Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices

As Nicole Nehama Auerbach joins Valorem, she says:

“I saw Valorem as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really make a difference in the way litigation is handled... I was captivated by the firm’s commitment to provide real value to business clients, and, in particular, its emphasis on alternative fees. Alternative fees are more important than ever to clients as the economy fluctuates and rates continue their upward march. Traditional law firms have been slow to recognize the need to satisfy their clients’ economic concerns."

Valorem Law Group represents a head on assault on the billable hour.  Here's an excerpt from thier new web site:

The top ten list…

1. We are all refugees of elite BigLaw firms;
2. We are skilled courtroom lawyers, in practice and at heart;
3. We are revolutionaries and risk-takers, entrepreneurs at heart;
4. We bring a single-mindedness to the notion of client service;
5. We believe you are entitled to budget certainty, to a real and realized commitment to help you deal with the cost pressures you face;
6. We believe that the practice of law is an art, not a science;
7. We believe in collaboration and hold the team rather than the individual sacrosanct;
8. We love technology and efficiency -- the more red tape we hack through, the better;
9. We take our work very seriously -- ourselves, not so much;
10. We are real people, with supportive spouses and wonderful kids (who, at least today, appear to really like us).

We provide value or you adjust the bill.

I recommend a thorough tour of their web site.

The Wall Street Journal has a post called: Big-Law Associates Facing 2008 Salary Cap by Dan Slater.

Here is a key paragraph from that post from which my title was derived:

"We called around to firms to find out whether associate salaries, called economically-irrational in some quarters, have finally (or, at least, for now) hit a ceiling. The answer seems to be yes."

The comments under the post range from:

"I think associates should just worry about keeping their jobs instead of clamoring for increases in salary"

to

"I expect salaries in NY will bump up to 190 before the end of the year. That will cause other cities to match. The following year NY will again bump to 230, and other cities will again follow. The pattern has been established, and there is no way to stop it. It’s pure economics. Plain and simple."

PUNCHLINE:  I am empathetic with recent grads who must repay large loans and face rampant inflation.  However, I believe the only thing that matters is "the client" because collectively the clients will drive demand and the parameters under which legal services are sold.  As the world flattens, clients' choices expend and as Cisco and GE and other powerful clients have clearly demonstrated, if the profession can't summon the imagination to change the equation clients will change the equation for them.  I reference two of my previous posts:

Offshoring in India Changing Legal Services in the West
OUTSOURCING: "Lawyers are service providers. We are not gods"

Image Credit:  The image in this post was copied from the original WSJ post

Footnote:  At the moment I am on assignment with a prominent South African law firm...  you should see how wide their eyes get at the mention of the scale of associate salaries referenced in this article.

The most important thing you can do for our profession today is to visit the ABA or CBA and sign your respective petition to assist lawyers in Pakistan. 

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry -- fired by Musharraf Saturday -- in a phone call to a gathering of lawyers urged them to go to "every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is the time to sacrifice."

This in the face of:

"Baton-wielding police fought with lawyers outside courthouses in Islamabad and Lahore again Tuesday, arresting dozens more as they enforced Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown on judicial activism."

The above from CNN Story: "Pakistan's courts in lockdown"

The Canadian Bar Association has condemned Pakistan:

CBA Condemns Arrests of Lawyers in Pakistan and Calls for Return to Rule of Law 

The American Bar Association (President) has this to say:

ABA President William H. Neukom Urges Restoration of Justice to Pakistani People

I have found nothing (yet) on the web site of The Law Society of England and Wales.

My view:  When lawyers stand up to a dictator who suspends the rule of law, then it is the finest imaginable "judicial activism".  If Musharraf's actions are tolerated, say goodbye to liberty.

It is with personal sadness that I post this news. In September, one of Canada's most respected law firms will close its doors forever according to a story by lawyer/journalist Jim Middlemiss in today's Financial Post: “Lawyer exodus shutters Desjardins”.

Jim starts his story:

An era will end for the 100-lawyer law firm Desjardins Ducharme LLP in September. The once-esteemed law firm will close after more than 50 years in business.

For those unfamiliar with Desjardins Ducharme, Kip Cobbett's comment in the story sums it up:

Kip Cobbett, [Managing Partner and COO of] Stikeman Elliott LLP in Montreal, said it is "very sad" to see Desjardins' demise. "It was a wonderful firm. It will certainly change the landscape."

The inevitable autopsy will point to a plethora of possible causes.  In my view the imperative for firm leaders who read this is not an analysis of Desjardins Ducharme in particular but rather the realization that complacency, even in the blue chip firms, can be lethal.

Punchline:  The relentless tsunami of change in the legal market place will not spare a firm unable to maneuver out of its path - no matter that firm's historic financial success, no matter that firm's pedigree, no matter that firm's history, no matter that firm's exemplary reputation.  In my view the harsh lesson here is simple: manage or prepare to perish!

This is a San Francisco Chronicle article in which Chronicle Staff Writer Heidi Benson begins:

“Mary Mocine, a 63-year-old Zen priest and former litigator, teaches meditation to burned-out attorneys at weekend retreats at Tassajara in Big Sur and Green Gulch Farm at Muir Beach.”

Litigators may be comforted by this:  "You can still be a warrior...but because you're at peace with yourself and you're centered, you're not coming from rage or fear or anger."

www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/riskin/Apparently, this is not a new idea: "A Zen approach to the law emerged in 1999, when Professor Leonard Riskin of the University of Florida Levin College of Law began discussing mindfulness meditation in his law classes."

Note:  Leonard Riskin and I are not related, to my knowledge, but that does not stop me from admiring his work

If your hectic schedule permits, make a moment to glance at the full article.

Note (added August 1, 2007, 5:45 PM Anguilla, B.W.I.):   I have received an e-mail from an associate director of media relations at Stanford Law School asking me to remove Stanford from the post (which I have done). She says that the information in the San Francisco Chronicle article was inaccurate. The reporter has been contacted and is issuing a correction. The media person says it is misleading to the public to say that Stanford Law has offered such a seminar: "We simply haven't . . .  ."

The Wall Street Journal posts: Slater & Gordon: The World’s First Publicly Traded Law Firm

Managing Partners and other members of law firm C suites had better look at Slater & Gordon’s prospectus – it’s a gold mine, (pun intended).

