Chuck Newton

Are Lawyers Tag Hags

Well, maybe tag hag is not the right term.  That is a person who is obsessed with brand name clothing, but I think it gets the point across.  Certainly there are lawyers that concern themselves with wearing the right suit, the right shoes, the right shirt, and the right tie.  They cannot buy what they need at a discount store, but my analogy is broader than this.  As the next season rolls around, they go out and spend thousands on new stuff, and then think the salvation army really needs the crap they discard.

You have to be concerned with lawyers and law firms that are obsessed with the need to be in the brand name building, with brand name furnishings, to have graduates from the brand named law schools, that have the brand named legal staffs, that drive brand named cars, live in brand named communities, and operate in the old world environment of need for an office staffed and equipped like firms 20 or 30 years ago.

Should it matter to you as a client in this legal services environment?  I think it should.  First, what we are talking about is high cost overhead for no better reason than the tag hags are prideful.  Second, that overhead and old world charm is going to passed on to you as the client.

I see these lawyers drive up to Court every day.  Tag hags are fun to watch.  I do not ridicule in public.  It is my own private amusement.  The expensive uniform just back from the cleaners (extra starch in the shirts, please), the perfect car, just arriving from the big office, with the big staff.  More often than not their clients lose.  They lose not on the merits of the case, but the costs of stay in eventually gets to great to justify under any business-based decision.

These are probably lawyers that have wine at home they never touch.  It is too valuable to drink and they are too attached to the wine to ever sell it.

I am not saying you need to be a hobo, but I tend to think one of the problems with too many law schools and too many Big Law firms is that they create a culture where lawyers learn to be tag hag and where that culture prevails.

Is It Time To Look For Office Space?

Everybody knows that I am not a big fan of commercial office space.  I tend to look at it as a long term debt with the build up of zero equity  -- no benefit.  That is not always a good investment.  Also, rent (debt) takes money out of your pocket that broadband and a home office can allow you to keep.  Office rent is such a large percentage of any law firm's cost, that is a lot of money.

That said, I also understand that many people do not share my experience, or simple cannot or will not move home.  They also do not want the hassles of financing, managing and paying for ownership of a law office or commercial property.  Simply put, that is not the business in which they operate.

If you fall into this latter category, and you are looking to go out on your own, move your office, expand or downsize your office, or need a new office for any reason, now might very well be the time.

Although not as hard hit as residential real estate, commercial occupancy is falling.  This is true for venues once with a waiting list.  As a result, not only are you more likely to find the location you feel you really need, but more likely than not you will find yourself in the driver's seat in terms of negotiations.  We are finally getting back to a time where landlords will deal to get their space filled.  Most commercial properties do not have long term financing like you would suspect to obtain when financing a house.  As a result, they need to re-up for new financing in the future and they need leases and their spaces full.  Tenants now are getting free months, reduced costs, moving expenses paid, and the like.

The same is true for executive suites.  Let us face the fact that when commercial space goes unused, landlords increase the number of executive suites to fill the space, creating an over abundance of executive suites.

You still need to rent or lease space that makes sense for you.  After payroll, office space is usually the second highest expense for most law firms.  Think carefully about how much space you really need, where it should be located, what type of space it should be, and what key features you need.

Interesting - Fox News Focus Group Went For Obama

Let's watch this video of Fox News undecided focus group that watched the debate.  Obama moved more people.

Containter Housing - Ultra Low Cost - Maybe an Office Too?

Here is a video of the prototype container home to provide ultra low housing.  Could they also be used for small home or away from home offices?  I think so.

Quark

No, I am not talking about the character in Star Trek Deep Space who ran the bar.

Quarks are the smallest known building blocks of matter.  Protons and neutrons are each made of 3 quarks.  Quarks are never found alone, and are only found in groups of two or more.  They are so powerful together that separating two quarks generates enough energy to create two more.

Marketing a solo law practice or small law firm operates in much the same way.  Marketing should be the smallest building blocks of any practice.  And, you should not rely on one marketing tool, and you should always be consistently working several to achieve the energy necessary to fuel your practice.

The reason that the quark representation is necessary is for the size of the effort itself.  It does not have to be large.  It should be small.  It should not be your only emphasis.  Solos who see their main job as marketing get disbarred all of the time.  Why?  They spend all of their effort bringing business in the front door and, as a result, they have no ability to manage the cases they have acquired.

I would like to suggest to you some of the marketing tools or marketing quarks you can use to constantly and consistently fuel your practice.  Used together these small building blocks work well.

1.  Telephone.  In this day and age it is the most unrecognized marketing tool.  It is something you already have.  You are paying for it anyway.  You are on the phone all of the time, so remember to call referral sources during down moments.  Even if you do not get through to them, you can leave a voice mail message letting them know you are still available.

2.  Email.  Again, you already have this and you are using it regularly.  Importantly, it is quick.  Remember to send private and personal emails to your referrals sources now and then just to let them know you are still around.  If they do not or cannot take your call, follow up with an email.  Just a line or two to let them know they are appreciated by you.

3.  Practice blog.  This should be the hub of your practice.  These are dirt cheap, and it gives you a center point to keep in touch with your referral sources.  When you are talking with people on the phone or in person, on every letter and business card, you refer them to this site for information, including contact information and referral information.  Your URL can almost become a virtual business card your referral sources can pass on to someone else.

4.  Social media. This is basically new to me as well, but there are sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and any number of free or nearly free sites that are easy to set up and to which people refer.  Use these as a means of promoting your blog and contact information.

5.  Paper.  Paper is dying, but online paper (like PDF documents) is not.  If you file a pleading make sure there is a banner at the top that promotes you in the way you need to be promoted.  Then, of course, there are business cards.  They still work, so use them.

6.  Old push technologies.  These are things like broadcast email and faxes.  The idea is always to stay top of the mind with your likely referral sources.  Send out short newsletters that promote your -- what else -- blog, yourself and what you do.

Each of these work if used together like a group of quarks.  Together they generate energy.  Energy will bring clients to you.  They represent some of the building blocks for any practice.  They do not consume all of your time, leaving time for the real work at hand.  Most importantly, even as a group, these marketing quarks are cheap, cheap, cheap.  (Meaning, of course, that they are not low in quality, but that they are extremely cost effective).

Now, in saying all of this, notice I did not suggest that these things along will work.  After all, these marketing quarks are the building blocks of a good practice.  They need one other special ingrediant to bind them together.  That would be you.  You are going to have to get out and meet and greet and collect information, and build your web presence through word of mouth.  Remember, marketing quarks are only the foundation, but they do put you on a solid footing to achieve what you need to achieve -- reputation, attention, cases and cash flow.

Nothing Wrong With Where I Am

Tommy Dorsey : Opus One

Listening to a lot of Tommy Dorsey today, with various singers.  Here is Opus One, which is pretty darn good.  Enjoy.

Oh, Burn !!!

Burn is an exclamatory response, generally by a third party, after someone has just received an insult.  It is slang for disrespecting someone or to make fun of someone.  It is so humiliating or insulting to the point where you cannot return with a comeback.

I have thought, "Oh, BURN!", or its equivalent, a couple of times over the last decade.

The first was during bankruptcy deform, in which these large financial institutions pushed through Congress and the White House reforms that were not needed, and for which there was no motivation for no better reason than to make bankruptcy harder for consumers to file. Phil Gramm, who is now John McCain's economic adviser, was a United States Senator during part of the debate over bankruptcy reform, and I recall him getting on national TV, and sending out mailers, referring to those who file bankruptcy as "deadbeats".  This practice was repeated by his successor, John Cornyn, who liked to refer to those who file bankruptcy as "deadbeats".  I always thought, no matter what the arguments or what the position taken, that these two otherwise disrespectful men went out of their way to not only advance their contributor's goal, but to intentionally disparage, belittle, dishonor, derogate, defame and slur those who felt they needed this protection.

Certainly the Republicans were not the only ones to blame for this fiasco.  Many Democrats were complicit.  And, were John Cornyn could almost be forgiven because, I doubt from his demeanor in office, that he is very bright.  However, is not Phil Gramm's excuse.

The second "Oh, Burn" moment came when I read about the $700 Billion bailout of the large financial institutions so as to prevent them from filing bankruptcy.  None, or little, of that money is going to help ordinary folks that might have been affected by the conduct of these banks.

You can say what you want about the pros and cons of the bailout, but the philosophy of it show an hypocrisy that is huge and shows a blatant type of contempt for common people.

What this monetary philosophy entails is the privatization of profits, but the socialization of risk or losses.  When there is money to be made or bilked, the government should get out of the way and never interfere, but the government should be made solely responsible for the risks and losses associated with the escapades of the financial institutions.

This was the same argument people like Gramm, Cornyn, Bush, McCain and many on both sides of the divide in Congress argued in regard to the so-called bankruptcy reform measures in Congress.  They argued that in essence that by allowing middle class people to just file bankruptcy when times got tough for them, without regard for the better times they might have had in the past, that the government was allowing these people to privatize profits and to socialize their loses, and that was wrong in their minds at the time.

Now, after middle class people are forced into 5 year repayment schedules not based on their actual budgets or earnings, we are creating what is now a trillion dollars of relief for Wall Street, while ignoring Main Street, and while denying ordinary people the right to achieve the same result when they find a financial meltdown unavoidable.

Trial Success

I got an email that says I never seem to discuss anything about actually trying a case, and that is what new lawyers and solos need to know.  I returned the email and asked what they wanted to know.  The writer said the technique I use to try a successful case.  I have thought about it, and here is what I do.

A trial is about two different story lines -- yours and theirs.  You need to worry about your story line and quit trying to respond to or deal with theirs.  I have the luxury of trying most of my cases in front of a federal judge and not a jury, so this helps a little.

My opening and my closing statements or arguments are nearly the same.  They exactly follow the elements I need to prove in order to prevail.  I make sure this corresponds with my client's firm understanding of the case and with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that I filed, along with any briefing on unusual or difficult issues.  If you follow the elements you need to prove, you do not have to worry greatly about every defense or argument that the other side might want to present because these are covered in your presentation.

