legal sanity

The March 2005 edition of the ABA's Law Practice Today is devoted to helping lawyers as they start their careers. Although their aim is true, the articles are somewhat redundant. But, there are a few standouts. The always informative Dennis Kennedy offers a nice roundup of vital "lessons" for beginners. Among other things, he highlights the importance of understanding firm culture and hierarchy, finding a mentor and ensuring a proper lawyer-firm fit. Scheherazade Fowler shares some snapshots of her life as a fledging lawyer using the honest, engaging and amusing writing style that makes her blog one of my favorites. I particularly like her recollection of a conversation she had with a bankruptcy client who didn't understand the difference between "real" and "personal" property. Showing compassion for her client and insight into a common communication pitfall, Fowler states that the use of such legal terminology is "just another way in which we lawyers make the regular people who want to use our services feel dumb when there's no reason they should." In her article on navigating the "road to success," Kathleen Brady reminds us that the career path is often "paved with detours, speed bumps and potholes." Our ability to negotiate these obstacles, she advises, hinges on our willingness to be proactive and decide for ourselves what we value most. Then, it's up to us to go out and find a job that aligns with our core values. Brady also encourages us to look at career management as an ongoing process and suggests that we "make a lifelong commitment to actively manage [our] career/life and develop strategies to adapt to the inevitable transitions [we] are destined to encounter." Backing up this advice, she outlines a methodology for meeting our "lifetime goals" by creating a "five-year plan" and then setting "annual goals." Although conveyed in broad strokes, Brady's goal-setting process helps re-focus us on a very "personal definition of success."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

This article about chronically overworked and overwhelmed Americans teams well with this one detailing how small firm and solo practitioners can make "meaningful changes in our professional lives." The first piece highlights the recent Overwork in America study conducted by the Families and Work Institute. Of the 1,003 people surveyed, one-third say "they feel chronically overworked, while more than half report feeling overwhelmed at some point in the last month by the amount of work they had to accomplish." A byproduct of these stressors, the study found, is the forfeiture of personal time on weekends and vacations. Indeed, the line between work and "competitive sport" has become so blurred that over 30% of study participants admit that they don't use their full vacation time. The article ends with some steps employers can take to remedy the situation. While alluding to the same work-related ills, the second article focuses on individual, rather than institutional, remedies. Specifically, it encourages small firm and solo lawyers to help themselves out of the mire by recognizing that "the most important assessment of these problems begins with" them. As part of this personal assessment, we need to honestly appraise the "areas that are the most troublesome" in our practice. The piece provides some examples of such candid self-analysis, including these:

• I am totally disorganized; my office is a shambles.

• Matters slip between the cracks; there is no system for follow through.

• Even when working 10 to 12 hours a day, I seem to be running in place.

This reminds me of the reflective practice I discussed here and here. And it probably comes as no surprise that I think it's the way to go. Whether a solo or firm operative, the individual - that means you and me - is always the first and best line of defense against the scourge of overwork and overwhelm. By accounting for our own role in creating and perpetuating the problem, we send the message to law firms and to the larger profession that career success and satisfaction must go hand-in-hand. This is not a revolutionary notion, but a basic one that's been lost in the shuffle of the everyday business of law.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

My wife and I met in our last year at Fordham University School of Law. She was not a big fan of typical law school exams because she felt they didn't really test her understanding of the law and how it applies in real-world contexts. To add insult to injury, having "missed" a number of classes, I used her notes and outlines to study at the last minute and still outdid her on the tests (o.k., I couldn't resist sharing that bit of information). So, you can imagine how vindicated my wife felt when she read this article in which professor Steven Lubet derides the average American law school exam as "positively perverse." The big problem, he says, is that the exams aren't "really designed to test the skills involved in law practice." Indeed, they offer "no opportunity for reflection, research, reconsideration or redrafting" - an oversight that might very well constitute malpractice in real life. So why do law schools continue to give tests that miss the mark? In Lubet's opinion, it's because they're easy to grade and "do a great job of dividing test takers into measurable categories." Bringing his point home, Lubet states that possessing those qualities that "separate highly successful practitioners from mediocrities," such as "diligence, thoroughness, collaboration, consultation, fact investigation, and, crucially, the willingness to admit error and start over from scratch [ ] will actually put you at a disadvantage on law school exams. Far better to rely on flashes of insight and an ability to write on the fly."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