Have a look at how risks are described – the Wall Street Journal post quotes the passage balancing professional responsibility and shareholder profits.

"Lawyers have a primary duty to the courts and a secondary duty to their clients. These duties are paramount given the nature of the Company’s business as an Incorporated Legal Practice. There could be circumstances in which the lawyers of Slater & Gordon are required to act in accordance with these duties and contrary to other corporate responsibilities and against the interests of Shareholders or the short-term profitability of the Company."

I adored the "Key Risks" page (click on it to download pdf of this page):

PUNCHLINE:  If this does not fascinate you, you should resign from your leadership position.  I am not saying you should follow suit – I want you to know what your options are and what your competitors might be up to way sooner than you would like to think.

Science fiction movies adore time travel and ripples in the primordial fabric.  We are witnessing a collision - the future has just exploded into the present.  With Clemente in the UK just over the horizon, please fasten your seatbelts - this is a pivotal moment for the legal profession and for the Managing Partners within it.  Like Dennis Hopper's famous line in the movie Speed, "what are you going to do, Jack"

You may want to reference my earlier post:  The end of the legal profession as you knew it...

The Wall Street Journal speaks - shall we listen?

“[William Durbin Jr.] regrets having focused too much on profits and “de-equitizing” partners (reducing their stake in the profit pool) in an effort to boost the bottom line, a strategy that has become popular in Big Law. ‘There’s a lot more that people bring to a law firm than profitability: integrity, a cheerful demeanor, teaching ability,” he said. “These intangibles have more importance than I paid to them.”

“Durbin says he’s written two letters to a partner he had demoted. “I said that ‘I’m sorry. I have regrets. You were always good to me and this should not have happened.’” The partner never wrote back.”

“The 51-year-old Dallas resident says he’s gotten out of corporate law and has undergone an “interior change” These days, Durbin says, he is studying Spanish with the goal of helping underprivileged Latino children.”

Punchline:  Law is a profession… a calling… it has (and deserves) dignity…  may we please place a filter under the coffee of profit to ensure that we deserve to survive as a profession – shall we deserve to survive or shall we deserve to die.  This is directed at lonely Managing Partners whose constituencies persist that it is all about the PPP.  Maybe there is something else!

Note:  I haven't mentioned the firm name - does it matter?  If it does, see (WSJ subscription required): The Rise and Fall of ...

How your people use their voice mail may seem at first both trivial and unimportant. BZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG!!!

The reason you open you wallet wide for a Ritz Carlton is because of the experience.  Do you think it’s a coincidence that you are greeted by name at the front desk?    (Did you see the secret service-type ear phone worn by the doorman who opened your car door and asked if you were checking-in and for your name?  As you walked form your car, the front desk staff was given your name – they did not not need to recognize you from last time.)

Two highly respected bloggers, Tom Collins of morepartnerincome and Patrick Lamb of In Search of Perfect Client Service respectfully disagree in their respective posts: Voice Mail -- a Lawyer's Friend or Foe and Voicemail--Useful Tool Or Devil's Folly?  Tom sets out some rules worth considering and Patrick builds on them adding his own perspective.

PUNCHLINE:  Take five minutes, read the posts, and then do the unthinkable.  Create your own protocol (that you think optimizes the client’s experience with your voice mail system) and then ask your partners, associates and staff to comply.  Trivial and unimportant?  Your competitors hope you think so.

The Complete Lawyer tag line is: Tools and insights on professional development and quality of life and career issues that impact every lawyer’s success and satisfaction.

Is this a resource that may be helpful to some of your lawyers (if not all)?

Thank you to friend and Complete Lawyer contributor Stephanie West Allen (of Idealawg) for updating me about this.

This is the most significant development impacting the legal profession in 50 years and hardly anyone is noticing except Bruce MacEwen at Adam Smith Esq.  This is not a red herring.  If you are a Managing Partner you will look back and think you should have paid very close attention to this.  Give Bruce's post a good read:  Publicly Traded Law Firms in the US? Georgetown Law Symposium

I found a treasure and I want to share it.   Bruce MacEwen’s piece on Arnie Jacobs in his Adam Smith, Esq blog today contains riches beyond even Bruce’s expectations and it is my pleasure to highlight a few of them.

The treasure I discovered is the truth that lies at the heart of our profession, extracted from Proskauer's Arnie Jacobs by Bruce MacEwen with surgical precision .  When you read this piece you will learn (or be reminded) that Law is a profession and its future lies in the hands of the lawyers who love it.

Here is my evidence in the form of excerpts from Bruce’s fine work today:

"…over the last 15 years a grand total of two partners (lateral and home-grown) have left [Proskauer] for another law firm

"So could we ever see it?  Sure, it's possible we could, but I'd wager it would serve as a cautionary tale for other firms not to emulate.

Punchline:  The wisdom that surfaces in Bruce MacEwens masterpiece with Arnie Jacobs provides the highest definition of what the legal profession is.  The noisy distractions of those who are trying to figure out how to manage a law firm like a fast food restaurant or a department store or products company that sells detergent just don’t get it.  The legal profession can learn and adopt principles and lessons from other industries and professions but to prosper it must remain exactly what it is – a profession (the way Arnie Jacobs sees it)  Read the entire post and get a bonus - Bruce leads us to a book authored by Arnie's son (a book that resided on the New York Best Sellers List for a while).

???????? ? ??????-????????????? ?????? ????????

?????????: ?????? ?????? — ???????????, ?????????????????? ?? ???????????
??????? ???????????? ???????. ????????? ?????????? ?????, ????????, ??????,
?? ????????????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ????????? ? ?????????????? ?
???, ????? ??? ?????  ????? ?????????? ????????? ???? ????????????????
??????. ??? ??????? — ?????????? ?????  ? ??????????? ??????????? ?? ?????
??? 30 ?????: ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ???????????? ??????????
?????????, ???????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????????, ???????????
???????? ??????????????, ?????? The Financial Times ? ?????? ??????. ?????
?????? ?????? ? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ???????? ?
?????????? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ????????
(????? ??????).

???????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? Edge International ????????? ? ?????????,
??????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ????.

???????: «????? ?????? ????????????, ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ????????, ?
????????????? ??????? ?? ? ?? ??????????»

— ??? ??????, ???????, ????????? (??????????????)

