« August 20, 2006 - August 26, 2006 | Main | September 03, 2006 - September 09, 2006 »
September 01, 2006
Do Americans ever take a few days off?
In the grips of an achievement fever that we don't even fully understand ourselves, Americans don't have as great an appreciation for the holiday, summer respites or "quality of life" as do Europeans and other arguably sane modern cultures. But in the United States, Labor Day weekend, lasting a full 3 days, has been a good start. Yanks held their first Labor Day parade in New York City in 1882, and we got that idea from Canada. We at the hard-working but multi-cultural "What About Clients?" and Hull, McGuire & Bubba PC wish you a great Labor Day holiday. See you Tuesday morning, 8:00 AM sharp.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:11 PM | Comments (0)
Learning Optimism: Toward Building A New Lawyer.
From Arnie Herz's Legal Sanity, here is "Is Life in the Law Half Full or Half Empty?". Fine job with a subject no one likes to think or talk about: must lawyers remain such a glum, burned-out and uninspired lot? Because at the moment, that's where many, many of us are. Some say we even need to be that way to function well. What about clients? What kind of legal products do our clients get from our unhappy colleagues? And how do walking-wounded lawyers affect those of us who actually like what we are doing? How about mixing focus, competence, joy and fun?
Posted by JD Hull at 07:20 PM | Comments (0)
Geeklawyer on Privacy
From the south of England Geeklawyer's co-blogger Ruthie checks in with "Just Because You Are Paranoid, Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Watching You". She begins: "Over the years a number of Ruthie’s clients have sagely informed her that they wear tin foil hats at home to stop the government reading their thoughts".
Posted by JD Hull at 03:12 AM | Comments (0)
August 30, 2006
"How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
At least two, and I'll explain that.
In the meantime, let's note that "overlawyering", "lawyering by committee" and "bill-padding" are terms used to describe infuriating things lawyers do: (1) well-meaning lawyers indulging their perfectionist natures, (2) "on-the-job training" for your brilliant $120,000 first-year associate who unfortunately doesn't know anything yet (and won't for a while), (3) deliberately "milking the bill" (4) "piling-on" with other timekeepers on the bill and (5) "feeding the monster". These are instructive expressions. Become familiar with them. After all, your clients and your GCs coined them thinking of you.
However, a client project that goes on for more than a week should have at least two lawyers assigned to it. I think clients generally believe that two lawyers is better than one from the standpoint of adding value but always feel more secure about a project if they think that two lawyers are "minding the store" and that at least one of them can be counted on both to cover things and keep things moving if one of the lawyers is temporarily less accessible. Moreover, to make all of this clear--to clients, co-workers and opposing counsel--letters, documents and pleadings should regularly "show" both lawyers. You need to send the message that the client is covered by a minimum of two people to everyone.
So far, I have not seen a client balk at having at least two lawyers involved on a significant or lengthy project. True, you cannot always bill 100% of the team effort in this type of arrangement--but the good will generated by having more than one lawyer available and "on the job" is some of the most valuble marketing for repeat business you can do. Clients need to feel safe. That's just as important as the work itself being substantively first-rate.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)
China: Thelen Reid Receives China License Today.
Today, in an development which Western law firms hope signifies a change in attitude by the Chinese government, the American firm Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, with about 400 lawyers, will receive a license to practice law in China, according to The Recorder in San Francisco. Thelen Reid applied for the license in September of 2005. In April of this year, as reported by Dan Harris at China Law Blog and others, the Shanghai Lawyers Association and some Chinese government agencies declared a crack-down on "illegal business activities" by foreign firms who had used local lawyers to practice law.
Thanks for the heads up to international tax lawyer Julie McGuire .
Posted by JD Hull at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)
August 29, 2006
More on Bad Clients--Who's "Bad", Anyway?
Recently, I was a guest on a radio program for entrepreneurs in a segment on how to spot and fire "bad" clients. This is a favorite subject, probably because it took 5 years for me to fully appreciate what bad clients were doing to my new firm. Rob Millard, Nathan Burke, and "WAC?" have written about bad clients: how to spot them, what they cost you and what to do about them. In this blog's "12 rules" for better client service, bad clients fall under Rule 1: Represent Only Clients You Like and an earlier related post. Generally, you are at your best when you represent clients who share your firm's values.
A "bad" client is not bad because it is small and/or unprofitable, questions bills, pays late or stiffs you. A bad client is one that (1) is not and probably will never be a "sophisticated user of legal services", (2) has a dysfunctional culture and/or (3) dampens the morale of your hard-working staff. Still, bad ex-clients at our shop have typically been small, and often not sophisticated. Ideally, a desirable client at my firm is relatively large, and comes equipped with a savvy and experienced GC. However, a recent post by Tom Collins at More Partner Income, one of the best blogs out there on enlightened management of any firm, added a lot to my thinking on firing smaller and/or less profitable clients. Tom, commenting on other good recent pieces by Ed Poll and Ed Wesemann, writes that "Law Firms Should Not Fire Those Clients, Yet". Do read Tom's post.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:30 PM | Comments (0)
August 28, 2006
Out There: Does Pluto Have Standing?
Posted by JD Hull at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)
Keith Richards Watch - Scotland.
Free Keith, and Hampden Park. From today's New York Times:
An investigation has begun to determine if the Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards violated Scotland’s strict new antismoking law by puffing away when the band performed before thousands at Hampden Park in Glasgow on Friday. If found by the Glasgow City Council to have violated the ban on smoking in all public places, which took effect on March 26, Mr. Richards could be fined $94; and, for failure to enforce the ban, Hampden Park could be fined $472.
September 1 UPDATE: Richards walks on a technicality.
Posted by JD Hull at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)
Blawg Review #72
Be sure to visit Blawg Review #72, by New Orleans-based Ernie the Attorney. He covers a range of fine recent posts. There's even one section on Good Writing, and another called "Practice, Practice, Practice". Pluto gets its due, too.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)