the case? Just recently I’ve been dealing with a replevin matter and a rare temporary restraining order issue. And these weren’t issues I knew just off the top of my head but I did know generally what each situation involved and it was simple legal research within the Illinois Compiled Statutes so no biggie.
• Balance the Opportunity Cost. Meaning, we shouldn’t just look at the effort necessary to handle the new case outside of your regular practice area, no, we also must weigh the lost opportunity to work on other things that you can’t spend time on due to the new case. This is very unique to the individual lawyers circumstances both currently and her future plans. I think the primary consideration here is what are you giving up (if anything) to take on the new, unfamiliar case? Subject to some of the previous analysis above, simply, if you’re practice is less than full and taking on the new, unfamiliar matter would have no impact on servicing your regular practice areas, ya take the case. Conversely, if your practice is 110% full taking on one unfamiliar matter likely would take the time for more than one of your typical cases due to familiarity with the subject matter, you probably don’t take on the unfamiliar matter. My exception to that simple analysis would be any future expansion planning for your business. We want to grow into the elder law market so I would selectively take a case or two in that area as a trade for 3 divorce matters based on future planning goals.
• Can you help a client, former client, or referral source? Since this group is so critical to your business you should bend-over backwards for them. Personally, this ends up of being some simple estate planning in my practice. Of course the key word here is HELP not screw-up their cases.

So what about Attorney Ginsburg? I haven’t heard any of his personal analysis of his role in Monica-gate. Personally, even leaving aside the media glare unique to that case, I’d have a hard time taking on the case due to point #1 above. The jump from state/civil court to federal/criminal would be too big of a jump for me.

But, in general, my observation is that lawyers are too conservative in taking on new, less familiar matters. Don’t leave that $$$ on the table if you can put it into your pocket.

Know your research, be aware of the resources available to you, and be confident in your ability to solve problems and find solutions…that’s what lawyering is!