??????????? ??????: ?????????? ? ????. ??? ?????????, ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?
??????-??????????????

?????? ??????: ? ?????? ??????????? ?????????, ????? ??? ???? 11 ???. ?
??????? ?????? ?????? ???????, ??????? ??? ??????????? ??? ? ???????
???????: ?????????? ??????, ??????? ? ?.?. ????? ???????? ? ?????????
??????-????? ? ?????? ????? — ? ???????????.

??? ???????? ??????-???????????, ?? ????????????? ? ????, ????? ???????,
????????. ??????? ??????????? ???????????, ? ????? ?????? ? Emery Jamieson.
?????????? ????? ??? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ?????????????? ???????????
???????. ?? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ????????, ?? ?? ?
???????. ??? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????, ??????
???????? ? ??? ?????????????. ??????, ?????????? ? ??????-?????, ?????
??????? ???, ? ?? ???????? ? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????
????????. ??????????? ????? ???????? ??? ? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????
? ??????????? ??????, ?? ? ? ???????????? ? ??????-????????????????.

? ????? ??????????????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???????
? ??????????? ????? ????????. ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ? ??????????? ?
??????????? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????. ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ???
?????? ??? ??, ??? ???? ?? ? ??????? ??? ???????????? ?????????. ????? ??
?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ? ??????? ????? ? ??????? ? ????????
???????????? ???????. ? ????? ??????, ??????-??????? ? ??????-??????????
????? ???? ???????? ?????????????, ??????? ? ????????? ??? ????? 25 ???.

?.?.: ??? ??? ????????????

??. ?.: ??????? ??????????????? ???? ?????? ? ?????????? ???????. ????????,
?? ??????? ?????? ? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??????. ???
???????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ????????? ?????
??????????? ?????????????? ??????????. ???? ?????????? ???????? ????????? —
??? ???????? ????????????.

?.?.: ?? ????????? ???????? ??? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????? —
????????????, ????????? ? ?????????????? ?????... ??? ??? ?????????? ??
??????? ????? ??????????? ??????

??. ?.: ???? ?? ????????? ???????????? — ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????
??????????? ????. ?? ????????? ???????? ????????????????? ??????????,
??????? ??????? ? ????????????????? ?? ????? ????. ??????????????, ?? ?????
??????, ??????? ? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????????, ?? ?
????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ? ????? ????????? ????????.

?????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????
?????????????? ???????? - ?????? ????????????? ?????????? ????????????
???????, ????????? ? ????????????? ??????????, ???????????????????
??????????? ? ?.?.

??? ????? ??????????? ? ???? ?????? — ??????? ?????. ?? ??? ??????, ????????
??? ???????? ????????: ???? ????????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ?????, ?
??????????? ? ????-?????, ???????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????
??????? ??????, ???? ????????? ??????????? ???????? ? ????, ??? ?? ????? ??
???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????.

?.?.: ???? ??????? ????????, ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ??????

??. ?: ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????????
??????????? ????????, ??????? ?????????? ?????? ? ?????? ????????????
?????????????. ??????????, ????????, ???????????? ???????????, ??????? ?????
??????????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????????
??????????????. ??? ?? ????? «?????? ??????», ??? ?????????? ???????
?????????? ?????? — ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????????
???????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ????? ? ???? ???????? ???????????. ???????
?????? ???? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? ? ??????? ?????????????
??????????? ?????, ? ? ????????, ??????? ???????????????? ?????? ??
??????????. ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? ?
???????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ??? ?????? ????????? ???????????,
«??????????? ?????», ??????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ??????? ???? ?
?????? ????, ??? ?????????? ???????.

??? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????, ???????
???? ????? ????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????. ? ?????
???????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????? ??? ???????
??? ??? ???? ?????. ? ???? ?????????? ?????? — ??????, ??? ?? ??
???????????? ????????, — ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????????? ???????
???????: ???? ???? — ?? ???????? ???????, ???? ???? — ?? ???????.

????????? ?????? ???????????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????
?????????? ? ? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????
???????? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????, ? ???????, ????????,
???? ? ?????, ? ?????????, ? ????? ?? ????? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ????????????
??? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?
????? ????????????.

?.?.: ? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??????????
???????????? ? ????????? ???????

??. ?.: ? ????????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ????????
????????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?? ???????.
????????-??????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ???????  ??????????? ????: ???
?????????? ????? ??????????????? ? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????. ????? ???????
????????, ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???
????, ????? ?????????? ?? ?????.

?.?.: ???, ?? ?????? ??????, ????? ?????? ??????????? ??????, ????? ???????
? ????? ???????? ????????????

??. ?.: ???????? ??????????????? ???????? ??????????? ????? ???????? ??, ???
??? ????? ?????????????????????. ?? ???? — ?????? ???????? ????? ????????.
??????? ????? ???????? ????? ????????: ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?
????????? ?? ??????????? ????, ?? ? ????????? ???? ?? ???????. ????
??????????? ????? ??????? «??????????? ?? ?????? ?????», ?? ??? ???????? ?
??? ?????????? «???? ??????»: ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?????????-???????
?????? ? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?????. ? ?????????? ??????????? ?????
?????????? ?????? ?? ????? ????????.

?????? ?????? ??????????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??, ??? ?????
????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ????? ???????????. ?? ???????????
???????? ?????????????? ???????? ? ???, ????? ?????? ???????? ???????
??????, ??????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????????? ? ?????????. ???? ????
?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???????, ?? ? ???????????? ??????????? ???????,
????????? ??? ???????? ?, ? ???????? ?????, ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ??
??????? ????????????.

?.?.: ??? ????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ?????

??. ?.: ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ????? ????????????? ????????. ?????,
????????, ???????? ????????? ????: ??? ????????? ????????? ??????????
????????? ??? ???????? ? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ????????????
?????-???????, ??? ??????? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??????,
??????? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ? ????? ??
??????? — ??????? ?????????.

?.?.: ??????????? ? ???? ?????????? ??????????? ????, ??? ?? ??????? ?
?????? ? ??????? ???????????????

??. ?.: ??? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???? ?????????.
????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ????????????????????, ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?
?? ????? ???????. ??????????????, ???????? ????????????? ???????????????????
???????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????? ??????? ?????.

? ?????? ???????, ? ????????? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ????? ????,
?????????? ? ????? ???????? ????. ??? ??????????? ????? ????? ? ?????
???????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ????, ? ?????? ??? ???? ????
??????????, ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????. ??? ??? ????????? ??????? — ???
???????  ????????????????? ???????, ????????? ????????? ??? ????????.

?.?.: ? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ?????????
????????????? ??????????. ??? ????????? ????? ??????????????? ???????????
?????? ??? ????, ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????????

??. ?.: ??? ???????, ?????? ????? ?????? ? ?????????????? ???????? — ? ???
??????? ??? ?????????? ????????????? ????????. ?? ? ??? ???? ??? ???????
????????: ?????? — ??? ?????? ?????? ???????, ?????? ??? ????????? ?????????
??????. ?????? ??-?? ????? ????? ????? ? ??????????? ???? ??? ? ??
?????????? ?????????? ?????-???? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????????. ???
??????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????. ???
????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????-????. ???? ???? ??????? ??????????? ? ???,
????? ?????????? ???????????: ?? ?????? ??-?? ? ??-?? ? ??????? «???» ?????,
??? ?? ???????????? ? ?????? ?????????. ?????????????? ?????? ?????, ???????
????? ???? — ??? ??????????? ??????? ????????????? ?????????.

?????? ???????? ??????? ? ??????????? ????????????? ???????. ?????? ???? ??
???????? ?? ?????, ??? ????????? — ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ??
?????????? ? ???, ??? ? ??? ??????. ??? ??????, ? ??????? ????? ??????
???? — ????? ??? ?? ??? ? ?????????? ??? ? ??????.

?.?.: ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????? ?? ???? ??
????????

??. ?.: ???????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ????. ???????
?????????, ????????????? ? ????????? ???? ?????. ? ??? ???????? ? ????, ???
??? ???????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????????. ?????? ???, ??? ? ???? ???????
????????????? ????? ?????? ????????, ??????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ??
?????????? 20-30 ???. ?????? ?? ????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????
?????????. ?, ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????, ??????? ?? ?????
?????????? ????? ????????.

??? ???? ?????? ???????? — ??? ?????? ?????????????? ?????? ? ??????? ?????.
?????? — ??? «?????? ????», ??? ????? ????????? ? ????????? ????. ??????
?????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ??????, ????? ??????? ????: «? ??????
??????????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????-?? ?????. ? ????????? ????? ? ???????
????, ? ??????». ? ???? ???? ????????, ??????? ?? ??????????? ???????????
????????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ?????????. ??? ???? ??? ???????? ?????
????????? ??????????. ??? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ??
???????????? ????????? ?????. ? ???? ??? ??? ? ??????????? ???? ?? ????????
??????, ? ???????? ????? ????? «??????????????» ? «???????????????». ?
?????????, ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????, ??? ?????? ??????????? — ???
???? ? ???????????. ?? ????? ?? ???? — ??? ???? ? ????, ????? ??????? ??????
?????????? ????????? ?????.

?.?.: ???? ???????? ? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ???, ?? ????? ?????? ??
?????? ????? ????? ?????????

  ??. ?.: ???? ?? ????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????? — ???
?????? ??????????????? ??????. ????????, ??????? ? ???? ????? ??????? ?
????????????  ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ??????? ? ???? ????? ??
?????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ???????. ???? ? ?????????? ??
?????????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???????????, ? ??, ? ??? ??????????
???????? ??????????????. ?????? ??????? ?????? ??-?? ????, ??? ???? ??
???????, ??? ???????, ?????? — ??-?? ????, ???, ???????? ?? ??????? ????,
?????????? ????????? ?????????????????????.

? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????: ?? ?????, ??? ????????
??????????? ???? ?????, ? ?????? ?? — ???????? ????????, ?????? ???????????
?????????? ? ?.?. ????? ?? ????? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????????
???????? ?????: ??? ????????? ????????????????????.

PUNCHLINE:  I am so proud to have been interviewed for a Russian publication as all four of my grandparents came from Russia. 

                  Alan Dershowitz

Extracts from yesterday's letter To the Editor:

PUNCHLINE:  It is refreshing to see that lawyers like Mr. Dershowitz place the law even above the temptation to right a wrong.  Read the entire (concise) letter.

Thanks again to Ron Friedman of Prism Legal Consulting for his ongoing input on this.

An Apology to Detainees' Attorneys

Thanks to Ron Friedman of Prism Legal Consulting for bringing this to my attention.

US law deans 'appalled' by Stimson criticism of law firms for representing detainees

The lion on the left is a metaphor for the lawyers and law firms who stand up to attacks against our profession and justice itself.

In a New York Times article today, Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees,  you will see that there is an insidious movement to have business clients fire those preeminent corporate law firms who dare to use some of their pro bono time to defend the very foundation of the rule of law, like the Doctrine of Habeas Corpus

The "senior Pentagon official" is apparently not alone - the article references a journalist using the Freedom of Information Act for what looks like, smells like and just might be a McCarthy-esque attack on prominent law firms.

Those responsible for this vicious attack would not know "Magna Carta" if they stepped on it (and they are stepping on it)  – how ironic is it that they attack the basis of their own freedom.

I am delighted to confirm that according to the article the remarks:  "produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble."

Furthermore, "Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.” "

Also, "Christopher Moore, a lawyer at the New York firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton who represented an Uzbeki detainee who has since been released, said: “We believe in the concept of justice and that every person is entitled to counsel. Any suggestion that our representation was anything other than a pro bono basis is untrue and unprofessional.” Mr. Moore said he had made four trips to Guantánamo and one to Albania at the firm’s expense, to see his client freed."

PUNCHLINE:  I salute Karen Mathis, Christopher Moore and all those other lawyers and law firms who defend justice and liberty in spite of the vicious behaviour of the seriously misguided!  Bravo and keep it up!

Click here for a look at my June 24, 2005 related post

Lawyers appreciate good health, security and happiness – BUT WAIT, doesn’t everyone?  Yes.  That’s my point.  Lawyers are people and the vast majority of them are really good people.

Lawyers appreciate people who recognize lawyer jokes for what they are – a form of bigotry (and who therefore pass on the opportunity to proliferate them).

Happy Holidays!

Note:  This is a departure from my usual posts which are directed to Managing Partners and those who assist them in running their firms.  This is a "lawyers appreciate" post conceived by Julie Fleming Brown of Life at the Bar and Stephanie West Allen of Idealawg as a way to close out the year with a flurry of appreciation in the legal blogosphere.  (I am honoured to have been tapped to do a “Lawyers appreciate" post and to tap three more bloggers to do the same.)

