Selling Solo Practice

Solo Practice "University" (SPU) queen Susan Cartier Liebel is "grumpy" that a law firm is offering $10,000 as a salary for a lawyer.


Susan asks:

Has the legal market become so bad that lawyers are actually considering taking a 'full-time associates' position which pays $192.30 a week….before taxes?

Um, Susan, I assume since you sell the dream of solo practice to young desperate lawyers you are aware that many of them can't get a job, anywhere, for any amount of money.

And here comes the sales pitch commentary on the low-paying job:

I once heard someone say that most people are not afraid of failure so much as they are afraid of success. At first blush I'm sure many of you are shaking your head and saying, 'hell no. I want to be successful. No doubt in mind. I just need the opportunity and I'm there.'

Success, opportunity, oh dear, wherever can I find this success and opportunity?

That's really what we do think. We want to be successful. We also fantasize about everything we will do with that success (which usually means having a certain amount of money to buy those things symbolizing our success – whatever that is. Maybe food?)

Success, fantasize, money, tell me more.....help me....

But most people are not trained on how to achieve success. We are trained to want and we are trained to be employees and travel a well-worn path to get 'somewhere' known and seemingly safe. And for some this is exactly what is wanted, to follow a well-worn path with guideposts and guaranteed results. It's also why in practically every industry and profession people are panicked because the well-worn paths are no longer leading to success but to no place even resembling the mythical land of promised success.

Training...wanting.....panicked....mythical land of promised success.... I can't take it anymore...tell me how to make money, to be successful, to have........

That is why I had to comment on the latest buzz which is about a legal job posting on Boston College of Law's job site for full-time law associates paying $10,000 per year.

That is why? What is why? Oh, here it is....drumroll......

We are so ingrained to believe employment by another is the answer that we don't realize (nor are we told) there are other ways!

Yes! There are other ways! Is it...is it going solo? Can you help me Susan?

Now Susan wants "to be fair" about this $10,000 job, so here's the whole story:

In addition to $10K per year, the Gilbert & O’Bryan job posting also notes: 'This is an excellent position for a new lawyer or someone returning to a legal career, and a good place to learn how to practice law with real clients. … Benefits include malpractice insurance, health insurance, employer paid clothing allowance and an MBTA pass. Former employees have gone on to prominence in other firms, government and private practice.'”

Learn how to practice law with real clients? Health insurance? Clothes? Transportation? Don't you get that all when you sign up for SPU?

Susan still doesn't like it: "I'm deeply offended by the law firm who doesn't respect fellow lawyers enough to offer a living wage."


You see, the less firms out there offering jobs, offering anything, the more desperate young lawyers become, and the more desperate they become, the more willing they are to jump on the internet and pay for advice.

SPU is a website that sells courses to lawyers that want to go out on their own. They've had "professors" teaching things like blogging for profit (Former Professor Grant Griffiths who was disbarred for taking money from a trust set up for children prior to taking his new gig at SPU), and adoption (taught by a lawyer later arrested in a baby selling scam)

Susan's also been generous enough to give a forum to a young lawyer whose ethics were under the microscope for silly things like not having an office where she practices.

Jobs at law firms are bad things to SPU, as they cause lawyers to decide between buying advice on the internet, or learning to practice with real lawyers.

Susan has good news though about going out on your own, and I'm sure she'll put this in writing for you when you sign up for SPU:

"I'll wager you'll earn more than $192.30 per week before taxes. And you'll certainly get a lot more 'experience' putting your degree to use on your terms without losing your dignity."

Yeah, I wonder how? maybe by...charging less than other lawyers? That's OK, right? It's just not OK for a law firm do to the same thing when offering a job.

"On your terms," isn't that what all young lawyers yearn for - doing what they want, how they want. Of course there's no examples anywhere on how that could be a collosal mistake, or at least when we're selling advice on the web we quietly avoid mentioning it.

Gotta protect your business.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.


Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Blogging The Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Hearings: Now I'm Confused

Like any lawyer after a long period of time practicing in front of the same court or board, I left this weekend's hearings with a sense of confusion. I thought I understood this process. Maybe I do, but I'm not sure.

The purpose, in my opinion, of bar admission hearings are two fold: One is to ask questions relating to issues of character and fitness, the other is what I call "legalized hazing."

When someone is appointed to the Board of Bar Examiners, they go through some training. Some Board members stick to the script, while others just want to get to the point and determine whether the applicant should be admitted. I don't know what that training entails, but if I had to guess, I would guess the following is taught (it isn't, but it just looks this way from the other side of the table):

1. Make the applicant uncomfortable.

Regardless of their answer to a question, respond with "I'm confused," or "I thought you said before, that...." This is interrogation 101. Make the person being questioned second guess what they just said, even if you know they are telling the truth.

2. Even if you, as a lawyer on the Board, understand how something happened, (because you've been in that situation), pretend you don't.


This always entrigues me, this "I don't understand," when every lawyer who has practiced law for 5 minutes has had the same situation. I sit there and look around thinking "you know what happened here, it happens all the time." Some Board members do the "spoon feeding" thing and say "so what happened was....," while others continue with open ended questions appearing to have no idea what caused the situation to occur.

3. In an "us" vs. "them" mentality - ignore the lawyers who represent applicants.

I've been told this is not true, that members of the Board haven't been told "not" to talk to lawyers that appear before the Board, but "I'm confused" when the more senior members of the Board chat it up with us in the hallways and otherwise outside the hearing setting while the new members make it clear that saying "hello" or even making eye contact is a real problem. By the way, the applicants notice this, and it doesn't say much for the profession. What's funny is that when I'm in court and I see a judge off the bench, I usually say hello instead of turning my head.

4. Assume misinterpretations of questions are lies, lies, lies.

When an applicant says they answered a question because they thought the question said "this" instead of what the Bar Examiner "knows" to be the correct interpretation, what we have here is a difference of interpretations. Sure, some applicants are full of it and were just trying to pass one over on the Board, but let's assume that maybe there's a few that are just not as smart as the Bar Examiners and were just wrong. It is entirely possible that the applicant is not as smart in the nuances of the Bar application as the Board Member.

5. In another attempt to make the applicant uncomfortable, make faces that indicate you are just shocked, shocked, shocked at the answer you are hearing while becoming more aggressive in your questioning.


I was always told that in court, it's inappropriate to make faces. What are we teaching young lawyers?

For that matter, as another Bar Defense Lawyer said to me this weekend "these applicants go to hearings and think that this is the way lawyers behave."

That comment hit me. While the Board is not group of similarly minded, or similarly behaved people, when an applicant pays a fee, plus hires a lawyer, puts on a suit, travels to another city, and sits in a room with those that are judging whether they should be a lawyer - shouldn't they demonstrate lawyers at their best?

Listen, there's nothing wrong with a little in-your-face-talking-to at these hearings. Nothing wrong with scaring the crap out of a potential lawyer in an effort to let them know that this is a rough and tumble profession and certain behavior is not tolerated. But shouldn't there be a demonstration of the behavior that is expected from lawyers?

An applicant's lack of understanding of the question, or the issue that is trying to be created, doesn't always equate to a lie, and many Board members understand this. The purpose of these hearings should, should be to gather information and determine whether the applicant is being candid and whether both those issues establish a person with the character and fitness to be an attorney at law. There's an applicant blatently lying? Slam him. But some of them are being honest, I promise you that.

Which brings me to another issue of confusion: financial responsibility.

I always advise applicants that putting their financial house in order is essential to being admitted in Florida. This means either all debts are paid, there has been efforts to pay, or there is a payment plan. I have declined to represent applicants that have financial issues and have made no effort to resolve them. I know the Board will defer their admission until efforts are made to pay debt. The old "let me in to the Bar so I can make money and then I'll try to pay my debt" doesn't work.

