Chuck Newton

Windows First Teams With Family Guy For Spots Promoting Windows 7, Then Axes Spots, Then Releases Them

I usually leave the tech stuff to other bloggers, but things like Windows 7 are so important to Third Wave practitioners.  Besides, the raunchy and political incorrectness of Family Guy aside, these spots are funny.

A Cute Kitten For Your Holiday Enjoyment

No Admission For Internet Law Graduate In Georgia

In a decision by The Supreme Court of Georgia, Joyce K. Batterson will be denied a waiver to licensed in that state in that she graduated from an online law school, licensed by the State of California, Northwestern California University School of Law.

According to the Georgia Supreme Court Decision, the Georgia Board of Law Examiners properly denied Ms. Batterson's waiver because she failed to provide sufficient proof that the non-ABA-accredited law school from which she received her JD was equivalent in its education to an ABA-accredited law school.

In what seemed to be a rather picky decision, Ms. Batterson had provided not only a letter from the Dean of NWCU concerning the education of that school, but also letters from an Associate Dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, an ABA-accredit law school from which Ms. Batterson received an LL.M degree.  

The Georgia Supreme Court believed that the TJSL letters contained "only general conclusions" that Ms. Batterson's legal education was on par with that of an ABA-accredited school.

Although, I believe that this is a perfect example why students need to attend ABA-accredited law schools when possible, it does seem to me that the Georgia requirements are generally impossible to achieve.  For example, it will be nearly impossible for ABA-accredited law school professors to discuss the educational standards of a particular non-ABA-accredited law school.  Secondarily, given the requirements for accreditation under the ABA, no online law school will ever meet those ABA-accredited law school equivalences.

My point is that Georgia has effectively written rules for waivers that can almost never be met.  I think they know this.  If you do not like something, you do not have to prohibit it as you can just legislate it out of existence.  It is an old trick that the bar itself employs too much.

Much like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granting Ross E. Mitchell a waiver after he graduated from Concord, an online law school, to sit for the State's bar, the better course should not be to compare schools and education systems, but the qualifications, skills and knowledge of the law graduate applying for a waiver.

The bottom line, whether Ms. Batterson was qualified or not, and although the Georgia Supreme Court gave short rift to it, ABA rules for accreditation are becoming quickly and seriously outmoded in our Third Wave world.  Partly as a result, law schools are becoming too expensive.  In fact, they are increasingly becoming cost prohibitive for the exact reason that they do not use technology effectively to increase overhead and costs.

Georgia needs to consider the person and not the school in the granting of waivers.

A Few Thanksgiving Facts

You might not know some of the following:

1.    Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey, and not the eagle, to be our national bird.

2.    Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor and author of "Mary Had A Little Lamb" waged the campaign to make Thanksgiving a national holiday.

3.    The original Macy's parade in New York City in 1924 on Thanksgiving day celebrated Christmas and not Thanksgiving as it market the start of the Christmas shopping season.

4.    Abraham Lincoln set the standard by which we celebrate the holiday.

5.    During the Great Depression Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to celebrate Thanksgiving a week early to increase time for Christmas shopping and the people did not like it.

6.    Swanson came up with the TV dinner in 1953 out of desperation when it overestimated the demand for turkey for Thanksgiving by 260 tons.

7.    The average person consumes 3,000 calories during Thanksgiving dinner, and other meals and snacks during the day bring the total of calories consumed to between 4,000 and 6,000.  It is said that the original Thanksgiving celebrants consumed only about 550 calories.

Modesty

I am often asked to describe the attributes of the Third Wave practice of law.  In this regard, I have often struggled with possibly the right descriptions. 

Sure it is easy to talk about features, to use a marketing phrase, but attributes are much different.  After all, attributes, when you think about it, our objects held by saints.  It is meant to be emblematic of what this type of practice is about.  It is intended to describe the variable characteristics of the practice.  Maybe it more abstract, but it is the philosophy, the attraction, the characteristic, the social science behind the practice.

So, I have thought about it over the years, and I have contemplated the question.  And, what I have concluded is that more often than not the attribute that should be most associated with the Third Wave practice of law is modesty.

Modesty?  Really?

Yes, really.

Look, I am not contending that the Third Wave is to the practice of law what the burqa by some Islamic nations.  It is not intended to cloak the entire practice of law.

