« May 2011 | Main | July 2011 »
June 30, 2011
Time Management Simplified: 6 Things. 11 Words.
1. Family, friends, customers first.
2. Espresso
3. Food
4. Plan Work
5. Work
6. Exercise
7. Sleep
Questions?
Serigraphy, "The important thing is not always important", Adi Holzer 1976.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
June 26, 2011
The Furries: Woofstock in Pittsburgh for 6th straight year.
Wouldn't date one, though. We applaud the return of The Furries here--and we are pleasantly surprised and curious. Has Pittsburgh finally become less culturally conservative, staid and conventional in the past six years? Or do 'Burghers just love cartoons more than the rest of us? See at Reuters "Pittsburgh Inundated by Furries".
Posted by JD Hull at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2011
Well done, New York. GOP-dominant NY state senate votes to legalize gay marriage.
Fresh pepper? Fresh pepper? Last night New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Governor Andrew Cuomo finally lead on a tough issue in a state that always mattters. New York Daily News: "Passage of gay marriage bill tops amazing year for Gov. Andrew Cuomo".
So what are you guys doing later on?
Posted by JD Hull at 07:48 AM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2011
TV Dads, The Atlantic and "The End of Men".
Ever wonder why young male employees type with a lisp? See in the July-August 2010 issue: "The End of Men". And let's not forget that, apart from the fact that women are far more complex and more intricate than men--they always have been--"women power" is not just a matter of women rising in Western culture and in the workplace. In the last half-century, men, especially white collar men, did not just lag behind women in personal and professional development. Men also lost the notion of being men--whatever that means these days--in a modern world.
Yet women stayed women--and in all the best ways. Bravo.
Everyone loves neutered indoor cats. Consider countless male characters on television over the past 30 years. Most are wimpified beyond recognition: sexless cartoon characters, and suburban robot-peasants. Adult "male" TeleTubbies. Sure, they are kind, sweet and understanding, if goofy. They just do what they are told--by either women or a new egalitarian society that gives them mixed messages, and only confuses them, about how they should now be and act. To some extent, television's male characters--pick almost any male sitcom lead from 1950 on--reflect how we see ourselves.
Do men now hold onto the barest sliver of "male" identity? Granted, in even earlier decades, John Wayne's characters could be ridiculous, short-sighted and small; however, they were never pathetic, or stripped of their core aggression and wildness.
What a tool.
Originally posted June 10, 2010.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:59 AM | Comments (5)
June 18, 2011
You thinkin' Evil?
Posted by JD Hull at 11:31 PM | Comments (0)
Posted by JD Hull at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)
Posted by JD Hull at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)
June 17, 2011
Say Cheese, Guys: Rep. Weiner, Close Friend Say Goodbye.
Good call, finally. See in yesterday's The Economist "So Ends A Cocky Tale". Excerpt:
As his congressional colleagues distanced themselves and others called for his resignation, some liberals pushed for him to stay. They have not been defending his despicable behaviour, but his political reputation.
He was, to be fair, a tireless advocate for liberal causes. He defended Obamacare when few others did, and went to bat for NPR when its funding was challenged. He enjoyed verbally jousting with Republicans, and he was good at it. His impressive oratory was the initial draw for at least a few of his online pen pals.
Posted by JD Hull at 10:43 PM | Comments (2)
Real Fathers Day: Nature, Unreconstructed Men and The Wolf's Mannish Boys.
Steve Winwood in 1967: "Well my pad is very messy and there’s whiskers on my chin."
Posted by JD Hull at 12:00 AM | Comments (0)
June 15, 2011
Lucerne.
March 2011 Carnival in Lucerne, Switzerland (Sigi Tischler/EPA)
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:59 AM | Comments (0)
June 14, 2011
Sensitive Litigation Moment No. 26: Discovery and Leading Questions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.
Trial lawyer-writer Evan Schaeffer is always worth reading. See Rule 30 and then read "When Are Leading Questions Permitted During Federal Court Depositions?" at his Trial Practice Tips. Schaeffer is right to remind us: the starting point for lawyers who notice and conduct depositions is knowing it's a direct exam. Therefore, no leading questions are permitted. However, as he notes, most witnesses in depositions, especially for discovery, are adverse, or "hostile". So lead them (as everyone generally does anyway). Use shorter, more "loaded" questions.
But know what you're doing--and why.
Above: In some U.S. firms, squads of generic dweebs who learned "how to think" for three years in law school are deployed to help plan depositions in the business disputes of important clients. Summer clerks--generally law students, and even more dangerous--may work in those same firms May through August.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
"Being in London is getting to me."
From Duncan Campbell King at his soulful and introspective Wrath of a Sumo King.
Posted by JD Hull at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
June 13, 2011
The Great American Tocqueville Discovery.
Was young Alexis a stud or what? Three years ago, on the Sunday editorial page of one of the most conservative papers in America, we applauded Alexis de Tocqueville for that young Frenchman's uncanny prediction in his Democracy in America of a U.S. president exactly like George W. Bush. We had argued that "W", warts and all, and whether you like him or not, is indeed the "new man" Tocqueville kept seeing during his nine months here in 1831.
No American should have been too surprised to wake up in November of 2000 and learn that such a creature got the top job. Tocqueville has been getting high marks for prescience from Americans and Europeans in the last 30 years after being ignored for the first 150 years.
The interesting thing about the reactions to the article is that everyone along the politcal spectrum who read it seemed to like it. Americans are comfortable with "non-egghead" leaders. Every few elections cycles, we even give militantly anti-intellectual, the poorly-traveled and the hopelessly "uncurious" a shot.
You want more W's? We've had them before and have them waiting in the wings. Examples:
1. Warren Harding
2. Ronald Reagan
3. Sarah Palin
All 3 are "One of us".
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
June 11, 2011
Work-Life Balance = Expensive.
Today is Saturday.
On Thursday morning, I spoke briefly with a well-credentialed if young California criminal defense lawyer about a matter our firm must refer out involving a long-standing client of ours. Time is very important. In this "white collar" matter, fees have been estimated to be in the $50,000 to $150,000 range. (I think more like $250,000.)
Also on Thursday, later that day, I followed up our live chat with a voice message, asking him to call when he could.
Yesterday, Friday, I received this e-mail from that attorney. He won't be hearing from my firm again:
Mr. Hull: I wanted to email you and let you know that I am willing to assist you with your matter. I am available to talk about the situation in more detail any time after 10am on Monday, 10-2 on Tuesday, or after 10am on Wednesday. Feel free to give my office a call at your convenience. Thank you and have a great weekend.
Next?
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (4)
Stop talking & writing like a lawyer. It's Pompous & Faggy. Use "people" words instead.
.jpg)
Let's get over ourselves. Doesn't changing legal writing to just clear and simple writing come down to leadership? As in "maybe I should start setting a better example"? Why not buck the traditions 100%--whether it's writing to courts, to clients or to other lawyers--and never use those expressions again? You know those prissy-pretentious words and phrases expressions, don't you, Wendell? You can do it. Man up. Stop using them. See Writing For Clients--Just Say It.
Posted by JD Hull at 07:58 AM | Comments (0)
June 10, 2011
Be bad like Jesse James. Do something. Anything.
Get off your knees. Stop hiding. Life's short.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:59 AM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2011
Does "Client Service" Mean "Being Nice" to Clients?
Above: Holden Oliver's squeeze-of-the-week takes liberties with The Only Nice New Yorker.
So it's a Recession. Fine. Still, get up off your knees. Quit bottom-feeding. Stick with sophisticated users of legal services. Don't lower your rates. And think about Value.
The answer to the question is no. "Being nice" to clients is not the goal or point of client service. We didn't launch What About Clients? in August 2005 because yours truly is loved by all, and wanted to show you the utility of charm, niceness, or Mr. Rogers-like skills, with those we pitch or represent.
We started it because even the better and higher-end lawyers have remained "lawyer-centric", haven't a clue about what good clients think about, and treat even to-die-for clients like troublesome peasants.
And because, at the time, no one in the global legal or business community, other than Chicago's Patrick Lamb and the Canadian Bar Association, was talking about CS compellingly by (a) actually putting clients first, and (b) explaining just how to do that.
Marrying substantive skills to the Art of Client Service is the way to get and keep good and great clients. Not all clients.
We at WAC? (now of course WAP?) believe we know what CS is: it's thinking about and acting on the obvious client service aspects presented by everything you do for those clients in your services firm (but no one else thinks about), and disciplining everyone around you in your firm to do it with you. You build a service culture from the ground up from which all else flows, right down to that last opinion letter or Rule 12(b)(6) motion your firm wrote, client by client.
Everyone around you must buy into it--or leave, and leave quickly. Period. I am not even sure you can teach it.
The truth, though: most clients are not worth the trouble of representing.
Unsophisticated clients are legion, "evil" and hold you back. A client with a real legal problem to be solved--and money in hand to cover your labors--is not enough. A "good client" to my law firm and to this blog is a business, preferably a publicly-traded one, or at least large and experienced enough to be a sophisticated user of legal services. If the would-be client does not have a General Counsel (i.e, at least one in-house counsel), that's almost always a bad sign. We are not as interested.
The prospect of a new client is always an exciting thing. I'm reminded of a piece for his ongoing "Legal Spectator" column in the Washington Lawyer that D.C. trial lawyer Jacob Stein wrote years ago, which captured it: how a new client can thrill you, playing with your imagination, and firing your curiosity. "What's this about? What can we be doing? Who here should work on it?" It is part of the pleasure and joy of lawyering.
But once we at my firm--we represent established businesses--learn that no GC will be involved, we become disappointed. We pass. We would rather spend our time expanding the work for the clients we have--or look for a new one with a solid in-house department after researching that company very carefully. GCs are of much higher quality than when I began practice in the 1980s; these days, they are smarter, more confident, better paid. They (a) give you interesting work, (b) know the value of good legal services (and how hard good lawyers work), and (c) have resources and often very fine ideas. Sticking with them for our firm has been a good rule.
Don't get the wrong idea. Any would-be client who calls your firm--even flaky ones who you don't want to even talk to--should be treated with respect and routed to someone who can help him, her or it. Don't make them think lawyers really are heartless schmucks. And remember, those callers and inquirers are clients (even if just temporarily) the moment they disclose facts about the matter. Your duty at that point is more than just one of good manners, getting them to the right lawyer, and showing some class.
But, for my firm, with exceptions (and not many) a good general rule is: no individuals, no start-ups, no small businesses. Individuals (even rich ones) and start-ups with good ideas are a pathetic pain in the ass 95% of the time. Small businesses, even if they can afford you, are even worse. Be very nice to all three--but avoid them. The Reason: These types of "clients" who come to your firm don't "get" good lawyering. They can't distinguish your firm from the generic, uninspired, cookie-cutter, go-through-the-motions but well-meaning law firm down the street. They don't "get" business generally. Even many business clients don't even "get" the business they are in, and are trying to operate.
This group--both individuals and businesses with money in hand--will only frustrate you. And the group is huge; it accounts for perhaps 95% of all clients everywhere.
I myself was one of these creatures two years ago--at least to the guys who painted my house in California. I didn't know anything about house painting, had no clue about price or quality, and didn't know how to evaluate what was proposed or done for a very long while. (By the way, they did great work, despite my interferences.) I was admittedly ignorant, suspicious, and probably a world class jerk. I asked questions, most of them rudimentary. But I likely frustrated them because I was so dumb. Your corporate law firm that you work in can shoot higher than unsophisticated "punters"--just as the house painters (who also did commercial work for contractors who knew what to look for in a good client) could get way better clients than me.
Client Service is Putting Good Clients First--and never putting up with clients who don't "get it". The biggest mistake (#1) I've made practicing law as a lawyer has been taking on projects for unsophisticated clients who really need help; my heart triumphed over my head. My second biggest mistake? Not firing the "bad" client faster. A "bad" client is a miserable, tortuous hell for you and yours. Bad for morale, bad for business, no fun to represent. Life, folks, is short--and with the right people, even a firm with 5 to 25 lawyers can do 90% of the type of work done by mega-firms (the quality of which seems to keep declining as they grow by diluting their gene-pools), and do it better.
But bad clients (i.e., most clients, even very rich ones) still call. They deserve respect--but they are stone nightmares over time, especially if you do complex corporate things at your shop. But I'll refer them to you. Have fun.
*Getting yourself out of the Yellow Pages and off similar lists is a good way to cut down on "bad" clients.
(from earlier JDH/HO posts)
Posted by JD Hull at 12:00 AM | Comments (0)
June 04, 2011
Cross-Border Unbundling and Signs of Times: "Need to litigate in Germany?"
Got Grϋndlichkeit? A telling ad appears in this month's Washington Lawyer magazine. It's placed by a Frankfurt-based lawyer--a Total Teutonic Betty, too, based on her photo--with 25 years experience in corporate law, finance and commercial transactions as well as in contentious work. Affiliations (and ads) like this were not mainstream until relatively recently. It reminds you, among other things, that business is increasingly global and that Europeans speak both fine UK English and American English. It begins: "Need to litigate in Germany but have no office there?". It goes on in compelling detail. Apart from the merits and value this particular lawyer could or could not add to a project, think about what this kind ad represents.
Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken, Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken,
located in Zweibrücken, Rhineland Palatinate, Germany.
Posted by JD Hull at 02:39 PM | Comments (0)
June 03, 2011
The Unbearable Lightness of Lawyers.
Risk-aversion can be annoying. Get off your knees. Tell the client what it can do, too. What it should do. Take a stand. And just say it. See "The 7 Habits of Highly Useless Corporate Lawyers" and "Just Say it: More Good Things on Good Writing".
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
June 02, 2011
Sarah Kate Silverman for Congress in 2012 (NH CD1): "Unforgivable" if she doesn't run.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:00 AM | Comments (0)