I am sometimes amazed at what said causes trouble.
I recently wrote a post concerning (I guess what I perceived as the negative connotations with what is a well over used phrase by lawyers who decide they want to venture out on their own) "hanging out your own shingle". It caused trouble with lawyers, some of whom I know and respect. One lawyer with her own blog concerning the hanging of "shingles" in particular took offense believing (it appears) that I was specifically attacking her blog. (It was not my intent).
She accused me of trying to be "trendy" by me suggesting that the term "hanging of shingles" sounded "so last millennium". To this charge I plead guilty in so much as I want to bring the practice of law into the current age, but she was using "trendy" as a derogative. I guess she thought I was belittling the word "shingle" so she would try to return the favor. Touche! Jargon is jargon. I was just trying to make a point--and a good point at that.
What I do not understand is the inference that I am some kind of dot.com Johnny-come-lately to advising solos merely because she has practiced law for 13 years, and started working at home before it was "cool". I certainly do not begrudge anybody who has accomplished so much and enjoys her profession so much, and who has worked so hard for so long. She has been blogging longer than I have. However, I have practiced law actively for 20 years, which means I was litigating in the Texas Supreme Court and the United States District Courts against the Bar, arguing for her first amendment right to blog in the first place, even before she entered law school. In this 20 years I have never known of a time when solo practitioners were "untouchable", whatever that is intended to mean. Although some have done amazingly well, most of the time solos have been out gunned, out financed and overworked by large firms who can spread the risk and incur the overhead. It has always been about large firms and industry protecting their franchise on the market place over the interest of solos. We solos and small firms banded together so that technology could take its course and so that the playing field could be evened out whether you were a firm of one or a firm of a thousand. It is the technology of the Third Wave that is only now putting solos on an even playing field with large firms. If that is trendy, then I accept the title.
Hence, my lack of preference for the word "shingles".
One lawyer commented that my blog is my shingle. To the degree that you can equate a business card to a billboard, I would say that is right. There are similarities. Shingle used generically, without any preconceived notion of its meaning or the attributes placed on it, is not a problem just as saying you are going to buy a "car". But, what if you say you are going to by a "Ford". That is a car, but it conjures up images and attributes (or lack of attributes) as well. And, that is my point. Shingle has attributes (or lacks attributes) to many that would suggest some trendiness away from the term is required.
To the degree that this is a healthy discussion that has obviously bedeviled saints and sinners alike, I also do not understand the argument that my blog is one that places "form over substance" or that this blog is "full of jargon" that does not "teach" "by example" on "how to practice law and deliver
legal services to my clients better, faster and less expensively." Oh, it hurts. Most of what she blogs on, I blog on. We agree on most of what we say. I call my philosophy in this regard the "M-Factor" and she calls it "Shingles". I cannot see where "Shingles" is any less jargonistic than is "M-Factor". The term "Shingles" just comes with more baggage.
I understand that Shingles' symptoms, as I perceive them, may be vague and nonspecific at first. People with Shingles may experience numbness to large firm practice, an itch to try something new, and inkling that there is something better out there for them as lawyers. At the pre-eruption stage, diagnosis may be difficult, and the pain and depression could be so severe that it may be mistaken for burnout.
But, the problem is that Shingles can carry a deadly virus with it that can ruin a promising legal practice. This virus represents the attributes (or lack of attributes) that one associates with Shingles. This virus is typically contracted at law school. It can cause one to have delusions of grandure, and it associates itself with ideas that you need a seperate office (likely in a large office tower), staff, partners, copiers, phone systems, computer networks, and all of the trappings those of old once associated with a dynamic practice. It creates the feeling that you need to replicate what you are leaving instead of leaving it all behind and trying something radically new. This virus operates under the scientific name, "overhead". It can be costly to cure, and in some cases can lead to the death of the practice. This virus retreats to nerve cells in the body, where it may lie dormant for decades. But under certain conditions, usually related to a desire for a change, a desire for more time, a desire to raise a family, or the desire for more money, the virus can reactivate and begin to reproduce.
Once activated, the virus travels to your brain making you believe that you need an office away from home and luxuries that result in high, high overhead that deprive you from your sanity, earnings and happy clients (or really the oxygen you need to effectively practice law alone).
It is this disease of sorts that we are trying to fight in blogging to enlighten you of the need for, and the benefit of, a Third Wave law practice.
If the crazy way I try to present the argument is offensive or hurtful to some, I am sorry, but our mission is resolute.
Whether for or against what I have stated, I appreciate all of those who have contacted me on this subject.
Recent Comments