Showing posts with label Law Practice Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Practice Management. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Test Run for Rocket Matter
Next week, Anthony will be doing a free demo of Rocket Matter. It's a law practice management program that does not require software and can be accessed from anywhere that you have an internet connection. It is also accessible from a mobile version that the company offers through the iPhone.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
ABA Journal: How Law Practice Will Become Like Off-the-Rack Suits
The following article was authored by Debra Cassens Weiss and reprinted from the March 2, 2009 online site of the ABA.
Law practice in the future will involve the mechanization of legal tasks into standard systems, creating job losses for lawyers who don't evolve, Richard Susskind argues in his new book The End of Lawyers?
Today law practice is like a custom-made suit—it is crafted to an individual client’s needs. But in the future, Susskind argues, standard legal tasks will be performed by software or done in a lower cost manner—they will be commodities like off-the-rack suits, explains a book review in The Lawyers Weekly.
Complex legal issues will be broken down into individual tasks, and lawyers will identify the best way to perform them. One this is accomplished, Susskind argues, these tasks may be handled by paralegals, by lower cost law firms or specialized overseas companies.
In this evolution, the “dominant species” of lawyer will be legal knowledge engineers who organize complex legal content and processes that will need to be analyzed and distilled into standard practice and computer systems, according to the book review.
“Adapt or die,” the review says. “That’s the stark option Susskind offers lawyers. The coming seismic shift in legal services will result in the demise of many law firms, the extinction of many legal fields, and will force many lawyers to scramble to find new lines of work.”
-------------------------------------------------
Law practice in the future will involve the mechanization of legal tasks into standard systems, creating job losses for lawyers who don't evolve, Richard Susskind argues in his new book The End of Lawyers?
Today law practice is like a custom-made suit—it is crafted to an individual client’s needs. But in the future, Susskind argues, standard legal tasks will be performed by software or done in a lower cost manner—they will be commodities like off-the-rack suits, explains a book review in The Lawyers Weekly.
Complex legal issues will be broken down into individual tasks, and lawyers will identify the best way to perform them. One this is accomplished, Susskind argues, these tasks may be handled by paralegals, by lower cost law firms or specialized overseas companies.
In this evolution, the “dominant species” of lawyer will be legal knowledge engineers who organize complex legal content and processes that will need to be analyzed and distilled into standard practice and computer systems, according to the book review.
“Adapt or die,” the review says. “That’s the stark option Susskind offers lawyers. The coming seismic shift in legal services will result in the demise of many law firms, the extinction of many legal fields, and will force many lawyers to scramble to find new lines of work.”
-------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 9, 2009
WBA Tech Tip of the Month: Email Spoofing
Have you ever received an email sent to you by you? Or, have you received a failure notice that an email you sent to someone couldn¹t be delivered, except that you didn't send the email, and you don't know the recipient? You've been spoofed.
Spoofing describes fraudulent email activity where the Sender and other information is altered to appear as though the email came from someplace else. It¹s comparable to postal mail examples (and almost as easy to achieve), where someone sends thousands of mass mailings but disguises the return address on the envelope.
The typical reaction from most people is that their computer must be infected with a virus or spyware, causing the computer to send out unsolicited emails. But, in fact, what's taking place has nothing to do with you or your computer.
That also means there isn't much you can do to prevent spoofing. The best you can do is to verify that it really isn't you sending the emails - check your email Sent Items folder, make sure your virus software is working and up to date, and in an office environment ask your network administrator to verify that the emails aren't coming from your workstation.
Otherwise, take a deep breath, knowing that eventually the emails will stop, when the person who is actually generating them finally gets caught by his/her Internet or email Service Provider.
------------------------------------------------
Spoofing describes fraudulent email activity where the Sender and other information is altered to appear as though the email came from someplace else. It¹s comparable to postal mail examples (and almost as easy to achieve), where someone sends thousands of mass mailings but disguises the return address on the envelope.