Modesty, after all, is measured against a society or group of people.  In this case the traditional bar.  In this day of huge firms, lavish offices, showboating, extravagances, slap actions, and overly zealous lawyers, it is not hard to appear modest.

But, modesty is the goal of the Third Wave practice measured against this standard.  The Third Wave represents a type of reticence or a type of demureness, does it not?  By its very nature, the Third Wave represents a deeper humility and simplicity than does the typical law practice.

Third Wavers do not, by their action and nature, subject themselves to peer pressure.  They do not conform to the community standards of how most in the bar operate a law practice.

Think about it for a moment and you will see this is true.  In an age where most attorneys want an audience for cars in which they commute, their offices meant to impress, their clothing intended to portray power and expense, the Third Wave more discourages non-essential exposure.  You will not see a Third Wave attorney plastering themselves all over phone books and magazines, and blasting themselves into every home over TV and radio.

Third Wavers work from home or nondescript office environments.  They soft sell and attract clients by personal, one-on-one, referral-based communications.  They make court appearances over the phone when they can and do not need luxury cars to commute to and from work.  They do not seek to lord over staff and employees.  It is not about flash.  Third Wavers are more about substance.  Yes, we hang out on the web and in social media sites, but what we do is make ourselves available only for those who what to discuss or what to view.  We are not carnival barkers, and do not rely typically on push technologies and intrusive media.

Further, when you analyze it, the Third Wave applies equally to lawyers based upon gender, race, height, hair, and whether one is skinny or fat.  Because there is no hierarchy in terms of employment, there is no such restrictions or discrimination in the Third Wave practice.

The Third Wave is not exactly the fig leaf of the legal profession, but the Third Wave does not promote class-based exhibitionism either.

Like it or not, this is my thought on the subject.

Linked In - The Site That Does Nothing!

I am moderately involved in social media, and admittedly some of the uses of some sites is relatively subjective.  But, I have never understood Linked In and the value it provides.  (In short, it does not provide a value that I can see).  I have a Linked In account, which I do not often use.  I get nothing of even subjective value out of it.  It is a site, which we might say in Texas, is all hat and no cattle.

Therefore, I appreciated this video on Current TV mocking Linked In.  Enjoy.

The High Tech Washing Away Of Sins

I am just as nostalgic as the next guy.  I like to visit old churches, and especially the painted Catholic churches built in Texas in the 1800s.  I am not sure why, but there is just something comforting about sitting quietly surrounded by history.  Maybe it is the thought that all before us had to deal with the same sins, endure the same struggles, and avoid the same temptations, even if they might all be a bit easier or a little different in packaging now with technology.

Truth be known, it is really my decorating style.  I like mixing the old with the new in my home, and in my outside offices of times past.  I use to like to keep an antique Texas Reporter open to a Texas Supreme Court case describing negro people as chattle and discussing them in terms of property rights, on an old antique desk in the entry area of an office that was mainly modern design.  It was not an affirmation of how things should be, but a reminder of how far we have evolved and how cruel we as a society could be.

I digress some, but I found the report by NBC News of the Italian inventor who combined his faith and technical ingenuity, and invented an electronic holy water dispenser for those attending Mass, and worried about catching the flu.

Sounds innovative to me, but I am sure it was roundly opposed by many.  After Mass recently I found myself in a discussion with older parishioners of how, not in a religious context, computers, the Internet, video games and even TV were destroying the fabric of America.  They knew this, I suspect, because they heard it so stated on TV and computers over the Internet.  Needless to say, my church does not have a great history of timely embracing progressive ideas and technologies.  It even persecuted Galileo, acting on directives of the Inquisition, from discussing his heliocentrism hypothesis (all celestial bodies did not move around the earth, but rather around the sun).  And, the Church disapproved of his experiments using the new high tech telescopes.

And, who can blame those in the Church now.  It is just human nature to oppose that which we do not know.  We are more happy with the devil we know than the devil we do not.  History tells us, however, that the Church or the majority has never won the fight against the integration of technology.  We keep trying, however.  We fought the typewriter as immoral after all.

Along these lines, I have never understood why the Church does not come into the modern age.  Wear the garments of old if you will, and many of the traditional ceremonies are fine.  As stated, I do not want to take away the familiarity of what really counts, but in this Third Wave age I have thought the Church is terribly inconvenient.

