Chuck Newton

What We Lawyers Should Take Away From Fox News And MSNBC

I disagree with my inundated colleagues about the real benefits, or believability for that matter, of either Fox News or MSNBC. It does not matter though. I have to admit I watch both on occasion because, like most lawyers, I am an argument junkie looking for the next fix. We lawyers love the concept of stare decisis and therefore we like to look toward opinion that slathers on deceiving concepts of what our Founding Fathers meant and wanted.  It is unbelievable really, but we actually listen to radical commentators who do not have a clue about the contextual positions of our leaders 2 years ago, much less over 200 years ago. Therefore, much of what we spout out, as it comes from these channels, is just adulterated B.S.  And, that is not a criticism of either side, as it is a criticism of both sides. If you find yourself listing to Fox News or MSNBC, believing that they represent much in real news or even even tempered commentary, and you are repeating their arguments with any degree of regularity, then please just shoot yourself and do us all a favor.

But, apart from that rant, there is something we lawyers should take away from Fox News and MSNBC, apart from the fact that banal controversy, name calling, made up arguments, casting dispersions and questioning the motives of everybody including the Pope, all mixed in with a touch of racism, sells.

Nobody in real terms watches these networks. Although the numbers vary from time to time depending on the administration, the time of day, the personality or the event on the ground that occasional attract the attention of a larger group of people, Fox News is the leader with about 3.5 million people viewing it on a regular basis. MSNBC is slightly over a million, but claims to dominate the more profitable age groups. This means that despite all of our complaints about one or the other, the popularity or strangeness of one commentator over another or their hatriolic sermons, only about one percent of the American public watches these two cable networks with any regularity whatsoever.

If you watch Fox News or MSNBC with any regularity, you are in the definite minority. If you think otherwise, or believe these networks are overly important to you, the world, or help you identify with the majority of Americans, or whatever, it is because you have allowed yourself to be inundated or saturated by one or the other or both.

When Sarah Palin was on the Tonight Show and stated she is proud to be with Fox because it was fair and balanced, unlike the mainstream media, it was her best joke of the night. She is with Fox News because they are paying her gobs of money. Nothing wrong with that. But, they are not fair and balanced, and by mainstream media she was likely referring to MSNBC and maybe CNN. What she means to say is that Fox supports her narrative, and that too is okay. Just say so. Fox also allows Palin to regularly connect with that one percent of the American public that care on any real substantive issue about her, whether they are for her or against her. And, there is nothing wrong with that either. But, the hyperbole of the statement reflects the problem most of us find with politics these days and both of these networks. Associating with Fox is in her best interest and it connects her with her following well, and in the long run that is what is important. But, it is not news, it does not make it rational or acceptable to the majority of Americans, and it does not make it fair and balanced. It is a narrative contrived to the extreme at both Fox and MSNBC to attract views, like you.

What we should take away from Fox and MSNBC is that you do not need large number or large percentages to succeed in what you want to do. You have just got to dominate your narrow, niche market. In fact, that is all Fox and MSNBC can do for they cannot generally survive in the fragmented media market trying to be all things to all people or trying to present real solid, unbiased as possible, news coverage, which allows people to make up their own minds. I doubt they are changing minds much as they are just appealing to those that already think along the lines of the narrative presented. CNN as tried a broader approach to some extent and has mostly failed. There are some markets for it such as on PBS, NPR, and C-Span and the market share of each is dismal. The nightly news market for the networks is shrinking. This mainly leaves the local news coverage, which is its own niche.

The point is that people, companies, media and lawyers that get it quit trying to be all things to all people. So what if they only appeal to maybe one percent of the market, the point is they intend to brand themselves with or to that one percent. If you think of radical right you think of Fox.  If you think of radical left you think of MSNBC. I tend to think that Fox does a better job at maintaining its narrative than MSNBC and MSNBC maintains a few more hours of actual news coverage than Fox, and that reflects that Fox's dominance between the two networks. But, there is a lesson in that as well.

Not many are out looking for just news. They are out looking for opinion. And, most people are not out looking for a lawyer. They are looking to resolve a particular issue or problem. It is better to be a big fish in a small pond in this day and age than try to be a small fish in a lake or ocean.

