Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

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 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!

Stumbled upon this resource from a tweet by the venerable Ed Poll. He’s got a bunch of great instructive videos up on YouTube that look like they’re worth exploring. He provides an easy-to-follow ‘to-do’ list.

Nope, that’s not a description of hallucinogenic drugs. Actually, it’s a funny quote from this NYT’s blog post:  Lock the Law School Doors, it’s actually meant to describe the allure of the big money and prestige of Big Law.

As you might guess from the title, the artilcle is a warning of the less-than-great job prospects that face law school graduates currently and likely into the foreseeable future. Interesting that the U. of Miami’s law school dean wrote to members of this fall’s class with a similar warning and asking that students defer entrance into law school this fall.

Of course this isn’t a new story, this was the best analysis I’ve seen in recent years discussing the legal job market and here’s a piece from the last month, Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools. I think we’ve seen the recent highlights because as often happens during a recession, many with poor job prospects or laid-off workers head to law school and many schools have seen increased class sizes this fall.

My take, you can’t argue with the economic reality and the dwindling (temporarily or likely permanently) of the $150k+ gigs for BigLaw associates. Hopefully law schools will use this time of economic change to broaden their career services viewpoint (make the PIE bigger). During law school I felt that there was very much an institutional preference for large firm private practice both indirectly through the comments of faculty and more directly in terms of the on-campus interviews being almost exclusively large private practice law firms. Why not increase that pie significantly by getting government/business beyond private practice on-campus…from the FBI/CIA to nonprofit management to think tank type places. Also, as quoted in the orignal piece:

“Students may just have to make it in a more entrepreneurial fashion.”

Welcome!

Because if you have your own practice you’re an entrepreneur and small business person before you’re a lawyer…

You’re the Boss:  The Art of Running a Small Business

A diverse group of contributors including a Chicago small businessman.

The Journal recently had one of their separate sections with the above title with the lead article listing/discussing 10 questions “to see if you have what it takes.” Here are the Journal’s 10 questions with a little commentary from SIC:

1. Are you willing and able to bear great financial risk?

–Roughly half of start-ups close, period. I didn’t say fail but yes the businesses close. What financial goals can/can’t you afford to sacrifice in order to fund your start-up?

2. Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for potentially many years?

–I found and still find this one to be a bit of a challenge. I think this is why a lot barons of industry actually came from rather poor backgrounds…because they don’t mind the initial start-up sacrifice. Not to skip ahead to #3 too much but I surely had my spouse on board before starting my law practice but what do you do with the expectations of friends and extended family? Some of the vacations and expensive “going out” and rounds of golf need to be tempered for a few years, so be ready and able to say NO a lot for a few years.

3. Is your significant other on board?

–I think this goes without saying but to put on my family lawyer hat for a second, clearly financial issues are at the root of most divorces.

4. Do you like all aspects of running a business?

–I don’t but sometimes it’s necessary for me to do “things” and for the things I dislike most I hire people or outsource. I think what’s critical is enjoying the businesses primary function and viewing it as useful or important and then the ugly side of business is just sort of a necessary evil that is necessary in all forms of business. But, if you don’t like the primary function, then you’re talking about total drudgery.

5. Are you comfortable making decisions on the fly with no playbook?

–Important question but create a business plan and make sure you have several advisers/mentors you can call on when necessary.

6. What’s your track record of executing your ideas?

–Seems self-explanatory. Saw this good article today…”as long as you’re reading about what to do, you’re not doing what you need to do.”

7. How persuasive and well-spoken are you?

8. Do you have a concept you’re passionate about?

–I think there’s an important distinction to be made here and to acknowledge an error I made. When I left being an employee to become a legal services entrepreneur I think I made the change less based on what I was passionate about and more based on what I was not passionate about regarding my then current employer. And I think this held me back because once I’m out on my own it doesn’t matter how I felt while working at some past job, now I’ve got to be motivated to make this new gig work and at times that was lacking.

9. Are you a self-starter?

10. Do you have a business partner?

–Definitely something you should strive for based on this post and #4 above.