Chuck Newton

Textpectation

We all know by going to movies or renown restaurants and the like that your treatment or experience of the theater, the restaurant or whatever is just as important as the content of the food itself.  Politics is much the same way.  Policy is important, but meeting expectations is critical to success.  The stock market, more than fundamentals, relies more often than not on public traded companies meeting the expectations of Wall Street.

In this way, I have found that technology is creating an expectation of sorts that most lawyers ignore.  It is called textpectation - the anticipation one feels when waiting for a response to a text message.  After all, texting has created a since of immediacy.

Over the years we have weened our clients and potential clients from believing that they can reach us immediately by telephone.  They have come to learn that because of other commitments that we would not be at their beck and call (literally).  We have demonstrated that we would not be waiting by the phone for them anytime they had a concern or a question.  So we have automated PBXs, and we have voicemail, and we have message trees, and we have extensions, and we have failed to give the client our direct phone lines for fear that we would be at the beck and call of their fluctuating affections (or lack thereof).

But, what we have also done is to have learned them in the art of modern communications, namely email and text messages and IMing, that typically bypass the palace guards and lands on our notebook computers and our PDAs.  Our clients comply with our wishes for simpler and mobile text communications that we can deal with in almost any environment, such as emailing or texting while in court, a deposition, traveling in a car, sitting on the john, or (if you are Rick Georges and Grant Griffiths) during the homily in church or mass.

With this, however, comes textpectation on the part of the client.  They email or text you and they are waiting almost immediately for a response.  (God help family lawyers).  When they do not get this response, at least during normal business hours, they feel cheated, bamboozled, disgruntled, dissatisfied, thwarted, disheartened and, maybe the worse of all, overcharged by their lawyer.

The bottom line, as a provider of services, the lawyer can easily lose the expectation game -- or in this case the textpectation game.

And, whose fault is this anyway?

Part of it is undoubtedly societies as a whole.  Technology eliminated the palace guards that use to guard us from direct messages.  That is probably good.  But, by putting us in direct contact with the client we do not have the visible excuses that the wired world provided us.  My children have grown up with the expectation that for the cost of a cell phone and broadband that they should be reasonably able to reach anybody, save maybe the President, with a few moves of the thumbs.

Today, our clients can follow us on our blogs, on Twitter, on MySpace, and any number of IM locations or social networking sites.  Not long ago I had an attorney get a little miffed because while I was ignoring his phone calls that day, I managed to post to a listserv he was following.  Of course, I was drafting a brief that day and did not want to lose a half hour on the phone talking and then making notes, but for a little relief from the pain of it all it did not take much effort to post a small comment to a bankruptcy listserv and move on.  That did not matter to him, and it probably should not.

The point is that we have created textpectations with all of those around us, and especially our clients.  When we do not live up to those textpectations we lose out as assuredly as when not living up to any set of expectation of us.

Critical Ass

Typically this terms means the state in fat accumulation when fabric can no longer contain the enormity of one's buttocks.  However, in the practice of law (or in the conducting of any business for that matter) I think in can also refer to a state in lawyers (and a few judges I guess) when the fabric of their fake, for the benefit of the court, disposition can no longer restrain their otherwise abhorrent, obnoxious, malignant, repugnant, or simply ugly personality or behavior.  Their superego has simply stretched the cloth of credulity to the point it is compromised.

Come on, in each of our little practice area worlds we know who the identities of these these brawlers, detestable, unpleasant, loathsome, vile, wretched lawyers.  The lawyers that do not so much disagree with you, but they go around being disagreeable with everyone, including the courts, on points and contentions that boarder on the legally absurd, bizarre, nonsensical, impractical and asinine.  No point is to small, no slight is too little, no issue is too inane to start a separate war over it.  The issue or defense is never even the point of the matter or the litigation, as the problem they have with you, your client, the world, the law, Congress, the court, the trustee, and possibly God himself or herself, or the fact that God even exists.