Printed materials?  Catholics are not generally big Bible thumpers, although they are very concerned with The Word.  As a result, they let the Bible lead the procession in to and out of Mass.  Don't let me be stuck down, but I have often looked up and thought, a physical book?  Why not a Kindle.  Same for the readings.  I have to sit there in disbelief while parishioners fiddle through the readings in a book to find what they are to read.  Then they stand there and have to struggle with their glasses and the lighting not suited for older people reading anything, only to read to  me in a speed meant for a kindergartner.  Can we not have a back lit e-reader or LCD screen on the lectern, with large print for these people?  The Word is The Word after all.  Who says it has to be in book form.  If it is originality you want, why should it not be scrolls or animal skins?

And, why must we continue to pass baskets through mass in which to place cash and checks?  Who writes checks any longer?  Why not just chisel them thing out of rock if you want to be authentic.  As for cash, I always find myself remembering after I am already running late that I do not have cash, leaving me hunting for the nearest ATM.  Just put a computer in the church where I can swipe my debit card and give a donation.  Just cut the whole collection thing out of the Mass altogether and let people use the tech they are already using to make the gifts they need.

My last complaint.  If newspapers are dying, then the bulletins Churches hand out after Mass should already be dead.  I do not want one.  I do not want to lug it home.  Certainly promote the churches website, but this is typically a failed substitute because most church websites are not content rich.  They should be.  RSS, email updates, YouTube channels, text updates, and really the whole social media and networking options should be employed instead.

At Mass recently the parishioners were lectured because some where Twittering in Church while the Bishop was visiting.  Shame on these people.  I make a point not to.  But, the bigger question is why are the Bishop and the priests and the Deacons not all Twittering?  It is about time we come in from the dark ages.

Just do me and the planet a favor.  Do not print one more piece of paper.  Do not spend one more dime on postage for me.  Consider it a sin.  Accommodate me and the changing World, in these ways that really do not matter to our faith, and my though is the Church will be richly rewarded.

The Most Expensive Mistakes A Lawyer Can Make

I read an article on HuffPo Business recently in which they reviewed all of the most recently literature on the web and came up with the most expensive mistakes that a business could make starting out.  That stated by HuffPo is ture, in my estimation, even if a little bit generic.  As for lawyers starting out the advice applies as well and they represent many of the same mistakes.  Avoid the mistakes, and new lawyers and new practices can improve their chance of financial success.

What do I mean financial success?

We all know any number of lawyers that are successful in hustling up clients and cases, and who have established a cash flow, but that does not mean that the attorney is a financial success.  This is because money out plays as big a role as money in.  Especially with solo attorneys starting out, all of the attention is concentrated on obtain clients and cases and caution is thrown to the wind as to overhead.  The result is a practice that limps along, always trying to catch up, but that rarely allows the lawyer to bring home that much money.  As a result of these early decisions, the lawyer is always feeding others instead of himself or herself.

Lack of planning. Anybody that knows me knows that I am not a big fan for business plans.  But, that does not mean that I am against having a plan or objective or thinking through what it is you want to do.  My point has always been that lawyers and others get online and spend hours filling out canned plans that do no good.  A lawyer should know what areas or niches he or she intends to pursue.  They should know the people, groups, organizations, associations and institutions they need to solicit to get referrals.  They need to have simple plan to meet those they need to meet and to stay in contact with them.  More importantly, the lawyer needs to understand that the anxiety they feel can be solved with a sense of urgency to get out there and get known.  Too much planning involves all of the things that do not matter to a lawyer starting out, such as an office, a desk, design and image issues and the like.

Borrowing and spending too much.  Initial high expectations are deadly because they cause attorneys to borrow too much money.  Large monthly debt payments in the early stages can sap critical cash flow later.  In other words, money you spend on credit now, robs you of your personal income later.  And by debt, I am talking about not only loans and credit cards, but equipment leases, rent payments, staffing, cell phone contracts, yellow pages, legal research sites, service contracts, incorporations, and anything else that adds to your monthly overhead.  There are a ton of providers that all have good reasons why you need to pay them a few dollars to a few thousand a month.  They call it things other than debt or a loan.  An obligation is an obligation, however.  They always couch the costs in terms of that is just one case or two cases or so many hours of your time.  Also, you do not have one or two cases a month, much less billable time that is being paid by anybody.  It all adds up quickly, it is hard to get out of, and it is that much more money you have to earn before you can bring anything home.  Debt is deadly and you need to recognize it in all of its forms.  Start off on a shoestring, let the practice generate cash and savings first.  Then pay cash for what you need, but still steer clear of too much in terms of commitments.  It is amazing how much more seriously you will take a purchase or enter into an obligation if you are spending your savings as opposed to spending some imaginary cash or client cash that might be made in the future.  Do this by working out of your house and sharing things like broadband and phone services that you already have and will use.  Do not have a commute. 

Insufficient capital. Whereas it is vital to have enough working capital to survive when starting out, it just does not have to be as much as one might think.  If your business expenses are a little or nothing, then all you need to cover are your living expenses, which you can keep under control as well.  The truth of the matter is that nobody has enough working capital starting off.  The solution is to, as stated, cut business overhead to nothing and work on establishing a cash flow early.  You just might have to do some contract work, a part time job, or court appointments for a while as you are building your niche.  The problem is when your overhead is so high, then you have to devote too much time to these, let us say, distracting sidelines, and not enough time in building your niche.

Inadequate pricing.  Fees people.  We are talking about fees.  The tendency is to get money coming in by undercutting the market in fees.  As a lawyers starting out you have made yourself feel inadequate and therefore you want to charge a fee that is inadequate.  It is admirable on some level, but it is disastrous.  It is a big, big mistake.  It is a hard practice to break and it will cost you in the long run.  I am not saying get big headed and think you can start off charging the highest fees around, but if a client cannot pay a reasonable fee, then move on.  Fear of failure causes too many to take low money instead of no money and moving on.  The mistake is that this underpaying client is going to take up a lot of time you will not be able to spend on getting the clients you need and that can and will pay you.  And, since you are starting off this client will take a lot more time than you can afford.  It is for this reason that you need to let the more experienced lawyers do the pro bono work.  They can do it more quickly than you.  Also, without fail, it seems the clients who cannot pay much have the most complicated of problems.  You ask, starting off how can I possibly sell myself at a reasonable fee when I do not have a resume to back it up?  The answer is you do not do this.  You sell your services and what they can do and let time take care of the resume.  There are some brands out there, but legal clients pay money to solve problems.  Most do not hire personalities.  If you are doing consumer bankruptcies, for example, you sell the stopping of a foreclosure, or consolidating and lowering debts, and spend less time on yourself.  Then charge market rates.  You will already be earning less because it is going to take you more time to complete each task than it does a more experienced practitioner.

Not seeking advice.  Mentoring is what we are talking about.  Ask. Ask.  Ask.  Ask.  And, not just lawyers, but industry leaders in town, business owners, tax professionals, the SBA, and anybody else that might have the question you need.  Make contact with a lot of people.  Attend court or hearings and just watch.  Always think about who you can call.  Remember, this serves two purposes.  First, it helps you with advice so that you might make proper decisions.  Second, believe it or not, it will help you find cases.

Keep these things in mind when starting out.

Death To Big Law (Schools)?

Big Law as we know is dying, or at least that is what many very educated people think.  This spells problems for law schools as well.  It might be the kind of problem that brings about real and necessary change.

I recently blogged about the Law School Tuition Bubble.  The model of massive tuition increases for no more visible services that relate to employment and earnings in the future are simply unsustainable.  The model did not fully appreciate how most lawyers practice when the war for rankings started this escalation, and it certainly does not now.

But, with all of the talk about the death of Big Law, law Professor Erik F. Gerding at the University of New Mexico School of Law questions whether we are seeing the death of the Big Law School as well.

The difference for me is that, unlike most law school insiders, I do not see the current financial mess law students find themselves as a "law school boom".  I see it as a dangerous bubble that is unnecessary and artificial.  I think it started over rankings and the thought by all of us that we want to be recognized for the good we do (or want to do).  But, what do you do when you live off the crack of rankings and student loan money to justify your existence and your secret greed.  Like the drug itself, it has a serious consequence to society as a whole.  Law schools simply cannot live off the hope that poor (literally), innocent students can borrow every increasing amounts of money, almost on a whim, to satisfy the peculiar beguilement and distraction of law school insiders.  It is having and will continue to have very sever financial consequences for its graduates; marked by intense dissatisfaction for the choice they made to attend law school in the first place.

Just like the tech bubble of the 90s, and the housing bubble of this decade, this business model (and that is what it is) is not sustainable.

The dependence of law students getting high paying law firm jobs to pay off high law school tuition was primarily a fiction with which to begin, and now with the continuing collapse of Big Law benefactors the economic pressures will mount.

