Legal Ease Blog

Big Ideas About The Future of Law in 6 Minutes - LexThink.1 2013

The videos from this year's LexThink.1 presentations have been posted. 

In case you don't know about LexThink.1, it's an event that is usually held in conjunction with the ABA TECHSHOW. LexThink.1 takes place the evening before TECHSHOW begins.

Here's the format: 10 speakers, each with only 6 minutes to speak on a particular topic related to the future of law practice (this year's theme was "Disruption"), and each presentation includes 20 slides (which are automatically advanced every 18 seconds by the event host, not by the presenters themselves).

Potential speakers submit proposals to LexThink, and those proposals are put up for a vote on the LexThink website. According to the rules,  the top seven vote-getters are automatically selected to speak and the LexThink committee selects the final three.

This year, all of the presenters were men, and only nine presentations were given. The tenth scheduled presenter was Sarah Glassmeyer, whose topic was, "Disruption in Publishing. A Librarian’s Perspective. (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Free Law)," but unfortunately Sarah was unable to present on the evening in question.

I always enjoy LexThink.1, in part because I can only imagine how difficult it must be to whittle a 'big idea' down to only 6 minutes, and to be disciplined enough to stay exactly on track with the scheduled slide changes - not to mention being able to convey the idea articulately during that time. There's certainly no time to get flustered or to lose your place!

As with anything else, whether the ideas and the content are brilliant or not, some people are simply better presenters (in this format) than others. I like watching to see who shines with this format, how they manage it, and whose content would be great if only it were presented in a different way.

But I also enjoy LexThink.1 because it's interesting to see the ideas that come from the presentations and the discussions they provoke afterwards, both online and at TECHSHOW itself.

You can see all of this year's LexThink.1 presentations here, but here's a list of the presenters and their presentation titles.

Eric Hunter: Big Data or Big Brother?

Dan Pinnington: Legal Services in a Global Village – Jurisdiction Changes Everything

Phillip Rosenthal: Flattening the Legal Tower of Babel: Fishing for a means to remove language barriers from the law

Chad Burton: The Future of Virtual Law

Will Hornsby: Gaming the System: Are lawyers ready to game-up?

Roe Frazer: Knowing Unknowns – The Key to Intelligent Lawyering

Jay Shepherd: Don’t Do What You’re Good At

Mark Britton: LegalZoom is Eating Legal’s Lunch

Matt Spiegel: The Death of the Office

Matt Homann: The Decline of the Machines – What the Unabomber Can Teach Us About Legal Learning

(In case you're interested, although I thought there were a number of great presentations this year, one of my favorits was Jay Shepherd's. Maybe it's because he starts off by pointing out how many unhappy lawyers there are, but then moves to showing lawyers that they need to take advantage of their 'outstandingness' - you can see Jay's  presentation below, or watch it here.)

Let me know in the comments which presentations were your favorites.

Finally, if you're into the six minute 'thing,' here's a six minute video the TECHSHOW folks put together of the "60 sites in 60 minutes" presentation from this year:

(You can find the presentation on YouTube here), or take a look at a list of the sites here.

ILTA 2012 Conference Happenings

ILTA 2012, with the theme "ac2dc," is getting underway today in Washington, DC. Although I won't be attending the conference this year, I did get some of the inside scoop on what some legal technology companies will be announcing at the conference this week:

Levit & James (booth#419)

Levit & James, Inc., who specializes in technology for attorneys and law firms, will be celebrating its 25^th Anniversary at ILTA. Its Table of Authorities software, Best Authority, is used by many of the largest U.S. law firms. The company will be previewing Best Authority 3.0 at ILTA.

World Software Corporation - Worldox (booth#706-708)
World Software Corporation, one of the biggest players in the Document Management Systems (DMS) category, is announcing the new release of Worldox GX3 Enterprise, the most recent Worldox release adapted for multi-office, remote access environments. The Enterprise version features fast connectivity from on-site desktops, remote offices and out-of-office machines. World Software Corp. will also be co-hosting a Peer to Peer - Beer to Beer event and they will be demonstrating their GX3 Product in one of the ILTA demo rooms.

HighQ (booth#930)
UK-based HighQ will be showcasing HighQ Collaborate 2.3, the latest release of their cloud-based collaboration platform for document sharing and social collaboration. The latest release is said to include over 40 new features. HighQ will be demonstrating Collaborate 2.3 and other products at their booth and will also be hosting a KM party on Thursday from 4:30-5:30pm in the foyer outside National Harbor 4&5.

Capensys (booth#417)
Capensys, a technology training and learning solutions company that works with law firms to help with training on MS Office, document management systems and associated legal applications, is announcing the release of their new KnowledgeCheck Learning Portal, a web-based resource to make learning as easy and organized as possible.

Informative Graphics Corp. (not exhibiting)
Informative Graphics Corporation will be previewing the latest Brava HTML viewer with markup capability. Scheduled for official release in September 2012, the new HTML viewer makes Brava accessible across all operating systems and major web browsers including Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome and Safari.  

Educational Sessions

The ILTA Conference also promises many exciting keynote presentations and educational sessions, including sessions on customer service, document management and client confidentiality, disaster recovery, backups, videoconferencing, information management, cloud computing, e-discovery, finance and more.

Are you attending ILTA 2012? Let us know in the comments what you think of the conference!

 

Ethics Rules Updates: How Do Technology and Globalization Affect the Practice of Law?

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has released resolutions and reports to be submitted to the House of Delegates at the upcoming ABA annual meeting scheduled in August concerning recommendations and changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. An overview of these resolutions and reports can be found on the American Bar Association site. 

While each state has is own set of Rules, many states follow the ABA's lead, and craft their rules based on the ABA Model Rules. As always, I recommend that you review the rules in your own jurisdiction as well as reviewing the ABA Model Rules and comments.

The Commission did make several recommendations, some of which are highlighted below, but they did not recommend a complete overhaul or substantial changes to the Rules.

Technology

One of the main areas addressed by the Ethics 20/20 Commission was the effect of technology on legal ethics, and the need for some clarification (and in some cases, slight expansion) of the Model Rules with regard to new technologies. The Commission noted that technology has changed the way lawyers communicate with clients, the manner in which clients find a lawyer, how discovery and investigations are conducted, and how legal services are provided. Electronic communication and mobility also affect client confidentiality. 

The report makes it clear that lawyers must be up to date on technology in order to serve their clients well and to comply with their ethical obligations.

The Commission's proposals include:

Expansion of Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), identifying various factors lawyers should use to determine whether the measures they are taking to protect a client’s confidential information from inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized disclosure, and unauthorized access - regardless of the medium used - are reasonable.

That the  ABA create and maintain a regularly updated user-friendly website to provide more specific and timely guidance regarding lawyers’  use of commonly encountered technology

An amendment to Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) to explicitly include the phrase, "including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology” as part of a lawyer's obligation to remain competent

An update to Model Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons) regarding notification of receipt of electronic material (including emails and metadata contained within electronic documents) which was inadvertently sent

Change to comment 4 to Rule 1.4 (Communications) indicating that lawyers should not only promptly respond to client telephone calls, but should promptly respond to client communications of any type.

Amendments to Model Rule 1.18 (Duties to Prospective Client) and its Comments, including a new Comment to "help lawyers identify the precautions that they should take to prevent the inadvertent creation of a prospective client-lawyer relationship in a digital age and help the public understand the consequences of communicating electronically with a lawyer."

An update to Model Rule 7.2 (Advertising) to clarify obligations with regard to pay per click and pay per lead advertising and sharing fees with non-lawyers.

Amendments to Model Rule 7.3 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients) to provide guidance about when a lawyer's online communications rise to the level of "solicitations."

You can read the Commissions resolutions regarding technology and confidentiality here.

Globalization and Cross-Jurisdictional Practice

One of the results of new technology is globalization of the legal marketplace; the Commission notes that clients increasingly expect their lawyers to be able to practice in multiple jurisdictions, and the economy has forced many lawyers to relocate. These changes can create ethical issues for lawyers as well.

