Law Firm 4.0 Blog

Law Practice Management Class - SMU Law School. What's on their minds?

I taught a course this week - Marketing on the Internet - at Mark Shank's Law Practice Management Class at Southern Methodist University Law School.  The LPM course was new last year - it attracted 14 students.  This year, it has 49, and I expect next year it will exponentially grow again.  It's not about learning the law, it's about understanding how to run the business of a law practice.  Grounded and practical for mostly third years and some seconds. (Mark Shank is a partner at the litigation boutique, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail.)

You can access my presentation on the Content Pilot website.

As I started my presentation, I asked the class:

1. When you think of starting your careers in a year or two, what is the biggest opportunity you see that the Internet can bring you?
2. What is your greatest fear when you think about the Internet and your career?

I asked these questions before I spoke about online assets available to the law firm enterprise and those available to each person.  And it was before I spoke about Facebook and when it isn't your friend.

I asked the students to write these answers down and sign their names if they were willing to have their answers shared with attribution on this Law Firm 4.0 blog.  Thanks to everyone in Mark Shank's class for their time and attention - I thoroughly enjoyed my evening with you.

Let's start with their fears - answering Question #2:

• David Norris:  Ease of accidentally or unknowingly offending/angering/estranging someone by an offhand comment, whether in email, Facebook or whatever. Rather than discussing or asking for clarification, potential friends and clients could simply cross my name off their list.  
• Sarah Henniger:  Making the most of available technology and privacy issues and seeing negative info about me
• Ethan Wood:  My political views making potential clients nervous
• Heather Frayre:  Staying ahead of the curve
• Ragip Kurceren and Kenneth McClure:  Lack of privacy and irreparable harm of leaked information
• Lewis Schipl:  Could bring embarrassing details to the public
• Trent Rexing:  Work becoming almost exclusively online
• Lindsey Olson:  Online communications between clients, opposing counsel, etc. are permanent and must be very heavily calculated and monitored.
• Brad Wilson:  Negative information posted about me
• Millie Rhoades and Krystal Plonka:  (both spoke about outsourcing) The fear that my work could easily be outsourced to cheaper attorneys using email, chat, etc. (And) U.S. laws moving slower and diminishing our competitive capability.
• Kristin Jones:  Fear that someone will post something about me that is untrue and will ruin my reputation and my kids' reputations. I would hate for my practice to harm my children and their professional future.
• Lindsay Daniel:  Leaking of information -- i.e., accidentally emailing confidential papers to the wrong party.
• Timothy Martin:  Damage to reputation through associations with others.
• Spencer Guy:  "SECURITY."  As more and more services gain an "online component," there is a real risk of information disclosure.  Banks and commercial corporations experience data theft daily -- names, addresses, SSNs, credit card numbers, etc.   How much security will sufficiently protect confidential information and privileged communication?
  
  "WAL-MART."  That is, high-volume, fixed-cost services. Some bread-and-butter services, such as Will work, title work, etc. will likely move to single purpose legal providers.
  
  "AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION."  Clients are conducting their own legal research more frequently.  (Mis)informed clients are not the best clients.  Alternatively, less people may seek legal counsel.
• Joe Licata:  An unfair portrayal on AVVO or Martindale or LinkedIn.  Internet slander type stuff.
• Monica Adriano:  Identity theft
• Tennille Johnson:  Privacy, bad ratings of you, IT support
• Amber Beatty:  I don't want to be held back from employment because I am or am not involved in a social networking website.
• Alex Bolton:  Ways to distinguish myself from others (how to win the rat race)
• Phillip Kim:  That lawyers (and myself especially) wil become more replaceable.
• Chart Westcott:  No fears.

What struck me about these fears is how consistent they are with what older, experienced practicing lawyers would say.  My advice is (and I said this in the class), if you really fear loss of privacy, then don't post anything on Facebook or anywhere else that compromises the best of who you are and whom you plan to become.  No drunken reverie photos, no pictures of you at a hash bash, no rants about potential employers or clients, no diatribes about past relationships.  You get the idea. 

Facebook, LinkedIn, Martindale Connected - all social sites - are great assets to your personal life and career when restraint and self-censorship are employed.

So, what do these students see as the Internet's greatest opportunities as it relates to their careers?

