Chuck Newton

How Do You Ask Another Attorney To Be Your Mentor?

I was asked this question recently. So, I sat back and tried to think how I, myself, have done so in the past, and how I have responded to those who have asked me.

The answer I came up with is that I have never actually asked anybody to be my mentor, and almost all people who I have tried to help have never asked me to be their mentor.

What I have done is to ask a lawyer with an expertise that I did not possess if I can ask him or her a question. Then a follow up with other questions. I get use to asking and following up, and they get use to answering. I have respected the advice and they have appreciated me asking. Then a business friendship develops, and a sort of mentorship is born.

Instead of asking such a doltish question of will you be my mentor, it is better to think of penetrating and informative questions that you need answered.

Besides, asking someone to be your mentor is kind of like asking them to be your parent. It is a big thing to ask and a difficult thing to accept. You might as well ask them to take and raise you. But, essentially asking them if you can call with questions or difficulties when the need arises, then why not. There is nothing difficult in that.

How Do I Get Someone To Refer Cases Or Clients To Me???

I had lunch with a new lawyer today. I will not mention his name, but he asked a whole lot of relevant and direct questions of me. Some were hard to answer as directly as he had asked them. Although this is not a direct quote of any one question asked, the issue arose about how, exactly, to you get someone to refer you a case or a client?

Good question, right?

We had talked for some time about how to build a referral-based network, which entails burning actual and metaphorical shoe leather, but the inference from all of this was, again, how do you get someone to refer you a case?

Do you get the difference?

The question is not about deciding what you want to do in the way of a legal practice or niche. Assume that is decided. It goes beyond how to then identify the people, groups, organizations and associations that might be in a position to refer you the cases or clients you desire. Assume this is done and the contact has been made. It is what you do after you do what you set out to do?

I think I stumbled and stammered just a little at lunch. Okay, okay, I stumbled and stammered a lot. I certainly talked around the subject way too much. Standing up and doing a soft-shoe routine would not have been a more obvious indicator that I had not thought about the subject as much as I should have.

But, now that I have had some time to think about it, here is my concise answer. I hope it is not too obvious.

JUST ASK!

I am not advising you to act like a jerk, or to be overly confident, or act like a used car salesman, or try the assumptive close on everyone you meet.  I am not saying to walk up to someone you have never met before and push yourself on them like a large, overly-happy dog that jumps on a stranger and licks him or her in the face.  I am implying none of that.

What I am saying is that in the normal course of any conversation simply ask the person for their referrals. Ask them to tell their friends, family, clients, customers, parishioners (you fill in the blank) about you and what you do.

Do not promise them anything for the referral other than your appreciation. Do not offer to pay them. Do not discuss reciprocation when you have nothing with which to reciprocate.

Remind them on the way out of what you asked, and follow up with an email and other devices.

And, always remember to tell people thank you for something.  Thank you for listening. Thank you for your good word. Thank you for sharing. Thank you for your ideas. Thank you for a compliment. It is easy to forget that you need to be grateful for the simplest or slightest of things and to sincerely thank people. One, it is the right thing to do. Two, a thank you or two helps earn referrals.

Low LSAT Score? Strive To Be The Cream Of The Bottom Crop!

To those that struggle with low LSAT scores and feel the rejection of law schools, and maybe self-regard, I think you need not unnecessarily despair. There is hope for you toward the end of the acceptance process if you plan accordingly and take perspective.

My youngest daughter who recently suffered through the problem of a low LSAT score, has now been accepted by a South Texas College of Law, and I wanted to relate what we learned over this two year process.

Obviously, the first year we did everything wrong by holding out for an acceptance to a Houston-based law school, not effectively attempting to up the LSAT score even a little bit, and probably applying to the wrong schools overall. Also, we waited patiently, did not call, try to make contact and fully push the law schools as proactively as we might have. Believe me, the willingness or unwillingness of law school administrators to talk to their applicants about the process and how they may be able to secure a seat, and on what terms, tells a lot about a law school.