The Commission has recommendations related to these issues, including:

Changes to the Model Rules (and the addition of a new rule) regarding practice in a new jurisdiction.

Changes to Comments for Rules 1.1 (Competence), 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer  Assistants) and 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice)to give further guidance about the use of lawyers or non-lawyers from outside the firm to assist on a client's matter.

The resolutions related to outsourcing (whether lawyers or non-lawyers) can be found here, and you can read the resolutions regarding changing firms, mergers and sale of a law practice here.

Future Developments

The Commission is still working on a report regarding alternative law firm structures.

To learn more, read this article in this month's ABA Journal.

New York Judge Sides with Law Firm on Fee Dispute Issue

Earlier this week, in a case entitled, Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady, LLP v. Michael Rose, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden sided with a law firm in a fee dispute with a client who began paying the firm, but never completed all of the payments.

According to a New York Law Journal article about the case, the judge's opinion cited the "account stated rule;" since the client paid part of the bill, the client was deemed to have accepted the entire billing as valid.

The opinion notes that during the first year the firm represented Rose, monthly bills were regularly paid, but that those regular payments ended in January 2006, following which sporadic partial payments were made up until August 2009.

Notably, the firm contends that Rose did not contest any portion of any outstanding bill until late in November 2009, when minimal objections were made for a total of less than $3,000, which the firm subtracted from the amount it sought to recover from Rose in the suit. Once the suit was commenced, Rose did not assert in his answer that there was any malpractice or misconduct on the part of the firm, however, these allegations were raised subseqently when the firm attempted to assert a charging lien against the proceeds of the settlement previously negotiated by the firm on Rose's behalf. Rose was subsequently provided a number of opportunities to amend his answer to assert claims of malpractice, but never did so.

The court found that there was an implicit agreement that Rose would pay the firm's outstanding bills, stating that an implicit agreement to pay can be the result of either "the absence of any objection to a bill within a reasonable time or a partial payment of the outstanding bills.” (citing additional cases). The court noted that the client claimed to have objected orally to the bills earlier, but these undocumented assertions, without specifics about when the objections were made, to whom, which invoices and specific charges were objected to, and what the substance of the conversation with the firm was, were insufficient to defeat the firm's claim of account stated.

In this case, one of the saving graces for the law firm was the level of detail contained in their bills. This, coupled with the late (and extremely vague) objections from the client about the outstanding charges, served the firm well. Word to the wise: document the work done for your clients well, and be sure to keep good records of oral communications, too.

 

 

 

Managing Documents and Information: ABA TECHSHOW 2012 Session Highlights

This is the second in my series of posts on this year's ABA TECHSHOW. You can find my first post, a brief overview of Techshow 2012, here.

I didn't attend nearly as many sessions at TECHSHOW this year as I usually do - instead, I spent lots of time in the exhibit hall, talking to vendors and just mingling and networking. In this post, I'll share some highlights from some of the sessions I did attend. But a quick side note first:

Earlier this week I was listening to Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell's podcast, the Kennedy-Mighell Report on Legal Talk Network entitled, "OMG! Lawyers are Texting?" During that podcast, Tom made an interesting observation. He said that he believes that people may be getting a skewed view of Techshow if they watch the tweets and social media postings coming out of Techshow, because those posts tend to talk more about things like cloud computing, social media, apps and gadgets, and don't necessarily cover things like document assembly, collaboration tools or e-discovery, which are also covered extensively at the conference.

Dennis noted that as a result of following this conference virtually, you miss the nuance and anecdotes from sessions by trying to follow the social media reporting, but at least it can point you in the direction of a topic or speaker that you can follow up with later. So for those of you who have never attended TECHSHOW, be sure to take a look at the TECHSHOW site and look at the full conference list and descriptions before deciding that TECHSHOW isn't for you. Take the real-time reporting with a grain of salt, and consider the source and their perspective.

The two sessions reviewed here don't fall into the "social media-apps-gadgets" category. Instead, they're all about managing documents and information.