• Access to information
• Access to potential clients
• Access to every target market
• Providing clients information about my firm and the services we provide.  It can inspire confidence and reach out to new prospects.
• Clients, exposure, visiblity, the professional "look"
• Networking (e.g., finding new jobs/clients)
• The ability for anyone to search for your firm
• Exposure (Kevin LaMarca said "exposure" for his fear, too) - and the opportunity to put together a good website, because most law firm websites are BAD AND BORING.
• Besides cients, it will bring me opportunities to expand my legal knowledge without having to take other classes.
• Name recognition
• The Internet is a pre-requisite to doing business.
• It will help me establish my practice through cheap cloud applications.
• Finding jobs in a way that's much more accessible
• Research tools for my practice and to learn more about my clients
• The ability to do contract work with firms via email
• Information on potential clients and referral sources
• I plan on starting a solo practice when I graduate, so the Internet will be my main source of initial clients (via online ads, etc.).  Lindsey Olson says, "I already use the Internet for 100% of the ads for my bakery, so I intend to do the same for my own practice."
•  Using social networking to to keep in touch with old business contacts, and possibly take them on as clients.
• Communication.  Communication with clients, attorneys, government agencies, etc.  Much of the electronic communication and networks are in their infancy -- a mashed-up collaboration of unintegrated communication providers.  Once this cloud is refined and matured, a higher level of efficiency can be had.  Communication with prospective clients (passive communication) via firm websites is key to first impressions.  Communication with government agencies often requires  a paper document to follow a priority-attaining e-file.  This does not provide an efficiency boost.  Once electronic communication becomes the norm and holds legal clout, a higher level of efficiency will actually exist.

My advice to the students who plan to start their own solo or small firms?  Because of the white-out, blizzard nature of the information available on the Internet, you won't get online traction unless you narrow your focus and your messages.  Understand how the search engines work, become known for something (remember I spoke about owning your online reputation and becoming a subject matter expert?) and be diligent about keeping your online presence current and relevant.

Good luck, friends at SMU Law School!  Let's stay in touch on LinkedIn and Facebook.

 

The secret to becoming a rainmaker.

I mentioned in my last post about civility that I have worked with lawyers nearly three decades.  I’ve worked with a lot of brilliant, thought-leading and profession-defining lawyers.  It’s a pleasure to have called them clients and friends. 

Not all of these remarkable attorneys could be called rainmakers.  Some are, but many are not.  And for years, the reason for this eluded me.

There are hundreds of blog posts and dozens of training courses taught by fine consultants about the ins and outs of selling professional services.  This post isn’t about telling you how to sell.  It’s about me finally articulating the one attribute that stands out among all others – the one attribute that enables lawyers, regardless of practice area, industry strength, personality type, communication style, law firm or law school credentials, to consistently and effectively develop client relationships that pay off.

Here it is:  Stop thinking about yourself. 

Like any skill, it requires practice, self intervention and enormous discipline. Think back to a “business development” lunch meeting with a prospect that didn’t result in new business.  Did you self-analyze to determine why there wasn’t a fit?  Most lawyers have dozens of such lunches, yet they keep inviting away, hoping their luck will change.  In most cases, it won’t.  And it’s not about luck anyway. 

For many lawyers, this rejection takes its toll.  Many stop asking, hoping to find another, more successful path to client relationship development.  But, of course, lunch has nothing to do with the poor result.

The elements that must be in place for that relationship magic to occur are built on top of this fundamental premise – if you are consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously thinking about how you’re doing, how you’re coming across, what you’re buying your spouse for Valentine’s Day, the matter that’s back in the office, the squash game at 5:30 or that you have to get your shoes shined – you will not be a successful rainmaker.

Stop thinking about yourself.  Focus 100% on the person with whom you’re meeting.  The hours leading up to any meeting should be filled with thought about that person, his or her company, industry and issues that are their greatest stressors.  Don’t focus on why you (or your firm) are the best solution for the problem, even if you fully believe that you are.  From the innermost core of your being, understand that it’s about them.  Not you.  Not your firm.  There is no equation here that includes you unless you’ve been hired.

I met Mark Shank, partner at the terrific Texas litigation boutique Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail, for a drink last week.  Mark and I have worked together at three different law firms over the last ten-plus years.  Part of our energetic discussion ended up on the back of a napkin, which is now resulting in this blog post.  You just never know when a notion or truth will finally crystallize.  It took a fine Pinot Noir and a good chat with Mark for this secret to surface.

I hope it’s something that resonates with you.

 

 

Most days, I mourn the loss of civility.

I know you've seen it and have felt its sting.  Rudeness by travelers, drivers, shoppers, waiters and others in the service business.  It's one of the most troubling, yet widely accepted conditions of our times, and unless there is a Peter Finch-style "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" revolt, I don't see it changing for the better anytime soon.

Over my near three-decades of working with lawyers, I have seen them fall into three camps:  wonderfully generous-spirited men and women (often the most successful rainmakers, I might add), jerks (as the brilliant, but maniacal former chair of my first law firm said, "I don't have ulcers, I'm an ulcer carrier." [Meaning, he gave them to others.])  and those that fall into the deep middle of passive tolerance. 

It's always interesting to hear firm leaders describe the culture of their firms, "We have a no-jerk policy."  Or, "We have a low-jerk quotient."  I hear this surprisngly frequently, which is good!  But I always wonder why it's necessary for leaders to proudly declare it - shouldn't we expect a healthy work environment that is jerk-free? 

The answer is no. Just like we can't expect our day-to-day interactions to be lovely and gentle and always fulfilling.  I think it's sad, though.  And it troubles me.