First, you need to understand that, contrary to what some law school advocates say, there is no real correlation between the LSAT and how you will perform in law school, on the bar exam, or in the practice of law. It is simply a right of passage to give law schools some way to determine who gets a limited number of seats. It is a made up exercise that in no way determines your ultimate success. Further, this made up excercise does not determine the ultimate success of those that score high on the LSAT. In short, you should always strive to do better on the LSAT because it does make the acceptance process easier, but if you do not achieve a high LSAT score it should not devalue your self-worth. Just remember that nobody but nobody every inquires as to what you scored on the LSAT, except for (1) admission personnel for law schools to which you are applying, (2) first year law students who are just curious to compare themselves to everyone else (it okay to lie to them), and (3) your children when they are applying to law school (they know when you are lying to them). The LSAT is not important to anyone but for U.S. News and the twisted minds of law school administrators who live and die for rankings.

Second, you need to understand that unlike when I went to law school in the early 1980s, when the LSAT was a factor but was not conclusive of anything, the system has now been adulterated by the U.S. News law school ranking system that places supreme importance on LSAT scores over most other factors. What is interesting in this regard is that almost all law schools report higher and higher LSAT scores among its entering glasses even though the spread has stayed about the same. With the decrease in law school applications this is simply impossible. One has to believe that law schools are leaving their ethics at the door in pursuit of rankings, but I will have to leave this up to you to prove.

If the process is, in my estimation, broken or at least a gimmick, and to a degree the disclosed upper and lower percentile scores of a law schools are not to be believed, you need to make some judgments as to how to proceed with a score that falls below the lower percentile of most schools.

So, my position has always been to ask yourself if you want to be a lawyer. If the answer is yes then avoid the rankings, and be willing to make compromises.

Third, law school applications have been on the downswing for some time.  More seats have also been created. This makes it easier to get into law school even with a lower LSAT score.

Fourth, obviously a low LSAT will not get you into some law school, but then a moderately high LSAT will not get you into some law schools, and a high LSAT score does not guarantee you a spot in the best known law schools. I would not play close attention to the upper and lower percentiles in relation to LSAT scores when determining where to apply to law school.  However, even assuming the law school has found creative ways to fib for purposes of rankings, you need to make a judgment call as to whether there is any chance for getting into a particular school before you apply.

Fifth, do not forsake the LSAT for a non-ABA approved law school unless you just have no other option. If you do, make certain you intend to practice law in the state in which the law school is approved to take the bar exam. If the law school is ABA approved, you might have to take multiple bar exams but your choices can be endless. Not so with non-ABA approved law schools. And, be leary of law schools applying for, but not yet approved, ABA accrediation. You do not want to suffer the fate of many who have attended a new law school, which then is not approved by the ABA on the first try. You might have as well gone to a law school that was not seeking ABA approval and which was cheaper. If you take a gamble on a new law school not yet approved by the ABA, I would say do not attend the first year it is open, allowing the approval process to get underway, and make your bet with public law schools or law schools associated with major universities. Law schools like Duncan might well be right, as stated in its lawsuit against the ABA on denying it accreditation, but why do you as a student want to be in the middle of such a fight.

Sixth, find a safety school to which you might apply if your other choices do not work out. After all, remember that your first goal is to be a lawyer and not to necessarily attend ABC or XYZ law school. Thomas M. Cooley Law School is always on my list. Cooley has multiple locations and options for attending. The school is ABA approved. They have a good amount of success on their graduates passing the bar exam. The law school is not cheap, but they also do not try to gouge their students. Further, Cooley, unlike any other law school, makes it simple and easy for you to calculate your free tuition aid online, not after you have been accepted, but when applying. It might not be your first choice, but it needs to be at least your last good option.  And, for that matter, it could be a better option for you regardless. There are other law schools like Cooley. Some are in better locations. Most are for-profit and their goal is to put you as far into debt as possible for the privilege of not having a better aptitude for the LSAT.

Seventh, remember to apply to multiple law schools. The more the better. I always say you do not have options until you have multiple acceptances from which to chose. You need to come up with a list of reasonable possibilities, whether they be geographic or represent other preferences. If you have a low LSAT, and you want options other than Cooley, then applying to just one law school is disappointment waiting to happen. Choice is so important because you really do not know if you can afford the cost of a legal education until after you are accepted. With the exception of Cooley, you will not know the full cost you will actually have to pay to attend the law school until you are accepted and reserve a seat. You will not know the true cost of living that has to be covered. There are a lot of factors that only become known at the end of the acceptance process. Options allow you to choose, and choice gives you options. You do not need to discount the possibility of choice simply because you have a low LSAT.

