Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

Great story in the Trib. about one lawyers attempt to fight the Will County Bar Association regarding lawyer ID cards used to get into the courthouse more quickly. It sounds like he hasn’t been too successful in his legal attempts to overturn the policy but I feel his pain.

I took on a DuPage County dissolution of marriage case recently and I found myself waiting in line at the metal detectors out in Wheaton…they have a similar policy to Will County. Frankly this is a rare instance where I think Cook’s doing a better job than the collar counties. There’s no bar association membership requirement…any lawyer can pay a minimal charge and get an ID card from the Cook County Sheriff and I think it’s good for 3-4 years. The charge is minimal…maybe $25.

The Will County policy must not be that old…I had job some 4 years ago that had me appearing in Joliet quite a bit and I think they used to let attorneys through by just showing your ARDC card.

I am not a media celebrity so it just must show the weakness of the lawyer hiring market because I keep getting interviewed in the Chicago legal media about the pros/cons about starting a solo practice.

I landed another client while in court the other day. This has happened enough now that I think it’s blog-worthy. This particular situation was I was standing in line at the Cook County Circuit Clerk’s office filing some things, ect. and this pro-se landlord was lamenting his frustrations as he attempted to do his evictions by himself. Well, I gave him a card and we’ve discussed representation going forward…he has a nice little portfolio of rental properties.

This might be the third new “court” client. We work in some areas (evictions and domestic relations come readily to mind) where many people have lawyers but then many people are pro se. Quite frequently you’ll be in the courtroom and observe a pro se client not knowing what he or she is doing and becoming ever more frustrated. Oftentimes these sorts of people will ask me about their case or just something basic about a pleading or filing. These can often be perfect opportunities to give out your card or make your verbal pitch about how you can help the person.

What I don’t recommend is taking a new client on the spot…I’ve seen people do this and it’s usually a nightmare. You just don’t have enough time to do your due diligence.

Here’s a link to Minnesota Lawyers’ Mutual’s annual small firm economics survey. They happen to be our malpractice insurance carrier. Some interesting findings:

• Practice areas – no surprise the top three are domestic relations, estate/probate and real estate. Although to some degree I think this is inevitable, I think you need one strong niche where you’re unique and different that this non-descript group of small firm lawyers.
• Net Income – it’s eye opening that 28% of respondents had net income under $50,000 annually.
• Advertising – largest group, 58%, still said Yellow Pages are their primary advertising investment…I guess Foonberg’s right about this.
• Non-lawyer assistants – only half of respondents have an hourly billable fee for assistants.

The above was the title of an interesting news piece here. I think the concept is very applicable for lawyers…essentially the issue is how should introverts sell themselves.

Some of it is a mindset change and some of it should be a change in perspective. At some level us introverts (I lean this way…although I do enjoy public speaking, I have some hermit tendencies) need to know that when we’re “bragging” to someone quite often the recipient is saying/thinking, “boy that’s useful information that I’m glad I now have.”

Also play to your strengths:

If you’re like most introverts, you’re much better at communicating via the written word rather than orally. So when you want to make your accomplishments known to your colleagues and/or supervisor(s), play to your strength and use the written word, be it by an e-mail message or a formal written letter.

You’ll have all the time you need to put together your thoughts, and in most cases the words you ultimately choose will be much more compelling and persuasive than they will be if you talk person to person. Moreover, you’ll be better able to control your emotions by using the written word, and you’ll take nerves and hesitancy out of the equation.

There was an interesting appellate ruling out of the First District Appellate court last week…Wolf v. Wolf. Take a read, essentially a lawyer had represented a wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, and lawyer filed suit against client for unpaid fees. And the clients response: lawsuit for legal malpractice! Trial court had dismissed the legal malpractice suit but the appellate court reversed.

Take a read through it, it’s a critical read for those of you (me included) in the domestic relations field. Essentially the plaintiff/wife entered into a marital settlement agreement to settle the dissolution of marriage case. It sounds like the wife testified at a prove-up that she was satisfied with the agreement and the representation by the attorney. After the dissolution was over apparently the now ex-wife discovered assets of the husband that were not known to her when she entered into the marital settlement agreement.

What I’d like to know and what isn’t in the appellate court case is whether or not the marital settlement agreement (MSA) contained waiver language saying that I client know that we didn’t do as much discovery as would be ideal because I client wanted to settle the case and get it over with quickly…this is often included in MSAs. Because this general situation arises all the time in divorce cases that settle fairly quickly and you as lawyer know you haven’t uncovered everything you’d like to but the client wants the case over. So you throw some of this “waiver” language in the MSA. If the “waiver” language doesn’t do the trick do we have to extend cases for discovery purposes merely to protect ourselves??

Short but sweet post from GAL here…here’s the snippet I think is extremely wise:

Instead of cases just meandering forward, each day the lawyer’s required to think strategically. The lawyer has to anticipate what moves on offense need to occur in order to achieve the result. The lawyer has tremendous incentive to achieve that result sooner, rather than later. This is because hours of time now count against him/her in contrast to the hourly billing approach where hours count against the client.

Isn’t that true? “Meandering” is a great adjective to describe hourly billing; I’m guilty sometimes.

What should we do with these?

At a basic level it just seems stupid that this individual has hired you and now is completely failing to take your advice. This past week has been quite trying because I’d say the 2-3 clients we have that are most guilty of this “listening problem” had activity regarding their cases. It’s a tough issue because I think the cause of this “problem” varies so greatly…there’s not one answer to the question.

At one extreme which I think was at the core of my problem this week were just some individuals who were/are extremely anxious people…and I don’t know the clients that well personally but I suspect the problem(s) I’ve dealt with in how to proceed regarding a couple of real estate transactions are probably evident in even more basic decisions in their lives (where to eat lunch, ect.). Due to some contractual deadlines in a couple of these scenarios I think my mindset was just sort of to do my best, suck it up, and know that it’s all going to be over in a couple days either in way that I think proper and advantageous to my client or not, end of story. I really don’t have a problem being objective and thick-skinned when clients are wacko. But what I need to do better and encourage others to do is to not let these wackos control your days/weeks with never-ending calls and make sure they’re PAYING for the extra time to air their frustrations to me.

I think the tougher call is the court case where there isn’t necessarily an end in sight (many divorces really are 30 years cases by the time people battle over their kids/finances until the kiddos are out of college). If there’s a reasonable disagreement between you and a client it’s likely in every ones best interest to part ways. Further, obviously if clients are suggesting you take a course that has you heading toward ethical violations you must withdraw. I see this not too infrequently in the domestic relations area where clients want to harass their spouse/ex in discovery regarding items that are totally not relevant to the case.

Finally, how do we get clients to listen to us as the one voice or the expert in the case/transaction? Remember the old Bill Parcells “one voice” rule…assistance coaches aren’t allowed to speak with the media (football season kicks off next week right?). I hate the: “my friends lawyer said this”…”I’ve never heard of such a thing in my previous real estate deals”…ect. I don’t think this is totally avoidable. Actually as I dwell on it I really think this tendency is an out-cropping of peoples desire to not face tough decisions and bad situations. We as lawyers should make it our goal to advise and encourage clients to face harsh realities when they exist. That said…I think a lot of people are always going to look for other “experts” for the simple fact that they don’t want to face the tough situations and someone always has another answer that sounds better/easier.

The Times had a nice overview regarding 4-5 people who had transitioned from blog hobbyists to blog business people including our old friend Jeremy Blachman.

Here’s the link to Michael Sherman’s eBook on the above. I’m going to scour this myself…I know we’re leaving money on the table and I think most lawyers are!