That's why I was so drawn to the story that I am sharing with you below.  It's from CNN.com and written by CNN contributor, Bob Greene.  He published it today at noon Eastern time.  It's worth reading to the bottom as all the world's abuzz about love and Valentine's Day. He shares three stories of three extraordinarily successful and unconsciously civil people - Frank Sinatra, Karl Malone and Army General Peter Chiarelli.  And another story about a singer-diva who goes unnamed and should be ashamed.

That's what struck me most:  that they were unconsciously (ok, perhaps subconsciously) doing gracious and respectful things.  So, my Valentine's wish for everyone who reads this post is, don't think about doing the civil and right thing . . . just reach out and do it.

(CNN) -- Graciousness can pay priceless dividends.  And it doesn't cost a thing.

You may have heard the story about what happened between White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and Four-star Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli at a recent Washington dinner.

As reported by the website Daily Caller, Jarrett, a longtime Chicago friend of President Obama, was seated at the dinner when a general -- later identified as Chiarelli, the No. 2-ranking general in the U.S. Army hierarchy, who was also a guest at the gathering -- walked behind her. Chiarelli was in full dress uniform.

Jarrett, apparently only seeing Chiarelli's striped uniform pants, thought that he was a waiter. She asked him to get her a glass of wine. 

She was said to be mortified as soon as she realized her mistake, and who wouldn't be? But the instructive part of this tale is what Chiarelli did next.

Rather than take offense, or try to make Jarrett feel small for her blunder, the general, in good humor, went and poured her a glass of wine. It was evident that he wanted to defuse the awkward moment, and to let Jarrett know that she should not feel embarrassed.

As Chiarelli wrote in an e-mail to CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr:

"It was an honest mistake that ANYONE could have made. She was sitting, I was standing and walking behind her and all she saw were the two stripes on my pants which were almost identical to the waiters' pants -- REALLY. She apologized and will come to the house for dinner if a date can be worked out in March."

Now, even if you've never met Chiarelli or followed him in the news, you have to be impressed with him after hearing that story. With his lofty rank in the military, he could have given Jarrett the deep freeze, reproached her and corrected her. But he poured her the wine -- "It was only good fun," he wrote to Starr -- and invited her to a meal at his home. He came out of the incident as a decent and magnanimous person.

It's easy to do, if you care about other people's feelings. Sportswriters who covered the National Basketball Association in the late 1980s and 1990s like to tell a story about Karl Malone, the great forward for the Utah Jazz. It seems that one day in the baggage-claim area of the Salt Lake City airport, a woman was trying to lift her bags from the carousel and, seeing Malone, who was there to pick up his brother from an arriving flight, mistook him for a skycap.

She asked him to carry her bags to her car.

Malone was a wealthy and world-famous athlete at the time. He could so easily have hurt the woman's feelings, rebuked her. But what did he do?

According to longtime Salt Lake Tribune sports reporter Steve Luhm, who covered the incident at the time and who confirmed it to me last week, Malone carried the woman's bags all the way to her car. Only when she reached for her purse to give him a tip did he in a friendly manner introduce himself and decline the offer.

One of the most indelible stories about a person going out of his way to avoid humiliating another person was told in Gay Talese's 1966 Esquire article "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," widely considered to be perhaps the finest magazine profile ever written.

In the article, Talese described a party at the home of Sinatra's former wife, at which Sinatra, who maintained cordial relations with her, was acting as host. A young woman at the party, according to Talese, "while leaning against a table, accidentally with her elbow knocked over one of a pair of alabaster birds to the floor, smashing it to pieces."

Talese wrote that Sinatra's daughter Nancy, also a guest at the party, started to say: "Oh, that was one of my mother's favorite..."

Talese continued:

"[B]ut before she could complete the sentence, Sinatra glared at her, cutting her off, and while 40 other guests in the room all stared in silence, Sinatra walked over, quickly with his finger flicked the other alabaster bird off the table, smashing it to pieces, and then put an arm gently around [the young woman] and said, in a way that put her completely at ease, 'That's OK, kid.' "

It can work the other way, too, and can be remembered just as long. I was once working on a profile of a famous singer, also for Esquire, and one evening we rode in his limousine to a concert hall. As he walked backstage he was stopped by a young, nervous and inexperienced usher with a clipboard who had been assigned to make certain everyone in the area was authorized. The usher asked the famous singer if he was the comedian who would open the show.

The singer did not speak to the young usher or make eye contact with him, but instead walked immediately over to a person in the management of the auditorium and demanded that the usher be dismissed.

The singer, in trying to make the young man who had made a mistake feel small, had only managed to make himself seem tiny. What Gen. Chiarelli did, though -- like Karl Malone, like Frank Sinatra -- was to demonstrate, instinctively and in an instant, what it means to be a big person.

The rest of us may never reach the exalted status of those three men. But kindness knows no social stratum. Every day, we're given the choice. Consideration? It's free of charge. It can echo forever.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!