Then, after you have submitted your applications, you have to be prepared to wait it out. Let us face facts.  Because of rankings, law schools are going to swoon over and treat you like the wicked step child until they know that the higher LSAT people have turned them down. This takes awhile. Most law schools go through multiple rounds of acceptances. Most of them are not responded to by those they initially accept. The reason is simple enough. These candidates have choices because of the ground war by law schools to capture those with higher LSAT scores. Some of these applicants put down multiple deposits to see if something comes along better, and it does.

But, low and behold, come about Memorial Day most of this works itself out and law schools find that they still have seats available. Although they might want someone with a higher LSAT, they more want someone to fill the seat. Further, most of their applicant pool with higher LSAT scores has moved on and are no longer available. So then a bidding war begins on the what I like the call the cream of the bottom crop -- those with lower LSAT scores.

My daughter was ignored by all of her choices but Cooley for a year. They would not give her the time of day. But, around Memorial Day the calls and acceptance letters started coming. She went from being ignored to actually having choices. It was a much better feeling.

One suggestion I have for you is that as you wait out this strategy, make sure that you have filled out your FAFSA and have had it sent to all of the law schools to which you have applied. So, when you start getting real offers and phone calls begging you to attend, the school can make a quick decision on what money to give to you.

New Year Boredom

It is, according to the Urban Dictionary, "the post-festive boredom that occurs after the fun and excitement of Christmas and New Years". I also think it is the low we tend to feel in having to get back to the same old routine after the holidays. For many of us this is the case. But, I also know that the holiday is often the time that many a lawyer starts preparing his or her own law practice, changes firms, or relocates offices. To those among us that have worked, plotted and planned the entire holiday, getting into a more traditional routine is probably more of the blessing and less of a bore. For me anyway, it is off to work I go!

Live + Work + Home = Politically Incorrect?

I get some flak about my politics and the practice of living and working from my home. Fair enough. These comments come from ardent conservatives who believed, I guess, in the concept of a home office, but seemed to be disturbed with an emphasis in my blog linking the act of working from home with the green movement.

My overall argument over the years, working from The Worldwide Home Office, has been both capitalistic and green. In short, it has been about both green as in money and green as in the environment.

Here is the truth of the matter. Americans are simply wasteful in ways that do not benefit either themselves or the community as a whole. The argument I encounter often is that we have a right to be as wasteful as we want. Where that might be true, I also have a right to be as critical about it as I want. The readers of this blog are free to buy Hummers and waste natural resources, commute hours to work, and duplicate space or build a footprint on this planet as big as his or her ego will allow. I am free to explain that there is, in my humble opinion, a better way that serves each of us better, both individually and the community as a whole. Readers are entitled to their opinions, and I am entitled to mine.  Being allowed to express a difference of opinion is really the true meaning of freedom in my book.

But ultimately, the problem arises when some people see my advocacy as impinging on their free speech. These people believe it better that I not speak as it conflicts with their opinion of the World. I think I have a right to express myself and they are free to read it or not, believe it or not, or adhere to it or not.

Now, whether or not my motive for practicing law from home conflicts with someone's view of what is politically correct, my point is pretty simple. Our bedrooms are empty two-thirds of the time. Our living rooms are empty seven-eights of the time. Our office buildings are empty one-half of the time. All of this space is both the largest waste of our personal money and resources, and it is the largest single consumer of energy.  Space consumes more energy and results in more pollution than cars, or anything else. Getting to and from our spaces is probably responsbile for a good bit of the oil and gas we use. The more we reduce our footprint, the more money we get to keep to spend as we personally see fit. As an added bonus, with a smaller footprint we are less dependent on foreign sources of energy. There is less polution. We have better air quality. We are less stressed.  We have more time. To me, all of this amounts to more freedom.

It is true that I have often viewed this policy of mcmansions in the suburbs, macdaddy offices in the city, and a gas guzzler to get between the two as destructive both economically and environmentally. I believe that reducing our footprint we can benefit us both economically and environmentally, personally and for the greater good.

I think it is okay to be as conservative as you want and still work out of your home. Do it for the personal savings and the extra time it affords you and your family. You do not want to do it for the environment? You want to use the savings to buy a bigger house and a bigger vehicle? That is up to you.

Working With Your Significant Other

I say significant other because you could work with your spouse or the person in which you are in a relationship.  Or, I guess, even another family member. And, I say working because both of you do not have to be lawyers to work together in a law firm. One can assist the other.

The question is whether or not working together is a good idea?

I am not sure I really have particular advice for you, but it has worked well for me.

My wife and I applied to law school together.  We took every law school class together.  We took the bar exam together.  We have practiced law in one form or the other together for 25 years. And, we have raised four children together.

We both work out of our home, and we share the same office space within our home.

So, let's just say that we are together most of the time.

At this stage in our lives we can operate on a type of shorthand.  We know how the work flow breaks down for childcare, housekeeping and in the workplace, not out of some grand design but out of random selection of duties that have established themselves over the years.

I know those things that irritate me about her work habits, and I am sure she can say the same thing about me.  What I can say is that we have both mellowed over the many years as we have come to realize that these irritants are not really that important in the overall scope of things.  Also, if you worked with a non-family member, I am sure you would find more irritating habits in that person you will be less likely to tolerate.

Although there are some statistics that suggest that only 5% of couples can make an all-in-one partnership work, I cannot say that I have had this problem.

Do not get me wrong.  It takes some learning, a little faith, and the realization that petty matters are not worth the fight. And, it takes this realization on the part of both parties.

Law school was the worse for us in this regard. I recall classmates romanticizing about how wonderful it must be for us to study together. After all, studying for class and exams in law school is a lonely business. But, my wife and I had drastically different study habits.  Namely, she studied and I did not.

I tend to think any torment from working together eases with time. Much like rocks that rub together, at first they are rough and jagged. Over time they both smooth out and become more polished. There is less friction.

If you are thinking of working with your significant other, I might be able to provide you a few suggestions that might help.

First, do not get stuck in gender roles. You need to be equals in the workplace and to respect each other.

Second, come to terms with your competitiveness. It is wrong to ignore the fact that we are all competitive in some way and to some extent. In the home environment in which the only goal is to tend the house and take care of the kids, you might not exhibit your competitiveness to each other and save it for the workplace. The problem is what happens when both of you are in the workplace?

Third, I would like to tell you to establish a separation between work and home. That is what the experts would tell you. But, I have come to learn that this advice is simply hogwash. If you live and work together, that is just simply impossible. When you are both sitting at your child's soccer game or track meet do not tell me that work will not come into the conversation. This does not mean that both of you do not need to get away from work and concentrate on something else from time to time. But, when my wife and I were both in Tampa recently with our daughter, from time to time we were on the phone resolving work matters and settling cases. I really tend to believe that drawing lines of demarcation in this way leads to more stress and not less.

Let others talk about the odds of survival. I am here to tell you that working and living together can be a wonderful thing.

You Should Not Have To Retrench

I understand we can all cut back in hard times.  But, what I am saying is that if you feel the need to retrench, you were not running your law practice as you should have been operating it in the first place.

Retrench constitutes a race to sustaintially reduce costs and spending in response to economic difficulty.

The bigger question you should be asking yourself is why did it take a jolt to the economy or your firm's business to decide that maybe you could do without that receptionist, or replace WestLaw with a cheaper service, or reduce the amount of space you have under lease, or move your practice home?

The tragedy is no that you find that you can curtail expesnes, but that you were not doing so all along.

If you can do without these things now, you could have done without them before. The question becomes, why is it that when you are making more money you believe you can simply waste it?

Is A Business Degree A Good Bet For Law School?

My daughter received her MBA while attending law school. I have to admit that I worked toward an MBA part time after law school for a while, but I had a family and I could not see how it necessarily benefited a lawyer already in practice. (Maybe I was wrong). I have nothing against business degrees as I believe they complement a JD. I believe it probably helped get my daughter a job.

However, when I was in college, BBAs were all the rage, and as a lowly political science major I was the one enduing all of the ribbing from the business student about what, if anything, one could do with a political science degree. My ongoing joke at the time was that I intended to open a political science store in the mall.

What I thought I had observed then was, despite the hype of a business degree and all of the money colleges were raising to build new business school buildings, that those in the business schools seemed to be the ones who never studied, were always partying and who referred to their classes as "B.S. discussions".

Now, I read in the New York Times that business, the most popular college major, might be a detriment to getting into and succeeding in law school, which is where a lot of business majors head.

Well, the article did not deal directly with law school admissions or employment after graduation.  It discussed a survey of the 21% of college students who major in business as maybe academically adrift. What the survey found was that business majors spent the least time of any major studying (less than a hour a day), have the lowest gains on measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication; a whopping 37% are unemployed or under employed after graduation, and 45% have to move back in with their parents or other relatives to survive.

Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of this when you look around.  George W. Bush found it impossible to get into law school, but he got accepted to Harvard Business School. Then there is Donald Trump. It is hard to argue with his success, which is more a measure of his tenacity and over sized ego. But, listening to him talk, is there any doubt that, despite the high opinion of himself, he has the lowest measures of critical thinking or complex reasoning among most CEOs.

The lack of stable employment certainly leads business students to apply to law school, but the demonstrated lack of higher order skills, such as critical thinking and complex reasoning will not help them much either on the LSAT or in the law school classroom. At least for undergraduate business majors it might not help them get out of their parent's garage apartments.

At least a law degree has with it a license that allows one passing the bar to do something, and from those without law degrees from not doing it.  A business degree has no such exclusion.

It might be an important consideration when thinking about pre-law majors. Maybe the joke was on me in getting a political science degree. But, maybe, the better choice might be engineering, technology, languages, or higher math majors. Maybe consider majors that interrupt your party time and that build those higher order skills.

Hype Aversion

It means the rejection of a popular idea or thing simply because it is popular.

I am prone to hype aversion. But then again, I grew up in an age when everyone just had to have a pet rock and mothers tried to kill each other over the fake scarcity of Cabbage Patch Kids. We viewed with skeptism everyone getting aluminum siding on their houses, as if it was a neighborhood competition, because it was hyped by the local tin man.

It is also some part growing up Texan, I guess. We tend to be religious while at the same time having a healthy disrespect for organized religion. Another example, is that we are terribly patriotic while having a general distrust of government.

I do not buy the Mac mania much because I of my hype aversion.

I ignore the "value billing" gurus because I view it as less about how clients agree to be billed as a cute little means of price competing in marketing. Call it what you want, it is all about attorneys making a worse living for more work, or that is what it seems to me.

When partisans and zealots jump up and yell that we have the best healthcare system in the world, I know it is good technologically, but otherwise I know the comment is likely wrong. It is kind of like proclaiming with confidence that our local DMV office is the best in the world because the lines are so long.

Hype usually follows with a contract that is nothing like that which was sold, and yet we sign the contract blindly as if the hype is everything, and we are not bound by the contract that says there was no other representations relied upon.

Law schools, and unfortunately law students, fall for the hype of law school rankings while ignoring what is important. Law schools are creating a bubble by indiscriminately raising tuition year after year by nearly double digits just because other law schools are doing it. If my mother had asked a law school if "everyone else jumped off the Empire State building, would you?" Law schools would seem to answer emphatically "YES!!!", and then ask for directions to the Empire State building. Just like all bubbles, we know that the law school ranking race is harming the practice of law, enjoyment is the practice of law, and the poor, yet we seem powerless to do anything about it.

Students, on the other hand, select law schools for all of the wrong reasons. If each gravitated to the law schools with the lowest costs qne good bar results, those law schools would be the most highly ranked.

Lawyers buy into the hype of status in terms of staff, offices, advertising, expensive tech and the like without considering the financial costs.

Overly hyped movies tend to disappoint.

Overly hyped restaurants are not that good.

Advertising and unscrupulous marketing people, not related to, and less concerned about the product or service they are selling, are good part of the problem.

Those diet supplements showing before and afters are either not real, airbrushed, or are as a result of a workout and diet regiment not revealed and the results of which are little related to the supplements.

We have all come to suspect those that call themselves the best, not to be the best. A guarantee is not a guarantee. Banks will screw you by advertising a free account and then killing you with other less disclosed fees.

Remember the tech bubble when everybody and their dog loved to brag on their stock gains (while conviently never mentioning their stock loses). What about the mortgage bubble. Now everyone is chasing Facebook up the stock latter as if the stock price cannot fall. Generally speaking, insurance companies raise premiums on doctors, lawyers, drivers and those needing medical coverage less because of rising litigation and inflation, but because of repeated bad investments.

What about Enron? Worldcom?  Adelphia?  Bernie Madoff?  For that matter, what about Jack Abramoff? Good grief, does it never end. Any more, show me a company -- directly or through its subordinates -- giving unbelievable amounts of donations to a politician, political party and PACs, and I will show you a company cooking the books or trying to steal from the governement. What politician woud seriously consider on their own the possibility of turning over roads, built with tax dollars, to special business interest who charge each motorist for their use? Or, the right to corral and charge consumers and businesses for each email sent?

There are rarely any free lunches.

Guys, no matter how many dollar bills your toss, no matter how many drinks you buy, and no matter how many lap dances you purchases, those girls at the "gentlemen's clubs" are not going to sleep with you.

The problem exists in the practice of law. I remember when everyone and their dog wanted to dive into FDCPA and TIL litigation because they heard of the few large awards. Also, can we forget the Fen-Phen debacale when lawyers starting quiting what they were doing to gather clients for a potential settlement mechanism that really never happened?

In court, too many lawyer rely on hype rather than facts and the law. It is almost as if they can will some legal theory to be true even though the court of appeals has repeatedly said it is not.

There have been some exceptions. The Internet for one. Pier to pier phone calls over the computer is another. But, it is not the rule.

Just remember, snake oil salespeople are still everywhere. They are hard working people sometimes. Often they are pawns. But, their product or service do not work as hyped. They confuse making a living with selling something accurately and honestly. Accuracy rarely happens. Thus, as I have always said, snake oil salespeople do not believe they are snake oil salespeople.

The problem with hype is that it is almost always designed to separate you from your money.

The first rule is that if it is complicated to understand you are in trouble.  Gamblers in Vegas will tell you they have never had a problem with winning or losing money gambling on the Super Bowl. They have only felt taken by the stock market and their brokers.

Everybody, and especially every lawyer, needs to suffer from hype aversion -- to be a little less gulible -- and the entire world might be a little bit better.

The Paradox Of Toothpaste And Law

When I think about the practice of law, and what makes it ultimately enjoyable to me and appreciated by my clients, I am reminded of the book entitled The Paradox of Choice.

I think whatever problem exists in this regard can be related toothpaste.

My wife and I tend to go grocery shopping together. I hate it when she sends me into the toothpaste aisle. I cannot find what I want, and I often still pick up the wrong thing. I actually feel stress because of the gazillion choices I face in just trying to find a tube of toothpaste. Hell, toothpaste is just suppose to be an accessory to clean and maintain the aesthetics and health of my teeth. I am not buying it to eat for dinner. But now, instead of just choosing between a few brands, the world has decided to make what really is a combination of abrasives, fluoride and detergents into something sexy. As such, I am forced to choose between gel, paste, striped, cosmetic whiting or not, herbal, natural, tarter control, fluoride or not, antibacterial or not, and any number of flavors. There is the entire size thing. There are endless combinations from travel size to jumbo, requiring me to read the tiny cost or value per unit information post on each one. And there is no longer just a tube of toothpaste but any number of containers. Further, with the purchase of each, these days you have to consider the impact on the environment. It is just too much. It produces information and decision overload.  And, what should be a celebration, I guess, of variety just leads to the consumption of my time and causes me anxiety. In the end, I just default to my old fashion tube of Colgate in red box. But even with that default, I will often grab the wrong box and have to make a second trip to the dreaded toothpaste aisle.

The subtitle of the book is "Why More Is Less". Essentially, the World is a contradiction. As stated by Barry Schwartz, "Autonomy and Freedom of choice are critical to our well being, and choice is critical to freedom and autonomy. Nonetheless, though modern Americans have more choice than any group of people every has before, and thus, presumably, more freedom and autonomy, we don't seem to be benefiting from it psychologically."Essentially, the World is a contradiction that we all must strive to tame for ourselves should we seek to be happy in our practices.

