- Quickdraw McLaw
- 41 Comments
- 116 Views
January tends to be a month where a lot of people in the legal profession change jobs. Maybe its because of resolutions that are made, maybe it’s because the bonuses have been paid, or maybe it’s just because firms start hiring again. Now that the holidays are over and you made it through another calendar year, let us know where you stand on job satisfaction. Are you satisfied where you are at? Do you plan on looking for a new job? Are you already looking? If you’re not satisfied where you are at, why? What could get you to change your mind? Are you satisfied with your current job?
The one thing that has struck me over the years, both from personal experience and from friends' anecdotes, is that many lawyers are terrible bosses. Worse, they don't seem to recognize that weakness in themselves. I don't care how much money you pay me, if you don't treat me like an adult professional, I will be looking to move. And so would anyone else who has an ounce of self-respect.
Most attorneys are also not self aware that they suck at running a business.
So SO True!! In 20 years, I have found that at least 60% of solos should NOT be in business for themselves.
Luckily, we all have OBC Hooge's extensive experience in law practice to rely on for advice and guidance.
@9:45AM I think that was a rounding error. I think you meant 96% should not be in business for themselves.
Every attorney who owns a practice needs a Donna… someone who can speak up without repercussions when the attorney is effing up.
In my case it was a Melissa.
The real problem is now you have women in the work force.
And you have to hire minorities.
That is why we cant have nice things anymore
I am look for a Della Street.
If you don't know who that is, you are too young to understand the value of a real a legal secretary (as opposed to a legal assistant).
Do I dare? A judge demanded I appear in a matter wherein I had withdrawn (edited version for the sake of brevity). Then judge ordered me to prepare the order from the hearing. I did so. Heard from law clerk, order was rejected. No reason provided. Do I dare refuse to draft another order under the 13th amendment? What is judge going to do, sanction me? Report me to the bar? I plan to go inactive before summer starts.
Is it the order to withdraw? Or something else entirely, after you had withdrawn?
Let me guess.. you were appearing in a family law matter pursuant to Rule 5.209 (limited services (“unbundled services”) contract) and the "Order" you were to prepare was the Order After Hearing. If that is the situation, I can almost guess what the cause of this problem is.. non-compliance with the actual rule which allows for the unbundled services.
The actual rule provides:
(a) An attorney who contracts with a client to limit the scope of representation shall:
(1) State that limitation in the first paragraph of the first paper or pleading filed on behalf of that client; and
(2) Notify the court of that limitation at the beginning of each hearing in which the attorney appears for that client.
(b) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, to withdraw from representation of a client in limited services, an attorney shall:
(1) File a Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney specifying the limited services that were to be completed, reciting that those services were completed, and identifying either the name of successor counsel or the address and telephone number of the client in proper person. The attorney must serve a copy of the notice upon the client and all other parties to the action.
(2) Complete all services required by the court before filing a Notice of Withdrawal.
(3) Specify, in the withdrawal, at what point in time or proceeding the opposing party may directly contact the party represented by the withdrawing attorney.
(c) Except by specific order of court, no counsel shall be permitted to withdraw within 21 days prior to a scheduled trial or evidentiary hearing.
(d) Any notice of withdrawal that is filed without compliance with this rule shall be ineffective for any purpose.
For as long as I can remember (and I am somewhat long in the tooth), the regular unbundled crowd have failed and refused to comply with the actual requirements of the rule. Rather, they pop in and out of a case (frequently repeatedly) without disclosing the scope of their services, completing the work related to the hearing they participated in (filing and serving the order after hearing, or the filing of a notice of withdrawal.) They seem to think the fact they announced at the hearing that they are appearing "in an unbundled capacity absolves them of any further responsibilities related to the case the moment they exit the courtroom doors.
If I am incorrect about the nature of your involvement in your situation, I apologize for lumping you into the usual reason for the situation you describe. You might want to have your staff (or yourself) with the courtroom clerk or law clerk (whichever rejected the order) to determine the reason for the rejection and what needs to be corrected to make it acceptable. It is usually something minor and easy to correct. As a practice tip.. if it is something like missing mandatory language, update your template so that future orders don't suffer the same fate.
If this is your plan, perhaps let your malpractice attorney know. You will remain counsel of record, and if any kind of order or adverse pleading comes through, it is still served on you until you are out. If something bad happens to said client due to these orders, this falls on you whether you are inactive or not.
From being a law clerk, (many many years ago) we rejected a stunning amount of withdrawal motions for easy technical fixes. So I would advise being pleasant and just asking the law clerk what is wrong with a little bit of humility, or if that seems undesirable, have someone that is nice on your staff call.
I am fairly sure the judge won't care enough to report you to the bar for a technically deficient order. But if it remains unfixed, it may get set on for a status check, and if it does you should probably go or risk some show cause orders. (Civil Contempts can get a warrant whether you are inactive or not)
But seriously this also is something that should be pretty easily fixable and the possible repercussions (albeit somewhat unlikely) are a lot higher than taking fifteen minutes to fix.
What you need to do is file for election against that judge. Easy solution!
9:37, 9:41 and 9:45 hit the nail on the head.
Another problem with many solos(and, BTW, I have nothing against solos in general and in fact I was one for many years) is that either due to greed, arrogance, grandiosity, and a lack of recognizing the realities of the limitations of them and their practice, they think they can handle anything that falls into their lap that has the potential to generate some real money for them.