Managing the Information Tsunami

Presenters Natalie Kelly and Barron Henley reminded the audience that "80% of a firm's "knowledge" is stored in non-structured data, such as electronic docs and email." Add that to the paperwork that doesn't seem to stop, even in an increasingly digital world, and you've got an "information tsunami." Since one of the biggest issues I work with lawyers on is managing their workflow and information, I can relate.

This session reinforced the notion that if you want to reduce paperwork and keep control of your electronic documents and all of the information related to a particular client or file, it is imperative that you have one, single, integrated electronic system for everything, including documents, emails and notes that you generate, as well as documents and information received elsewhere (such as from clients, adversaries, etc). It is also important that the electronic file replicate the paper file, with the same file and folder structure, and that everyone follow strict naming conventions for all documents.

Here are some of the basic elements of a good information management system, outlined by the presenters:

1. Backup systems and security: Make sure your information is protected and backed up. Keep multiple copies and a full rolling system - not just an incremental backup. Incremental backups may be corrupted, too.
2. Scanners: Distributed scanning is better than relying solely on a bulk scanner/copier, which not only stores the scanned information (creating potential confidentiality/security issues), but is inconvenient. Smaller scanners on individual desks make scanning much more likely - which means your electronic files will be more reliable.
3. Create Searchable PDFs: This is another reason for distributed scanning; most scanner/copiers do not create searchable PDFs. Searchability is the key to finding what you're looking for quickly and easily.
4. Use a good search program or document management system: if you can't find documents or information once you've entered them into your system, what good are they?
5. Develop a consolidated file structure or document management system: Don't make your file and folder structure too complicated or create too many categories. It makes searching more difficult and creates room for error.
6. Train! Learn how to use what you already have, and be sure to get training on any new systems or programs you install. It will be the best money you spend.
7. Create written protocols: write down how tasks in your system are accomplished (for example, restoring a file, creating a document, etc.) This avoids recreating the wheel when training new employees or performing tasks that are not routine. 

Magic in Minutes - Effective Use of Document Assembly

In the document assembly session, presenters Jim Calloway and Diane Ebersole focused heavily on what they call the "gold standard" of document assembly - HotDocs (so much so that I thought the title and/or description should have indicated as much). For solo and small firm lawyers, HotDocs may be a bit more than the budget allows, so two of the other options mentioned, Pathagoras™ (with a free 90 day trial) and The Form Tool™ (which has both free and paid options), are both worth considering.

In addition to these three document assembly tools, the presentation did cover using some document assembly features contained within tools most lawyers already have. These include the Auto-Correct and Quick Parts features of Microsoft Word (see below). Lawyers can also make use of "text expanders" (such as Phrase Express), which do the same thing Quick Parts does, but in any software program.

For lawyers using practice management software, many of these programs are now integrating document assembly tools within the programs themselves. For example, cloud practice management providers MyCase, Clio and Rocketmatter all recently added these tools to their platforms.

Auto-Correct

Jim Calloway gave a demonstration of how to use the (sometimes annoying) Auto-Correct feature of Microsoft Word to your advantage by creating your own abbreviations and adding them to the Replace box in Auto Correct Options, and then entering the full text you would like to appear in the With box, and clicking Add and then OK.

Quick Parts

QuickParts were also demonstrated during the session, and this is one feature of Microsoft Office (it is available in both Word and Outlook) that it seems to me lawyers have not yet discovered, even though it can be extremely helpful, especially in answering frequent client questions or inserting often-used language into letters, etc. Quick Parts will even allow you to save the formatting and place the text into the document pre-formatted or format the text based on the destination document.

As you can see, TECHSHOW has a lot to offer. As an attendee, you not only have access to the  materials from the information you attended, but you can also view and download materials from all of the sessions offered at the conference.

 

ABA TECHSHOW 2012

Last week, I attended the American Bar Association's TECHSHOW, as I have for the past several years. And, as has been the case for the past several years, the internet connection in the exhibit hall and meeting rooms left a lot to be desired. Not only was the wi-fi connection "challenged," but even my brand-new "new" iPad couldn't establish a 4G connection for most of the conference.