ANNOUNCING THE 2005-2006 AWARD WINNERS

My Edge International colleagues and I are pleased to announce the winners of the 2005-2006 Edge Awards for the best articles published in Law Practice Magazine.  The awards commend outstanding written works most likely to have a practical influence in shaping the actions lawyers take to manage their practices.  All votes were cast and winners chosen by the 2005-2006 Edge Award Article Review Board.

BEST FEATURE ARTICLE
Certificate and $2,000
“Is Your Marketing Stuck Inside the Box?”
Mark Beese• Ann Lee Gibson• Diane E. Hamlin• Phyllis Weisshaserot• Linda Hazelton• Nikki A. Rovito• Sally J. Schmidt• Bob Weiss• Milton W. Zwicker
MARCH 2006

SILVER FEATURE ARTICLE
Certificate and $500
“‘First, Let’s Sell All the Lawyers’: A Personal View of Legal Marketing’s Long, Strange Journey”
Ross Fishman
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2005

BEST COLUMN
Certificate and Commemorative Gift
“The New Generation of Lawyers: Planting the Marketing Seed”
Sally J. Schmidt
DECEMBER 2005

A special thank you to our 2005-2006 ARTICLE REVIEW BOARD:
Peter K. Fagen, Partner, Lozano Smith, Vista, CA
Samuel M. Maruca, Managing Partner, Miller Chevalier, Washington, DC
Daniel R. Mackesey, Office Managing Partner, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Vienna, VA
William L. Meyer, Partner, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Atlanta, GA
Stuart M. Pape, Managing Partner, Patton Boggs, Washington, DC
Gail W. Ruopp, Executive Director, Flaster/Greenberg, Cherry Hill, NJ
Stewart D.Saxe, Partner, Baker & McKenzie, Toronto, ON

For a copy of the full page ad that will appear in Law Practice Management, click the Edge Award plaque, above.

Ernie the Attorney (Ernie Svenson) and The Adventure of Strategy (Robert Millard) both came at the same issue today but in entirely different ways.  Unbeknownst to each other, they posted on a common theme:  lawyers leaving their law firms.

Ernie referred to Denise Howell of the Bag and Baggage blog:  "So, now Denise is taking a new career path and I am really happy for her; she is going to be going in a more fulfilling direction… I love this passage":

"my professional roadmap henceforth will involve only things that are washed through a stringent "how much do I really love that?" filter"

Ernie's:  "We don't' really have time to do things that aren't supremely meaningful and enjoyable to us.  We barely have time for the things that matter most, and time is running out."

Robert's:  "Key to any strategy is to have the right people in place to be able to execute the strategy. If firms are bleeding top (partner) talent at such a rate, then this is something worth addressing."

Links to Referenced Posts:
Ernie the Attorney: "The Love Filter - Denise Howell departs big firm"
The Adventure of Strategy: So-Long and Thanks for the Fish
Bag and Baggage: Have Aeron, Will Travel

A tip of the pinstriped hat to my Edge International colleague, Robert Millard, for his post The Future of Law is International.  This may be early in the curve, however...
 
Punchline:  Managing Partners, if this is right, what will you wish five years from now that you started doing today?

Bruce Marcus makes a compelling case for his view that the legal profession is approaching "the tipping point".    Have a look at his evidence in his post today, called:

ARE WE NEAR THE TIPPING POINT IN PROFESSIONAL FIRM MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE?

Note:  I posted about Bruce's thinking on the Tipping Point before he put pen to paper so when you see that he references one of my articles, don't you be thinking this is simply reciprocation - Bruce is a mighty intellect and while I am honoured that he has referenced me, I would be directing you to his scholarly prose in any event, cross my heart.

I owe a big thank you to "Law Practice Today" and writer Tom Mighell for including this Blog in a story about new blogs. Tom says, in part:

It's really amazing that we have experts in legal marketing providing relevant, useful information on literally a daily basis

Tom Mighell is Senior Counsel and Litigation Technology Support Coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas, author of the Internet Legal Research Weekly and Inter Alia, a legal research weblog and a member of the ABA TECHSHOW 2006 Planning Board.

Check out the article for the other blogs mentioned.

Pop Quiz - What do these five law firms have in common?

Dierker & Associates, P.C. of Troy, MI

Epstein, Turner & Song of Los Angeles, CA

Gannon & Garcia, L.L.P. of San Antonio, TX

Powers & Frost, L.L.P. of Houston, TX

Rojas Law Firm LLP of Miami, FL

Hint #1: They are the newest members of an exclusive club

Hint #2: Members of the club must meet the following requirements (among others):

significant corporate law practice

Martindale-Hubbell AV Peer Review Rated

At least three references from national and regional corporations, preferrably within Fortune 500

Excellence in quality of law practiced, as evidenced by corporate references, presence on outside counsel approved lists and panels for national or regional corporations, and other awards and memberships.

Hint #3: Collectively their clients include (among many others):

Columbia University, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Boeing, Ace Hardware, McDonald's Corporation, Commonwealth Edison, Sprint Communications, Travers Smith, McDermott Will & Emery, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, Eversheds, Simpson Thatcher , Holland & Knight, Hunton & Williams, Wachovia Bank, N.A., Union Pacific Railroad, Coca Cola Enterprises, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation, Fed Express, Lear Corporation, Pfizer Inc., Shell Oil, A T & T, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., NBC Universal Studios, Tommy Hilfiger USA, Inc, Accenture LLP, Alliant Energy, Bear, Stearns & Co., Chubb Insurance Company, Eastman Kodak Company, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Midwest Airlines, PepsiAmericas, Inc., Staples, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Target Corporation, Time Warner Cable, Wendy's International, Toyota Motor Credit Company, American Airlines, Blockbuster Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc. Denny's, Inc., Hughes Electronic Corporation, Sara Lee, Tyco International Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Viacom, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., America West Airlines, Continental Airlines, State Farm General Insurance Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Chevron Corporation, WebEx Communnications, Walgreens, Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cingular Wireless, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, PETCO Animal Supplies

I invite you to draw your own conclusions about what this all means to you and your firm. (Ignore this at your peril.)

