 Thoughtful lawyers are taking advantage of prolonged periods of unemployment to reassess their goals and consider work that offers not just sustenance but inspiration. These giving individuals are willing to volunteer their time or take low-paying positions for the good of the community.
There's just one problem — large firm partners pushed out of their firms with a golden parachute are lobbying for prime non-profit jobs and getting them as a stepping stone to their next position or a show of social conscience. As a result, associates and solos are out of luck, just like before the recession.
Many recent graduates, unemployed associates, and displaced mid-level lawyers, are concerned about what they read in the press. But there's no need to worry. The legal job market is simply experiencing a long-overdue correction. Once the excesses of the last decade work themselves out, legal hiring practices will return to normal and America's law firms will be healthier than ever.
For example, since late 1990s, salaries at AmLaw 100 firms have spiraled out of control. During the same period, corporate America has grappled with two recessions, a fiscal crisis, relentless outsourcing, and the crushing effect of globalization on its bottom line.
Because large firms depend on its clients' ability to pay without regard to the outcome of the case, the value rendered by the firm, or the logic of paying $1,000 per hour, these excesses didn't register until all the money was gone, leaving companies to explain to shareholders why they allowed lawyers to charge $700 dinners against bottomless expense accounts. But as companies return to profitability, global law firms will return to business as usual. Experts agree it could happen in as little as three more years.
Maybe it's not what I'm saying but the way I'm saying it.
There's no magic formula for practicing law, and no magic at all in being a small firm attorney. It has always been about hard work and sacrifice. But today we have a chance to eat the lunch of our large firm counterparts. Why? Because people need lawyers more than ever. It's just that they have less ability to pay.
We small firm managing partners must meet our target market half-way. Squeeze out all the productivity and efficiency, and when possible reduce fees — if only temporarily — to acknowledge the reality of our times. This strategy requires keeping costs low, reevaluating spending and hiring choices, outsourcing as many nonessential functions as possible (without sacrificing quality), and most of all ridding ourselves of distractions so we can focus on practicing law.
When in doubt, rent. Rent equipment, rent space, outsource tasks, employ independent contractors, whatever. And the shorter the term of that relationship, the better. Unless you host clients on a regular basis, why buy the image? If anyone asks, tell them that you'll pass the savings onto them.
Put your practice on the Web using a secure SaaS provider such as Clio and get back to business. After that, think about using online marketing tools, many of which cost nothing but your time.
You will be assaulted by smooth talking sales types who push you to buy more than you need. Your defense? Don't shop alone. Run decisions by someone who won't be dazzled. Whether it's litigation software or an Internet connection, get consensus up-front. For example, I decide what we need at the office, but my wife tells me what we can afford. That's a working relationship.
United We Stand, but Is Division Our Destiny?
With the economy in free-fall, now is not the time to be divisive. Solos and small firms should cooperate to ensure mutual benefit. If my SmallLaw columns sometimes appear critical of my fellow small firm attorneys it's not from a lack of respect. Quite the opposite. I'm just as hard on myself because I know we can all do better.
And more than that — I know the legal market belongs to small firms and sole practitioners. If only we could see that. We don't need phony volunteerism, bar association politics, or more overgrown law firms. We simply need to communicate and share our best practices with one another. But I fear that may never happen. And I think that's a shame.
Originally published on September 21, 2009 in our free SmallLaw newsletter.
In 1993 Best Case Bankruptcy represented the vanguard of practice automation. Best Case promised users would make fewer mistakes, save time, and prepare complex bankruptcy documents without having to become "specialists." Then Best Case upped the ante and introduced a knockout punch — as courts across the nation began mandating electronic practice in about 2003, the company rolled out its "one-touch electronic filing" feature. For a time Best Case had the e-filing field to itself. Good times.