Even when I was able to establish a connection, it would often cut out unexpectedly in the middle of a session. Eventually, I gave up and just started taking notes. I missed live-tweeting and blogging during the conference. I apologize to those readers who have been looking forward to my TECHSHOW comments, which I will be posting here in a series of blog posts.

Other than the internet issue, it was, as usual, an amazing conference with something for everyone (although I think it would be great if the TECHSHOW folks would add some more advanced sessions to the vast array of educational offerings, especially for TECHSHOW regulars).

One thing I did thoroughly enjoy was doing the "Meet the Author" session for my new book, co-authored with Dennis Kennedy and published by the ABA Law Practice Management section, LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers. Not only was it great fun to speak to attendees about the book (and LinkedIn in general), but it was a real thrill to see people walking around with the book. I am just sorry my co-author couldn't attend TECHSHOW with me this year.

Another interesting addition to TECHSHOW was the TECHSHOW App which, once downloaded, not only let you see the TECHSHOW schedule and speakers, but also view or download the presentation materials, bookmark your favorite sessions, and keep notes - all right in the app itself. By all accounts, the TECHSHOW App was a big hit, and I'm sure it will be back next year!

Before I get to my more substantive impressions of TECHSHOW, here's a taste of what went on from some other attendees and presenters:

• The ABA Journal's report on Jim Calloway's ABA TECHSHOW plenary:The Future of Law: Dark Clouds or Silver Linings?
  
• Another perspective on the plenary from Slaw.ca
  
  
• A run-down of the 60 (iPhone and iPad) apps in 60 minutes session
• Dave Bilinsky's ABA TECHSHOW 2012 Take-Aways and his perspective on the future of law practice
• Lawyerist Insider ABA TECHSHOW Trip Report

More info and perspectives next week. In the interim, enjoy the Holiday!

 

 

NY Rules on Lawyer Advertising Take Another Hit

 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down another portion of New York's ethical rules governing lawyer advertising which required lawyers who identify themselves as certified specialists to include a prominent disclaimer stating that certification is not required to practice law and does not indicate greater competence. The decision was rendered March 5, 2012.

 

J. Michael Hayes, a trial lawyer from Buffalo, New York, was board certified in trial advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy in 1995. His firm letterhead noted the certification, but did not include a disclaimer. Hayes also ran billboard ads which did include the disclaimer, although the Grievance Committee questioned whether the disclaimer was prominent enough. The Grievance Committee began an investigation and Hayes brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the disclaimer rule. 

The Western District of New York, who initially heard Hayes' challenge, upheld the New York rule, stating that the State had a substantial interest in protecting consumers from potentially misleading attorney advertisements, but the Second Circuit reversed on appeal. The Second Circuit opinion noted that as written, the disclaimer required by the rule may defeat its purpose by creating misunderstandings, rather than dispelling them.

The rule Hayes was alleged to have violated is Rule 7.4, (and its predecessor, Disciplinary Rule 2-105(C)(1) of New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility), which states:

A lawyer who is certified as a specialist in a particular area of law or law practice by a private organization approved for that purpose by the American Bar Association may state the fact of certification if, in conjunction therewith, the certifying organization is identified and the following statement is prominently made:

“[1] The [name of the private certifying organization] is not affiliated with any governmental authority

[2] Certification is not a requirement for the practice of law in the State of New York and

[3] does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other attorneys experienced in this field of law.”¹

The Second Circuit did uphold the first part of the rule, requiring attorneys who advertise that they are certified in a particular field to indicate that the certifying agency is not affiliated with the government. But they struck down the second portion of the rule, that the disclaimer include a statement that certification is not a requirement for the practice of law, holding that it was unlikely that the general public would be misled into thinking that only attorneys with a certified specialty were lawfully practicing law in New York. 

Finally, the Second Circuit addressed the third requirement, that the disclaimer state that certification "does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other attorneys experienced in this field of law." The Court found this statement to be "problematic," stating:

In fact, the qualifications of an attorney certified as a civil trial specialist by the NBTA include having been lead counsel in at least 5 trials and having “actively participated” in at least 100 contested matters involving the taking of testimony, passing an extensive examination, participating in at least 45 hours of CLE, and devoting at least 30 percent of the lawyer’s practice to the specialized field. See http://www.nblsc.us/certification_standards_civil/. These qualifications may reasonably be considered by the certifying body to provide some assurance of “competence” greater than that of lawyers meeting only the criterion of having some experience in the field, and a contrary assertion has a clear potential to mislead.

The Court did note that the prominence requirement lacked specificity, but also acknowledged the difficulty of specifying standards when there are so many potential avenues for attorney advertising.The Court opined that there were some circumstances in which any attorney of reasonable intelligence could determine that the advertisement was in violation of the rule (putting the disclaimer in the same color as the background, etc.), and that under those circumstances, the rule would be facially sufficient.

In this case, the Court found that the rule was unconstitutionally applied to Hayes and his billboard advertisement. The fact that representatives from the Grievance Committee were unable to articulate an objective standard for the rule played into the Court's decision.  

The Second Circuit did not address the question of Hayes' letterhead, since he had previously advised the Grievance Committee that he would modify it according to the rule, and that issue did not reach the Court.

You can find the opinion at: J. Michael Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 10-1587. 

1. It has been noted in previous decisions that where a Rule of Professional Conduct includes quotation marks, the exact language quoted must be used. 

Lawyer Ethics: Is Ignorance an Excuse?

An ethics charge against a lawyer was thrown out by the New Jersey Supreme Court last week, according to Thomson Reuters. But lawyers should still look at this decision as a caution, rather than an excuse to breathe a sigh of relief.

In the New Jersey case, a lawyer was accused of violating the state Supreme Court's rules prohibiting "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," for displaying the seal of the New Jersey Board on Attorney Certification, even though the attorney had not been certified. The seal appeared on numerous pages on the site, and was apparently in place for two years before he found out that the Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising had received a grievance about it.

The ethics hearing panel concluded that a reprimand was warranted because the attorney had a duty to monitor his website and ensure that it contained no improper content, but the Disciplinary Review Board disagreed, stating that inclusion of the seal on the website was unintentional and inadvertent, and that the attorney took it down immediately upon learning of its presence on the site.

The Disciplinary Board did caution that attorneys who inappropriately displayed the seal in the future would be disciplined - and this is what lawyers should expect in all jurisdictions.

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility are the rules upon which many states base their ethical rules.

ABA Model Rule 8.4  Misconduct states in part:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

ABA Model Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning A Lawyer's Services) provides:

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.

ABA Model Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants) provides that lawyers are responsible for making "reasonable efforts" to ensure that the conduct of nonlawyers employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer "is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer"

and that 

"a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if" the lawyer directs the conduct, ratifies it afterward, or has direct supervisory authority over the individual and knows of the conduct "at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action."

Most, if not all states (including New York - See the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 7.1, 5.3 and 8.4) have similar rules.

While the attorney may not have actually known that the seal was in place on his website, based upon the wording of the Rules, this ignorance should not be an excuse. Lawyers are responsible for the conduct of the people they hire and in this age of the internet, lawyers must be aware of the activities undertaken on their behalf to promote their practice online. According to the Reuters article, the seal in question appeared on 16 different pages for two whole years on the attorney's site.

Even if the attorney was actually unaware of the presence of the seal, under these facts, he most certainly should have been aware - and he could not have made "reasonable efforts" to ensure that the individual he hired to develop his website (who happened to be a cousin residing in another state who 'assumed' that all attorneys in New Jersey were certified) complied with the Rules.

 

Are Spring Bonuses a Waste of Money?

A recent article by Amy Kolz of The American Lawyer reports on this year's "spring bonus" system for associates. This past January, a firm-wide email went out at Sullivan & Cromwell announcing spring bonuses to be given based upon an associate's class year, as a result of the firm's improved associate activity and profits per partner in 2010. 

When other firms learned of the spring bonus plan, many jumped on board and paid their associates a spring bonus, too.

Does law firm management need an overhaul? Is "management" even an appropriate term, when associates are given little guidance, their compensation structure is based solely upon the year they graduated from law school or what other big law firms are paying their associates?

According to the article, law firm managers think newly minted lawyers and young associates cannot tell the difference between firms, so they need to keep in step with other firms in terms of 'top compensation' in order to attract the best candidates or retain associates.

But what about training, job satisfaction, interesting work? And what does placing emphasis on bonuses and 'top compensation' do for the future of the practice?

I'm not against firms sharing the windfall of a good year with associates and staff, and I think it sets a good precedent and can help build loyalty, particularly where those bonuses are unexpected, although I think in many instances providing a bonus based purely on the year an associate graduated from law school can be problematic.

In my consulting practice, partners and law firm leaders and managers often complain about the lack of motivation and drive of their young associates. They complain that associates are more focused on compensation and benefits than on learning the practice and doing a good job for clients. But what are these firm leaders doing to develop, train and support their associates? Is it any wonder that associates cannot tell the difference between firms when they play 'follow the leader' in this way?

When firms place their emphasis on billable hours and reward only in dollars, it isn't hard to understand why associates become disenchanted and put in less effort on the job. If firms want associates to see differences and to value being a part of their practice, they have to make some effort to distinguish the experience of working there without relying solely on compensation.

Social Media Affects SEO: Lawyers, Take Note

Since more and more of my clients are (finally!) deciding to create or revise their law firm websites, search engine optimization (SEO) has become a hot topic. But I see far too many shady SEO tactics being employed around the web, and unfortunately, several that are being employed by or on behalf of law firms. (See below for a list of previous posts on this topic)

What should you do instead?

In the days before the internet and internet marketing, if you wanted to drive foot traffic and phone calls to your office, you didn't just open up your office, sit behind your desk and wait for the telephone to ring. What did you do? You got 'out there.' You met people. You did good work for clients. You provided advice. You played golf, or joined the local chamber of commerce or called your college buddies to let them know what you were up to. You picked up the telephone and/or knocked on doors. You developed relationships. 

If you want to build your practice in the internet age, you'll need to do all of those same things on the internet. You need to 'talk' to people - join the discussions, get involved, ask and answer questions, make yourself available to others, let people know who you are and what you do. Offer to help.

What not to do

What doesn't bring you business in the 'real' world won't bring you business on the internet, either. If you're all about YOU, are more concerned about promoting yourself than helping others and providing valuable information, if you have no personality and aren't genuine, you'll be like the pariah that everyone tries to avoid at a cocktail party.

Unfortunately, there are too many "SEO experts" whose tactics are exactly like that cocktail party pariah - posting fake reviews or spam comments, joining social media sites solely for promotional purposes, filling your website with bad but "keyword rich" content that provides no value for those reading it, etc.

Why lawyers need to pay attention to social media

Social media (including blogs) was built for conversation and interaction. That's the point - to develop relationships. And while you're doing that, you're demonstrating your expertise and giving people a glimpse at your personality and at what it might be like to work with you.

But maybe the best reason is that because there is so much content on the internet now, the challenge has become finding responsible, ethical, valuable, trustworthy content. And search engines are recognizing that and starting to give more weight to content on the internet that is seen as 'authoritative' - whether that be in the form of links from other sites, or in the form of 'social authority.'

Entrepreneur and internet expert Neil Patel recently posted about how social media affects SEO, and he points out that search engines such as Bing and Google acknowledge that the number of times a link is passed on through social media such as Facebook and Twitter can definitely affect where that page falls in the search engine rankings. 

According to Patel, "you can assume that social media plays a role in influencing the search engine results by giving preference based on the authority of the author and the number of times a piece of content is shared on social networking sites."

And (as Patel's article also points out) now that Google has its own social media outlet (Google +), there can be little doubt that what is shared there will affect Google search engine rankings.

If you are not sharing your content on social media and building relationsips there, you're missing out. Who will share your content if you don't? 

(Hat tip to +Kevin O'Keefe for bringing Patel's article to my attention with his post on how social media affects SEO)

Want to know more about SEO for lawyers? Try reading these posts:

What should lawyers look for in an SEO strategy?

Beware of underhanded SEO strategies that may hurt, rather than help.

Is your law firm invisible online? Do Something about it

If you liked this post, feel free to share it!