What?
I read an interesting article, outside of my area of expertise, of Virginia banning the construction of all future cul-de-sacs in the State. The Washington Post reports that cul-de-sacs are "quasi-private standalone developments around the country that are missing only a fence and a sign that says 'Keep Out' ... There is a public benefit to increasing connectivity and eliminating what are essentially private roads".
Cul-de-sacs represent private entrances and exits. They are terribly proprietary. They insure that traffic is only narrowly local. They choke off traffic. They divert traffic to other places away from the cul-de-sac. They remove those on the cul-de-sac from the main spine and everything that comes off of it. The cul-de-sac separates the community around it from the offices, houses, stores and other people and businesses and organizations available from them. Cul de sacs destroy connectivity. They increase the commute for everybody in the area. They represent an undue expense and overhead.
When you think about it, that pretty much describes many lawyers and law firms in this day and age. Sure, they might have static websites (maybe not), but what they have done is create a metaphorical and/or technological cul-de-sac that destroys connectivity and drives prospective clients from the law firm. And, in this competitive environment, is that really what they want to be doing?
In the old days we referred to these barriers as "palace guards". I still find myself making phone calls to law firms in which I must first speak with the receptionist who questions me, then I am transferred to a secretary who questions me and will most likely then refer me again to a paralegal (and not the lawyer) who questions me or to the lawyer's voice mail. I go through this rigmarole only too often not to have the lawyer call me back.
Most often the issue is that the law firm fails to provide any useful information to any potential client, the lawyer will not speak with the prospect over the telephone and insist on an appointment first, and then only upon the restrictive schedule of the attorney.
There are still a number of lawyers who do not review their own email, or check it infrequently, or have their spam filters turned up so high it is virtually impossible to get them a message directly.
Most lawyers do not use Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook or other social networking sites. Most do not have a blog, or they post to it infrequently.
Lawyers lack extranets or, if they have them, refuse to allow their clients on the systems.
Not long ago I went to a law firm to visit a lawyer who represented a client on the other side of a case. I had to park in a parking garage about two city blocks from the high rise building in which his firm was housed. It cost me $10.00 just to get close to the building. Once in the building I got the third degree from the guards at the entrance of the building before I was allowed to approach the elevators. Once I entered the lawyer's offices I had to first explain myself to the receptionist even though I had a scheduled appointment. Then I had to sign in, give her my driver's license, display a visitor's badge, and then cool my heels in the waiting room for a good while. The attorney's secretary finally came to get me. I tried to joke by complaining about the oral cavity search, but that went nowhere. She asked me to follow her. We approached a door in which she had to plug in her code. (By the way I was right behind her and now I know know four digit code). Then I was placed in a small conference room where I got to wait even longer for the attorney to finally come in.
Was I impressed?
Not one bit. Miffed was probably more the word I would use. I was inconvenienced and for what real purpose? If I were a client, I would not want to pay for all of that unnecessary stuff.
Did the lawyer feel safer because of all of this? It made you wonder really what the law firm is up to that the lawyers thought they need this level of protection. In reality most of this mighty infrastructure, and the overhead it represents, including the oppressively expensive decor of the office, has less to do with actual security as it does with the giant ego and sense of entitlement of the lawyers involved. It is more for their self-image of feeling all important than based on any reality, or practicality, or the ability to actually retain clients.
But, what each of these situations stated above and more represent are create cul-de-sacs that destroy connectivity. They are designed to tell people to keep out and keep away -- including clients. These cul-de-sacs segregate the lawyers and the law firms from the rest of the World. They destroy the time of the lawyers and firms that could be better applied elsewhere, and increases the commute. They substantially increase costs, expenses and overhead and they leave the lawyers and law firms stranded from the very public that matters.
In this day and age we have to be connected and available. Lawyers need to move out of their self-imposed cul-de-sacs they have developed that limit availability and access. When lawyers destroy connectivity and availability and information, when they erect a closed society, they are destroying growth, profitability and, in my mind, enjoyability. They also draw attention to themselves that is not positive or constructive to anybody but themselves.
Several years ago I vacated an office in a high rise building in Philadelphia. Since I lived within walking distance of the office, and was moving my office home, I decided to carry small items home as I left the office every night. One weekend, I took some of my licenses off the wall and was heading for the exit when two security guards stopped me and asked if I had "authorization" to leave the building with the framed licenses. I said that the name on the licenses was mine, and offered to show them my ID.
Not good enough. They wanted a letter on office letterhead. So I walked back up to the 14th Floor (because by then security had turned off the elevators), drafted a letter on my own letterhead which said "Law Office of Corinne A. Tampas", gave "Corinne A. Tampas" authorization to remove the framed licenses from the building, signed it "Corinne A. Tampas", walked back down to the ground floor and showed security my authorization. Security never did ask for my ID.
I don't miss working out of high rise in the least.
Posted by: Corinne A. Tampas | March 29, 2009 at 11:44 PM