Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

Some nuggets I e-mailed to myself and finally got around to reading…

So You Want to Go Solo? You Sure? I was underwhelmed by this piece from the November ABA Journal…with the title I thought this would be useful and it’s not a short article. Several note-worthy persons are quoted in the article but perhaps the author didn’t ask the right questions or something. The best take-a-way:  “Like it or not, having a viable solo practice requires sales skills as much as legal skills.”

10 Ways to Conquer Your Procrastination. I struggle with this, not sure if it’s this general “procrastination” or just a malaise related to not enjoying the work that sits before me enough. The 2 best tips:  Embrace Discipline and Set a Big Goal.

Facebook a friend to small businesses. This includes some great tips and frankly it’s an area I’m deficient in. We’ve had an SIC group on Facebook for a while but it’s misguided…clearly a fan page is the way to go. Here’s good lawyer fan page usage. And our friend Ed Poll is profiled in the piece.

Real-Life Lessons in Using Google AdWords. Because one of these days I’m going to finally test these out & because I hear a lot of stories of ineffective usage.

From a recent continuing legal education presentation…

I finally got around to reading this case out of Sangamon County involving a trial court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt against a lawyer. It’s instructive specifically regarding lawyer conduct before a tribunal and I’m a self-labeled “contempt junkie” so that part of the case’s discussion is also useful if you have the same problem.

Briefly, a pro se client seemed to be unsuccessful in getting a motion to modify certain post-divorce financial obligations scheduled before the court although he did get a motion filed. Most courts have some local rule that says you need to set a motion/pleading for hearing in 90ish days from filing or it’s a nullity (you’d need to re-file…it’s treated as if it was never filed). Here, apparently the date of the original filing of the motion was important. Next, pro se client retains lawyer who files motion to set pro se’s previous motion for hearing and lawyer says the pro se motion was still timely BECAUSE it had been noticed up in the past but opposing lawyer had improperly appeared and that the motion set in court was stricken on that day w/o notice to pro se litigant.

And what does “new” lawyer for previously pro se litigant use as evidence of the above scheduling “issue”? An exhibit to his pleading which is a page from the judge’s court scheduling calendar.

Well, so then the case heads down the contempt road. Judge asks lawyer how/where he got the calendar page and lawyer says the clerk gave it to him and clerk denies this and there’s a whole contempt hearing sort of he said/she said between lawyer and judge’s clerk.

Lawyer is eventually held in indirect criminal contempt of court and fined $100 and required to apologize to the court. On appeal they modify to indirect civil contempt and remove the $100 fine. Short opinion and an interesting discussion of types of contempt.

I wonder how comfortable the lawyer is appearing in that judge’s/clerk’s courtroom these days.

A heartfelt thanks to all for the feedback regarding business card design. I heard form 10+ persons between the comments and direct e-mails. It may not be the most riveting topic but I do think the old, paper, “calling card” is still an important branding/marketing device and it’s only the second time since I started my practice that I’ve actually ordered new cards so it was kinda fun. Interestingly, for a few years there it really didn’t seem like I went through too many cards, but recently with a semi-regular speaking engagement(s) and a weekly breakfast marketing meeting I’ve been running through the card supplies more quickly.

I ended up ordering through uPrinting.com and was quite satisfied. Frankly, I looked at some local businesses but the easy-to-use online design is just critical versus the need to call or go somewhere in-person, get proofs back, ect.

Some comments on the feedback I got…

Too much information? I heard that from a few commenters but mostly kept the practice area listing. Bottom-line, I still get the calls/confusion from clients about what it is I really do and I hear lots of other lawyers that do too. Plus, it’s always amazing the people who got your name/card at some event years ago and lo-and-behold suddenly need legal services, find my card, and I’d like that person to know what I do.

Personal photograph. To some extent this was just the “picture is worth a thousand words” mindset. I see someone on TV or in a picture I feel like I know her better than just hearing a voice on the phone. And might that familiarity help my retention prospects? Lastly, I’ve been meeting with some other professionals of late (Realtor, insurance guy, financial planner, ect.) and seeing some of their picture cards and I simply liked them. Why don’t more lawyers do it? Is it perceived unsophisticated or something?

2-Sided. As a general statement, why waste half the card when there’s so much you could potentially do on the back…the possibilities are endless. Specific to me, my thinking on the 2-sided cards is hopefully it’s a net positive. Granted the Solo in Chicago stuff is more aspirational than real right now but I do speak fairly regularly at different lawyer events. My card gets in the hands of mainly 2 groups:  other lawyers and potential clients. Lawyers in a sense are the audience who might solicit my services as a speaker/consultant so I want the 2-sides for them. As for clients I’d expect their reaction to be either who cares or wow, this guy is really top notch if he’s sought after for conferences/consulting.