The reasons for the financial issues are still fair game for the Board, as they need to know whether the applicant is responsible when it comes to their own, and more importantly, client funds.

But when there is a large debt, fully paid, and the Board eats the guy alive, casting irrelevance on the payment of the debt, it's more confusion for me. I saw this recently. This was the guy. In the sea of law students with crushing debt, unpaid taxes, maybe mortgage foreclosures, he was the one that paid off a large debt. Man was I excited. What an example.

But that he paid the debt was not even relevant, it seemed. They did all the things I've described above, and made it clear that they were just not believing anything he said about anything.

But the guy had a large debt, and he paid it, every penny.

So what do I tell my clients?

Of course I know what I will tell them in addition to everything else I tell them:

"Ignore the dirty looks and 'shocked' looks on their faces, don't be 'confused' by the 'I'm confused' method of responding to your answers, if you're lying, don't, but if you're not, don't let 'I thought you said' put you off-guard.

And, if you ever get the chance to apply for the Board of Bar Examiners, remember everything that happened when you were there."

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Meet Attorney Christopher J McCann's Webmaster, Nader

Got an email today:

Hi,

I was wondering if your site was open to guest bloggers.

My name is Nader and I’m the webmaster for cjmdefense.com. I would love to contribute an article to your site. The content is entirely unique and will not be posted anywhere else.

If this sounds interesting to you I'd love to hear back from you!

Sincerely,
Nader Ahmadnia


Bloggers get requests for guest posts all the time. It's part of the game. Let someone post on your blog (with a link of course) so they can inflate their own hits. It's the typical scumbag marketing tactic that dirtbag marketers like to use to help their clients raise their profile on Google.

I never allow guest posts from these pieces of shit. None of the "real" bloggers I know do either.

So I went to cjmdefense.com to see what it was all about. It's Christopher J. McCann's website. He has a blog, but there's not much going on there. He's a 12 year lawyer and has all the right things - nice photo, payment plans, free consultation, "call me directly," "commitment to personal service," all that good stuff.

I just wonder why Chris has hired someone to go find lawyers and try to sell himself on their blogs. Can't he send his own email, or "call directly?" Where's the "personal service" Chris. Chris?

I have a webmaster, he's the guy that I pay monthly to "host" my website. He's never offered to send out emails to other lawyers and bloggers and offer to guest post, and I've never thought of having him be a marketer for me. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. When I want to start a relationship with another lawyer, I usually call, or send my own email. Maybe I need to have my webmaster try and create fake relationships with other bloggers for me so I can be more popular on your computer monitor.

The goal of Chris McCann and his webmaster Nader is to leave a lasting impression with other lawyers and bloggers.

Chris McCann, you've definitely left a lasting impression with me.

Definitely.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.


Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Womble Carlyle, Adrian Dayton, And Transparency

One of the benefits of the internet is that is allows people to say things and hope they go unchecked. One law firm makes this claim, one social media guru makes that claim, and although there are those mean people out there (ahem) that still believe honesty and transparency are important to the legal profession, there's enough kids out there failing to take a closer look in deference to the chance to say "congratulations" and hope to have someone thank them on some social media platform.

Womble Carlyle is a law firm. Adrian Dayton is a social media guru, who calls himself a "evangelist of social media for the legal profession."

Womble Carlyle just made the following announcement:

Womble Carlyle ranked #1 for social media outreach among law firms reviewed.

That's great. Awesome news.

Now let's ask some old school questions; who did the survey?

Social media guru Adrian Dayton studied and graded the social media programs of nearly 60 AmLaw 250 law firms. Womble Carlyle ranked #1 with 74 of 100 possible points. The runner-up firm scored a 56.

Great. If anyone should be doing a survey of law firms and how good they are at social media it surely should be the self anointed social media evangelist for law firms.