Give Up? Click here.

(Download and have a glance at the law firm members brochure while you're there).

Freelance writer Sarah Doherty follows yesterday's article "Flexible work schedules save money, research shows" about which I posted: (You Can't Afford to Keep Losing Your Women Lawyers)with another offering: Room at the top - Big law firms are making an effort to promote women into more visible and prominent positions

Here's how the article begins:

"When Joan Clark applied to work at a venerable Montreal law firm, she was asked whether she was engaged to be married. Her hiring met resistance from lawyers who said clients would never accept a woman in the job. When she was eventually invited to her firm's formal partner's lunch at a tony private club, Clark, now 76, had to use a special entrance while her colleagues waltzed through the front door. "I eventually went through the front door, but I knew how black people felt when they had to sit at the back of the bus," Clark said. "We don't have that kind of discrimination now."

My Opinion: This article is a useful supplement to the previous one… it is in some ways optimistic by citing some genuine progress for women lawyers but at the same time the article ends with a quote from Stephanie Jolin regarding litigation practices in particular that seems a wee bit pessimistic:

"Because of what the job demands, there will be a certain amount of limitation on how flexible you can be, especially in litigation," she said. "The job description is tough."

Read the full text and then tell me what is your take on the issue of big firms retaining women lawyers?

Catalyst studies show an associate's departure costs a [Canadian] firm about $315,000 in recruiting, training, salaries, overhead, severance, outplacement and other costs - not including hiring a replacement.

The stress of juggling work and family usually falls more heavily on female lawyers...

So what can law firms do to be more flexible in the face of the notoriously heavy demands of a client-driven and increasingly business-like profession?

Kirby Chown hopes she can find solutions. The 59-year-old is managing partner for Ontario of McCarthy Tetrault, one of Canada's largest law firms.

Two years ago, Chown started a women's network in her firm's Toronto office to create a stronger community of women and brainstorm around issues such as mentoring and business networking, which help lawyers move up the ladder. Last year, she helped create a firm-wide women's committee.

"Very few women are taking advantage of flex-time arrangements," Chown admitted. "There are concerns about being stigmatized." No men have requested the option, according to Chown.

My Opinion: I grow weary of the stereotypical myth-riddled responses of the power people in many major law firms giving excuse after excuse as to why keeping women engaged is next to impossible. I do not believe it and neither should you. This challenge will be met by some firms who will gain enormous competitive advantage. They will lower their costs and see much higher productivity.

Tom Peters (most famous business writer of all time) three days ago refers to the Economist in his blog post called Women's World! The Economist article to which he refers has the following headline: "Forget China, India and the Internet: Economic Growth Is Driven by Women." Tie these two together and put this on the agenda of your next executive meeting. (Maybe you should consider inviting Kirby Chown for a visit.)

Note: According to the "Mission and History" entry on its web site, Catalyst is the leading research and advisory organization working with businesses and the professions to build inclusive environments and expand opportunities for women at work.

See this information and more in today's article in the Gazette (Montreal) called: Flexible work schedules save money, research shows

Can you define and differentiate among these terms:

Intellectual Capital?

Human Capital
?
Relationship Capital?

Reputational Capital?

Economic Capital?

Structural Capital

The immediate reaction may be "those things are too subjective to be valued" or "even if they could be valued, that value would be diminimous." But anyone who has been involved in evaluations and appraisals knows that a value can be assigned to anything and usually with surprising accuracy. Consider the value of each area of capital independently...

WARNING: Watch out for a golf analogy or two - Ed lives with his wonderful wife Jan on a golf course in Savannah, Georgia — apparently the holes on that course are alive and can behave like camera apertures.

The addicts referred to are identified in the title of a Reuter's story today: Workaholics struggle to say 'No' to work

Does this sound familiar:

WA [Workaholics Anonymous] identifies workaholics as people who often are perfectionists and worriers, derive their self esteem from work, keep overly busy, neglect their health, postpone vacations and overschedule their lives.

Workaholism seems to be an occupational hazard for lawyers by the nature of what we do and how we do it. I tease in presentations that as lawyers we are perfectionists for whom 100% is a minimum and that is why no document is ever finished - there is simply a point at which we are compelled to let the client sign the darn thing. I believe that lawyers ought to maintain this mindset about their work just as I hope surgeons do also.

The challenge is that workaholism is so deeply engrained in our law firm cultures that we dare not even speak of balance without being considered "less". This is one of the (usually) unspoken reasons why part time work for new mothers is such a controversial subject. We carry this mindset over to our senior support professionals. The Chief Marketing Officer who goes home before 7 PM has their loyalty questioned. Worse, they are often invited to meetings that start at 6 PM without even being asked if that is OK (although too many are afraid to say "no" even when it's not OK).

The real issue is whether workaholism comes at a price. The Reuter's story has a heading which reads: DESTROYING LIVES

"People think it's funny… it's amusing until you hear the stories. There have been many people who have come, and work is destroying their lives."

MY OPINION: I know from first hand experience that many part time professionals contribute much more per hour at the office than their full time counterparts. Perhaps out of necessity, part-timers develop better time management skills and they are also forced to focus. I am not arguing against billable hours, per se, but many lawyers report that they spend far more time in the office than their billable hours suggest. Many lawyers are spending too much time at the office and getting far less of a return for themselves and their firms (and their clients) than they would if they spent something less but worked more efficiently and effectively. Many lawyers report that they do not capture their real work effort in their billable hours. Imagine if the capturing of billable time became more efficient. The income would be sustained while allowing lawyers to attend the odd family birthday party (when it begins instead of when it ends).

Robert J. Ambrogi

Thank you to Robert Ambrogi's for his post 'Happiness index' puts lawyers at bottom which is a grim reminder of the under-appreciation of lawyers and the legal profession and the consequential dissatisfaction of lawyers (as well as many clients, I am afraid).

MY OPINION: Many lawyers are under-appreciated because they are focussed exclusively on lawyering and do not invest sufficiently in client relations. I know that a small percentage, probably 10 or so, are exceptions to this and are extraordinary at developing relationships with their client and can interactively shape the metrics by which they will be measured creating much greater client satisfaction.

The profession must invest much more in client-relations training... not by bringing in the gurus but by having interactive internal learning sessions that allow the firm's best to pass on skills to those who need to acquire them.

