Given the growing population of lawyers engaged in social media and our recent Solo Practice University class by social media maven, Toby Bloomberg discussing social media’s place in successful enterprises (law firms included), I thought it would be wise to bring in someone who can discuss the various ethical issues surrounding social media for lawyers.

Debra L. Bruce is president of Lawyer-Coach LLC , a law practice management coaching and training firm, and author of the Raising the Bar blog. She practiced law for 18 years before becoming the first Texas lawyer credentialed by the International Coach Federation (ICF). She is a former Vice-Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the State Bar of Texas and a past leader of the Houston chapter of ICF. You can follow her at www.Twitter.com/LawyerCoach.

Guest Blogger – Debra Bruce

Beyond the usual internet concerns about inadvertently establishing an attorney-client relationship or giving advice on inadequate information, online networking can create ethical risks that might not be readily apparent. This post highlights some ethical risks on four social media sites frequented by lawyers: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and YouTube.

Since I’m a Texas lawyer, I’m the most familiar with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, but I’ll mention a couple of other states for contrast. You should refresh your familiarity with your own state’s rules.

1. Social media profiles might be subject to state bar advertising rules, with significant ramifications.

Many states have special requirements for lawyer advertising, such as:

1. Filing with a reviewing authority prior to or shortly after public dissemination;
2. Inclusion of mandatory information, such as the address of the principal office of the law firm and the name of the person responsible for the content of the ad;
3. Labels such as “Attorney Advertising” or “Advertising Material” at the beginning and end of the message;
4. Inclusion of specified disclaimer language;  and
5. Retention of copies of each advertisement for a specified period of time.

The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility regards LinkedIn profiles as advertising. By contrast, the Advertising Review Department of the State Bar of Texas takes the position that LinkedIn and Facebook profiles do not need to be filed for advertising review. For a detailed discussion of the Texas position, see my article in the March 2010 issue of the Texas Bar Journal.

Some states waive filing of “tombstone” ads limited to a laundry list of basic information about the lawyer and the law office. Often a lawyer’s LinkedIn profile contains only the exempt information, so it doesn’t trigger the advertising rules. The Texas Rule 7.07(e) fails to include educational history in its list of exempt information, however. Social networking sites use educational history to suggest people that you might know and want to connect with, so that’s important information to include in your profile.

Probably the strongest argument against the application of advertising rules to social networking sites depends on the way in which they are used. In Texas, the official Comment number 6 to Rule 7.07 reminds us that “communications need not be filed at all if they were not prepared to secure paid professional employment.” Using social media to build and enhance relationships and to engage in discussions about topics of interest can be distinguished from advertisement or solicitation. A different conclusion would be reached, however, if the lawyer’s profile said “Call me if you have been injured,” and set forth prior successes.

2. Different rules may apply to social networking sites focused on the legal community.

Some states exempt advertisements in legal newspapers, legal directories and other media focused on or restricted to lawyers.  In Texas, Rule 7.04(a)(3) permits lawyers to publicize their availability in legal directories and legal publications. As a result, lawyers have more latitude on Texas Bar Circle, the social networking site restricted to members of the State Bar of Texas, than on other social media. If your state has particularly restrictive policies about advertising that extend to social media, investigate whether the rules might be more lax with regard to LawLink, Legal OnRamp, Martindale-Hubbell Connected, or a state bar networking site.

3. Blogs vs. websites.

Although state bars usually categorize websites as advertisements, they often treat legal blogs differently. In Texas, the Advertising Review Department does not categorize “blawgs” as advertising, if they consist of commentary or educational information. Comment 1 to Texas Rule 7.02 clarifies that the advertising rules “are not intended to affect other forms of speech by lawyers, such as political advertisements or political commentary.” At least one New York Bar Association webinar, presented by the New York State Bar website editor, suggested that a blog would be considered an advertisement there, however.

4. The “Recommendations” feature of LinkedIn.

Some states prohibit the use of testimonials, or require certain restrictions or the insertion of disclaimers, such as in Rule 7.1(d) and (f) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.  LinkedIn permits your connections to write testimonials about you in the Recommendations section of your profile. You can prescreen recommendations (even unsolicited and unexpected ones) before they get posted for public view, so make sure they comply with the disciplinary rules. For example, in Texas, Rule 7.02(4) prohibits comparisons to other lawyers’ services, unless substantiated by verifiable objective data. Therefore, if your client enthusiastically reports that you are “the best trial lawyer in town,” you will need to diplomatically ask for a revision before publication.

Lawyers would be well-advised to avoid making reciprocal recommendations, where the lawyer agrees to post a recommendation in exchange for receiving one. Rule 7.2(b) of the ABA Model Rules prohibits giving anything of value in exchange for a recommendation. Also Texas Rule 7.03(b) prohibits giving anything of value to a non-lawyer for soliciting prospective clients.

5. Designation as a specialist or expert on LinkedIn.

A LinkedIn profile has a field for “specialties.” Unless you are certified as a specialist by a state bar accredited authority in your jurisdiction, you should leave it blank. ABA Model Rule 7.4(d) and most state rules prohibit a statement that a lawyer is a specialist without the particular sanctioned accreditation.

The “Answers” section on the LinkedIn toolbar can also pose problems. When you respond to questions there, the readers vote on the best responses posted. If you accrue a number of best response votes, LinkedIn automatically designates you an “Expert” in that category. That designation probably violates most specialization rules.

You can, however, demonstrate your knowledge and build relationships by answering questions in LinkedIn discussion groups that you join. There is not an Expert designation or “best answer” feature in the discussion groups.

6. Solicitation by real-time electronic contact.

Twitter has such open conversation and rapid interaction capability that a lawyer must keep ABA Model Rule 7.3 (or the local equivalent) in mind. The rule forbids using real-time electronic contact to solicit business directly from a potential client.  In some states, the prohibition only arises in the case of an accident or similar circumstance, where the potential client has not sought the lawyer’s advice.

By way of illustration, when someone tweeted on Twitter that she just got a DUI, a lawyer responded to her: “If you are looking for a DUI lawyer, I can give you my Twitter big break on fees…email me.” Unless the lawyer already had the requisite prior relationship with the tweeter, that contact would violate ethical rules in a number of states.

On another occasion, a different person tweeted, “Just got out of the Cobb County jail. Anyone know a good inexpensive DUI lawyer?” The foregoing response to that tweet would be permitted in some states, because the tweeter asked for a lawyer.

7. Breaching client confidentiality.

The casual nature of social media can lure attorneys to unintentionally breach client confidentiality. In a tweet a lawyer wrote, “Just talked to my client who totally lied to me about all the facts.” Since the date and time of the tweet gets posted, it has the potential of revealing information to someone who might know that the client was meeting with the lawyer that day.

8. Ex parte communications.

According to a public reprimand, a North Carolina judge engaged in unethical Facebook activity relating to a case being tried before him. During a child custody case, District Judge B. Carlton Terry Jr. “friended” defense counsel, and each of them discussed aspects of the case on Facebook, constituting ex parte communications. Plaintiff’s counsel had indicated she was not on Facebook. The judge also conducted ex parte online research about the plaintiff by googling her and visiting her website.

9. Pretexting.

Many lawyers find useful information about a litigation party or witness in their postings on social media. Due to privacy settings, sometimes valuable information would not be visible to the public in general, but would be visible to hundreds of “friends” of the target on Facebook or other media. Lawyers may be tempted to disguise their identity in order to friend the target, or to ask someone else to friend the target and share what they see.

In March 2009, the Philadelphia Bar Association issued an opinion that such pretexting would involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation on behalf of the lawyer, or the encouragement of such behavior, in violation of the Pennsylvania ethics rules.

10. Lack of candor toward the tribunal

ABA Model Rule 3.3, and most state bar rules, prohibit lawyers from knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal. Many judges report incidences where lawyers make statements in court that do not appear to align with their recent Facebook status updates. That can get you in hot water.

11. YouTube videos.

If a lawyer’s YouTube video goes beyond strictly educational, informational or entertainment content, it constitutes advertising, subject to same rules that apply to television ads. In Texas, merely including an attorney’s contact information on a purely educational video, without soliciting contact, does not constitute advertisement.

12. Risks with Google Buzz.

Google launched the new social media platform Google Buzz on February 9, 2010. Initially Buzz included an auto-follow feature that created Buzz connections from the most frequent email and chat contacts of Gmail users, displaying such contacts to other connections and on their Google profile. That public exposure would breach client confidentiality for lawyers that use Gmail.  Google made some changes due to public outcry about privacy concerns. Lawyers who use Gmail or Google Buzz should monitor their settings, as well as developments with Buzz, to make certain that they do not inadvertently compromise client confidentiality.

Buzz also has a “geo-tagging” feature for posts made from a smart phone. It pinpoints the location on Google Maps of a poster at the time of the post. Buzz contains a “nearby” feature that searches for posts previously made in the area. Geo-tagging a lawyer’s whereabouts might inadvertently reveal a client confidence. For example, publication of a corporate lawyer’s location at a restaurant across the street from a public company out of town might prematurely tip off confidential merger negotiations.

Social media can level the playing field for small firm lawyers. If you haven’t read your state’s ethics rules in a while, however, it’s time for a refresher course!

So, no in-depth post this week because I am spending all my time putting the final touches on SPU’s HUGE one year anniversary program to be announced next week.

This event speaks to our mission, stated almost two years ago.

If you haven’t subscribed to Solo Practice University’s RSS or signed up for our newsletter, you may want to so you can be the first to hear about what we have in store.  I honestly don’t believe there has been anything else out there like it for a new solo.

Stay tuned!

Your Internet presence just got more exciting. Imagine, potential clients can click on your web site and be linked to your personal video introducing them to your services, philosophies and mission, all for free? Imagine your own infomercial without the cost of running it on television, more targeted to your potential client base and all available for just the cost of creating it?

Back then:

When I did a YouTube search of lawyer videos, I found 81; at least 10 were from one law firm, 30-second spots each highlighting a particular practice area within the law firm. Others were amateur videos mocking “late night cheesy lawyers.”

Today when I do a search of lawyer videos I find nearly 400,000. You will find smart and aggressive law firms have come to embrace the idea of video to let potential clients ‘meet them’ and they are utilizing this phenomenal and well-used search engine, YouTube, to their advantage.  (Not all videos under this search term are serious, naturally, and many are from lawyers who purchased canned ads and inserted their names.)

YouTube is the third most trafficked site behind Google and Facebook surpassing 4th placed Yahoo. Bing is in the 25th position. (Alexa)

Lawyer’s seem to focus on Google ranking, but shouldn’t they be looking long and hard at producing video which can be utilized on their own website and then loaded up to YouTube on their own professional YouTube channel as well? Shouldn’t you create video so that people can discover and  ‘meet’ you?

Gerry Oginski, who also teaches at Solo Practice University, is the recognized guru on creating effective videos for lawyers and he knows it’s effective because video is a key to his on-line marketing.  Like anything new, you may be thinking this is one more thing you just don’t have time for or you don’t see the value in or you’re simply fearful or it’s not your style or you think it’s too costly. I get that. But get this:

Lawyers today are being forced by the economy and pseudo-savvy consumers to participate in venues never considered before in order to generate business. Life changes and so must lawyers.

As a friend of my father’s once said to me before I met my husband, “If you want to catch fish you have to put your pole in the water. You can’t sit on the shore and expect them to jump out and come to you.”

Here are a few examples of lawyers who are not waiting.  They are learning how to use video effectively and utilizing top ranked sites FOR FREE to get their names out there over and over, again.  They are creating video(s) geared towards educating the consumer about the law and in doing so showcasing their expertise, their personality and more. And they are placing them in venues where their target audience is located.

(BTW- I’m not commenting on quality.  Each one is different and geared towards a different audience.)

Attorney John Watts, Attorney Gerry Oginski, Attorney Kathryn Harry and I just enjoyed this one from Attorney Melchor Eduardo Quevedo

Let’s face it.  In this economy all lawyers need an edge. You can be the most talented lawyer in the world, but today if people can’t find you on the internet in a meaningful way when they search for your name or for help in your specific practice area, you don’t exist.

Those who ignore the party/conversation/network when they are content and decide to drop in when they need the network may not succeed. It’s pretty easy to spot those that are just joining the network purely to take –not to give. Therefore, be part of the party/conversation/network before you need anything from anyone. Start now, and continue to build relationships by giving now: share knowledge, help others, and become a trusted node and connector, not just an outlying ‘dot’ of a comet that swings in every 4 years or so.

