Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Just a light re-post for the holiday weekend…this story has got some play in the local media:  Chicago lawyer objects to buxom woman at trial table.

Attorney Thomas Gooch says the woman’s sole purpose “is to draw the attention of the jury away from the relevant proceedings” — a dispute over a used car. He asks Cook County Circuit Judge Anita Rivkin-Carothers to order the woman to sit in the gallery with other spectators.

In responding to the pretrial motion, attorney Dmitry N. Feofanov said the woman is his paralegal assistant and contends Gooch cites no “good faith legal argument” why she can’t sit at counsel’s table. Feofanov, who in the past has described himself as a “consumer protection lawyer,” asked Rivkin-Carothers to impose sanctions on Gooch for his motion.

Gooch told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin he wasn’t objecting to the woman because she is buxom, but because he doesn’t think she is a paralegal.

“Personally, I like large breasts,” he said. “However, I object to somebody I don’t think is a qualified paralegal sitting at the counsel table — when there’s already two lawyers there — dressed in such a fashion as to call attention to herself.”

Funny, funny…I had a real knock-down trial once with Mr. Gooch. I’ll just say he’s “interesting.”

Who doesn’t like attending Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs?

I’m always amused at the ‘CLE rush’ that’s happening currently as second-half-of-the-alphabet folks like me need to complete our CLE requirements by the end of June. I’m getting bombarded by e-mail and telemarketer CLE spam with all sorts of seminar offerings…finish your 24 credit hours in a single day, YES! Granted I’m sure there are some part-time practitioners who are just doing the minimum CLE to keep their law licenses active but I really don’t get any full-time serious lawyer who needs to cram to finish 24 CLE hours over 2 years. If you really don’t enjoy learning and improving your lawyering and business skills what are you doing with your professional life? Seriously.

A single CLE seminar can be potentially transformative to your legal services business and thus your life too. Maybe it’s dramatic improvement within your current practice area, or, a new/captivating practice area discovered, or, perhaps a game-changing business concept. I think I stumbled into a “game-changer” recently at one of the Chicago Bar’s lunch-time Solo/Small Firm Practitioners committee meeting entitled, Creating a Niche Practice (full webinar available to CBA members).

The primary presenters were Steven Gursten at Michigan Auto Law and Morgan Adams, the Tennessee Trucking Accident Lawyer. I thought a very compelling case was made to really narrow one’s law practice and do things a LOT different than how law practices have traditionally done things.

My 3 top takeaways:

Start with a descriptive name/URL (practice area, geographic area, both?)…lawyer last name law firms mean nothing. I think that’s a great macro-level point…what does “The Law Office of Joe Smith” mean to anyone other than Joe’s 100 person social network maybe 3 of whom are potential clients. Note Steve’s (Michiganautolaw.com) & Morgan’s (Tennesseeaccidentlaw.com) Web addresses. Is your Web address selection becoming maybe the most important decision a potential legal entrepreneur makes? I’ve definitely been checking out some domain names for a couple niches I’d like to hit harder since I attended the program. Your Web address helps your business now and it’s a valuable asset for selling in the future. This may be tough if you’re real early in your career in terms of knowing what niche(s) to pursue but as you learn what you like go register a handful of domain names…it’s not costly to register a Website for a year or 2 ($25 a year I believe with our host).

Inbound (effective) vs. Outbound (less effective) Marketing. The distinction here was “inbound” where people are coming to you vs. “outbound” where you’re going to them in obtrusive ways like direct mail or television commercials with the point being that outbound marketing is losing it’s effectiveness. I’ve been a critic of outbound marketing or general public advertising for sometime; it’s expensive and the return is horrible. The inbound idea is new to me. I heard this to be a combination of our DIY culture and akin to people starting their problem solving with a Google search…say by searching “special needs trust attorney Chicago.” Then if you have the right Web address and the quality niche blog, eBooks, white papers, and videos in the area that potentially solves a persons problem then they’ll be inbound to you and your Website.

What’s Hot and What’s Not…ABA. I was tipped-off to this twice annual listing that’s put out by the ABA’s Law Practice Magazine and Robert Denney Associates. It’s a rating of law practice area trends that is helpful to review as you considering “niche-ing” your practice. Here’s the latest version.

Illinois & political corruption; Jack & Jill; chicken & waffles; bees & honey; peanut butter & jelly; and, bankruptcy & divorce.

What are things that just kind of go together?

Despite the underlying truths involving those pairs I’ll admit for all the domestic relations cases I’m involved with my bankruptcy knowledge is lacking. I do know that there’s something called an “Automatic Stay” that means stop. But what exactly does “stop” mean. I know it means that collection efforts must cease.

But what if there’s an active domestic case pending when the bankruptcy’s filed…what should you do? Read In re Hall-Walker, case no. 10-42783, from the Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court. Some of the facts…

Former wife’s BK case filed 9/24/10 with a 1/31/11 proof of claim date. Former husband is listed as a schedule F creditor in the BK. In domestic relations court the former husband w/ attorney had been pursuing civil contempt proceedings regarding the former wife’s obligation to refinance a mortgage on the parties’ mortgage on a former marital residence.