To give credit where credit is due, Best Case Bankruptcy enabled a generation of software-savvy lawyers and their staffs to serve more clients than ever, and to do so without breaking the bank. That made Best Case a pioneer and the sales leader. With a huge installed-base, the company enjoyed Microsoft-like market dominance among bankruptcy practitioners even as competitors mimicked everything from its menus, prompts, calculators, and user-interface to its once-exclusive e-filing features.
But that was then. Over the past 5-6 years, the competition has become more adept at keeping up with the leader, many even exceeding the Best Case Bankruptcy feature set. Several offer bankruptcy preparation products that have fewer features, but at a lower price, hoping users upgrade to a more robust version of that product later.
Interestingly, Best Case does not appear to see other products as a threat. Take for example the fact that Best Case charges more than others for licenses and annual "support" (according to my unscientific survey). Best Case maintains that its product is more feature-laden (including I suppose features that not every user needs). And there's no disputing that it remains the market leader.
However, thanks to the Great Recession, small firms considering bankruptcy preparation software may wonder why they should pay more than they would for a competitive product to do virtually the same thing. At the end of the day, we're all working with the same bankruptcy courts right? So what makes Best Case Solutions the "best"?
With these questions in mind I took a close look at Best Case Bankruptcy V. 18.
By way of full disclosure, I've been using a bankruptcy automation solution other than Best Case Bankruptcy for about five years. But after many, many solicitations in the mail, by phone, by email, and at various seminars and events, I decided to try the market leader.
I used Best Case Bankruptcy to prepare and "file" a demo case. The product worked well, but as a practitioner who has enjoyed the benefits of automation since 2003, I was not all that impressed either. It's not that Best Case doesn't live up to its claims. It boasts a fairly intuitive menu-driven interface, an online intake interview that prospects fill out before they even step into your office, and the crucial ability to import and cross-check user-inputs against third-party information such as credit reports and credit counseling certification, among others.
But I wasn't a newbie and what I saw and experienced did not represent a quantum leap. Instead I saw a Buick being spruced up for the new buying season with whitewalls and a pair of tasty tail-fins. So while Best Case improved on its last version by enhancing compatibility with the latest browsers (IE 8), word-processing software (WordPerfect X4), and Federal Case-Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) systems, as well as by updating the ability of the software to handle some of the more exotic forms such as the Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization or Disclosure Statement in a "Small Business" case, the backbone of the software remains largely untouched. Even the interface says "1998."
If your practice is national (or at least covers multiple states) and consists of both consumer (Chapters 7 and 13) and business bankruptcy (Chapter 11), Best Case Bankruptcy is the way to go. But other small law firms should look for slimmer, less pricey solutions.
Oh, and one last thing — would someone please develop a Clio-like Web-based bankruptcy solution priced on a monthly subscription basis. The day I find that solution my checkbook will open up faster than you can say best case scenario.
Some of you might remember The Perils of Solo Practice, my SmallLaw column about the departure of my long-time Associate Attorney and the harsh realities of practicing alone for the first time in 10 years. The piece chronicled the disappointment and frustration I felt running through over a dozen subpar employees over the next 18 months while fending off stomach-churning instability and fighting to regain focus.
At the end of the piece I concluded that despite the problems inherent in growth and even working with a partner, remaining solo was a losing proposition. Being solo runs headlong into human limitations like sleep (not enough), work (too much), and money (not nearly enough). Not exactly a controversial conclusion. Except that it was, judging by reactions in TechnoLawyer's Fat Friday newsletter, on the ABA's Solo Sez bulletin board, posts on Twitter and around the blawgosphere, and personal messages emailed directly to me.
Many comments took issue with the observation that, as a solo, I felt overworked, underpaid, and continuously exhausted — something I wagered that other solos were going through as well. A number of messages theorized that I was projecting, because I was lazy and unprepared myself. Others insisted the piece was a spoof. But the majority of comments had little to do with the article. Instead they described fulfilling solo practices and comfortable lifestyles. Apparently