FASTFORWARD: Imagine for a moment that we double client satisfaction. Can you imagine the impact on the lawyer happiness quotient? I rest my case.

Seth Godin provokes our thoughts with a very quick intellectual journey through service to expectations. In his post, What customer surveys measure, he teaches us not that serving and satisfying is impossible but that it is possible to do the former extremely well without doing the latter.

TRANSLATION FOR LAWYERS: Excellent legal work is not enough. Excellent work plus managing expectations plus exceeding those expectations is indeed enough. Is your firm doing enough? Are your individual lawyers and client teams doing enough?

Anthony Cerminaro

OK - I don't want to overdo this "fun and happiness theme" but there's lawyer Anthony Cerminaro blogging about Happiness Breeding Success.

Read his post — it captures the gems from the article he referred to in Live Science by the same name. The other quote I liked was:

Scientists reviewed 225 studies involving 275,000 people and found that chronically happy people are in general more successful in their personal and professional lives.

PUNCHLINE: I am not suggesting that having fun and being happy are the exclusive ingredients for a successful firm — in my view they must be accompanied by clear and strong values that are adhered to. I am, however, endorsing the idea that firms do much better if it's not a drag to work in them. Reflect on this as you formulate your personal 2006 plan as leader of your firm.

Peter Cornell, Managing Partner, Clifford Chance

I admire 53 year old outgoing Clifford Chance Managing Partner Peter Cornell for his integrity and self awareness in saying that "his skills as a lawyer were too rusty for him to return to practice" according to an article in today's New York Law Journal by Anthony Lin titled: Clifford Chance Managing Partner Stepping Down

I am not worried about Peter Cornell who is likely in sufficient demand to have his choice of lucrative careers after he steps down as MP. The importance of this story is not about Peter Cornell or Clifford Chance. My point pertains to the many managing partners in much smaller firms who risk their futures for their firms every day. Many have no built in compensation safeguard to allow them to gravitate back to practice after retiring from their Managing Partner role. There is a serious period of adjustment to attract work and to ensure that work is of the highest quality.

The worst part for many firms is that their Managing Partners are well aware of this vulnerability and therefore refuse to dramatically diminish their law practices and therefore do not spend serious time and effort on management. I have worked with a number of firms where the managing partner is too busy to manage but won't (or can't) delegate much to others. These firms pay the biggest price of all because the meander through the years virtually unmanaged.

It is time for all law firms of more than a handful of lawyers to realize that there is a return on the investment of management and a competitive disadvantage for ignoring that fact. They must create safety valves for Managing Partners who can then lend themselves to the management of the firm with enthusiasm rather than dabble in it while carrying a heavy caseload.

Managing Partners — start thinking of ways to harness this little philosophical gem in your firm:

Fun is not a distraction from work or a drain on our revenue; it is the very source of both our inspiration and our value. A genuine sense of play ignites our creativity, eases communication, promotes goodwill and engenders loyalty, yet we tend to shun it as detrimental to the seriousness with which we think we need to approach our businesses and careers.

Extracted from a wonderful recent post in influxinsights - I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

Follow me on a journey of logic — skip a decade to 2015 when air travel may dramatically increase in speed to 30,000 km per hour or 18,000 miles per hour — imagine a trip from Moscow to New York in 50 minutes or Moscow to Sydney in one hour and six minutes. (See reference to news story at end of post)

I contend that as the world continues to shrink, we will see a breed of global super lawyers who will go almost anywhere where there is a lucrative opportunity to bring unique skill and knowledge to bear on a legal problem.

What will this mean for competition — especially for the global firms. One might argue that they will be best positioned to exploit the opportunity because they can move their specialists around the globe more easily. However, it may also represent a threat to the global firms because agile competitors will be able to send top guns in without having to establish expensive local offices. A third possibility (my favorite) is that we will see even greater industry specialization such that any member of that industry will hire a known dream-team law firm the bricks and mortar location of which will be irrelevant.

I propose this as a serious planning issue, if not immediately, at least in the not too distant future. Competitive advantage comes from thinking ahead of the curve — not behind it.

Fasten your seatbelts!

(Story: Spaceflight from Moscow to New York to take less than an hour)

Do the economic rewards from doing business in China compensate for the risks?

Read today's account of Law firm in trouble for illegal acts By Zheng Yi (China Daily). Read it carefully. How can western-based law firms quantify their risk of falling into disfavor in the same fashion as the Chinese firms referred to in this story.

I know that a number of foreign law firms have done well in China for many years and so there is a basis for optimism that other foreign law firms will do well there also.

But, what if China decides that these law firms are expendable or worse?

This post comes dangerously close to being political — I raise the issue because the story I refer to should be a table topic for the risk managers of the firms who think China is the next "promised land".

Deneys Reitz is a top South African law firm that thinks as much about others as it does about itself. I had the privilege of helping this great firm through a retreat last weekend at The Castle Kyalami near Johannesburg.

Deneys Reitz has gained strength in numbers and in practices under the leadership of its very able Chairman, Michael Hart. The business program was his brainchild as the issues before the firm were discussed by randomly selected break out groups from across the firm's offices in South Africa. Facilitators gave punchy 4 minute reports that the firm could then discuss in the plenary.

Michael Hart

After capably exploring options for the future, but before concluding the retreat, the firm made time to hear from one of its own, Director, Patrick Bracher, who explored with his fellow Directors how the firm might breathe more life and focus into its social responsibility to its communities. He proposed increasing the firm's already sizable charitable contributions and the exploration of special charitable projects that Deneys Reitz could use its considerable talents to coordinate thereby involving others and dramatically leveraging the impact of its philanthropy.

Patrick Bracher

I was moved to see that this firm made time on its already busy agenda (and even delayed its concluding time on day two), not for itself, but for others… others who may ultimately be beneficiaries of the firm's generosity but who likely will never know about the depth of effort behind it.

All I want to say about it is: "Bravo, Deneys Reitz".

For you David Maister fans, and I will include myself in that category, David has given his site a lift complete with welcoming video. You can also sign up for a notification of his articles as he publishes them. There is a wealth of knowledge and materials there. Check it out!