We can all be an ass, and I am sure from time to time we have all been asses.  I know I have.  That is not really the point.  We move on.  I am talking about lawyers with the pathology that cannot move on, that cannot give in to any argument, and in fact that make an unseemly argument out of everything.

I have often thought, who in the world would retain these lawyers.  Well, in fact, some companies and people love to retain these contemptible creatures because they somehow confuse this odious conduct as zealous representation.  At least this is true until they get the tab.  That is a different story.

The problem is that this detestable conduct wins out enough to reinforce it because sane people just want to get away from these wretched and vile lawyers.  No matter what the damage, nothing but nothing is worse than being so near to such loathsome lawyers.

So, they sometimes win precisely because they are so nefarious.  In fact, they win in a couple of ways because of this.  First, the opposing party just goes away.  Second, their client gets to pay them through the nose for the dishonest jurisprudence.

The good news is that I have only known a handful of these lawyers in my life.  And, I can tell you that with the exception of a couple, most have eventually been drummed out of the bar (although it has taken years), or their clients have eventually lost big at some point and the business is lost.  I would mention the couple with which I have had to deal as of late, but then I would be reaching my critical ass.  I do not want to do that.

Let us just face the fact.  These lawyers are just sociopaths, or they suffer from an antisocial disorder.  They are mentally ill, just not to the degree is likely to cure the problem.  You cannot call the Bar and demand they do something because you find the person an unmitigated ass.  I have no special advice for you on how to deal with these people except to ignore them as best you can and just stick to your case, your points, and hope you do not run into them that much.

When I Suggested We Downsize, I Really Was Did Not Mean ...

Look, I agree, and I have advocated for years, that all of us need to downsize our practices, our homes, our home offices to a level that is not so ... well ... ostentatious, or chichi, extravagant, showy, or not flamboyant, or I guess pompous.

Why?

It is just not necessary.  Who are you trying to impress?  People who do not like you or care about you anyway?  Me, who is just going to poke fun at you?  Besides, it all costs too much money and is too hard to maintain, which only diverts your earnings from other things that are important -- in my case all of the tuition I have to pay for three of my kids.  (I suffer from mal-tuition).

In the end, I guess it is all a matter of perspective or degree.  So imagine my shock when Candy Spelling, the sociality and widow of famed former TV producer Aaron Spelling decided to downsize or downshift by selling her 56,500 square foot, 123-room mansion and to move into a new, smaller 16,500 square foot condo.

Wow, what a leap that is.  Now, admittedly, her husband only built the largest home in Los Angeles country, and that was just way too big for one person.  After all, how much space does one person need?  The new digs are not finished being built but she bought it at a steal for only $47 million or $2,848 dollars a square foot.  It is sad to see the California real estate market in such turmoil. It is a two-story condo atop a Century City residential tower, it has only two working fireplaces, a dining room that will only accommodate 25 guests, a smaller than needed 4,000 square foot master bedroom suite, and a tasteful conservatory with a rose garden, swimming pool and a deck.

What a relief it must be to get out from that big house, called "The Manor".  Now the only problem is how is she going to fit all of that furniture into such a smaller place?

You Cannot Rampage More Than A Couple Hours A day - Executricks

Fortune Magazine's blogger Stanley Bing or CBS' Gil Schwartz -- call him what you will, he's interviewed by WallStrip's Julie Alexandra and talks about his new book, Executricks. Schwartz calls Attila the Hun one of his favorite "executricksters," saying, "You can't rampage more than a couple of hours a day, you have to have grog."

Delegate, be an ass, hold everybody accountable but yourself, personal independence are the tricks that can make you famous or cause those to resent those that are famous.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Rational Market?

I have to admit that I have always been more interested in the average Doug Jones than the Dow Jones average, but then I am just a common guy.

But, the big drop in Google stock price is just proof positive that the stock market is gambling with all of the precision of betting on a horse race.  This does not represent a rational market.  It represents an irrational market.