The typical reaction from most people is that their computer must be infected with a virus or spyware, causing the computer to send out unsolicited emails. But, in fact, what's taking place has nothing to do with you or your computer.
That also means there isn't much you can do to prevent spoofing. The best you can do is to verify that it really isn't you sending the emails - check your email Sent Items folder, make sure your virus software is working and up to date, and in an office environment ask your network administrator to verify that the emails aren't coming from your workstation.
Otherwise, take a deep breath, knowing that eventually the emails will stop, when the person who is actually generating them finally gets caught by his/her Internet or email Service Provider.
------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Law.com: The Smart Solo's Guide to Joint Ventures
The following article should help those attorneys contemplating the idea of a joint venture with one or more attorneys. The article was authored by Paul Schorn and originally published on Law.com.
awyers are like hounds on a hunt: Sometimes one just isn't enough. Some cases call for a team of lawyers to come at the problem from different directions to ensure success. Solos are well-suited to joint ventures by their tremendous flexibility. They can jump into working relationships without seeking approval from any committee and can form ad hoc alliances tailored to address specific disputes. This column will address some of the questions a solo practitioner should ask before teaming up.
1. Does a joint venture make sense?
Too many cooks can spoil the broth (or the closing argument), so do not enter into a joint venture unless it clearly helps the case. Co-counsel makes sense, for example, where a dispute straddles several substantive areas of the law, a party must bring a claim in an unfamiliar venue, or the resources required or the risks involved are greater than normal. If a solo has the knowledge, experience, time and money to handle a case, he probably ought to do it himself. This is especially true given that working within a joint venture increases the time and effort it will take to coordinate representation, as each decision must be (at least) communicated, and potentially involves disagreement, discussion and consensus building (anathema to many solos).
2. Who do I want on my team?
Quality counts. A solo should strive to work with lawyers who are better than she is -- smarter, more experienced, wiser. Character counts as well. A solo should not joint venture any case with someone unless she would feel comfortable standing next to that lawyer at the counsel table in open court.
Another tip: Avoid teaming up with your identical twin. Joint ventures work best when they involve lawyers whose strengths complement each other. Each attorney should bring something unique to the case. The classic example is a practitioner in a particular area of the law who teams up with a litigator to bring a case to trial. Similarly, a lawyer in one geographical area might join forces with local counsel in an area where the case is pending, or a solo might involve a lawyer who has already had conspicuous success with a specific type of claim to increase the chances of obtaining a reasonable settlement more quickly or winning the case at trial.
3. How should we divide the pie?
Joint venturers should be clear about the division of labor. Leave no room for confusion about who will draft pleadings, answer discovery, act as the primary client contact or negotiate with the opposition. Designate one lawyer as lead counsel, whether or not suit has been filed. Come to a general understanding about the kind of decisions that each attorney can make unilaterally and the kind that require agreement.
Make clear how lawyers will handle case expenses not covered by the client. It usually makes sense to have one attorney responsible for all such costs to avoid any I-thought-you-paid-that-bill confusion, though this might not be possible where lawyers formed the joint venture to cover especially large expenses. In such cases, divide costs by categories, i.e. "I'll pay for the filing fees, business records and court reporters; you pay for the expert witnesses, mediation costs and everything else."
Of course, division of the fee must also be crystal clear -- preferably equal shares for all. But this might not make sense where lawyers do not share equally the labor or risk. If one lawyer in a two-lawyer venture carries the case expenses, she probably should receive a greater share of the fee (say, 60 percent instead of half).
It makes sense to have a written joint venture agreement; however, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I've done 90 percent of my joint ventures on a handshake and never suffered a regret. It has always seemed to me that I shouldn't partner up -- even for a single case -- with anyone I didn't trust deeply.