My opening and my closing statements, as well as the testimony I solicit, follows in time line fashion.  Why make it hard for someone, judge or jury, to follow the chain of events?  Also, it makes it easier for you to prepare a case, and remember the facts of the case.

I keep my opening and closing and testimony brief.  Typically, an audience gets bored and their minds wonder after 10 minutes.  I try to keep it substantially under this.  Too long and you will confuse everyone.

Part of presenting your story line is to not override the memory buffer.  In technical terms do not try to cram too much bandwidth into a pipe that carries much less. 

Along the same lines, I do not sweat the small stuff.  You do not have to run down the every trail you are invited to run down.  You do not need to follow the other side down every rabbit hole it seeks to distract the judge or jury from the facts of the case.

I rehearse the opening and closing.  I use very few notes.  Keeping it short helps.

If you keep it simple, state clearly the elements that must be established and the facts you will prove up, then prove up just those facts, and then close by relating that testimony (facts) with those elements necessary to prevail, it is neither that overwhelming, the trier of fact can follow you, you look credible, and you will prevail if your client deserve to.

That is the best I know to tell you.

Twitter Revisited

I got a lot of criticism after my post on the general uselessness of Twitter without having much tried it.  I took that to heart and have used it this week.  After all, I do not want to be some kind of technology-lacking Mennonite plain person looking back and shunning the First Wave Amish and their total lack of convenience only to see that the larger world has also left me behind.  I have never wanted to be seen as some sort of dated, primitive, archaic anabapist in the sense of what technology and what the Internet brings to us.  I never saw post-modernism as the end of religion, and I never saw the rapid evolution of technology as a corrupting thing.  I want to surf the Third Wave, not be crushed by it while decrying my plight lounging on the shore.

That does not mean that I have changed my opinion of Twitter necessarily.  I said then, and I say now, that a small part of it might be beneficial but most of it is not.  It is the process of sharing and sorting through the ton of posts in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff for which I am not sure I am prepared.  I have found much of this to be true this last week.  I have found myself guilty of spewing much in the way of insignificant babble.

And, it has been difficult for me because I like to think that I think in paragraphs and whole thoughts and not in some bizarre set of repetitive, nonrhythmic utterances or Tourette syndrome type bursts.  Twitter only allows the latter.

Besides, with Twitter there is little point of reference.  There is not much in the way of affiliated conversation.  There is little married speaking.  It is all rather disjointed.  It is much like asking a question about the weather only to get a response about politics, and you think "where did that come from".  It is a little like all languages speaking at each other at the same time.

I have now gotten a flavor of the daunting task that George Bush and the government must have listening in on all of our telephone calls and reading our emails.  It is like looking down into a giant reservoir of fast moving, and unrelated data, and trying to identify that which is important to you.  Or maybe, with fear of dating myself, it reminds me a little of the "Job Switching" episode of I Love Lucy in which Lucy and Ethel cannot keep up with the conveyor belt at the candy packaging job they take on.  It is pure vaudeville, and that is what I feel like sometimes when trying to keep up with Twitter.

In growing up we were taught to be so regimented.  Maybe they call the opposite of this attention deficit now, but I am beginning to think that it permeates our young today because tech is better at mimicking the mind and the way that thought and communication really works.  The young are naturals at it.  Maybe we have been systematized a different way.  Is the new Twitter way better or worse?  I am not sure.  I tend to think better.

We are now entering the world past simple email and IMing into the strange new realm of social media, and we need to be fearful of not being left behind.  I know lawyers still that are in the agrarian age of law.  We are struggling with transition to social media, and these lawyers cannot type (keyboard) or are still using fax machines and FedEx as their primary source of tech.  There are federal judges that tech has past by.  These judges have their staffs print off everything, then they read it, sign it and their staffs scan it back it.  They cannot only live without paper, they do not even try.  I am fearful that it is a luxury that us ordinary attorneys cannot afford if we want to continue as productive members of our profession.

So, I do not know much more at the end of this week than when I started as to Twitter, but I think what I have figured out is this.  Whether it is really the next big media, or whether it is the new big way to communicate, no matter what problems it holds for us old fogies, there is an internal need in all of us to feel connected to something bigger that ourselves.  Somehow feeling connected in real time.  For the spare room tycoon, the Third Waver, the connected lawyer, the carpet commuter, the solo practitioner, and to those hanging a shingle, Twitter is the comfort food that at least satisfies this appetite or this craving for us now.

We all look for that synchronicity in life in which two or more events or comments, which are causally unrelated occur together in a meaningful manner.  We all hunger, we thirst, we itch for the relationship of minds, the relationship between ideas that might be casual on some level, but when they occur simultaneously they have a cause and effect on us.  Those haha moments.  And on the higher level that is what Twitter offers.

For now, I will keep at it to see what else can be learned in between learning what a Squeeze concert is, and what people are having for dinner, and when they are going to bed.  As it turns out, I too live for the haha moment.  The question is still can I make a living while keeping up with all of my options.  Relationships, after all, are full time jobs in and of themselves.