« July 01, 2007 - July 07, 2007 | Main | July 15, 2007 - July 21, 2007 »

July 14, 2007

Saturday's Lord Charon QC--and GeekWerewolfBarrister

As usual London's Charon QC (pronounced "Karen") is smokin'. And drinking Spanish wine grown at high altitudes. Visit him in the Diary Room. Erudite, funny, creative, favorite of The London Times. Not another "poofy Brit southerner". Warning: may be even more cryptic than traveling WAC?....And while you're on the other side of The Big Pond, visit Charon's evil twin GeekLawyer and read "Wigs All Around". On a roll these days, GL's mad, bad and dangerous to solicitors. Feisty, smart, angry. We're deathly afraid of his new co-blogger, Becky. Nonetheless, DH threw rocks at her window last night....Hull McGuire in U.S. wants to try a case with GL, just to savor the brutality of it all--even though GL hates "punters" (clients).

Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2007

Headed east, cryptically, sort of.

To see Lon Chaney walkin' with the Queen. To work, learn, play; Pump Court, Kent, Calais. To ramble, kick out the jams and testify.

Posted by JD Hull at 06:59 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2007

Redux: Do you need to "like" your client to do a good job?

Answer: In our firm, the answer is absolutely yes. Color us spoiled, and even unlawyer-like--but we refuse to represent clients we do not like and respect. Screw the money. We'd rather sell women's shoes, be full-time lobbyists, or take up careers as street people.

Only a few books I can find on the subject of rendering services to customers in the business sections of Borders or Barnes & Noble ever mention the question. In the context of lawyer services, it's simply this: except for some court appointments and pro bono engagements, what if we only chose to represent clients we liked?

By "like", I mean it loosely: to derive for whatever reason real pleasure and satisfaction while doing legal work for a individual or organization.

My firm shies away from individuals as clients, regardless of his or her resources. We usually represent businesses. So in the case of an organization, we "like" the client because overall we somehow feel comfortable with or maybe even admire the personality, business culture or goals of that client, personally like/admire the client reps and general counsel, or both.

My firm "likes" business clients which are experienced, sophisticated users of legal services. When we perform well, the client appreciates us and signals that appreciation. So then we like the client even more, and want to do an even better job or keep doing the good job we are doing so we can derive more real pleasure from the engagement, and obtain more work.

As simple and as annoyingly Mr. Rogers-esque as this all sounds, we have never, ever had good long-term relationships with any organization client (1) which did not genuinely appreciate what we were doing for it or (2) which had disturbing corporate personalities (i.e., mean-spirited Rambo cultures, groups with employees given to blame-storming, or companies with disorganized, internally-uncommunicative or just plain lazy staffs.)

We rely on repeat business. For us, there's no substantial reason to accept a new engagement unless we think we might want to represent that client in the long term. For years, I often sensed before the first draft of the representation letter was done that the new client didn't fit us. Usually I couldn't articulate it--or maybe I just disliked the client rep. But because of the money or the prestige of the engagement, we took the project, and kept going after the repeat business anyway. A few years ago, we stopped doing that.

Does my attitude clash with some people's notions of real client service, duty to the profession or basic law firm economics? It sure does. And today I don't think I can practice law any other way. In the long term, having no client is better than a bad client--or one that I don't see courting down the road.

Posted by JD Hull at 11:50 PM | Comments (0)

Kane on Press Releases

Tom Kane, at his consistently fine and useful Legal Marketing Blog, is right that "Press Releases Can Be An Effective Tool". And the devil is in the details. Make them short, sweet and different. Our firm has used them for 15 years. For us they are most effective in reminding existing clients who we like and want to keep--always our number one marketing targets--that we are "there". Make you a bet: if you send a good press release to ten good clients, you will get a phone call from one of them, even if it's just to say hello.

Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2007

Sensitive Litigation Moment No. 17: Informal Discovery.

Twenty years ago, James McElhaney, a gifted lawyer, writer and teacher of trial tactics, and the ABA Litigation Section, first published McElhaney's Trial Notebook, now in its fourth edition. Discovery, McElhaney notes, is a good way to learn what a witness will say, or to bind a party or witness to a particular version of the facts. However, "it is a very inefficient way to get information." There are lots of investigation ideas in McElhaney's book, but they all involve simple curiosity and do-it-yourself "trolling" for information the trial lawyer gets first-hand on his or her own. Next time a new case begins,

resist rushing into written discovery and depositions. Step back from the discovery routine--you'll get into that bubble soon enough--and learn a few things on your own. Just as witnesses say unexpected and even startling things when they testify, useful and even surprising facts are available about opposing parties through the Internet, court files, published cases, D&B reports, news archives and business libraries. These inexpensive but ignored sources are often inconsistent with information parties will give about themselves in formal discovery.

Posted by JD Hull at 03:35 AM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2007

e. e. blawg review #116: Corporate Blawg UK

Here, and it even came out a day early. Blimey. A fine and innovative job despite prominent mention of WAC?

Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 01:04 PM | Comments (0)