When you build a network of connections, if you just join as a taker, you will be exposed as the opportunist you’ve been flagged to be.  This is not what networking is about.  Why do so many people get this wrong?  No wonder networking is viewed as an intimidating chore by some, those very people who see it as ‘asking’  or ‘begging’ for something first rather than offering genuinely and generously first.

Networking is about sharing freely as well as letting others know what you can uniquely offer to them, positioning yourself as a resource, a sphere of influence or one who can direct others to those who can provide the information or services they seek.

We are remembered best for those things we give freely without asking for anything in return.

And without fail, the rewards come when we least expect it.

When you think of your next social and/or professional networking opportunity position yourself as a giver.  This can be a CLE, a Legal Conference, a church gathering, an alumni meeting, a tweetup, a live teleseminar or a Facebook event. Think first of what you can bring to the party rather than what you can take home in a doggie bag. The experience may be less intimidating because you are not asking for anything.  It may help you to be less of a wallflower or lurker and more of an active participant.

This connecting and giving philosophy will not only help you to enjoy those ‘networking events’ but also make you a better professional…. and a better human being.

Question: Recently I have been pressed into counseling recent grads who are not getting picked up by firms and who are terrified about getting behind in paying back their student loans. A number of these grads don’t feel confident enough to even consider a solo practice because of the pressure of loan repayment. They are also concerned that if they do try their own practice, when the economy eventually turns around, firms still won’t be interested in them as new hires. It seems their thinking is that firms prefer to train their newbies and folks who opened their own firms should be viewed as competitors rather than newbies to the profession.”

While I received this paragraph in the context of a much larger e-mail on a variety of topics, it jumped out at me because there are many career counselors and professors and more seasoned lawyers being asked this very question by soon-to-be lawyers.  I’d like to inject some realism into the thinking of these soon-to-be lawyers:

Plan for solo practice, not the Big Law job and the Big Law job opportunity may present itself.

To answer you regarding this particular thinking, the new grads are worrying about the wrong issue and their thinking is incorrect.  They should plan for solo practice BECAUSE of the economy and by doing so, they are MORE attractive to the new firm emerging out of this chaos.  Why?  The new firms are going to be (or should be) more interested in self-starters and someone who doesn’t have to be hand-held through any process, who can make rain independently and reduce the large firm’s initial training costs.  The new ‘associate’ will have to be a genuine profit-center in the newest sense, not in the oldest sense of just grunt work and racking up billable hours, but by generating business from the beginning.

The other practical reality is if they are going to start a business it can’t be half-hearted and with the idea they are biding time until ‘THE JOB’ comes along.  In a recent Wall Street Journal article on all micropreneurs, they emphasize temporary thinking about your venture  is a recipe for failure.

If a(lawyer) views the condition as temporary, it’s almost a guarantee that however long it lasts, it won’t go well. Unless you think about it as a job itself—requiring time, investment, thought—you won’t get much of a return. Waiting for business to find you is not something successful (lawyers) do. Clients know a halfhearted attempt when they see one.

They have to act as if this WILL be their professional future and make it work for them.  Then if an opportunity presents itself, which it does often when one is in the self-starter mode, they are more prepared to consider the pros and cons of employment or partnership or ‘of counsel’ opportunities. They are seen as peers in the profession even if there is an experience-gap, because regardless the experience, they can be across the table in an adversarial role representing a client.

Final thoughts: Do not go into solo practice if you see starting your own practice as biding time until ‘THE JOB’ comes along.  This will actually harm you professionally as both potential clients and peers will be able to read your attitude immediately. You will be unattractive to clients and those who might have considered you for employment, partnership, referrals  or other opportunities.

Solos have been the majority of private practitioners in this country forever.  But since they were independent, less political as a group, didn’t have a ‘leader’ and too hard to herd one by one, they were left to their druthers.  And they swelled in ranks.  But it didn’t matter.  The ABA’s focus was other-directed. Law school accreditation, building political capital and some actually valuable things that had no real meaning for the solo.  But they missed the boat on one very important stated mission – to help the profession as a whole.  And the profession as a whole (the majority) are solos and small firms.

More than a decade ago Bruce Dorner started a small ‘chat’ group through the then new technology known as a listserv.  This listserv grew to more than 3500 and it is called Solosez.  Eventually, the ABA took it under its wing to offer….well, I’m not really sure what it was offering them.  Do you?  But I’m sure the ABA hoped to profit from it.  Stories abound how they pulled the meager salary the administrator received because somehow ‘they should want to volunteer their time.’  They never looked at this list and thought, ‘if the need is so great for solos to have community we should find a way to enhance this experience for those in our profession who use it.’ No, they were (and still are) a step-child wearing hand-me down technology and given pennies to sustain themselves.

There is a joke I heard recently from a small law firm who stopped renewing their ABA membership.  The lawyer I spoke to said, “We get 13 things for our ABA dues – 12 nice magazines and a bill.  Those are very expensive magazines.’ This is from someone who bought in to the idea, ‘graduate law school and join the ABA.’  No longer are students mindlessly joining an organization because it exists.  Somewhere along the way any perception of value disappeared.

Therefore, dropping dues on something which has no perceived value for the solo will not magically make it have value even at half price.  Hiring a consultant to tout value through slick advertising won’t make value magically appear where there is none.  The solo lawyer today doesn’t need the ABA as it currently exists.

So, how is the ABA going to fix this problem?  It’s not with a sale price and a pretty pink dress.

They have to actually understand what the solo NEEDS and then provide it at a reasonable cost reflective of the solo’s economic status and struggles.  Can they do that?

Years ago, Jay Foonberg came out with his seminal book on starting a solo practice. Has any other book turned out by the ABA sold as many copies?  Didn’t they get a clue then?

The ABA had it all.  And they squandered their clout with politics, greed, ignorance and disregard of solo practitioners as a group.  Countless individuals within the organization itself are well-intended and care deeply, are excellent lawyers and really great people with the best interests of the profession and those they service in mind.  But the American Bar Association as a professional collective has blown it big time.

Don’t spend your money on an overpriced out-of-touch consultant.  Send Carolyn Elefant and myself an airline ticket. We’ll negotiate a more reasonable consulting fee and start moving you in the right direction….if you really mean it when you say you want to change things.

The article very nicely lays out the realities of the workforce in this country and how solos in many professions will keep growing, recognizing this is the future path for millions of Americans.

Today, with unemployment rates hovering at 10%, and all our worries about the job market rooted in the moment, we are in danger of failing to see an important longer-term trend: More Americans are working as consultants or freelancers, either having given up or been forced out of the salaried world of 9 to 5.

It’s a trend that began after the economic downturn of the late 1980s, as many laid-off professionals became consultants. Then it seemed temporary, though, tied to bad times. Evidence now suggests that this is our new economic condition. Today, in fact, 20% to 23% of U.S. workers are operating as consultants, freelancers, free agents, contractors or micropreneurs. Current projections see the number only rising in coming years.

And for those who would still like to blame law schools for the unemployment in their profession this is what this solo cheerleader has been shaking her pom poms about:

We can rightly bemoan the loss of security, the shifting of economic risk from institutions to individuals. But crying foul will not change the circumstances that many Americans find themselves facing. Righteous indignation will not turn back time. We can, however, better prepare ourselves for the future.

Enough on that.

The article continues to lay out points regarding the attitude one must sustain through this transition and you should read the article in its entirety.

What I would like to emphasize here is something else.  As these economic realities and professional changes take place for the lawyer as well as every other micropreneur, so will the services provided to us to make our jobs even easier.

We have often emphasized that the cost of entry into business today for the solo lawyer has gone down appreciably because of technology.  As the general work place shifts to greater numbers of self-employed, the overall services and products market will shift, too.  We will see companies and service providers start catering to our bottom line and in a more competitive fashion. If large companies can no longer just focus on other large companies to sell their services in order to prop up their bottom lines, they will have to design programs that are cost-effective and easily implemented for hundreds of thousands of micro-businesses such as the solo lawyer.

We are seeing this already in malpractice insurance where companies are offering low-cost ’starter programs’ and even starting group health insurance plans for individuals who create groups.  And we will see it more and more across all type of services.

What it also means, though, is these same solos need to take advantage of these services in order to keep their overall costs down because they will also be servicing a larger population of people similarly situated who will be looking for alternatives to the traditional dispensing of legal services.  And they will be looking for value. I discuss this here and here.