But there's something else. Adrian isn't just some social media guru doing an independent survey of law firms:

From the testimonial page of Adrian's website:

“After extensive discussions with Adrian about our firm’s social media strategy, we in client development management at Womble Carlyle decided to have him work with group of our top business development-oriented attorneys during the summer of 2010. We are definitely seeing results and have decided to reengage him to work with attorneys in specific practice groups during 2011. As an attorney and as an individual that is extremely knowledgeable about the field of social media, Adrian has been able to connect with both our senior attorneys and associates alike, helping them to see the potential of social media and build their personal brands. He offers an outsider’s perspective that greatly enhances the work we in client development do with attorneys each day. His experience working with large law firm attorneys sets him apart from his competitors and I highly recommend his services to other firms. On a personal note, I’ve attended several conferences with Adrian. He is a tremendous networker – he practices what he preaches and that more than anything has left a very favorable impression on me.” November 4, 2010

Aden Dauchess,Womble Carlyle

We'll get back to that in a minute...

One of the cornerstones of transparency, is being transparent. When the National Democratic Party says their candidate is winning a congressional race, the first question is "who did the poll?" If the answer is "The National Democratic Party," then we disregard it. If the poll was done by an independant media outlet or other private company on their own, we consider it relevant.

But here we're dealing with lawyers. Where's the transparency?

Did Adrian disclose on whatever results he provided that he was a client of the firm?

Did Womble disclose that they hired Adrian?

Or did both parties figure it didn't matter?

We live in an era where there's an award for getting an award. We congratulate people for being congratulated. We are lauded by our clients, and don't bother to acknowledge that some of us are lauded by our clients because we've asked them to be laudatory.

There are things called "client testimonials," and "peer reviews." The titles mean something. It matters what our peers say, and what our clients say, and it matters that we differentiate the two.

So congratulations Womble Carlyle, I'm glad your client Adrian Dayton, who you hired to help with your social media presence, thinks you're number one.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Anonymous Commenting Legislation By Joe Lieberman?

I'm not a fan of the sewage that is most anonymous comments. In my little part of the blogging world they come from lawyers, lawyers parading as cowards - afraid to express their thoughts unless protected by anonynimity. But I certainly don't support federal legislation controlling the sewage.

Senator Joe Lieberman does?

From DailyKos:

I've learned that Sen. Lieberman plans to introduce a bill this week to strip site owners of Section 230 protections for the posts of anonymous commenters.

(The text of the amendment is here.)

Lieberman's bill would end the Internet as we know it. By a simple change from "shall" to "may," Lieberman will empower a Republican-dominated federal judiciary to decide on whim and caprice which site owners are protected from liability their commenters' actions, and who faces potentially massive judgments.

Now I know the anonymous commenting union deeply supports their cause - that of saying whatever they want, regardless of truth, without recourse. The argument is always that anonymous commenting is important because it actually allows people to be honest without fear of retribution - like when they report something to the local police on their "tip" line.

The difference of course is that those anonymous tips don't usually involve false attacks on someone's reputation, nor do they live on the internet.

But this amendment is in the name of anti-terrorism, which allows legislation to pass, regardless of whether it's constitutional, right, or simply fair.

I've gone back and forth on the anonymous commenting thing - allowing it, not allowing it, allowing it when it's not simply one of my "fans" too afraid to say anything to my face and has an axe to grind. There is of course no First Amendment right to anonymous commenting (don't tell the anonymous commenters that), but using congressional power to further control the idiots on the internet is dangerous.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Another No CLE Credit CLE Seminar On Twitter For Lawyers, By Non-Practicing Lawyers

Will it ever stop? Do we care that marketers are swarming all over the legal profession, dropping the red meat of "how to make money" and pretending that teaching us how to communicate with a keyboard is a science?

Oh, you just want to know where to send the $125?

Here.

It's yet another "Twitter for Lawyers" seminar. Not twitter for doctors, engineers, truck drivers or fruit stand owners - just lawyers. Us silly lawyers, unable to understand how to type on twitter, unable to go about our days with out learning how every single social media platform can make us money.

Now this tele-seminar is put on by ALI-ABA, which claims to provide "Continuing Leadership in Professional Education." This professional education though provides no continuing legal education credit. None.

Tweet tweet tweet.

Here's what you'll learn:

Twitter Basics: Setting up your profile and what to tweet

The Language of Twitter: Codes and shortcuts

Platform Choices: Twitter.com versus social media management tools

Twitter in Context: How Twitter supplements your web presence, and,

drum roll........

Twitter for Client Development

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Did you check out the faculty? Three people, none of them practice law. They can't tell you about the last legal client, or case they got through twitter last week, last month.

I know, you don't care. If they can give you the keys to new clients through twitter, you're pulling out the credit card.

Enjoy.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

No Rachel, It's Legal Advice, Regardless Of What You Call It

Recently, I was told I was the "laughing stock among us Gen Y Lawyers," supposedly by a Gen Y lawyer, although I don't know, as the comment was anonymous.

I don't know what a "Gen Y Lawyer" is. I also don't know what a "Gen X" lawyer is. While people grew up in both generations, and there are people that define the stereotypes of each - whether lazy, entitled, dependant on their parents for living expenses, unwilling to conform to anything remotely evidencing a standard law practice, or merely angry at the prior generation - there are those in each generation that don't fit the mold.

Rachel Rodgers, whom I've written about before, whom others have written about before, is still parading around the internet claiming to be the lawyer for Gen Y entrepreneurs. She's started Rachel Rodgers TV, and has provided legal advice - yes, Rachel, legal advice, on how to fill out legal documents to stay out of legal trouble.

Let me say that again:

Telling people how to fill out legal documents in a way that presumes to prevent legal issues, is legal advice.

I don't care what generation you come from, how successful you think your online law practice is, or how much you couldn't care less about ethics rules - giving advice on legal documents to avoid legal issues, is giving legal advice.

You Gen Y'ers may hate me, may think I'm "mean" and not understanding that you are the future of law, and I better get on board, but I need you to know that giving legal advice is giving legal advice even if you keep stepping all over yourself to claim it's not legal advice.

So Rachel has done her second edition of Rachel Rodgers TV. On this episode, although she doesn't begin with a shout out to her "party people," she shows a disclaimer. Then she gives legal advice (but it's not legal advice because she says it isn't.)

Now after the following video was posted, I was made aware a couple commented on the site that it was, in fact, legal advice. Those comments have not appeared - surprise surprise. I did see this appear, although I'm not sure it appeared after these more experienced lawyers that actually know what they are talking about, posted their still un-released comments:

[Dear viewer: I think its pretty obvious that this is general information, designed to be educational and not legal advice, and then Rachel keeps stepping all over herself to back track and stammer with: The business owner asked a much more specific question, and I have generalized it here. I am sure you know that I cannot speak to your specific situation and in no way guarantee that the information provided in this video will apply to your situation or would work for your business. Furthermore, this video does not create an attorney-client relationship (I am sure you know that, too),

The above doesn't change that the following, even with the video disclaimer, is legal advice:



So for those that worship Rachel, think that she is "all that" (for you Gen Y party people), understand that when a lawyer like Rachel gives legal advice, it's legal advice. I know, I know, I'm mean, I'm a bully, I "just don't understand." Rinse and repeat.

But you're wrong. Your parents may have never told you that you're wrong, but you are.

You're wrong.

Any client that takes her advice on this video and then has a problem, is damn sure going to say they did it because this lawyer on the internet told them to.

Is it worth it?

Well, from what I understand about the stereotypical Gen Y lawyer, getting on the internet is what's important. Rachel has said that ethics should not be used as a weapon against Gen Y.

So I'll put my weapon away, again.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.