Niche practice is everything. It is not only easier to dominate a niche market, it is possible to do so where just being a general lawyer is not. If you wish to be all things to all people you are probably not true to yourself and you do not represent anything concrete to others.

So, what is your narrative? How does that speak to your potential audience? What are you doing to brand yourself to that narrow audience?

Like them or hate them, Fox News and MSNBC understand niche marketing and profit off of it handsomely. It is easy for them to succeed because they understand their audience and they understand their narrative. So, even though they represent or speak for just one percent of the American population they are many more times more profitable than what their numbers reflect. And, the same thing works in the practice of law. 

Hide Your Facebook Pages?

Law students want jobs and internships. Graduates want legal positions. Employers do not want problems. They want rational people who will show up to work. We all know that perceived personal traits do not always show up at work, and that a snapshot in time does not make the person. But, employers are not going to necessarily take that chance.

A recent survey commissioned by Microsoft found that 70 percent of recruiters and hiring managers in the United States have rejected an applicant based on information they found online.

I personally have noticed that many law students and recent graduates have not left the frat life behind in terms of how they present themselves in their social media circles. If nothing else, how many avatars of law students still have some guy or gal hanging off their neck or sucking face? I do not think that is necessarily the worse thing in the world. It is just not professional. It reflects the wrong image to client-centered organizations.

Law students and graduates, or anybody for that matter, need to avoid photos and videos that are not suitable; criticisms of previous employers, co-workers, or clients; and even inappropriate comments by friends and relatives, according to the survey report, titled "Online Reputation in a Connected World."

Social media is popular. It is becoming more beneficial. With that we need to realize that online screenings may be a permanent part of the 21st-century hiring process. The Microsoft survey found that 79 percent of U.S. hiring managers have used the Internet to better assess applicants.

Is Thomas Cooley Law School Out Of Its Every Loving Mind?

I am having a problem with non-profit law school that wish to be frivolous wit tuition dollars believing that their students can always bailout their poor decisions with higher tuition. By and large those tuition dollars are borrowed, and there is nothing worse that coming out of law school with high debt. To do stupid things that raise tuition unnecessarily is simply disrespectful to a law school's students.  

Although I have been a fan in the past of Thomas Cooley Law School as providing a good non-traditional education to its students, it is already the largest law school in the country and does not seem to need any help with publicity.

So, why in God's green earth is Cooley Law buying the naming rights to a minor-league baseball statim in Lansing Michigan for $1.5 million of their students hard earned and hard borrowed tuition dollars?

Cooley just recently raised tuition stating, "Our operating revenue is tuition-based", and the argument for taxing students further during the worse recession since the depression was because it's operating costs had risen.

Cooley's apparent solution?

Raise the operating costs another $1.5 million. What the hell? Students can just be made to go into further debt to pay for their education. Students can just mortgage their futures a little further.

It would be one thing if the naming rights to the stadium were anywhere near necessary. After all, this is the old Oldsmobile Park, and we all know what happened to the Oldsmobile.

A good bet?

I doubt it. CNBC once covered the curse of stadium naming rights. It never seems to turnout good. And, even if it does not turn out to be a complete curse, since when really has the naming rights ever worked well from a promotion standpoint? It sure is not going to add one more dollar of prestige to the Cooley brand as far as student benefits. Especially memorable was Enron Field in Houston, Texas. Well, maybe Cooley should just go ahead and add the co-called "crooked E" to its logo.

The unmitigated arrogance of some law school leadership today is unfathomable. This really tops the cake. I feel so terribly sorry for the current and entering students of Cooley. The law schools management should feel nothing but shame.

An End To Job Lock

The truth to me is evident.  I have met or communicated with too many lawyers who feel they cannot leave their existing practices, government offices, companies, or non-law jobs to start a firm of their own, or to move home, because of "job lock". Of those that do, I have found more than a few that try to practice part time so they can keep their other or main job.

Are they afraid of losing wages?  

Well yes, but that is not the overwhelming concern. Most believe they can rustle up some cases or business. What they do not believe they can do is either replace or afford their medical insurance.  In short, they are not working for themselves. They are working for their health insurance companies.

Where this is not the case you find too many solo and small firm lawyers whose spouses are job locked so that the lawyer can have the spouse's group and subsidized insurance coverage. In short, the spouse is sacrificing to subsidize the law practice when you think about it.

Many are just uninsureable outside of a large group policy that only big business, and in some instances Big Law, can provide. And, this lack of insureability is not often the result of major prior ailments.

Sometimes it is just age issues. I think what many people do not understand is that medical insurance gets prohibitively expensive once a person hit 55 years of age. Part of the largest block of people that are uninsured are between 55 and Medicare age.

Often job lock is just about overhead. Earnings are one thing. Overhead is another. Making your rent might be one thing, but trying to pay a monthly health insurance premium that is nearly the size of your house payment, that covers little in terms of risk, is quite another. In short, it is a lot of money, monthly, and it does not insulate you from the risk of an unforeseen injury or illness.

I run into people everyday that say the insurance for themselves is not a problem. The problem is the insurance for their dependents. Well, that is true, but the financial cost of the insurance for them is not a problem because Big Business or Big Law is subsidizing their portion. That couple hundred dollars they see coming out of their paycheck is followed up by a couple thousand dollars that their generous employers are contributing to their health insurance coverage every month.

So, the lawyer is stuck. Or, the lawyer is uninsured or under insured. The lawyer has deductibles and co-pays that cannot possibly be paid if the lawyer gets sick, especially if the illness occurs at the end and the beginning of a new insurance contract year, where that $5,000 deductible becomes the $10,000 deductible.

I think we often do not want to admit that it is health insurance, or the lack thereof, that prohibits most of us lawyers from doing what we want to do, to change legal specialties, to go out on our own, to change firms, to go full time, or to leave our jobs and venture into the practice of law altogether.

As BusinessWeek reports, there is real evidence of "job lock".  For example, Americans’ likelihood of self-employment jumps when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare, according to research by Robert Fairlie of UC Santa Cruz, Kanika Kapur of University College Dublin, and Susan Gates of the RAND Corporation.

Less "job lock" will create not only more jobs in business, but it will likely explode the ranks of those lawyers wanting to practice on their own or in small groups.  This is not good for Big Law because it means they will likely lose their most talented and ambitious lawyers and rainmakers. But, it is good for the practice of law over all, the the contentment of people in law, and the truth of the matter is that it is these people that are the driving engine of job growth in this country. End the job lock and you will rapidly increase wages, earnings, business and increase employment exponentially. This means more earnings, more players, more taxes, more growth, and with this a greater need for legal services in this country.

There are those out there that like their insurance coverage and have no interest or desire to see the system change. Typically, you will find that these are those that are comforted by working for big business and big law, work for the government and want to stay with the government, or are on Medicare. Otherwise they are typically younger and feel they are invincible, or generally do not care what the medical future holds for them and how to pay for it. They should be allowed to maintain their insurance. Have no allusions, however, that these people are the least bit interested in job growth, the economics of the situation, or the ability of lawyers and entrepreneur to venture out on their own. That is not their reality. It is self-centered, and it does not reflect the reality of rapidly rising medical cost, mainly because of the growing uninsured and under insured are eating through their future wages, or stagnating what they earn. These people are by and large being paid with insurance coverage, and they are comfortable with that. People who do not wish to go out on their own, where that is not a goal, generally care little for the interest of those that do.

The new so called "healthcare bill" that passed is not so much healthcare reform. This country is, for all of its tech and remedies, piss poor at managing its health care system. There is a good article or editorial on Frum Forum from Dr. Ben Maimon about this subject. What the bill is, however, is health insurance reform.

We all talk about company loyalty too much. I tend to believe there is less company loyalty by most than there is health insurance servitude. It is evident in the job lock problems of lawyers.

What we all hope with the insurance reform bill is that as it is phased in the worse abuses of the insurance companies end, the insurance market stabilizes, the risk is pooled, the pools increase to spread the risk, that the policies for the whole become more affordable and portable. No economy is going to survive with the results of compounded greed that will eventually eat up 1 in 4 dollars of our economy. It will single handedly stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, that benefits our country and the practice of law as a whole. For all of our worries about the cost of war, taxes and deficits, if people are allowed to be segmented by insurance companies, coverage lost, risk not widely pooled, and costs brought under control, all of the other problems will look small.  On the other hand, if health insurance is properly regulated, and costs controlled for the greater good, not only will the increase in earnings and jobs more than compensate for the costs associated with the start up of the reforms, but lawyers will be unchained to practice their passion.

Ending job lock a good thing both personally and professionally for most lawyers, and it is a great thing for our economy.

If Google Were A Law School

It would be the University of California-Irvine School of Law.

Contrary to UCI Law, for example, the University of Houston Law Center decided to raise its tuition 16.5% for existing students and 26.5% for incoming students.  And, all of this during the worse recession the country has experienced since the great depression.  Talk about disrespecting their constituencies.  It is not because UH needs the money to provide for their students real needs, but because they want a newer facilities to impress the law school ranking gods. Apparently, UH Law, like so many other law schools, thinks the secret to success is to see just how far in debt they can drive their graduates.

Whether UC Irvine can keep it up is to be seen, but I believe they have shown law schools how to succeed in building building momentum in regard to satisfied law students, reputation, and high rankings in the shortest time.

The way you attract the best and the brightest, with the highest GPAs and LSATs, is to offer the students a FREE education

To begin with, UCI Law provided a free three year law school education to inaugural class. Now, during the worse downturns in California history, they have offered to cover one half of the tuition for the second year entering class. All of it funded by donations.  With this it attracts the ranking criteria that ivy league brands would envy.

That kind of muscle builds on itself. As unheard of, the entire inaugural class of UCI Law have earned summer jobs. About 30 students have jobs with nonprofits and 17 students will be employed by judges, including 11 at the federal level. The remainder will join law firms and prosecutors’ offices.

Undoubtedly, the law school is paying if forward.  When you graduate well-rounded, practice ready lawyers, who are debt free, you are building your future donation base substantially.

Just think about it. A law school designed more around serving the law students and their futures than one built around law students being made to serve the law school.

Third Wave Resolutions

There maybe more than these, but in starting or trying to grow a Third Wave law firm, these resolutions are a good start.

1.  I will not overprice my services.  I might as well say I will not under price my services as well.  You will literally run off business if you get too cheap or you get greedy.

2.  I will not limited my access. It never ever fails. Someone starts a law firm and the next thing they want to do is put in place palace guards and all of the tech needed to remove them from the immediate contact with clients, colleagues, courts, and their referral sources. So what if you are interrupted or have to apologize to a client for not finishing the paperwork as timely as they would like. People and referral sources like access. Deny them that at the risk of your profitability.

3.  I will stay on message. I will narrow my practice area, refine my message and stay on point. Consistency in message builds your practice and referral source over time. It is your brand.  Do not abuse it and get distracted.

4.  I will not wait for business to fall off before making needed contacts. If you are going to build a referral-based practice, it is rewarding, but it takes time. The common tendency is to get a few referrals and then cut back on your marketing efforts. Then the referrals fall office. You panic. Then you get on the marketing soap box again. It needs to be a constant thing. Too many lawyers treat referral-based marketing much like a yo-yo diet. Do not do this. It is no fun to be rich, then poor, then rich, then poor.

5.  I will be knowledgeable about my practice area. Blog about it, speak about it, visit about it. This is the reason why you limit your practice area. People like people they can trust. They trust people who know their stuff. and, they like people that can explain their stuff in simple clear language and in a a concise way.

Life And Wealth As A Solo Practitioner

Money, wealth, and abundance are complicated concepts for those attorneys who want to extend the philosophy of the solo practice into everyday life.

First, it is a subjective thing, is it not? Different lawyers have different opinions of what all of this means for them. Second, opinions change over time.

Also, the question is not just the concept of the area of law in which to practice, or whether or not to niche a law practice. Those are but some factors of many that determines the final issues of success in this regard.

Quality of life plays a huge part. For me it is the less complicated life that plays a huge part, probably as much or more than the amount of money made. In fact, the amount of money is not the concern as much as the amount of money I get to keep at the end of the day.

Oh, I have dreams that are unfulfilled. We all do. But, the final analysis is whether the core concept of our home lives and your business lives are working optimally enough for each of us.

It comes down, often times, to not total fulfillment, but fulfillment enough.

Is abundance money? Is it time with our families? Is it time doing something else we want? Is it simply not being in bankruptcy?

How to bring all of the diverse pieces together takes a vision, I suppose.  Regardless of what gurus allude to, not every vision works out in the end like you think it will. This does not mean you should not have vision, but I would not set my heart on it. I would say that the broader the goal or the vision the better for it will let you work the little stuff out later, as you go along.

But, I can also tell you that wealth and debt and overhead and convenience go hand in hand. You are not going to achieve balance in one without achieving balance in all of these areas. At least that is what I have discovered.

I think the path to a good life and wealth first takes a degree of faith that everything will work out for you in the end. If a lawyers want guarantees they are never going to make any moves in any direct. Beyond that, comfort and money eventually comes in the way of expertise, which requires a narrow focus. Then, as one moves in that direction, whatever that direction might be, it takes a concerted effort to keep debt down and overhead under control. And, then of course, it helps to manage expectations.

(Video) Legal Retainers May Be Illegal In California.

My Lawyer Cannot Beat Your Lawyer

Pretty strange statement, huh?

It is the opposite of boasting, of swagger, of bluster, and of grandstanding.  Do we all not get tired, just plain old tired, of trumpeters and those brazen windbags.  Those swelled head lawyers that convince themselves and yell at others as to how they are better than everyone else?  I know I do.

What is with these so called "Super Lawyer" contests that really say to others that the lawyer with the biggest ego can buy the biggest ad.

And, the thing is, whether in terms of law or anything else, those that promote themselves as better or the best are generally just to opposite. After all, law firms require management and not just ego. Leadership builds the better practice and not merely showmanship.

The truth of the matter is that whether you are a good lawyer or not, success rates are as much a matter of the cases that walk in your door, and the fact with which you are presented, as much as skill.

There is not generally a new theory, marketing wise or legal wise, in the practice of law that allows one lawyer to be necessarily better than any other, or the best for that matter.

I get this a lot from new lawyers trying to start out.  Most recognize their limitations, but there are always a few that think they are infallible.  Moxie is good, but hang around it too long and it gets really old really quick.

The problem is that lawyers starting out try to sit down and figure out how they can be better than their colleagues. Too often this boils down to promoting a better price because they do not know enough yet to figure out how to be better in other ways. First, this cheapens the lawyer's image and lowers their earnings.  Second, it presents a false choice.

Just because a lawyer is proud enough to get up and beat their chest -- toot their own horn -- does not make their services better. The opposite is probably true.

And, the truth of the matter is that with the false choice we all really have to psyche ourselves into to this mode. We do it because we worry about overall success. We are then unhappy with ourselves for doing it, and we find ourselves unhappy with the practice of law.

So, if this is a false choice, what is the right choice?

It is figuring out how not to be better than the competition, but to figure out how to be different from your fellow lawyers.

Different is not necessarily better, but it presents a much better marketing perspective. It presents generally a truthful marketing perspective. More importantly, different is where the money is, and not in being merely better. There is little money in being better because we have all learned it is an impossible goal. This horn blowing has taught all of us over the years that good generally means crappy because the the person or firm is interested in themselves more than their clients.

Distinguish yourself from your colleagues. You can be both different and humble.

How are you, as a new lawyer, unique? Do you have a special way to treat clients? Maybe something like cooperative divorce. Maybe a real estate attorney that concentrates on hotels and motels sales. A lawyer that represents only the deaf. Someone that listens. A mediator that concentrate on commercial mortgage defaults. A lawyer that works from his or her home, or does not maintain a traditional office. A lawyer whose practice is based on social networking.

The possibilities are endless really. It is the basis of niche legal practice and marketing. But, the point is not to say how good your are or that you can beat any other lawyer, or that you know the judge. Even if all of that is true, what will bring people in the door is demonstrating that you are different -- not necessarily better. So, of course be the best you can be, but mainly figure out how to be different.

But Where Can We Go For The Figo?