Happiness is ultimately affected by the success or failure of a goal achieved. But, the endless and banal choices we face tend to offer more of a distraction. Hell, in most choices not only do we not know enough to choose what is best, we do not even know what we do not know to make the right decision. As such, choices tend to bring unhappiness to law grads, lawyers and their clients. The legal society, which was once a graduation right, has become a series of debilitating and demanding choices. It is what has made the practice of law and the decision to go to law school so painful for so many people.

I personally overcome this by focusing on a regiment, and eliminating the environments that result in many of the choices that would need to be made in my professional life otherwise. This sometimes produces some regret of the roads not traveled, but the overall result is the most comfortable for me. I seek to control my environment thereby eliminating my array of painful and often regretful options.

1.    I NICHED MY LAW PRACTICE. This is more difficult than it sounds. But, I have greatly narrowed my practice area to what is just a few pages of the United States Bankruptcy Code. I try not to vary from it. My goal is to know, understand and apply every nuisance of this part of the Code better than anybody else. I traded some of my freedom for commitment. This is so difficult because most lawyers view this opportunities missed. I know the feeling well as I tend to be like a kid in a candy shop when it comes to practice areas. What I have learned, however, is that the real joy in life is knowing one thing, no matter how obscure, better than most anybody else. You cannot achieve that unless you are willing to take the leap of faith and commit to the niche. For me, geographic and affinity niches do not work. I need a universe the size of which I can master -- a universe that narrows the choices.

2.    I MOVED MY LAW FIRM HOME AND ON THE WEB. Call me a hermit, I guess. But, I have a lot of attorneys venturing to my home and to The Woodlands, Texas to see how I do it. Outside office space, and traditional law firms so overwhelm with choices and options, without consideration of the consequences. It can just ruin the practice of law, emotionally if not financially. What type of space? Is there room to enlarge? The terms of the lease? Staffing issues? Overhead issues? Furnishing issues? Location of the space? Amenities? To partner up, to share space, to market the space, and that brings with it the whole ongoing drama of "The Office". And, then there is the commute. That raises issues of transportation, parking, gas cards, maintenance, and the like. And then clothing. Not so much as to whether I dress appropriately, but what will those around me think? Each of these decisions result in endless choices, each with an endless number of consequences the result of which you cannot possibly know. It is time consuming, it is unprofitable, it is anxiety ridden, and it can be ultimately painful. I have never had one of these areas, no matter how successful overall, not lead to regrets.

3.    I TAKE CONTROL OF MY CASES. Because I have put myself in a position where I cannot do everything, I have to try to chose my cases and clients well. The practice of law is more of an art than a science. Not every case works out well for the client or the attorney, for that matter. You want the cases to work out all of the time, but they need to work out most of the time. This very much relies on the relationship with your clients, and your decision of how you chose to practice. It seems to me that a client is retaining a lawyer for his or her expertise. If the client wants to analyze the situation legalistically and make the decisions that arises, if the client wants those choices, then the client does not need my expertise that much. People use to go to a lawyer with a problem, and the lawyer would say, "This is what we are going to do"? The client would agree, or not. The client decide on the lawyer and had faith in that lawyer. Today, the client goes to the lawyer and, especially because the law is so much more complicated and full of nuisance, the lawyer says here are the choices. Here is the risk of each choice. Then the lawyer asks, "What choice do you want"? The client asks, "Which should I take", and the lawyer again says, "Here are your choices and the risks".  Then the client asks, "If you were me, which would you choose", to which the lawyer says, "But, I am not you".  Today, we shift the burden to the client. We shift the burden to the one that does not know the answer and that does not have the legal knowledge or experience. We shift the burden to the one that does not know enough to know what they do not know. Further, we shift the burden to the one who is emotional blinded by the event or problem faced. It is not that I do not explain the options and the risks to my potential clients and clients. It is not that I do not let them decide to settle or litigate a case. I do. I do so thoroughly, openly and above board. What I do is explain to them the choice we, together, are accepting and why. If they do not want that choice, they are free to go elsewhere, and there are no hard feelings with the client making the choice to either not retain me or ending my representation either.

For happiness in the practice of law we attorneys have to shrink the toothpaste aisle of choices. It is really that simple.