I really enjoy reading Andy Havens' legal marketing blog. He always gets me thinking about ways to connect with existing and prospective clients. In this recent post he remarks that lawyers are "often amazing relationship managers" which, he says, "makes them fantastic experiential marketers." For the uninitiated (like me), Andy states this basic tenet of experiential marketing: "people remember personal experiences much more strongly than broad-band media productions or celebrity sponsorships." He goes on to credit the ways lawyers forge the bonds that translate into long-term relationships with clients: "They know their clients' businesses inside and out. They understand their industries. They 'get it' when the business climate changes. They keep an eye out for their clients' competitive issues. They are proactive. They don't play 'yes man' games, but will sometimes risk losing business in order to do the right thing." I find these insights very interesting and somewhat perplexing. I regularly speak to groups of lawyers about optimizing their skills, success and satisfaction in the law. During the interactive presentations, I ask them to identify the biggest hurdles to achieving these three goals. Invariably, they rank the same impediment at or near the top of the list - an inability to engage clients or client referral sources. And by this they don't just mean an inability to go out and find such prospects. Rather, both veterans and newcomers admit that they have a hard time connecting with people as people. They're severely lacking in human relations skills. I venture that, without these core relational skills, it's simply impossible to create the client bonds, enduring relationships and positive consumer experience that Andy refers to.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

My posts here, here and here (among others) discuss how law schools today are missing the opportunity to teach key skills practitioners need to build career success and satisfaction. Given my interest in this topic, I was glad to find ambivalent imbroglio's post on student efforts to address, and dialogue about, the current state of legal education. I also came across this recent article weighing in on the subject. It concerns a call for curriculum reform sounded by Pace Law School's new dean, Stephen Friedman. Recognizing the need for a "powerfully different way of looking at what we're doing as law schools," Friedman puts forth the "revolutionary notion" of creating happier lawyers by better aligning legal education with "the needs of law firms." To Friedman, a happy lawyer is a productive lawyer. And newly-minted lawyers will be productive sooner if they're educated in a trade school mode - that is, if they're trained to see how the various areas of law they study interface in a given legal matter. I'm all for technical proficiency, but that's not what breeds happiness in our profession. Nor is it what law schools fail to impart. As law students, we learn how to translate human relations into rules, rights and responsibilities - the three "rs" of legal education. As a result, we're well-versed in transforming complex situations into a dry set of facts and applicable laws. But, we gain little to no insight into meeting the needs of the people behind the legal matters we take on. Law schools will go a long way towards fostering happier lawyers and a healthier profession if they recognize and teach the human relations skills that are so vital to optimal lawyering.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

People often ask me how they should go about learning the basics of mediation. I've received some formal mediation training, but have built much of my knowledge base on the job. Whether you'd like to be a mediator or just want to educate yourself about the process, this article provides some good pointers on how to choose a mediation training program. Here are three highlights: (1) "There is no uniform regulatory scheme governing the practice of mediation," so you'll need to "find out what requirements or qualifications standards for mediators are specified by the state you plan to practice in;" (2) There are several types of mediation, including facilitative, evaluative and transformative (you can learn more about them here). Because each comes with its own philosophical slant, rules and strategies, it's important to ascertain which mediation model a given program will teach participants;(3) Do your homework by researching the instructors' credentials and qualifications before you sign on. Ask questions: "What kind of work do they do in the mediation field? What types of cases do they mediate? How long have they been mediating? What kind of advanced training have they had? How long has the organization offering training been providing mediation and training services? How many individuals have they trained?" The piece goes on to overview the typical training curriculum and costs and gives some program locator tips.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

Many thanks to Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith, Esq. for forwarding this Legal Week article on how lawyer's might benefit from reflective practice. I discussed the related practice of active listening here and here. Reflective practice is a fairly new concept. Academic Donald Schoen introduced it in 1983 in response to the eroding state of American professionalism. According to the article, practitioners interpret the concept in many different ways. "At its very simplest, reflection means deliberately thinking about what you are doing or have just done rather than working on autopilot and by precedent." Thus, lawyers engaging reflective practice resist the temptation to "fit problems into neat and predefined boxes." Instead, they explore an issue from different vantage points in order to meet the client's real needs and larger interests. Lawyers might also use the practice to audit themselves or their businesses. Reflecting on the way they handled a particular matter or proceeding, they look "at what they did, why they did it in that way, what they could do better and what they could adopt or adapt from others." I agree with the author that this kind of introspection can be a bit time-consuming, but if "the outcome is improved practice and more empowered individuals, it is time [] well spent."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (2)

Here's an article evincing that lawyers draw inspiration from all kinds of sources. It tells how Widner University School of Law professor Randy Lee recently organized a daylong symposium called The Lawyer as Poet Advocate: Bruce Springsteen and the American Lawyer. The well-attended class covered "what lawyers can learn from how Springsteen relates to the hopes, fears and dreams of the common man." This was the back track for a discussion on the lawyer's role as advocate, the ways we "can take inspiration from our clients and how they give us the opportunity to feel good about ourselves and what we do." Participants also gained some valuable legal writing tips by examining how "Springsteen uses few, if any, adjectives, relying instead on strong nouns to paint colorful pictures." If all this appeals to your inner rocker, the Pennsylvania State Bar Association will present two encore engagements on the same topic next month in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, PA.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

In this post from Duct Tape Marketing, John Jantsch provides a nice coda to the conversation about must-have conversations for lawyers. He proffers a recipe for "much more fulfilling work, much more loyal clients and way more referrals." The key ingredient? Bravery. According to Jantsch, we need to shed our fear of showing we care and ask our clients "what their most important personal goals are." Then, we must take the time to figure out how we can help them achieve their goals. I think his advice is right on the mark.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