The news is this.  Google's stock price plummets 9.8% in one day, losing $52.12 a share, to finish at $481.32 per share.

Why?

Google did not meet "analysts'  expectation".  And, there in is the problem.  We are betting on the expectations of people and not on the feat that was actually performed by a company.  Kind of like a Realtor that substantially overprices a property only to sell it 10% above any other house in the neighborhood being called a failure.  Google did not lose money.  It earned beaucoups of greenbacks.  Not only is this fact not called a success, but the press starts talking about jitters, red flags, and being unnerved.

Really?  Unnerved?  The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!  Sometimes you have to wonder if business journalist ever actually think about what they write.

Here is what the "analysts" and the "press" are so upset about.  Google earned $1.25 billion (that is with a 'B'), or $3.92 a share for the three month period ending in June.  And, that ONLY represented a 35% INCREASE IN NET INCOME over the same time last year.  Google, in short, only made a profit of $925 million, or $2.93 per share, for a THREE MONTH PERIOD OF TIME.  OMG!  Somebody call a bankruptcy attorney!

The culprit?

If not for Google compensating its employees with stock it would have earned even more money or $4.63 a share.  Wall Street and the market does not like to see line employees make money.  In fact, it is not uncommon to see stock prices zoom when unemployment rises and or massive layoffs are announced.

Google has also suffered some due to the slow in click throughs, as this is how it makes its money.  Apparently, fewer people than expected clicked through to Google's advertisers  because of the present piss-poor economy in which we all suffer.  But let me tell you this.  If I have to do badly because of the economy, a 35% increase in profit is the way to do it.

There was a study a few years back that I remember reading about where a group of B-school students threw darts at a list of stocks and then tract those stocks as against the analysts.  The group of stocks picked by the random throw of the dots beat the analysts.

Sometimes I think I would rather just invest my money in Vegas.  You say that gambling in Vegas is not investing.  Well, that is my point about Wall Street.  Oil prices, the fall of Bear Sterns, the fall of Countrywide, the falling dollar, the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the strange drop in Google stock, and on and on.  The swashbucklers of Wall Street are into victimizing people and companies to make money as opposed to promoting anything. 

Screw The Scales Of Justice -- Lawyers Need To Go To Online Video

Okay!  Okay!  I am guilty of avoiding it myself.  So, who am I to preach?  Besides, such language.  And, who taught me to talk this way?  My mother is likely to wash my mouth out with soap.

But, here is the thing.  In lawyer marketing I am so sick and tired of viewing the scales of justice.  I got on Google images and typed in "scales of justice" and was flooded generally with links to one law firm, legal society, court or prosecutors office after another.  And, do not even get me started on displaying a gavel.  How painful does that look to a prospective client?  Law books in the background anybody?  Gees, does nobody have any originality?

We, as a group, are so busy trying to look so slick online that we lose our perspective.  Just be different.  Forget the stereotypes.  Forget the bad templates.  Just be yourself.  It does not have to be about hype.  People want authenticity.  That is the key.

Dump the static website that has no content and does not say much.  Go blog.  Better yet, go video.  While surfing around looking at all of the bad lawyer websites, I found this interesting video discussion.

Do Not Chase After Cases And Clients You Do Not Want

I have said it time and again.  Life is to short going through it looking homely, tired and ugly.  And yet I get calls and emails every day from attorneys, especially new attorneys or those just going into private practice, that feel a little uneasy and want to start chasing clients and cases they do not really want.

Why?

Money.  It is all about making a living, is it not?  Buying shoes for the kids.  Putting food on the table.  Not worrying so much.

I understand it.  I get it.  That is I understand the fear or concern.  I do not understand the need to chase cases you do not want.

If you are setting up shop to go after consumer bankruptcy clients, what the hell are you doing taking family law cases that put you in a different set of courts, dealing with a different set of people, and dealing with a different set of problems you know nothing about?