What thoughts do you have on this coming shift in the balance of power?  Of course, this is how I see it, the tail WILL start wagging the dog.

There is a lot of discussion about unbundled legal services, the breaking down of a given legal process into ‘parts’. Each part can be delegated to a lawyer to handle and paid for by the client or the client can handle themselves based upon their desire and/or budget. A lawyer’s ability to offer unbundled services can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by practice area.
Many lawyers see the unbundling process as minimizing the value of their services and taking their profits.  Still others see it as hampering a lawyer’s ability to do a thorough job if they are only offering counsel for one or two segments of the process.

But this is where worlds collide.

“Most private practice lawyers today provide customized solutions for individual clients at high hourly rates, which is expensive for the client and unscalable for the lawyer. The democratization of information and forms on the internet, client demands for more cost effective solutions and the increasing encroachment on the profession by non-lawyers using new technologies will result in significant changes to the legal profession.”

In the beginning there were only lawyers and those who chose to go pro se.  Lawyers felt they had it locked up as the processes became more difficult and onerous.  And there was no middle ground.  Over the past decade or two, we have looked derisively at operations such as Legal Zoom and those who would purport to take business from us by helping those ‘en masse’ with delivering forms, doing the minimum processes clients wanted done, instead of hiring the local lawyer to do it.  The person inclined to go to a company like Legal Zoom or any forms company assisted by non-legal staff is known as the ‘latent legal market’ – a type of Do It Yourself -er who understands they need legal assistance but wants to do it on their own, for the most part. And they accept the ‘good enough’ solution at the price they can pay instead of the ‘best possible outcome’ at a price they believe they can’t afford.

This latent legal market has always existed.  They just were not thought about much except by those companies like Legal Zoom.  Now that there is more competition for clients, technological intrusion into knowledge that was once protected behind castle walls, and an economy which is making clients think twice about legal services they perceive as optional, lawyers have to look at becoming, in effect, mini-Legal Zooms.  They have to start considering unbundling services (if practicable for their practice area) as an option to penetrate the latent legal market.  At the very least, they should consider offering unbundled ‘a la carte’ legal services (as permitted by their jurisdiction) in order to compensate for potentially reduced traditional compensated work.

There is an added benefit to considering unbundled legal services.  There are many ‘new’ Do-It-Yourself -ers born out of troubled times who will feel more secure exploring doing work themselves while still working with a local lawyer holding their hand.  If they believe they are over their heads or want to change their minds, you are right there to catch them and continue with paid work. The clients become clients for life.  They spread the word to their DIY friends.  You’ve now gained traction in a market you once closed the door to or never realistically considered before.

Food for thought…and hopefully consumption.

It was reported by the ABA that “About 19 percent of lawyers experience depression at any given time, compared with 6.7 percent of the general population. About 20 percent of lawyers have drinking problems, twice the rate of the general population.”

Now with the economy making employment for lawyers even more challenging, one has to be even more aware of the effects of this disease. In the New York Journal there was an article, ” Employment Woes Fuel Uptick
in Lawyer Depression.”

Depression increasingly has been recognized as a major problem among attorneys, members of a high stress occupation vulnerable to anxiety even in good times. And these are not good times.
“There is anxiety and depression over being underemployed or unemployed, or marital difficulties if they lost their job and the question is, how do they handle the anxiety,”

Occasionally, there will be an article on the subject, but it seldom gets much play in the social media circles, even the blogs.  But it is here, it’s real and it’s time it is discussed.  One can’t responsibly discuss building a solo practice if they don’t discuss the pervasiveness of depression, and how lonely it is, maybe more so for the solo.

Why does depression seem to be more prevalent amongst lawyers?

Some of the more specific work qualities that make lawyers particularly prone to depression are long work hours; the competitive nature of the work; the adversarial nature of the work; the requirement for highly focused attention to detail; the extreme repercussions of professional errors; the need to be pessimistic and skeptical, and to be prepared to deal with “worst case scenarios;” responsibility for assisting clients and others who are in crisis or dealing with tragic situations; constant scrutiny of your work by employers, judges and opposing counsel; the reality that your work will directly impact the client’s financial, relationship, liberty and quality-of-life interests; the pressure of deadlines and the potential consequences of missing deadlines; rigid and particularized rules and procedures that must be followed carefully and completely; the need to perform, both in terms of achieving results and being “on-stage” and observed by others in public arenas; the need to advance or defend a position that might conflict with your personal values.

This may be even more intense for the solo. You can read more here.

There have been a few blogs popping up which do a very good job on the topic, some written by lawyers who suffered from depression and now are looking to help other lawyers.

Within the next four weeks I will announce a guest lecturer at Solo Practice University (this lecture will also be available for free on our SPU Fan page) He will discuss his 18 year history as an attorney, his slide into depression,  his subsequent suspension, and how he got help. His goal is to help other lawyers recognize the signs and to take care of themselves now.

The disease is insidious  but there is help.  Coming from the proverbial ‘horse’s mouth’ may help others who are highly stressed to avoid his professional fate.

Look for the announcement shortly on the Solo Practice University blog.  If you haven’t subscribed to the RSS yet, you can do so here and you will be notified.

I hope those reading this will take the time to circulate this post.

The word ‘goal’ is often overused and generally misunderstood. So, let’s define goals in the context of what you are trying to achieve, moving forward in your legal career, quite possibly building a solo practice.

What is a goal? It is a specific measurable event that is realistically attainable within a defined period of time.

As a handy reminder you may have seen the acronym SMART. The SMART goal setting model is being used by technological innovators to child psychologists to sales motivators.

SMART stands for:

S       – Specific
M     – Measurable
A      – Attainable
R      – Realistic
T      – Timely

An example of a poorly defined goal is: I want to lose weight.

An example of a well defined goal is: I plan to lose 25 pounds by Labor Day, 2010. I have 25 weeks to lose one pound per week. I will go to the gym three times per week, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. I will replace my lunchtime burger and fries with a salad.

In order to be a SMART goal setter you recognize you have strong aspirations to achieve something which is important to you. It also means you have a willingness to invest the time and energy required to achieve both your short and long term goals. A SMART goal setter therefore relies on: DESIRE

D      – Drive
E      – Eagerness
S      – Spirit
I      – Incentive
R     – Resistance to distraction
E     – Energy

Research supports those who set effective goals tend to achieve higher levels of success than those who don’t. But, like anything, you need to learn how to set goals and follow through with your commitments.

Start by:

1. Selecting what you want to achieve: This can be anything from first starting your solo practice to pursuing your ideal client to earning gross sales of a specific number annually to changing your practice areas.

The more specific you are in your actual wording, the easier the goal will be to achieve.

For example: I want two DUI’s and three new divorce retainers each month for the next 12 months. The total new inflow of cash shall be $18,000 per month.

2.  Apply the five P’s of goal-setting:

a. Make it Personal – You can not control the actions of others, only the actions of yourself. Therefore, ‘I will pass out 300 business cards this month’ is not a personal goal because you cannot control what the recipients do with the cards while ‘I will collect 300 business cards this month, input the contact data and follow up on 6 per week for the next twelve months with at least one new business lunch per week’ is!
b. Make it Possible – Your goals should be something you can achieve in a relatively short period of time without a large sum of money (unless you have unlimited sums to work with.)
c. Make it Planned - Plan out how you are going to achieve your goals from start to finish. Working backwards is a very effective way of figuring out the steps and identifying potential obstacles.
d. Make it Present – Ask yourself, “what can I do TODAY to make it happen?”
e. Make it Positive – Effective goals must focus on what you want to achieve, not on what you don’t want to achieve.

4) Watch out for the 3 Ps of failure!

a. Procrastination – Don’t put things off until another day.
b. Pushback – Change is difficult. Be persistent and change those patterns which have held you back in the past.
c. Projection – Blaming failure on others or on particular circumstances will only hinder you efforts. You are in control of your law firm.

And remember:

Goals have to evolve with you. They should be neither absurdly out of reach nor easily within reach. In either case, your motivation will be stalled by the uselessness of your goals.

Keep your goals far enough away that you can someday reach them. David Niven, Ph.D.

Your goals for your solo practice may change with the ebb and flow of your life and your career. That’s perfectly OK. It is the practice of goal setting which should be unchanging.

Work with a five year plan of what you need to do and what you want to accomplish. Follow it even if you have to take some detours and you will end up where you want to be. Make your career plan an integral part of your life and you have a much greater chance of meeting with the success you set your sights on.