After finishing a full day workshop yesterday with some major law firms, accounting firms and some other professional service firms at the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) of the University or Pretoria (Johannesburg, South Africa Campus), I was reminded yet again that professionals face the same fundamental challenges regardless of geographical location. The skills involved in courting prospective clients were not part of the educational package of any of the professionals in the room but there was a universal eagerness to learn and hone those skills. Thank you to all those who attended and to GIBS for allowing me to participate as a Visiting Professor.

Also, congratulations to GIBS for moving to 36th in the world for Executive Education in the UK Financial Times Executive Education survey this year.

Client service reaches new heights at Clifford Chance, which has obtained a 24-hour alcohol licence.

According to its spokes-woman, clients can get a refreshment (code for an "alcoholic beverage"?) at any time of the day or night.

Now in fairness, there are big deals that close in the wee hours and you would not want CC to be precluded from serving a little libation, would you?

See the full story in today's The Independent Online Edition: Lawyers drink in the last-Chance saloon

Just when the legal news starts looking a bit dull, some firm somewhere does something to capture our imagination — be grateful.

Credit to Transblawg (Margaret Marks) whose blawg alerted me to the story.

*"Going the Extra Mile" is a stated value of Clifford Chance

You may never see the day when Shearman & Sterling or White & Case would call their fellow lawyers "money-grubbing leeches touting for business…" but their names appear among advertisers at a site that did just that today.

I do not like lawyer jokes and I tire of lawyers being maligned — it seems to be a form of bigotry that is socially acceptable. I must say I was surprised to see a web site bearing the names of numerous prestigious law firms, as advertisers, attack lawyers in this way. But alas, this attack was not levied against all lawyers, only those who think that people with causes of action ought to be informed of their rights and offered legal service should they so require.

For fun, guess where these little leeches practice law? (Photo from RollOnFriday's posting)

I will bet good money that most would guess North America. Not a chance! SURPRISE! This comment comes from Jolly Old England!

I serve clients in the UK so I am going to be delicate here but North American lawyers are frequently referred to as "Crass and TransAtlantic" (ouch) by their UK counterparts. Well, I suppose Roll on Friday's Leech story levels the playing field a bit… now it can be said lawyers are berated "everywhere".

For the record, I do not encourage ambulance chasing but at the same time the legal profession is sometimes the only way that those entitled to damages learn about their rights.

Even when one of the offending firms (leeches?) apologized and confirmed that their ad was pulled as soon as they learned that the Law Society had set up a help line, RollOnFriday (usually hilarious) could not resist the following sarcastic comment about that firm's spokesperson:

"He denied our suggestion that claims factories were simply taking advantage of vulnerable members of society for the purpose of their own financial gain. Oh no no no no no. Far from it."

Well, after a few refreshes of the page, I had identified the following law firm advertisers (some are rotated):

Travers Smith
Berwin Leighton Poisner
Shearman & Sterling
Lovells
Osborne Clarke
White & Case
MacFarlanes
Burges Salmon
Cliffird Chance
Baker & McKenzie,
Allen & Overy
Nabarro Nathanson
Ashurst

I wonder if any of these advertising firms read what this web site publishes beside their names and whether any of them would wince at all, or worse, make different advertising decisions.

RollOnFriday: Stick to the humour - you are great at it - leave the preaching and the sarcasm to those who populate Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on Sunday afternoons.

LAWYERS WITH A DIFFERENT VIEW: If there are lawyers out there who think the RollOnFriday story is actually funny, please comment… I will be surprised but am willing to listen if you think my views are skewed.

The techniques managers use to get through a tough agenda in a business context are completely useless in a deposition. To survive the deposition, managers are trained to avoid the tactics they would have used in a business situation. Those who lead law firms are often experiencing more of a deposition environment than a business environment. Perhaps this is why some lawyers want their firms to be more "corporate".

This insight arises from the analysis of Wall Street Journal writer, George Anders, in his July 26 article called Depositions Require A Skill Set Leaders Don't Use on the Job (subscription required) in the July 26 WSJ (page A17 if you haven't thrown out your hard copy yet). Anders nicely illuminates the contrast between the very different business and deposition contexts.

FASTFORWARD: Those who live in law firms know what I mean when I say that the law firm environment resembles a deposition more than it does a corporation. A partnership meeting can be as grueling as a deposition. Support professionals (like marketing directors) often feel devoured by the environment. I believe that the lawyers training, especially litigators, fosters the propensity to lawyer their way through meetings making the leader's job next to impossible.

Lawyers must be highly critical and analytical when creating or improving documents or winding their way through the strategy of litigation. These are essential behaviors for lawyering but lousy for managing or being managed. Therefore, unless attorneys become aware of their propensities, they will bring this mode of behavior into all they do, including how they react to management, whether firm-wide or at the practice-group, industry-group or client-team level. Support professionals like Chief Marketing Officers walk away from encounters bewildered and frustrated by these strange (to them) lawyering behaviors that people outside the profession rarely exhibit (especially in corporate settings).

PUNCHLINE: Leadership requires "followership" which means that the more an internal meeting resembles a deposition ("examination for discovery" in many jurisdictions) the less productive the business meeting will be.

GOODNEWS: I have found that lawyers who are briefed about these anti-business behavioral propensities can easily transcend them. Once they are aware of them, groups self-police those who mistake the management meeting for a deposition; the noticeable increase in progress achieved is the immediate and reinforcing reward.

Bravo to Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and Molden Holley Fergusson Thompson & Heard for their ingenious alliance to create and market diversity.

Molden Holley is a small and new African-American firm comprised of partners who came from major firms. In what appears to be a brilliant win-win alliance, this new firm will continue to be independent but will bolt on all of the resources of AmLaw powerhouse Womble Carlyle when and as required; meanwhile, Womble Carlyle gets to demonstrate to clients like Wal-Mart and Sara Lee that it is listening to their General Counsel who have been requiring all of their legal providers to make rapid diversity progress.

(For further particulars on those diversity requirements, see my post titled: Law Firms as "Exclusive Clubs for White Men")

PUNCHLINE: While other firms may not yet have diversity on their radar screens and while those who do are likely progressing slowly and in a linear fashion, these two firms are hitting warp speed.

The most fascinating part of this story is yet to unfold. It's the marketing initiative (contained in this quote from the complete story in Small Firm Business — referenced below):

"Regina S. Molden, the managing partner for Molden Holley, said members of the two firms will