Going into the private practice of law takes a little faith.  I admit it.  It can be a little scary.  I know this well.  But, if you want to handle family law cases, then go do that.

If the fear is that you will come up short, how does chasing a few cases outside of your chosen field help?  You only have so many hours in the day.  You can only do so much.  When you are wrestling with those skanky cases you really do not want, except for a little spending money, you could be hitting the pavement, meeting people, and soliciting the cases you really want.  When your efforts and your attention get diverted you will not do as well.

It is really a self-fulfilling prophesy.  You chase the other cases and clients because you are worried about not succeeding with the cases and clients you want, and as a result you do not succeed because you have diverted your attention and divided your efforts.

And, the truth of the matter is that if you try to broaden your core services or practice area to please a wider group of clients, the chances are great that you will make your core clients less satisfied.  Why?  You will not have time to tend to their problems and issues.

So, stay focused.  Niche it.

I Feel Somewhat Vindicated

It is all over the legal press like it is something new and amazing -- and it is amazing.  A law firm that is virtual, it is web-based and it forgoes bricks and mortar, and where all of the attorneys work from home.  Wow, I wish I had thought of that.

But, I can tell you what makes me feel better about the new kid on the block -- Virtual Law Partners (VLP).  They are doing it up so big and so bold and so high profile, I can tell you that I feel vindicated for spending all of these years doing the same thing.  Maybe not on the level of VLP, but everybody has to start somewhere.

Here is where VLP is better -- Branding.  They are out to build a brand.  They are also out to build a firm that caters to in-house legal counsel.  They are competing with Big Law, where with me -- not so much.  They promise 85% of collections to go to their attorneys, and they promote a better work-life experience.

We cannot adopt trade names in Texas, but I like the name because it identifies what the law firm really is and represents.  In the future virtual might not mean much as every lawyer is doing it (remember Electronic Realty Associates - ERA - and how different they appeared when they started out), but for now it helps us all blaze the trail.

I was a tad disappointed that the firm is basing much on a traditional website.  That is so Web 0.0 or 1.0.  I would have like to see a launch full of blogs and Twitter and YouTube and more social networking sites and avenues.  That is marketing that in-house will and can now sink their teeth into.  Why?  Because it is marketing with content and all of us, including in-house counsel, are looking for content.  There was a good chance for the website to be a portal to some static information and to be the entry point of the operating platform the lawyers need to work together.  But, it could have also been the hub to feature the law firms assault on the world via social media.

We do wish Virtual Law Partners all the best because for them to succeed means all of us who have been doing this for so long succeed as well.

I Do Not Do That -- You Do -- What Do You Want Me To Do?

I am always playing around with a new market idea, a new niche, a new practice area (maybe with a twist).  First, I am intrigued by this.  Second, I have made the best choices in my career thinking not necessarily outside of the box but around it.

But, here is the truth of the matter.  I practice in a very narrow niche area of the law that has very few (if any) other full time players.

As a result of my playing around with other ideas, and because of my limited reach (I just refuse to practice outside of my chosen field), I get a good number of calls and emails from people requesting my help on everything from family law matters, will contests, and most things involving litigation.  I am not always sure why.  I just know I cannot help these people.  I have received three such requests already this week.  I am polite and listen, but then I must refer these people on.

The Treadmill Workstation

Man - o -man, I cannot even walk and chew gum at the same time.  Heck, I cannot even much run.  So, it is beside me how I would be able to run and type (keyboard to you younger crowd).  Yet, according to Yahoo News, reports on a new product that combines a treadmill and a computer workstation that is suppose to keep us home office workers and others moving.

The product made by Details, a unit of Michigan-based office furniture maker Steelcase, is selling 30 to 40 units per week, and they claim the reaction is overwhelmingly positive.

From my perspective I am going to need at least three screens -- and a chair -- and an oxygen tank.