This article declares alternative work arrangements (like part-time, flextime and flexi-place work) an "excellent management strategy" to help law firms "retain highly valued employees." After describing the workday options available today, the piece relates that "good supervisors will work with an employee to find the right arrangement, because they understand that finding a way to keep a valued employee is more cost-effective and beneficial to the firm than trying to find a replacement." By embracing such flexible work regimens, firms send the positive message throughout their ranks that they care about their employees "and will accommodate their needs when possible." This promotes a corporate culture that fosters employee loyalty, attracts potential recruits and engenders better client service. Recognizing that firms must do more than pay lip service to the availability of alternative job tracks, the article goes on to outline key action points and an action plan for "making a success of each individual arrangement."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

The marketing blog brand autopsy is one of my daily views. I enjoy its fresh approach to a subject area that gets much play in the blogosphere. A friend of mine recently suggested that I read Kevin Carroll's Rules of the Red Rubber Ball. So, I was happy to find this great post (including links to video streams) on the book and its author, a former passion "Katalyst" at Nike who now speaks widely on the connection between play and an enriching work life. The nexus between work and passion is a topic that really interests me since I'm re-designing my business to engage my passion for teaching practitioners and consumers about achieving success and satisfaction in the law. Other takes on work-passion interplay can be found here, here and here.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

I've previously posted here and here on the apparent divide between old guard and "Generation Y" lawyers. According to the latest article on the subject, lawyers born in or after 1978 "are getting a bad rap for what some say is a flabby work ethic and an off-putting sense of entitlement." More seasoned practitioners deride their youngers as ungrateful and lacking ambition, initiative and energy. Those disputing this unflattering portrayal say that the well-educated group of up-and-coming lawyers "wants to grow professionally and advance to partnership," but simply refuses to do so at the expense of their personal lives. Instead of name-calling and head shaking, lawyers old and new need to come together for candid discussions about the marked differences in their priorities and perspectives on life in the law. It seems that there will have to be some kind of species-wide adaptation for the profession to thrive into the future.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

Lawyer and author Stewart Levine has written this interesting piece on the conversations we need to have with ourselves and others in order to create meaningful professional and personal lives. Putting his own spin on a concept originated by poet David Whyte, Levine discusses the nature of these "Courageous Conversations." Of the five conversations he describes, the following three resonate the most with me in my work as a solo practitioner. Here goes, in Levine's words:

* What is the conversation you are not having with your unknown future?
Each of us is always somewhat incomplete because we tend to live, at our fullest and healthiest, in a state of becoming. When we stagnate and become rigid we are holding on for dear life, struggling to maintain the status quo - not being willing to engage the real possibilities the future holds for ourselves and others. When we posture and maintain that we have the answers and do not need any help we cut ourselves off from the many potential futures that live within, each moment becoming a death warrant.

* What is the conversation you are not having with your customers?
The service we provide to our customers exists on the very bridge we have built in the conversations. When we stop having real conversations we are not engaged in getting feedback about what we might be doing for them, finding out where they want to be headed and how we might improve what we are doing. Yet we refrain, because we're afraid to find out the bad news and would rather believe we are doing a great job.

* What is the conversation that you are not having in your own heart and mind, with your partner and loved ones?
This is obviously the most important. If you are not having the conversations with them that are real for you then you are living an inauthentic lie. In some ways it all starts from this. If we are real with ourselves, then we can be real with everyone. And when we are brave enough to be our authentic selves with everyone than our own natural brilliance begins to shine through. From this place all else is born.

This is provocative stuff. I'm constantly reworking my approach to law through conversations with myself, clients and others in my social and business networks. Many of these conversations have taken me way outside my comfort zone and pushed me to acknowledge my failures as well as successes. But, I've welcomed them all because they've invariably spurred me to change and grow in a positive direction.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments

My wife passed along this article profiling her fellow Vassar College alum Pauline Yeung, a New York attorney who works in a small elder law boutique. Yeung, whose parents are from Hong Kong, discusses how her background and life experiences infuse the counsel she offers her main clientele of elderly Chinese immigrants. Because her clients consider consulting a lawyer a line of last resort, Yeung works to forge "a "trust relationship" with them. She asks about their children, health and home and shares information on neighborhood resources. In this way, she says, she shows that she really cares. Although her clients are predisposed to seek the advice of older and male practitioners, Yeung has won their confidence by presenting her case "professionally and with respect." She's also gained their trust by respecting certain cultural boundaries. For instance, the Chinese consider it taboo to "speak of death and disability." So, Yeung refers instead to "protecting money and sheltering assets." While this may be a fairly unique example of lawyer-client symbiosis, I think it well highlights the importance of getting to know the human beings behind the legal matters we deal with every day. Trust is something earned and we can't possibly earn it without this kind of human(e) interaction with our clients.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments