legal sanity

Stephen Rosenberg of the Boston ERISA and Insurance Litigation Blog has an interesting take on my commentary about the importance of mutuality in business relationships.

In a post titled Improving the Insurer Insured Relationship, he asks: is “the insurance regime really best served by a sort of wary, arms length cold war relationship between insureds and insurers?” Answering that it’s not, Rosenberg suggests that all parties would be better served by engaging a mode of conflict resolution - like mediation – that could align interests and facilitate a “more trusting long term relationship between businesses and insurers.”

Aligning interests for mutual benefit is also the theme of a series of posts by Diane Levin on bridging the divide between lawyers and mediators. Levin fuels the discussion with this observation about tainted mutuality: although they could learn a lot from each other, “all too often attorneys and mediators view each other as rivals, not partners, in dispute resolution. There's plenty of mutual distrust and even open hostility to go around.”

Carrying this theme a bit further, Garr Reynolds of Presentation Zen tells us a story that illustrates the role of trust in making, or breaking, mutually fulfilling business relationships.

After a birthday lunch in a fine hotel, his friend found herself under the scrutiny of an assistant manager who insinuated that she hadn’t paid her bill. In the time it took for the friend to explain that she had, in fact, paid, the business relationship had been shattered. The friend explained that the hotel didn’t trust her, so she had no reason to give them her business again.

No trust. No mutuality. No enduring business relationship.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although there’s little likelihood of anyone confusing the practice of law with the adrenaline-infused, on-the-edge activities highlighted in X Games coverage; it’s well-known that Americans can take just about anything to an extreme, including our work habits.

A little while back, I looked at the topic of lawyer depletion as it relates to the problem of over-work in the legal profession. The post included a few different takes on forfeiting vacations in favor of more time on-the-job.

Refreshing the issue for us is a new article by lawyer and writer Michael P. Maslanka titled: A Plea for Sanity: How GCs Can Help Stop the Culture of Extreme Work. In it, Maslanka notes that “there's no return on investment on exhausted employees” and chronicles the fallout from work-induced sleep deprivation. Among other remedial initiatives, Maslanka discusses mandatory vacations and training GCs (read firm leaders) to decipher the telltale signs of “an extreme worker” who needs an intervention.

But, it’s not only the extremists who need to understand the value of downtime. All of us benefit from a healthy life outside the law. Then, of course, there are the hybrid activities that join the worlds of work and leisure time.

Last night, my wife (and legal sanity co-producer), Lori, and I attended the NYC pre-launch party for BlawgWorld 2007, a TechnoLawyer publication that we contributed to along with a number of other law bloggers.

Among the folks we met and chatted with were hosts Neil Squillante and Sara Skiff; and attendees Tom Collins; Allison Shields; Josh Fruchter; Bruce Marcus; Bruce MacEwen; the Wired GC; Matt Homann; Walter Olson; Ron Friedman; and Tom Mighell (in order of connecting as we made our way from the front to the back of the restaurant). It was a lot of fun.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The other day, a new blogger sent a form e-mail asking me to check out his site and link to him from here. He didn’t discuss his blog’s relevance to legal sanity. Nor did he convey any intention of discussing my blog in his space. He said he would add my blog to his blog roll if I agreed to add his to mine. Needless to say, I declined his offer. But, I did send him a reply outlining the reasons why.

In Never Eat Alone, his popular book on achieving business success through relationships, consultant Keith Ferrazzi notes: In the world of relationship-building, it’s “better to give before you receive. And never keep score.” Networking expert Thom Singer shares similar advice in his book on business relationships, Some Assembly Required. He says: “Your goal in any business relationship is to give more than you take.”

I agree. You can’t forge any kind of sincere, lasting relationship on an expectation of quid pro quo (I give to you if – and only to the same degree that – you give to me). We have to be willing to freely give to the other person without expectation of return.

But, there is a limit to the give. There needs to be at least some take. If a relationship is devoid of reciprocity – or mutuality – it’s going to quickly deplete us. We’ll inevitably want to shout, “Hey, enough about you, what about me!”

That’s why, although willing to take the lead in cultivating business relationships, I’m very vigilant about the prospect of mutuality. If I glean that there’s little hope of it, I won’t invest any more time and energy into making the connection.

For more insight into creating mutually-fulfilling business relationships, tune in to David Maister’s new podcast episode on Relationships and Romance.

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

I’ve devoted quite a bit of blog space to discussing how lawyers can optimize their business relationships. As I’ve repeatedly observed, success in the law largely turns on the quality of our work relationships. When our client connections are impaired, we experience the fallout in the form of client discontent and defection and our own unhappiness and depletion.

A group of articles I recently gathered together for an upcoming program on Relationships for Business Success (PDF) got me thinking about the modern-day version of human-to-human connection and how it impacts lawyers endeavoring to build and sustain business.

Cultivating successful client relationships requires a kind of intimacy – a willingness to get to know the human being behind the legal issue or need that comes across our desk. It’s basically the same kind of intimacy that fuels healthy connections to family and friends. But, according to some observers, the tools that many of us have come to depend on for everyday connectivity may be compromising our capacity for intimacy.

In a Forbes.com article on PDAs (as in personal digital assistants) and intimate relationships, one expert describes this kind of wireless technology as “the modern-day equivalent to the spinster chaperone.” Although they appear to boost relationships by providing users access to one another 24/7, the kind of interactions PDAs facilitate are generally quick and impersonal. As these “nanosecond communications” become the norm for us, we expect “instant relationships as well as all other kinds of instant gratification.”

If we lift our eyes from the BlackBerry screen for a minute or two, it becomes very clear that this expectation doesn’t play out well in the real world of human connection.

This WSJ.com article on BlackBerry Orphans recently made the rounds among my friends and family. While some of the quotes from kids dealing with PDA-obsessed parents are funny, the sentiments behind the words are powerful and hard to ignore (and I speak from personal experience here). These kids are expressing a real need for attention – they want to be more visible to their parents. But, at many points throughout the day, they’re largely invisible because their parents have exchanged intimacy for constant connectivity.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Following up on my last post on work-life issues in the law, I came across a couple of new resources you can mine for insight into this important topic. The first is Lisa Haneberg’s “fireside chat” with Passion Catalyst Curt Rosengren. In this half-hour podcast (part of Haneberg’s terrific, ongoing series) the two discuss how we can “spend more of our work hours in ways that enliven our passions.” Understanding and exploring this work-passion connection is key to deciphering what fills and depletes us in the everyday practice of law.

Next on the resource roster is another podcast, this one from David Maister. In it, Maister talks about the importance of developing our friendship skills - which he considers prerequisite to earning and deserving others’ trust. Trust is the foundation of any genuine and enduring relationship – including the lawyer-client relationship. Career success and satisfaction typically grow as we cultivate the ability to regularly build and sustain trust-based business relationships.

To round out these work-life offerings, on January 23, 2007, I’m giving a free 90-minute teleseminar on XE Factor: Creating Work-Life Synergy. The program is hosted by Lisa Solomon’s Legal Research and Writing Pro. I hope you’ll join me. You can register and get additional information here.

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

Yesterday, many of us talked and thought about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and how he deeply connected with people through his impassioned words. As I was reading my blog feeds, I noticed a beautiful symmetry of insight into the importance of connecting with those we lead, serve and want to inspire.

Contemplating the key markers of successful public speaking, Garr Reynolds of Presentation Zen shares that “the greatest assembly of words in the world does not matter much if it does not register with the audience, if it is not meaningful to them.”

I couldn’t agree more. We can talk to clients, prospects or any target audience until we’re (and they’re) blue in the face; but it won’t make a dent unless we sincerely address their needs or concerns or offer ways to make their lives better. It’s the conviction, genuine care and understanding behind our words that gives them credence. Otherwise, they’re just words.

At Management Craft, a post by Lisa Haneberg nicely punctuates this point with a terrific cartoon by Hugh MacLeod and the apt observation: “The content gets you in the door but the connection is what really matters.”

The power inherent in genuinely connecting with people is also underscored in a post on Emotive Leadership from Tom Peters. Tapping themes I’ve discussed here before – the leadership-service nexus and looking beyond people's titles and roles  – Peters remarks that one of the hallmarks of accomplished leader-servants is their desire and ability to authentically connect with people on an emotional level.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I recently read a pair of interesting posts by Michelle Golden and Charles H. Green outlining why they object to the use of the terms “trust” and “trusted advisor” in professional firm marketing materials.

Green - who co-authored the terrific book, The Trusted Advisor, and runs seminars on the same subject – got the discussion rolling by remarking that professionals shouldn’t affirmatively proclaim their status as, or intent to be, trusted advisors to clients. Why? Because trust is “an outcome, not a come-on.” Echoing Green’s suggestion that it’s really up to clients to pronounce us trust-worthy, Golden adds that “trusted advisor” is used so often in promotional channels that “it’s now cliché.”

Green and Golden make valid points. But, I have a slightly different take.

Trust has become a key concept - and key word - in the service professions for very good reasons. We live in a world where people often don’t live up to their promises. Most legal disputes, in essence, concern a breakdown in trust. So, as professionals, we need to be vigilant about the role of trust in legal matters and be sensitive to not setting up false client expectations of our services.

That said, if we’re sincere and determined in our desire to foster trust-based client connections (really, the only kind of client connections there should be), there’s nothing wrong with letting the world in on our authentic intention. People seeking legal counsel – most likely operating under a trust deficit  - will only benefit from our candor about placing a premium on trust.

To be sure, we don’t need to use the words “trust” or “trusted advisor” to convey our offerings (although I see nothing wrong with using them). There’s lots of ways to let clients and prospects know that we’re committed to cultivating trust-filled, meaningful and mutually beneficial relationships with them.

Regardless of the words we choose to state our commitment to trust, as Golden and Green suggest, this can’t be an empty promise. We have to team our public words with consistent, professional and personal action. As the very cliché phrase goes: We need to walk our talk.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I’m thrilled to announce that our new eGuide, Beyond Balance: How to Cultivate Work-Life Synergy in the Law (PDF) is finished and now available as a complimentary offering from Legal Sanity Learning Programs. Here’s an excerpt:

What Are We Really Looking For in the Name Of Work-Life Balance?

If you ask lawyers (whether male or female, seasoned or newly-minted) to describe their work-life issues, you’ll get many different responses, including:

· I love my work, but I don’t have time for personal pursuits

· I don’t like my work and have no time for personal pursuits

· My work life is dull and boring compared to my personal life

· My work and personal lives are both unfulfilling

· The people I deal with at work are draining

· My work tasks are unchallenging and depleting

At first glance, these complaints seem quite distinct.

But, on closer inspection, we can see that they’re all expressions of discontent with how practitioners are engaging and handling the lawyer experience and its three component parts:

1. Time

2. Relationships

3. Tasks

We feel distressed when any of these three components is deficient and depleting us. And if more than one of the triad is impaired (as is usually the case), our distress and discontent only increases.

Lawyers feeling the fallout from this impairment often wonder: “What is the purpose of this? I want to experience more meaning in life. How do I find my way to happiness?”

While some people dismiss work-life issues in the law as bunk, articles like this one about workaholics and this one about the best companies to work for evince that this is not a red herring matter for a profession populated by stressed, unhappy and defecting practitioners.

Work-life synergy is a subject that’s been near and dear to me as I’ve traveled my own career path and developed content for this blog.

I’d love for you to read the eGuide and share it with your co-workers and friends in the service professions. Also, please feel free to give me your feedback on the Guide and its core message about moving beyond balance.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I’ve covered the topic of conflict in the practice of law from various angles. The conversation’s spokes all converge on the hub proposition that it’s vital for lawyers to learn how to handle the workplace, client and other business conflicts they frequently face.

Offering fresh takes on the subject are two new articles from Mediate.com. The first one, titled Providing Learning Opportunities, discusses the attributes of “conflict competent leaders.” These are leaders who are able to offer real time, real world conflict education to the people they work with. When on-the-job conflict arises, they have the clarity of mind and the ability to see the learning opportunities in the situation. Embracing conflict as a catalyst “to breakthrough ideas,” these leaders support and encourage workers through the resolution process.

The second article, called Who are Your Workplace Actors? builds on the idea of the workplace as a conflict education forum. Describing the Who’s Who of the typical business cast, the piece notes that “[e]ach ‘actor’ in the workplace has a role to play both in the engendering of workplace conflict and in its successful resolution.” Taking the theater analogy a step further, it’s asserted that these diverse conflict management roles can best be understood by looking at “the motivation” behind the actor’s particular job in the organization.

On a related note, I recently received an email from attorney-mediator Victoria Pynchon announcing the launch of Mediators Without Borders. According to Pynchon, “MWOB is a non-profit provider of pro bono conflict resolution capacity building within post-conflict communities.” Founded and led by conflict resolution expert Ken Cloke, the initiative aims to bring volunteer mediators into hostile communities at regular intervals over a number of years to cultivate “skills for group facilitation, public dialogue, strategic planning, collaborative negotiation, and peer mediation [ ] consistent with the norms, values, and culture of the locale.” You can follow the above links to learn how you can support this worthwhile effort.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New Year’s resolutions have a definite allure. But, they’re often so grand and sweeping that we fail to keep them and then feel really guilty about it.

Why should we limit ourselves to making resolutions one day a year?

After all, each day offers us an unspoiled opportunity to reflect on our personal pursuits and our work. If there’s something we want to change, we have at least 365 distinct chances to set our intention to do so. We also have at least 365 chances to take our intentions from the realm of possibility to reality.

A while back, I wrote a post on how we handle change. In it, I mentioned a very interesting Fast Company article by Alan Deutschman called Change or Die. The article contends that we aren’t wired to change via appeals to our intellect alone. We need to be convinced of the need for change on an emotional level.

Just in time for our new year of baby steps to change, Deutschman has expanded his article into a new book titled Change or Die: The Three Keys to Change at Work and in Life. Fast Company offers us a glimpse at the book’s premise and content in this piece called Three Keys to Change. One of the book’s key offerings is a new model for compelling change based on three new “Rs” – “relate, repeat, and reframe.”

You may have noticed some changes around here of late. Posting has been light and sporadic. No worries, it’s all for good reason.

I’ve been busy traveling for my training + development business (now called Legal Sanity Learning Programs). I’m also putting the finishing touches on an eGuide to one of my favorite topics, work-life synergy for lawyers. The Guide is initially being offered as a companion to my upcoming, free teleseminar on the same subject.

I’ll resume a more frequent and regular post schedule next week. Until then, here’s to a year of positive changes for us all!

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks