He told me that pretty soon, too much work will be coming my way, and naturally, I will have the urge to take everything on and do it. He said that at that point, I need to realize that the work will always be there, and that I should turn the lights off and go home for the night.

I had great joy in reading a beautifully written piece by solo attorney David Koller called, “A Daughter’s Birth Teaches a Solo Attorney About Priorities.” What was even more special about this piece is it was from a man’s viewpoint.  But even more important than that, it highlights those moments when everything we’ve ever worked for crystallizes and sets the tone and direction for how we will work in the future.  When that special moment comes we realize why we’ve made the choices we’ve made and why we work as we do.

Many people mock those who talk about work/life balance. Many people…well, they say a lot of things that are worth ignoring.

Times are tough. We all know this.  But the bright spots, the ephiphanies, the genuine hope and excitement shouldn’t be brushed aside.  I’ve had the privilege of being a solo and I know countless solos, their stories, their ups and downs and so many of the downs revolve around work/life balance. I think David put it most eloquently, especially for the solo:

I learned that great things in life happen, and sometimes those great things happen to push to the side the work you intended to do on a given day or weekend. Longer term, those great things require you to modify your goals and expectations. In my case, the birth of my daughter helped me become much more realistic with my professional aspirations.

Enjoy reading the article and if you care to share, what epiphany did you have that set the tone for your solo practice and how you did you handle ‘modifying your goals and expectations’ for your practice based upon that moment?

I’m a Mississippi lawyer who will be subject to the rule if it is implemented. I oppose the rule for the following reasons.

No jurisdiction has a mandatory pro bono service requirement. Seven states have mandatory pro bono reporting (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico). Eight states have rejected mandatory pro bono reporting (Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah). For example, the Colorado supreme court rejected mandatory reporting stating it was the first step toward mandatory pro bono — a destination the court did not want to arrive at, hence it would not take the first step. Diane Hartman, CBA, Courts, Say No to Mandatory Pro Bono, The Colorado Lawyer, August 1999, p. 25. From my perspective, our mandatory reporting requirement put us on the slippery slope leading towards mandatory pro bono work. Twelve states have voluntary pro bono reporting (Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). Two states are considering voluntary pro bono reporting (Michigan and Vermont). (Source: ABA Standing Committee of Pro Bono & Public Service, http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/reporting/pbreporting.html.)

Some proponents of mandatory pro bono point to New Jersey and claim that New Jersey has mandatory pro bono. The case addressing required pro bono in New Jersey is Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591 (1992). But, Madden is limited to the constitutionality of lawyers being appointed to represent — without compensation — indigent criminal defendants in municipal court who have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. The question presented in Madden was: “[W]hether this Court should order government to pay attorneys who are assigned by the municipal court to represent defendants too poor to pay for counsel.” The answer was, “no.”

The New Jersey rule concerning court appointed lawyers representing, as pro bono counsel, indigent criminal defendants entitled to court provided counsel is different from proposed Rule 6.1. The comment to proposed Rule 6.1 reads:

“Most pro bono service should involve civil proceedings where there is no governmental obligation to provide counsel, given that government must provide indigent representation in most criminal matters for no compensation.”

The focus of Rule 6.1 is therefore on providing pro bono services in civil cases where there is no right to counsel.

The Madden rule requires appointment of lawyers on a rotating basis, rather than a requirement that every lawyer provide X hours of pro bono work. The statistics referenced in the Madden opinion suggested that a lawyer could expect a municipal court criminal appointment once every 4.5 years. That’s very much different than proposed Rule 6.1 which requires every lawyer in the jurisdiction to provide 20 hours of pro bono work to civil litigants not entitled to court appointed counsel every year to avoid attorney discipline.

Scholar-practitioners question the efficacy of mandatory pro bono. For example, Esther F. Lardent, the president of The Pro Bono Institute, authored a paper titled “Just say No … To Mandatory Pro Bono” (available at http://www.probonoinst.org/about. esther.php and http://www.probonoinst.org/ pdfs/justsayno.pdf. See also Loder, Tending the Generous Heart: Mandatory Pro Bono and Moral Development, Georgetown J. Legal Ethics, Winter 2001 (“[A] pro bono requirement will ’spoil’ the experience of service and stifle the altruistic tendencies of lawyers who already serve, or who are so inclined.”), available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200101/ai_n8949920/. I find the arguments presented in these articles to be informative.

The proponents of proposed Rule 6.1 overlook known problems regarding the quality of services provided by lawyers participating in pro bono work. In a recent survey of leading public interest legal organizations, almost half reported extensive or moderate problems with quality in the pro bono work they obtained from outside firms. Deborah L. Rhode, Public Interest Law: The Movement at Midlife, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 2027, 2071 (2008). A related problem involves lawyers who want to do pro bono work in theory but in practice, don’t want to make the commitment. Id. at 2072. Under proposed Rule 6.1, many lawyers will not even want to do pro bono work, but must go through the motions of putting in 20 hours to avoid attorney discipline. What quality of services can be expected from those lawyers?

Consider these numbers. Assume 5,000 members of the Mississippi bar are subject to the proposed rule. Consider 5,000 lawyers in the state descending on the legal services offices closest to their homes demanding a client to satisfy a condition of keeping their law licenses. Right now, legal services offices are understaffed and underfunded. The small network of underfunded, understaffed offices will not be able to manage and coordinate the effort of 5,000 active files (or more since some matters will not take 20 hours of work) per year assigned to outside counsel.

Consider also these numbers. Five thousand lawyers each providing 20 hours of free legal services equals 100,000 hours of legal services. The last Bar survey showed that the average hourly rate for Mississippi lawyers is about $160.00. Proposed Rule 6.1 would compel the profession to provide free legal services valued at $16,000,000.00 to yet to be identified persons. On what legal authority does the Supreme Court of Mississippi or Mississippi Bar rely to enter an order promulgating a rule which would require giving away services (to persons not having a right to counsel) having such substantial value?

There is case law that holds a trial court appointing counsel for a party does not implicate the Amendment XIII prohibition against involuntary servitude. In White v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 646 F.2d 203, 205, n. 3 (5th Cir.1981), the Fifth Circuit rejected the Amendment XIII argument that a court appointing a lawyer to represent involuntarily someone is an involuntary servitude violation. But, the White case involved a statutory scheme which may have allowed an award of attorney’s fees. See White v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 646 F.2d at p.13 (“an appointment, if the circumstances called for one, might not be ‘involuntary’ at all in that the district court might simply have found a lawyer willing to take the case in light of Congress’ complementary incentives to private attorney general suits under Title VII, such as the possibility of attorney fees under section 706(k).”). Other cases concerning the appointment of counsel also involved a trial judge’s order appointing a lawyer for a party before the court. Compare that to the proposed rule. The proposed rule is not an order by a trial judge appointing a lawyer in the local area to represent a particular party before the court where the lawyer likely will be paid something. That is a significant distinction. There is a huge difference between appointment of counsel by a trial judge pursuant to statute (where, as noted in White, statutory attorney’s fees may be available) and a rule that compels all lawyers in the jurisdiction to provide 20 hours of legal services for unidentified pro bono clients. The bottom-line is there is no legal authority supporting the proposition that the government can compel all lawyers of the bar to provide free legal services to persons not having a right to counsel in civil matters.

The mandate to provide 20 hours of pro bono work creates an unreasonable burden for the lawyers in Mississippi who will be subject to the rule. To comply with the conditions of maintaining his or her law license, a lawyer will have to find one or more indigent clients. How will we do that? Are the thousands of lawyers who will be subject to the rule going to get their indigent clients from a legal services office? Is the network of legal services offices capable of servicing the thousands of lawyers demanding clients to satisfy the pro bono mandate? I think not. Since mandatory pro bono is not voluntary pro bono, how would the Mississippi Volunteer Lawyers Project (MVLP) be involved?

What about the right to control client selection? Client selection is one way lawyers manage risk. Who will indemnify a lawyer when he or she gets sued by a disgruntled pro bono client? Will there be an exception to the rule that prohibits a lawyer from attempting to limit his/her professional liability in an attorney-client contract? Will the legislature pass a statute which provides civil liability immunity for lawyers doing pro bono work where the claim arises out of a pro bono civil action?

Civil litigation is expensive. Even basic cases usually involve several hundred dollars of expenses. For example, the court reporter fee and transcript expense for a single, short deposition run from $250.00 to $400.00. Who is supposed to shoulder that expense? The lawyer providing pro bono services? Did the proponents of proposed Rule 6.1 even consider the litigation expense issue?

Here are some more reasons why mandatory pro bono is wrong:

– The true motive of proposed Rule 6.1 is to coerce lawyers into doing pro bono work.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide guidelines to determine the eligibility of persons seeking pro bono services from members of the Bar.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide an organizational structure for pro bono case management for the 6,000+ members of the Bar.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide an oversight and audit element to regulate a mandatory pro bono program.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide an orientation and training program for the members of the Bar regarding the delivery of pro bono services.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide any measures of effectiveness or quality assurance standards.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide for the procurement of professional liability insurance to cover lawyers participating on the mandatory pro bono programs.

– Proposed Rule 6.1 fails to provide for funding to cover out-of-pocket expenses associated with pro bono litigation.

– Pro bono is by its very nature a voluntary activity.

– It is not necessary that every lawyer do pro bono work in order to ensure citizens of lesser means to have access to the courts. While there may be some evidence suggesting indigents need counsel in certain matters, there is no study that shows increasing access to the courts requires every lawyer to do pro bono work.

– Lawyers must be motivated to deliver quality legal services. Either anticipation of remuneration or moral conviction for those not interested in being paid for their services provide the motivation.

– The administrative costs involved in collecting and processing information, as well as in taking disciplinary action or imposing sanctions, are unreasonable.

– Pro bono will become a negative rather than positive concept when members of the bar take exception to the mandatory requirement.

Of course, there is an “out” in the rule — paying a $500.00 “contribution.” This “contribution” would be a coerced payment in the minds of many lawyers. And, since when is $500.00 an insignificant amount of money?

I submit that incentives to provide voluntary pro bono services would be a better course of action. How about six hours of CLE credit for lawyers who do 20 hours of pro bono work? Or, a 50% discount on the bar membership dues? Surely these incentives are better than either the threat of losing one’s law license (i.e., the ability to earn a living) or forking over $500.00 to avoid attorney discipline.

Pro bono should remain a voluntary activity pursuant to the current rule. We already have the MVLP to promote pro bono activities. Interestingly, the MVLP website reports that it has 1,600 lawyers signed-up as volunteers to provide pro bono services. What data suggests we need to add another 4,000 lawyers to the mix?

The Supreme Court of Mississippi has the authority to regulate the legal profession. But, proposed Rule 6.1 has both entities getting way out of its lane and moving into an area relating to the delivery of social services where the purported “haves” must give something of value to the undefined “have nots.” Bluntly, a mandatory pro bono rule implicates a policy concept very much akin to the Marxist philosophy of, “From each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs.” Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875), available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm.

I located another response to John Gillis’ argument against mandatory pro bono and Gillis’ and the exchange is worth reading.  I’m with John on this one, folks?  Where do you stand?

UPDATE: (Submitted by John Gillis):

Board of Commissioners Unanimously Oppose Proposed Rule 6.1 Changes

By a unanimous vote, the Bars Board of Commissioners voted to oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 6.1. The Board of Bar Commissioners expressed its collective opinion that the proposed changes would be counterproductive to the goal of increasing delivery of legal services to the poor. The Bars opposition to the proposed changes in Rule 6.1 is being filed with the Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme court.

The above was just submitted in this last week for lawyers in Mississippi to be heard.  There was also another comment by John:

Unfortunately, there’s quite a bit of apathy out there since the supreme court has received less than 100 letters commenting on the proposed rule.

That’s why bad law gets passed!

*********************

Connecticut Law Tribune – June 8, 2007

(This column comes on the heels of the recent Second Circuit Decision regarding pro bono fees, as a I promised.)

It’s been a year since I read an Illinois Supreme Court ruling regarding mandatory pro bono reporting and I’m still feeling claustrophobic as the legal universe we are permitted to function in gets smaller and smaller.

That state’s new rule, celebrating it’s one year anniversary this month, requires lawyers to “annually report their pro-bono activities, including hours worked and any money contributed to pro-bono efforts.” The rationale behind the rule is that, by having to report what they do (or don’t do) by way of pro bono work or financial gifts to recognized legal aid organizations, lawyers will somehow be shamed into actually doing some, or do more than they’re already doing.

It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is really going. Although structured as simply a confidential reporting program for the purpose of accruing an aggregate total of pro bono hours, lawyers who fail to report their numbers to Illinois authorities face possible suspension of their law licenses. With this framework in place, if actual pro bono hours do not increase in a voluntary fashion, is it really a stretch to see pro bono work being mandated in order to continue practicing in the state of Illinois? (Note: Illinois is home to the American Bar Association.)

Who will have the hardest time meeting these requirements? Not large law firms that use their pro bono efforts as a tool for self-promotion. How much does it really cost them, anyway? At most large firms, it’s low-level associates who do the majority of the firm’s pro bono work. The firms write it off as a loss. At their worst, they take on high-profile cases in an effort to gain incalculable publicity. Mandatory pro bono wouldn’t hurt large law firms. Rather, they will profit on many levels including financially in certain matters.

Solos, however, will be the ones injured. They will look ungenerous and self-serving, as they single-handedly face the everyday struggles to stay in business.

As the pro bono numbers generated by solos, the largest body of lawyers out there, fail to increase appreciably, what will be the next logical step? Forcing them to take on a minimum number of pro bono hours or face suspension? It is certainly plausible.

And as word is spread to the general public regarding an attorney’s obligation to do pro bono work, is it unreasonable to believe that lower-income clients will demand lawyers represent them for free or at sharply reduced rates?

Yes, mandatory pro bono would be a great image enhancement for the legal profession, particularly large firms. But for solos, it would be a daily migraine.

Shouldn’t Illinois officials be looking to catalog aggregate results rather than aggregate hours if the stated goal of this self-aggrandizing exercise is to actually help indigent clients? If painters took two days instead of two weeks to paint your house, wouldn’t you applaud their speed and efficiency? We should be measuring effectiveness through results, not inefficiency through racked up hours.

And, of course, we can’t let Illinois get all the glory for being so benevolent when giving away our services. All the states will want to jump on board for fear of looking mercenary and uncaring. They, too, will want to crack the whip and give away our time and money.

As a lawyer, I believe the role of the judiciary and national and state bar associations should be to provide a de minimus framework of what we can’t do in order to avoid risking our law licenses. Outside of that, they should be a source of professional support and information.

It is not their job to legislate or mandate how I should aspire to be a better person or lawyer. Nor should they tell me that I must give away my services.

But that is where they are heading. Please don’t order me to tithe to the Church of the American Bar Association. I still believe in freedom of professionalism. •

***********************

Why am I reposting this June 8, 2007 post? Because of this new article in the Wall Street Journal which proves my predictions were spot on:

The Mississippi Supreme Court is considering a proposed rule to require lawyers in the state to provide at least 20 hours of pro bono work.

Here is my favorite comment to the WSJ article:

The real issue is the refusal of state legislatures to adequately fund the representation of indigent defendants by court-appointed counsel. Involuntarily conscripting lawyers to fill the gap, under the guise of mandatory pro bono work, would violate the 13th Amendment.

What do you think?  I hope you have thoughts to share because if this legislation passes  it  may very well come home to roost in your jurisdiction. It’s hard enough to earn a living as a solo practitioner.  To be required to give away your time while trying to put food on the table…especially in this economy…is just ludicrous.

The median number of years that workers have stayed with their current employer went up to 4.4 years in January 2010, from 4.1 years in January 2008, according to newly released statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The increase in what’s known as ‘employee tenure’ reflects, in part, large job losses among less senior workers in the most recent recession.

Workers in the public sector fared better than their counterparts in the private sector.

I’ve been really annoyed frustrated lately listening to people complaining that solo practice is hard. This blog has never posted anything claiming otherwise. But there are significant upsides to the equity one earns through creating and building a solo practice that pay off in the long run.  The biggest – never getting laid off and real job security – the security you provide for yourself by committing to making it work and doing what you need to do ‘in the clutch’ - sustaining it through sheer sweat.

I’d like to pose this question to you:

“If you knew you would never get a paycheck from an employer ever again what would you do?”

1) I would bemoan my fate and lay down and die

2) I would figure out a way to earn a living

I’m guessing that after you’re initial annoyance with me for offering up a choice between such extremes, you selected number two.  But that’s the cold, hard, unsweetened version of life today. Lay down and die or figure out a way to earn a living.

Now that we’ve gotten this straight, do you want to hang with the crowd that’s going to constantly tell you everything that can go wrong while offering you no real knowledge on how to succeed, just sitting shiva while your body is still warm? Or would you rather hang with the crowd that is going to help you succeed by pointing out the realities you MUST work with and then helping you build something life-sustaining?

If you want to hang with the crowd who beats their chests crying ‘why me?’ get off my RSS.  It’s not that I’m not sympathetic but my sympathy isn’t going to put food on your table. My sympathy isn’t going to pay your student loans or buy you health insurance. My sympathy isn’t going to put a roof over your head, make you handsome or beautiful or well-dressed or help you find a soul mate, either.  Sympathy gives you a moment of not feeling alone so you have a chance to regroup and then hopefully take action to change your circumstances.

Can I empathize?  Of course I can.  I’ve been self-employed continuously for 18 years and prior to that on and off for 11.  I’ve had more dips than your local ice cream store, more stress, more anxiety than I care to discuss but I would NEVER trade it for a steady paycheck with strings attached and the constant threat of a pink slip. Been there. Done that. Quite frankly, if I was born 160 years ago I would be the one heading to California during the gold rush instead of sitting trussed up with a lung-crushing corset in a Philadelphia parlor sipping tea. That’s just who I am.

So stop thinking in terms of what you can’t do and let’s discuss what you CAN do

A friend of mine in Texas who has had a firm for 11 years called me a few weeks ago.  He was drowning and panicked.  His practice area is in a drought, he’s struggling to meet payroll, he has clients who aren’t paying and he feels he is getting sucked into quicksand.  I asked him very seriously, ‘do you want to close up shop and go work for someone else?’  Without missing a beat he replied, ‘I love having my own business. I can’t imagine ever working for someone else.’ The advice afterward was easy. I told him to either put his employees on a temporary lay off (that’s what unemployment insurance is for) or cut back their hours to give him some economic breathing room, to close files on non-paying clients (as appropriate) and revamp retainer agreements – ‘no payment, no work.’  If they are not paying, spend that time marketing instead of sinking more hours into a non-paying client, get educated on new practice areas that flow naturally from his current practice area so he can market to his current clients and leverage their connections.

Two weeks later we had another conversation.  Employees went part-time, retainers revamped, files closed on non-paying clients and enrollment in education on new practice areas AND his vacation was canceled, planned purchases put on hold and other cost-cutting measures. Why? Because he said, ‘ I love having my own business. I can’t imagine ever working for someone else.’ He also recognized another reality.  His business had to change for economic reasons because life as he’s known it is changing and his first priority is to put food on his table.

So, here’s the unvarnished reality.  We are simply heading into a different world.  I’ve written about it ad nauseum trying not to make it too bitter but not wanting to pour on the happy sauce, either.  Consider it today’s wild west. The key is learning what you need to know and then implementing it. It is about recognizing times are different.  It is about recognizing you may will probably have to do with less – not just professionally, but personally.  It’s a bitter pill to swallow after our economy has ridden an unsustainable high for decades.  But after you’ve digested this put it into perspective. Compared to many other countries,  it’s actually still pretty sweet.  You still have many more options than billions of other people around the globe. Or you could be selling underwear.

So, no happy sauce here.  However, if you want to learn how to go solo we’ll provide the education and support.  You, however, will always provide the sweat to put the food on your table. No one can do that for you.

P.S.  For those just starting out, meet Nathaniel Kelly.

For those who are laid off from Big Law or anticipating a pink slip, this little excerpt may resonate with you:

From ‘Clutch: Why Some People Excel Under Pressure and Other’s Don’t‘

In 1978, Bernie Marcus, 49 had just been fired from a chain of hardware stores.  He had few options, so he did what he had been talking about doing for years: He started his own hardware chain.  At every turn, he would have to be ‘clutch’ – that is, excel under immense pressure.

His stores would be different from all other hardware stores – they’d be warehouses filled floor to ceiling with everything needed to fix or improve a home.  A great plan, except he didn’t have enough money to fully stock the first two stores.  One store looked more like a going-out-of-business sale than a grand opening. But he came up with a solution born as much of his street smarts as of his two decades in retailing: “We bought boxes. We bought empty paint cans. We had to give the illusion that we had merchandise.”

Two years after the first store opened, the concept was doing so well that Marcus and his partners decided to take the company – The Home Depot – public.

The pressure will always be there no matter your journey. Be clutch.

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 has served as Vice-Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the State Bar of Texas and as leader of the Houston chapter of ICF. You can follow her at www.Twitter.com/LawyerCoach or at www.Facebook.com/LawyerCoach. You can also e-mail her at debra@lawyer-coach.com

Narrow Your Niche to Broaden Your Client Base

By Debra L. Bruce, JD, PCC

Carolyn Elefant blogged recently about one of my favorite topics: niche marketing. Susan
Cartier Liebel has already blogged about niche practices in this blog. One might
think that this topic has been sufficiently covered already, but I regularly coach solo and small
firm lawyers who resist the concept. So I know that most lawyers don’t understand what they
are missing, and why they should seriously consider establishing a niche.

The Power of a Niche

I first recognized the power of niche marketing for professional services on a trip to San
Francisco over 10 years ago. While wandering from Ghirardelli Square to the Embarcadero, I
stumbled upon a dentist’s office with a storefront shingle. That was unusual enough, but it had a
slogan about “dentistry with a woman’s touch” and a logo with a pink heart. Through the window
I caught a glimpse of a tastefully decorated entry. I had an instant picture of what “a woman’s
touch” in dentistry would feel like, and I wanted to change dentists right then, despite living
2,000 miles away.

I imagined having a dentist who really understood and catered to my wants. Soothing music and
potpourri would waft through the waiting room. The staff would make sure that I got attention
and felt comfortable. I would not be left lying back in a dentist’s chair in a freezing exam room,
fatiguing my arms by holding a magazine above my face, trying to amuse myself while I waited
forever for the dentist to show up. (That was way before iPhones and Blackberries.) If I did
have to wait, staff would ask me what would make my wait more comfortable, and the dentist
would apologize. She would probably send me home with chocolate (being near Ghirardelli
Square), unless that’s just verboten with dentists. If I had any kind of procedure that required
pain medication, one of her staff members would call me later to make sure I was doing OK.
On top of all that, as a consumer, I would have the opportunity to support a fellow professional
woman in a predominantly male profession.

Of course, I don’t know what that dentist’s office was really like, but as this example illustrates,
establishing a niche-based target market can make it a lot easier to identify what your potential
clients want. It allows you to offer service that your clients perceive as head and shoulders
above your competitors, without necessarily having decades of experience.

The Narrower, the Better

Niche marketing helps you isolate Google search terms that don’t lead to a jillion competing
website destinations. The more narrow the niche, the easier it is to market. The niche clarifies
which trade shows or conferences to attend, which publications to write for, and which
organizations to speak to. In short, marketing a law practice niche is efficient and cost-effective.

If you still don’t quite understand the power of niche marketing, I commend you to the book Get Slightly Famous: Become a Celebrity in Your Field and Attract More Business with Less Effort by Steven Van Yoder. Although this book does not focus on lawyers, one of its first success stories describes a struggling lawyer who sky-rocketed her business when she honed in on a target market of clients who needed a lawyer’s help in credit report repair. She found that
speaking at conferences for mortgage brokers generated enough referral to fill her practice.

A compelling law practice niche marketing example appeared in a Texas Lawyer article years
ago. Kimberlee Norris developed a niche of representing sexually abused Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You can’t get much more narrow than that. After falling into that niche, she enhanced her
Internet presence on the topic and joined a related listserv. The article reports that cases came
pouring in, and she spoke to over 1500 potential clients in less than one year. Today the firm
has a national reputation in sexual abuse cases.

A Marketing Strategy, Not a Practice Limitation

Especially in a depressed economy, lawyers fear that niche marketing will limit their ability to
get other business. I assure them that this is a marketing strategy, not necessarily a practice
limitation. You don’t have to turn away other work. Although the website for the Love & Norris
firm highlights their sexual abuse practice, their practice area page references other personal
injury and commercial litigation matters they have handled. As Carolyn Elefant described,
establishing a reputation in the narrow subject of offshore renewable energy gave her exposure
that also led to other work in related fields.

Social Media and Niche Marketing

Harnessing social media makes niche marketing even more powerful. You can join a related
LinkedIn or Facebook group and build relationships with potential clients or referral sources
there. Tweeting on the topic may attract the attention of journalists and conference planners.
The publicity from interviews and speaking opportunities can broaden your client base. Blogging
on your topic will showcase your knowledge and improve the SEO (search engine optimization)
of your website. Read the blogpost of my client, Thomas Fox, for a detailed description of how
he capitalized on the visibility of social media to build a solo practice in a well-defined niche.

If you are a new lawyer, look at Susan and Carolyn’s posts for ideas on identifying a niche that
can give you an edge over more experienced lawyers, or email me for a little help. Experienced
lawyers: look at your previous clients to see what they may have in common. One of my clients
discovered that in his litigation practice he had represented a number of Pakistani convenience
store operators. Can you see how much easier it is to reach out to a well-defined audience like
that than to market a general commercial litigation practice?

Have a little fun with it. Please do share your creative ideas, and feel free to ask me for a little
brainstorming help.

Are you depressed yet?  I am.  Depressed and distrustful.  But I’m not the only one.  It has forced me into even greater self-reliance, more thoughtful in how I spend my money and more discerning about whom I trust. And it has impacted the client who will walk through your doors today…and forever into the future.

Now add in the economy and you have a client very different than the client from last decade:

When you consider layoffs, downsizing, delayed raises, and reduced hours, more than half of all American workers have suffered losses. This very real pain has driven us to reconsider our definition of the good life. People are finding happiness in old-fashioned virtues — thrift, do-it-yourself projects, self-improvement, faith, and community..

That’s right. Thrift, do-it-yourself projects, self-improvement, faith and community.