One example illustrates this matter quite well. A few years ago, an acquaintance attorney of mine became the recipient of a great spinal injury case with slam dunk liability against a very well insured defendant which ran a delivery service(thus requiring them to have mega liability insurance). And then the problems became compounded far greater based on apparent serious malpractice by the physicians. Other attorneys who knew of the case, and who specialized in medical malpractice were offering to join the case as co-counsel at a very reasonable percentage, and they indicated they felt it was one of the most clear cases of medical malpractice they had seen .The problems included great complications caused by the anesthesia which would have apparently been avoided by simply reviewing the admitting form(kind of reminded me of the movie The Verdict).
At any rate this hack attorney, who basically handled simple and uncontested divorce matters, and an occasional misdemeanor court appearance, and who had just one part-time office worker(who was really just a receptionist, and certainly not aa skilled paralegal or legal secretary)was euphoric that his ship had come in and that he wasn't going to share the case with anyone else.
Other skilled attorneys not only offered him very generous referral percentage, but some even offered him a much higher percentage if he wanted to remain on as co-counsel, and actually do little or no work.
But he wanted it all for himself. Long story short, it was an utter disaster. He never responded to any motions or discovery requests, etc. The case finally went to a competent firm that had the resources, staff and experience to handle something of this magnitude, and the attorney then had to deal with an errors and omissions nightmare.
So, solos, and all attorneys in fact, need to stay in their lane.
BTW he got the case because the client and his family were in the same church ward as the attorney, or something similar.
Reading 10:21 reminds me that when I drove home last night I saw a billboard for a very young attorney I know, who has told me he has little to no staff, and bemoans that he is having great trouble getting started. He can't even seem to handle the simplest of Family Law hearings, and those are the only cases he received so far, he says.
He then said he was going to borrow money from his parents so he could pursue some form of advertising to attract "valuable cases and high-end clients."
So, I guess he borrowed the money and put it into the billboards which have his photo(looking like a high school student)and which reads something like "specializing in complex and major injury cases."
Next time he sees me he will probably ask if I've seen the billboards and what do I think. In such event I believe a little diplomacy is a better tact than brutal honesty so I will probably say "They look great. they should work well for you."
This individual is registered with the bar as a "specialist?"
No,because, as you imply, that would violate ethical canons as he obviously has little or no experience in the area, and thus could never be certified.
I was paraphrasing. It probably didn't say "specializing" but probably "practicing in…"
But the billboard is on my way home form work, so I will check it again.
Now that I think of it, it would not surprise me if he said "specializing in" as he is grandiose, plus is probably unaware of the ethical prohibitions.
As Dirty Harry said "A man has got to know his limitations."
And that,of course,goes for female attorneys as well, not just the men.
We should all stay in our lane, work hard, be realistic as to what we can handle, and be ambitious but not greedy and delusional. When we get a great case we cannot really handle by ourselves, then share the labor and share the fee. That is always by far the best approach.
No firm is perfect. I've worked in a few different firms and I've seen good things and bad things in each.
The biggest reasons that I switched firms in the past were: 1) volatile boss; 2) not having enough work or not having interesting work; or 3) either not feeling secure in my position or not seeing a path for advancement.
Jim Cavanaugh filed to challenge Ron Israel. Now we're talking.
I don't know him, but will encourage everyone I know to give him their vote.
I don't know him, but will be donating to his campaign!
Jim Cavanaugh once dropped his fly in a construction defect deposition and told Bruce Osmond to blow him. Just the right amount of crazy.
Don't know him, but when he seeks support and contributions by discussing his qualifications and experience, he can keep the presentation, real, real short. His entire campaign approach can consist of just four words:
I'm Not Ron Israel.
That's all he needs to say, and that's all we need to know.
Same for Gonzalez as far as I am concerned. I will donate money, too.
Can you start an anonymous go fund me? I don't want to see fat Jerry Lewis get elected either.
No one is running against Gonzalez. If Sheldon Adelson could not get someone to go against Gonzalez, no one is funding a campaign against her. Save your campaign money for peremptories if you hate her that much.
She is attila. I am not a fan of hers, either.
THIS JUST IN. Phil Aurbach filed for Dept 4. Wow
WOW! So where is Al Marquis running?
Why would Al Marquis run as a named partner in a "successful" law firm?
Because his law firm is as successful as Black and LoBello. If it was bringing in money, he would not run.
Coffing and Marquis both running for judge. Their law firm to implode in 321.
Honey, I work at Black & LoBo, and the bonuses weren't shit.
@5:12PM, Aurbach "retired" at MAC a couple of years ago from what I know. Still, can't be looking good for future of the firm when two names on the door are running.
Whose the Bog over there? He is a hole.
My apologies if you work for Black and LoBello. I used to work there, horrible place.
I keep hoping the Bulla opponent drops soon. She is so mean, and deserves a rival.
I'm a solo and I'm not happy where I'm at and I'm looking to change. Too much administrative crap, too few "good" clients who actually pay on time, and my boss is an asshole.
The first 2 problems aren't that big as they are correctable. The last one, however, is a deal breaker! I suspect, unfortunately that you won't be able to completely escape that problem, wherever you land you might find that individual mysteriously seems to follow you.