This might not be all bad.  For example, these pressures will push law schools to improve the practical training of graduates so they are practice ready on graduation.  That is the type of training most law school graduates have always needed and have never much received.

With tighter budgets, law schools will face pressures to move in the direction of larger class sizes, maybe.  There will be more adjunct faculty and graduate students teaching.  But, is that all bad?  Those with practical experience teaching the law?  I like it!

More of the faculty will have to fund part of their salary with grants.  Look, however, at UH Law proposing to increase every student's tuition by $4,000.00 a year for the sole purpose of building itself a new edifice to its ego and for purposes of rankings.  The law school has a great building, that might need a little rehab, but ultimately they want everyone to have their own little enclave.  My thought is if they want the building so bad, go find a generous benefactor, but otherwise stop the madness that jobless and impressionable students should pay the tab directly.

I do not much understand the argument that the problem with looking at the business model of a law school means, per se, that law schools then transform law into a business?  It is a business and, whereas I understand the need for professionalism, to suggest that one excludes the other is a fallacy that has been with the law snobs too long.

In the end, as the dream of Big Law diminishes, so will the idea of Big Law Schools have to diminish.  I do not think that is all bad.

Do Not Mind The Law Snobs

I have been getting attitude from other lawyers lately concerning my practice method.  (Well, I guess I have gotten all along in the way of looks and stares, but now it tends to be more snide).  For example, in telephone calls and in meetings, I get offhanded jokes and jabs about being a virtual lawyer or law firm.  And, you can tell from the tenor in their voice, that it is not meant in the best sense of the word.

I have always tended to rack this up as jealousy.  And, I do think that is partly the issue.  The truth of the matter is that times are getting tough out there because of the economy.  It just has to be harder on traditional lawyers up to their eyeballs in rent, salaries, benefits, commuting costs, appearances, memberships and the like to make the best of the financial situation.  After all, if the college my children attend goes up, let us say, $1,000.00 in tuition, I might have to come up with $1,400.00 in new earnings just to cover the taxes and the like on the money.  What do these traditional lawyers have to do?  Many more times this, I would bet.  More money, means more cases, which means more staff time, which requires more rent, which requires more in the way of fixtures, which requires more ... You get the point.

More often than not, there is just a nasty streak in some people that despise other situations, work conditions and things that they do not have.  They do not want someone to have a benefit that they themselves do not have.  You see this especially in our current political climate.

Whatever the reason for the snide comments, virtual, home office attorneys, connected attorneys, solos, Third Wavers, carpet commuters and the like are too often confronted by law snobs.

You know the type.  These are lawyers who believe that their vast and ultimately unnecessary trappings of law (offices, staff, commute, the power to hirer and fire) make them better attorneys than everyone else.  And, based upon this, they will often ridicule and speak condescendingly toward others lawyer that do not share their grandiose vision of how lawyers should practice.

Of course, we know, that these trappings have nothing to do any longer with the actual practice of law.  We know these trappings are much like the powdered wigs that lawyers have to wear in some parts.  We know these trappings, in this day and age, tend to be frivolous, aimless, imaginary, tenuous, capricious, and rather arbitrary to the practice of law.  In fact, these trappings can be cavalier, imprudent, wasteful, and really expendable, irrelevant and truly unnecessary.

I hate to be rude, but my solution for law snobs is to be rude.  Do so by ignoring these lawyers.  You do not need a pithy comment.  Just do not pay attention to them.  After all, they are making their snide remarks because they desire to talk.  So just smile and do not respond.

It is strange really.  These lawyers are ultimately curious.  Otherwise why would they be paying attention to you and your practice int he first place.  They have an interest of some sort.  I think they want to know more.  It is just that their kingly personality of everything I do it great and everything you do is wrong gets in the way.

The point is to be comfortable in your home office, or virtual or solo or Third Wave practice of law.  The only reason you might not is because of what others, like the law snobs, my think.  If that concerns you, then you will not be comfortable.

Whether these lawyers are highbrows, or smarty pants, or pretenders, or upstarts, or name-droppers, or puritans, or charlatans, or braggarts, or just plain old arrogant, it does not matter.  They can rob you of your goal, or your enthusiasm, or your comfort level in doing what you do.

Do not let this happen.  Just ignore the law snobs.  As I use to tell my young daughter, "I don't need your attitude young lady, I have one of my own."