There’s a rise in the barter economy, where people are trading goods and skills instead of spending money. Sixty-four percent of Americans want to do more things and make more things themselves. There’s a huge opportunity in providing the tools, materials, and skills to do that.

Did you get that?  There’s a huge opportunity in providing the tools, materials and skills to do that.

This client is putting more faith and trust in themselves to get the work done and seeking out those they trust and with whom they share the same values to help them with that which they can’t do themselves.

Seventy-one percent of people said, “I make it a point to buy brands from companies whose values are similar to my own.” Nearly the same number rejected companies whose values don’t match.

With trust violated so repeatedly over this past decade, people are worn out.  They are pulling back financially and with their homes no longer the ATM’s they once were, every dollar spent is spent with much more thought.  And this includes legal services.  If they don’t trust you, you won’t have clients.

If I were asked the greatest differentiator today between law firms, it would be the ability to trust the lawyer beyond professional rules and confidentiality and feeling comfortable enough to relax into the relationship.

…data show that kindness and generosity are among the qualities customers increasingly demand most from business.

…customers are tired of being sold. They are telling companies, “You need to get who I am. You need to empathize with my plight.

Clients, possibly more so now than ever, really need to trust you get their problems, issues and concerns. They need to know you are not only invested in their plight but engaged with compassion and kindness. It’s also not about talking about trust or splashing the word ‘trust’ or ‘trusted’ throughout your marketing.  It is about earning a client’s trust, really delivering so these clients can genuinely say to others you are one to be trusted and one who truly cares.

It’s a mistake to assume that our country is composed of big blocs of people who hold wildly varying values. You could make quite a long list of values held in common across all social and economic groups. Transparency, honesty, kindness, good stewardship, even humor, work in businesses at all times.

It seems as the towers erected in the name of corporate greed and political deception come crumbling down leaving us to clean up the pieces in this chaotic world, people are returning to their roots, only trusting that which is proven to be truly trustworthy.  They are returning to their core values and demanding those they work with, products they buy, vendors who deliver services, share those values not through words but deeds.  They are relying upon themselves and their ‘community’ however defined in this digital age. And this is where the solo can shine.

(Companies) have to be innovative in leading with values the same way they have to be innovative in their products and services.

As we develop our practices from the ground up, or reinvent our practices as needed, we can do so by understanding who are client is today, what they need, what they demand and why they are demanding it.  This is half the battle.  The second half is building our practices intelligently in order to deliver the legal services.

It should be no surprise to you then when I suggest the following ways to work with this new self-reliant, thrifty client who needs to be fully engaged with a trusted ‘partner’.

• Unbundle as many services as you possibly can and as allowed. Give clients the tools they need and work with them on what they can’t do themselves.
• Value bill instead of billing by the hour within the confines of your practice area. Value billing will shine in this economy as it relates to the values of the client.  Share the values, share the wealth.
• Use technology to its fullest first to increase your effectiveness
• Use technology to its fullest second to engage the client, keep communication open which builds trust
• Use technology to its fullest third to keep costs down
• Treat your client as a partner in the resolution of their legal problem and you can and will gain paying ‘partners’ for life

Quotes from: Understanding the Consumer of the Future

Nearly two months ago, this article on the financial crisis facing the U.S. Postal Service caught my eye (and do the read the comments):

The U.S. Postal Service wants to raise the price of a first-class stamp by 2 cents to 46 cents to avoid running out of cash next year, officials said.

A sharp decline in mail volume, the recession and increased use of the Internet to pay bills have contributed to a financial crisis.

On Tuesday, postal officials proposed mitigating the problem with an average 5.6% increase on a range of services that include first-class mail, advertising mail, periodicals and packages. The increase, about 13 cents a month for the average household, would go into effect Jan. 2.

“It really comes down to potential financial insolvency,” said Stephen Kearney, the agency’s senior vice president of customer relations. “We’ve never seen anything like this.”

Raising prices on first class postage is not the answer to a bad business plan.  This is an example of a business assuming the market would never change and they had the market cornered.  This is an example of a business not reading the tea leaves and now in a desperate attempt to salvage their business they are raising prices when it is the absolute worst thing to do and will only hasten their decline, in my opinion.

The key is this statement:

A sharp decline in mail volume, the recession and increased use of the Internet to pay bills have contributed to a financial crisis.

How is raising the price of first class mail going to help them address these problems?  It is only going to further decrease the volume of mail they handle and encourage those still on the fence to pay their bills via the Internet.

I remember when e-mail was first introduced and took hold cutting into the U.S. Post Office’s profits.  They suggested they were entitled to revenue from each e-mail sent, approximately $.05 – $.10.  This was quickly nixed because how could they lay claim to revenues from internet use?

What the post office has not done is look to see what the demand for their first class mail services is, where their true value lies, and what they have that no other organization has.  What value do they still have for us, the consumer.  They simply seek to address their revenue needs by raising costs of delivery, something most people are relying upon less and less.

Now on to lawyers.  This is a shining example of what not to do simply because you don’t know how to restructure your business, take advantage of technologies designed to cut your costs,  or are carrying significant overhead and must feed the overhead monster before you can feed yourself.  Note: this is very different then raising your fees because your services were undervalued in the first place or doing so because you provide a unique service which is in demand.

I recommend you review your business plan every six months to see if you are on target for your goals.  What? You don’t have one?  Oh, yes, there are many people out there suggesting you fly by the seat of your passion and ‘just do it.’  Well, that’s great for getting off the launch pad – jump in and work out the details as you go along.   But winging it is not great for continued success. You DO have to reassess every aspect of your business – factors within your control such as  goals, costs, ideal clients, marketing, overhead as well as those factors you must respond to such as the economy and technology and practice area changes.

So, will you be the U.S. Post Office in 2011?

Did you start out with a business plan or developed a business plan along the way?

There are clearly two sides to the issue.  Those who are embracing it and running ahead of the pack are recognizing that how we deliver services to clients has to change because of economics. Technology is a vehicle for this change.

Lee makes a few observations on the topic of virtual law offices and by extension, unbundled legal services. First, he doesn’t see the demand by clients for a virtual platform and unbundled legal services…yet.  Second, he believes a percentage of those lawyers buying into the concept of virtual law offices do not get (or are not being told) they still have to market to the consumer and work hard to build a client base. Third, he is comparing unbundled legal services via a virtual law office platform to the offerings of LegalZoom and others. As such, he presumes the average lawyer will be outclassed and outspent in trying to attract this segment of market.

I’m going to challenge these thoughts point by point.

First, if there isn’t a sweeping demand now, there will be.  Why? Economics and the courts. The courts are looking to make changes allowing lawyers  to represent clients in an unbundled way when traditionally they required full representation and accountability. It is much better for the courts to allow potential pro se litigants to have this option available to them.  They understand litigants are facing economic hardships, don’t necessarily qualify for Legal Aid (which is losing resources due to shrinking IOLTA accounts) and if this dramatically increasing segment of the population goes completely pro se the courts will simply be overwhelmed. In Connecticut, I had the good fortune to discuss this with one of our chief justices and they are exploring unbundled services with, shall we say, ‘great enthusiasm.’  Connecticut isn’t alone. Education by the lawyer and encouragement by the courts will create the demand because it addresses a pain point for potential clients – I don’t want to do this completely alone but I can’t afford to pay for A-Z representation.

Second,  Lee believes lawyers who are creating virtual law offices think they are going to get clients without marketing.  I find this ludicrous.  As stated, whether a traditional law office or a virtual one, a lawyer must get clients through marketing, referrals, etc.  I know two of the credible vendors of the virtual law office platform, Stephanie Kimbro and Richard Granat. They are both faculty at Solo Practice University.  NEVER have they EVER suggested the platform does not require good old fashioned marketing strategies.  If there is a lawyer walking around in a daze because s/he created a virtual law office and thought they didn’t have to market, that’s the lawyer’s issue.

Third, the lawyer who chooses the virtual law office platform, in my opinion, is not someone who sees Legal Zoom as their competitor. I believe this assumption by Lee was not accurate.  The lawyer who chooses a virtual law office platform (and generally unbundled legal services) is someone who is looking to address an ever-growing segment of the population – the potential client who would have hired a traditional lawyer and paid the full fare, but economic times have prevented them from making this choice.  These people are not necessarily the Legal Zoom market.  They don’t want to be a DiY’er but they think there are no other options because they haven’t been educated there is another way to work with a lawyer.  They want a safety net, someone to address what they are uncomfortable doing during litigation or they want someone to review their work.  They still want to be referred to a living, breathing counselor at law whom they can still have a relationship with. They have the funds for as-needed representation which can be done via the virtual law office platform because it is cost-effective for the client and the lawyer.

Moreover, the virtual law office platform does not necessarily equate to discounted services or low-end services or even unbundled services. It is a suite of technologies.  How the lawyer utilizes these technologies is up to her.

But, clients are demanding they be serviced differently and they are voting with their wallets.

The key is matching up the right client with the right lawyer.

Please read the posts I referenced and the very thoughtful comments/responses from Richard Granat, Stephanie Kimbro and Donna Seyle.

BSP@SPU Columnist – Debra L. Bruce

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 has served as Vice-Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the State Bar of Texas and as leader of the Houston chapter of ICF. You can follow her at www.Twitter.com/LawyerCoach or at www.Facebook.com/LawyerCoach.

Got Clients? How Did That Happen?

“I’ve spoken many times at CLE programs, and I never got any business from it.” Rick Albers’ jaw dropped when he heard that. Why was Rick so surprised? A lot of lawyers (and legal marketing experts) say that speaking at CLE programs is a waste of time. It just educates your competition.

Rick was stunned because he himself had referred four different matters to the lawyer who said that. Rick, a Texas real estate lawyer, chose that attorney because he heard him speak at bar association programs, and concluded that he was very knowledgeable. In fact, it was because they both got involved in bar association work that Rick came to know him in the first place. Perhaps the lawyer thought Rick referred the matters to him just because of their acquaintance. If so…he was wrong.

Marketing legal services involves planting a lot of seeds. Some never germinate, and the ones that do can take a long time to harvest. That time lag can distort our perception of what works.

Decades ago when I was a solo, someone asked how I got my clients. For the first time, I realized that I didn’t actually know. That question spurred me to analyze my list of current and former clients. I discovered that 75% of my business came from referrals from other lawyers. A surprising percentage of the best business referrals came from my competitors.

These two stories illustrate a significant flaw in the business development efforts of many lawyers. Man of us don’t have a system to measure which activities produce the outcomes we desire. We just rely on our impressions.

Find What Already Works for You

By analyzing my client list, I stumbled upon an excellent marketing tool. I sometimes invited opposing counsel to join me for lunch or an adult beverage when the legal matter concluded. I didn’t do it for business development. I just wanted to smooth over any rough edges that might have developed from the tensions of adversarial representation.

My analysis revealed that those same lawyers later referred some of my best clients! I realized that my gesture of rapprochement resulted in positive relationships with lawyers who knew the quality of my work first hand. I became the first person they thought of when they needed to make a referral due to a conflict. I decided to make it a habit to extend an invitation to opposing counsel in every matter.

Out of the Blue

Do clients ever call you up “out of the blue”? It may seem that way, but something led them to you, and you need to find out what it was. Once when I asked a new client how they found me, she said, “We’ve been reading your articles for the last 3 years, and we think maybe you can help us.”

Three years! If I weren’t in the habit of inquiring, I might have concluded that writing articles doesn’t bring in business. That incident also highlights two important points. One, ask every new client and every referral source how they found you and why they chose you. Two, to get an accurate picture, you need to keep records over an extended period of time.

Track Your Efforts and Analyze Your Results

Track your activities and your new business in a way that lets you easily review, reconfigure and analyze it. Look for patterns and commonality. Record as much detail as you can get. If the client found you through the Internet, what search terms did they use? If another lawyer referred you, how did the client know that lawyer? If they saw your advertisement, where and when did they see it? If they heard you speak, what did they remember? If they are on your mailing list, did they find what you sent them valuable?

These steps are particularly valuable for new solos. If you are a new lawyer, you’ll be trying lots of different things. How else will you know what worked? If you have been practicing for awhile, but recently went out on your own, you may be surprised to find that some activities that worked before won’t work now. You’ll also get clients you wouldn’t have gotten before. You need data to help you identify what efforts to tweak.

If you have a prospective client you hope to get business from, record every time you “touch” them. A “touch” might be in person, by phone, letter, email, social media, speaking, writing, or advertising. Note the length of time between the first touch and the date they become a client. This data will help you persevere in your business development efforts. When you realize that it took three years and 12 touches to get that most recent new client, you won’t lose heart with the next prospect after only one phone call and a lunch!

Finally, look for evidence of which activities bring in top tier clients, and which tend to attract less desirable ones. That requires you to “grade” your clients so you can recognize the common traits of the more desirable ones. A few years ago, one of my lawyer clients discovered from his records that his Yellow Pages ad attracted more “tire kickers” and his website prospects came in ready to sign up. He also watched over time as the website business increased and the Yellow Pages business declined. He canceled his Yellow Pages ad.

When you get new business and you can uncover how THAT happened, you’ll know how to make it happen again!

It’s worth a read because most people don’t realize they are behaving rudely.  As business people we have to be extra-aware or risk our professional and personal reputations and relationships.

Technological advances give us new freedoms.  But they also come with a whole new set of rules regarding their use. If inappropriately used, those very freedoms can impact our behaviors and destroy our professional and personal relationships.

If I am talking to a friend or colleague and am expecting a call (through call waiting or call forwarding…not a secretary) that I need to take, I let the person I am talking to know in advance that I am expecting that call and to please not be offended if I need to interrupt our conversation.  And it really had better be important. Otherwise, all other calls go into voice mail. Prior to call waiting and call forwarding, this was not a dialogue I would have had to consider.

If I receive a call while I am driving in the car, I will also let people know in advance that our call may be interrupted if I know I am coming to a known dead zone.  If I am initiating the phone call, I don’t even dial until I’ve passed the dead zone.  Prior to cell phones and their use while ‘hands-free’ driving, this was not a dialogue I would have had to contemplate.

Now with text messaging,  Twitter,  Facebook and more, how many of you have sat with friends, family, clients, or colleagues at a presentation and found yourself jumping at the bells, the Twitter bird’s warble, etc. How many of you go to lunch and leave your iPhone or Blackberry or Droid on the table as if it is going to order coffee with you?  Meanwhile your eyes drift down to see if you’ve got a text message? Or you pull it out of your pocket or pocketbook and place it under the table so it can’t be seen by your company while you see if you’ve gotten any e-mail?

We’ve all been there.

We’re either the perpetrator, more engaged with our social media friends and feeling important receiving text messages about silliness than engaging the person we are with in real live conversation, or we’re the victims who are trying to have conversations, being interrupted several times while the person we are with is excusing themselves for phone calls, picking up their phones, reading a text and then saying, ‘let me just answer them quickly.’

Don’t kid yourself.  This behavior is no different and no less offensive than a stranger walking up to your table and saying to your tablemate, ‘Can you bring home a gallon of milk?’ and they respond, ‘Yes, and I’ll buy some Yodels’  then turning back to you and saying, ‘Where were we?’

If you are in these situations and you are truly expecting an important e-mail, text or phone call, let your company know in advance.  Once received, put your ‘technology’ away.  If you are at a conference with others and tweeting the speakers’ comments for your followers, let others know this is what you are doing and invite them to do so as well if they have the technology and give them the #hashtag.  Include them.  If they don’t understand what you are talking about educate them.  It’s a great opportunity. Again, a dialogue we would never have considered before but need to address today.

Technology requires we learn new etiquette based in common courtesy and education. Professional first and foremost.  Therefore, we need to regulate and develop personal policies and dialogue for when dealing with clients, colleagues and even your friends and family.  Poor use of technology can damage all manner of relationships.

Upshot: Failure to do so will have your clients and colleagues deeming your behaviors rude and unprofessional. And your friends and family may distance themselves, too.