10/14/10 is the first status date in the domestic relations contempt case subsequent to the BK filing. Another status date in the domestic relations case was set for 4/5/11. And this is what got the former husband’s domestic relations attorney in trouble for violation of the automatic stay.

In the BK case the former wife filed a motion seeking damages for violation of the automatic stay alleging that the automatic stay was violated when collection efforts were pursued while the stay was in effect. Damages were sought against the former husband’s domestic relations attorney.

The BK court found that the 10/14/10 domestic relations order setting the matter for a status date on 4/5/11 was a willful violation of the automatic stay. The former husband’s domestic relations attorney eventually settled the BK damages issue for $5,000.

I think that is a SCARY holding because I could have seen myself doing the same thing. My reading of the case is that the proper procedure once the BK case got filed was at the 10/14/10 domestic relations status date to enter an simple order stating “this matter is stayed pursuant to former wife’s BK case” with no future court dates taken. Then either attempt to life the automatic stay in the BK case or collect the debt through the BK case.

Any BK practitioners out there…what’s the right move?

First, the Disaster Legal Services Manuel put out by ISBA (free resource). A useful lawyer and non-lawyer resource.

Second, whether you’re in a CLE hours crunch or golly, you just want to learn something to make yourself a better lawyer and business person…a free CLE from ARDC:

Law Practice Transitions: The Ethical Obligations When Selling, Closing or Leaving a Law Practice.

I was sitting around a small claims courtroom recently and observed a trial between 2 pro se litigants involving a cement patio paving job gone bad. The end result was a $1,200 judgment for the Plaintiff…the homeowner who brought the suit against a couple of laborers who had breached a contract and did a lousy job paving a patio.

I listened to some 30 minutes of testimony in the case and the Defendant in defending his shoddy work got me thinking back to this post:  Another Problem with Under Billing. It came out that the Plaintiff had gotten some good positive feedback about the Defendant’s previous work. Then the Plaintiff mentioned that a couple other cement installers had quoted her prices in the $1,500+ range. The Defendant put on his defense and admitted that he used an inferior quality of cement and in his words he had to use the cheaper/inferior cement since he was only charging the Plaintiff $1,200. In essence the Defendant’s explanation was I didn’t charge the Plaintiff enough to do a quality job. He spoke of the laborers he had to pay and he had to pay a commission to someone, etc., etc.

Here’s an excerpt from the post above about how this exact “cheap cement” scenario plays out with lawyers too…different product/same problem:

You take on client X perhaps due to a healthy degree of human empathy due to client’s difficult circumstances, often both legal and financial. And perhaps you take a smaller retainer than you should and you charge a lower hourly rate than you should. I don’t think the lower hourly has to kill ya but the lower retainer is poor judgment. But it’s what I’ve seen happen next that’s the real killer. Because you want to “keep the bill down” for the poor client you sort of “under work” the case. And speaking about a time or two in my own practice I’m surely not saying I was at the level of ignoring the case or being at a level were the ARDC might come calling. But instead of say regular “A+” work I was doing “B” level work to keep the bill down. But, when the case doesn’t go just like the poor, sympathetic client wants it to go, he/she is just as unhappy as the well-heeled client whom you gave the A+ service too.

And the inevitable result is a client who you’ve under-billed and who is now unhappy and who likely will be under-paying and you’re unsatisfied because you didn’t do your best work and you’re now both underpaid and under-appreciated.

Very damaging stuff from pleadings to patios…small civil judgments to real reputation damage.

Here’s another free give-away opportunity…win 500 high quality letterheads from UPrinting. Starting a new firm? Opening a new location? Planning a big marketing mailing? Make a splash with top notch marketing materials.

List your best legal business tip in the comment section of this post…I pick the winner.
Prize Details:
Quantity : 500
5.5″x8.5″
70lb Offset
Front Only Printing
4 Business Days Turn Around Time

Restriction: Limited to US residents 18 years old and above only.

This giveaway is sponsored by UPrinting, no monetary compensation was given and I will receive letterheads for hosting. Check out more information about envelope printing.

Like/Follow UPrinting on Facebook and Twitter or sign up on GiveawayBlogs.

AND THE WINNER IS…

Eric Whitmore, Kennesaw, Georgia…from the red hills of northern Georgia to the shores of Lake Michigan we welcome all comers here at SIC. Here’s the winning tip that seems obvious yet I think is often ignored:

In addition to local law libraries, check regular libraries for their legal book holdings. I was surprised to find expensive westlaw treatises on immigration and real estate law on the shelves of the reference section of my local county library. That said, be sure to check the year of the most recent update.

Thanks for the many comments and hope to do it again soon…I’m just about ready for some new business cards myself, hint/hint UPrinting.