Yep, sometimes I appear in-person and verbalize my “observations” live. So, like The Connected Lawyer, here’s looking forward to some ‘face time’ over the upcoming weeks…

1.  First, modifying a line from the 1989 flick Field of Dreams, our topic, Websites:  If I Build It Will They Come? at the ISBA Solo & Small Firm Conference this Thursday, October 22nd (3:10 p.m.) in Springfield. My colleague Alan Press (An Attorney and a CPA!) and I will run through some beginner/intermediate level guidance on basic Web design, turning Web visitors into clients, and shifting repetive tasks from your secretary to your Website. I was a tad slow in getting going on this but now I think I have some good things to say. Plus, I’m looking forward to that Friday night reception at the Old State Capital (What’s the ISBA going to do once this Lincoln bi-centenial is over?).

2.  And Saturday, November 21st at Northwestern’s Law School, Ms. JD’s 3rd Annual Avenues to Advancement conference I’m moderating a distinguished panel entitled, Paths to Independence: Starting & Building Your Solo Practice. I was just at NU last week for the ARDC’s CLE (post to come) and it’s fun to be just off the Mag Mile and there’s a great view of Lake Michigan too. Myself excluded, there are really some impressive panelists on my program and across the conference. Yet as one of like only 5 male panelists, I must admit I can’t help thinking back to Alex P. Keaton on a Family Ties episode where he goes to jail to impress a girl he was pursuing exclaiming, “Today, I am a woman.”  Sign-up here.

Take a peak HERE and PLEASE COMMENT!

So I had my first criminal trial down at the Cook County Criminal Court (26th & California) last week. As the defendant’s lawyer I had a pleasant experience…I thought my case was strong. Here’s a previous post about the case. Ruling to come next month so we’ll really see how “pleasant” it really was in about 30 days here.

One thing I did like about the criminal setting was my perception at least that those judges are used to making decisions and running trials. During most of my court work in civil land with many judges it feels like they want to avoid trials and avoid making decisions at all costs which often leads to unnecessary frustration and delay. Granted, it’s a fine line between encouraging settlement and unnecessary delay, but eventually like Richard Nixon supposedly said to candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower during the “fund controversy” during the 1952 election, “you’ve got to sh&$%# or get off the pot.”

Another learning point was one that young lawyers likely must learn repeatedly early in their careers (and perhaps non-young lawyers). And that is simply getting comfortable with the feeling of never really knowing everything and being 100% prepared. In the back of my mind I’ve often thought that at some point I’ll be real comfortable and confident heading into all of my meetings and particularly court appearances. But that’s not so and I don’t think that’s the nature of being an attorney. The reality is you’re constantly dealing with changing statutes, court rules, and different fact patterns and being all-knowing isn’t possible. I was nervous heading into my first criminal court case but in knowing the case backwards and forwards, doing the legal research, and talking with a few colleagues I was as ready as I possibly could be.

And that’s usually all you can do. Now to master that mindset for those future unusual cases…

Saw this over at Illinois Lawyer Now a couple days back. Here are the 10:

• Carmen Kathleen Aguilar
• Clarence Lewis Burch
• LaGuina Clay-Clark
• Neil H. Cohen
• Stephen James Connolly
• William Edward Gomolinski
• William Richard Jackson Jr.
• Demetrios George Kottaras
• Bernard Joseph Sarley
• Jeffrey L. Warnick

None of the names ring a bell with with me. Here’s some greater detail from the For What It’s Worth blog.

Nevertheless, see you in court!

Well, it’s not quite a death in the family but…

Pulled that quote from this piece at law.com about law firms suing former clients for back fees. ABA Journal had an erely similar article on the same day…and now I’m posting about it. Interesting that one of the law firm’s suing former client allegedly was owed $400,000 in fees.

Who stays in a case where there’s that large of an unpaid bill?

I’m still for the most part following this “collection policy” with my firm. Personally I have never sued a client for fees (with a caveat to come) nor seen it done at the two smallish firms I worked at prior to my current set-up. However, as someone who practices a good amount in cases covered by the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, there is a specific section of that Act (508) which allows a former attorney to bring a fee petition against a former client (typically you bring a fee petition immediately after you withdraw). I have used this mechanism and will continue to do so…you get a judgment without the hassle of filing a separate suit.