4. What are the larger effects of teaming up?
A solo should also consider the effect of a joint venture on her practice. This type of partnership can allow a solo to work on more and bigger cases and earn larger fees. It can also increase the solo's stream of business, as battle-tested co-counsel often become strong sources of referrals. It is not uncommon for joint venture partners to become good friends -- no small consideration given the potential isolation of solo practice.
Solos who are fortunate enough to partner up with better known co-counsel when joint venturing cases can also increase their standing in the bar, like the poor farmer who entered his tired old mule in the Kentucky Derby. Told by race officials that his broken-down beast had no chance to win, the farmer replied, "I know, but I thought he'd benefit from the association."
Contrary to common perception, working as a solo presents endless opportunities for collaboration. Choosing joint ventures wisely is the key to success. Just because a solo is a lone wolf doesn't mean that, every now and again, he can't run with the hounds.
Paul Schorn is a solo practitioner with offices in Lockhart and Austin, Texas.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202428476148
-------------------------------------------------
awyers are like hounds on a hunt: Sometimes one just isn't enough. Some cases call for a team of lawyers to come at the problem from different directions to ensure success. Solos are well-suited to joint ventures by their tremendous flexibility. They can jump into working relationships without seeking approval from any committee and can form ad hoc alliances tailored to address specific disputes. This column will address some of the questions a solo practitioner should ask before teaming up.
1. Does a joint venture make sense?
Too many cooks can spoil the broth (or the closing argument), so do not enter into a joint venture unless it clearly helps the case. Co-counsel makes sense, for example, where a dispute straddles several substantive areas of the law, a party must bring a claim in an unfamiliar venue, or the resources required or the risks involved are greater than normal. If a solo has the knowledge, experience, time and money to handle a case, he probably ought to do it himself. This is especially true given that working within a joint venture increases the time and effort it will take to coordinate representation, as each decision must be (at least) communicated, and potentially involves disagreement, discussion and consensus building (anathema to many solos).
2. Who do I want on my team?
Quality counts. A solo should strive to work with lawyers who are better than she is -- smarter, more experienced, wiser. Character counts as well. A solo should not joint venture any case with someone unless she would feel comfortable standing next to that lawyer at the counsel table in open court.
Another tip: Avoid teaming up with your identical twin. Joint ventures work best when they involve lawyers whose strengths complement each other. Each attorney should bring something unique to the case. The classic example is a practitioner in a particular area of the law who teams up with a litigator to bring a case to trial. Similarly, a lawyer in one geographical area might join forces with local counsel in an area where the case is pending, or a solo might involve a lawyer who has already had conspicuous success with a specific type of claim to increase the chances of obtaining a reasonable settlement more quickly or winning the case at trial.
3. How should we divide the pie?
Joint venturers should be clear about the division of labor. Leave no room for confusion about who will draft pleadings, answer discovery, act as the primary client contact or negotiate with the opposition. Designate one lawyer as lead counsel, whether or not suit has been filed. Come to a general understanding about the kind of decisions that each attorney can make unilaterally and the kind that require agreement.
Make clear how lawyers will handle case expenses not covered by the client. It usually makes sense to have one attorney responsible for all such costs to avoid any I-thought-you-paid-that-bill confusion, though this might not be possible where lawyers formed the joint venture to cover especially large expenses. In such cases, divide costs by categories, i.e. "I'll pay for the filing fees, business records and court reporters; you pay for the expert witnesses, mediation costs and everything else."
Of course, division of the fee must also be crystal clear -- preferably equal shares for all. But this might not make sense where lawyers do not share equally the labor or risk. If one lawyer in a two-lawyer venture carries the case expenses, she probably should receive a greater share of the fee (say, 60 percent instead of half).
It makes sense to have a written joint venture agreement; however, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I've done 90 percent of my joint ventures on a handshake and never suffered a regret. It has always seemed to me that I shouldn't partner up -- even for a single case -- with anyone I didn't trust deeply.
4. What are the larger effects of teaming up?
A solo should also consider the effect of a joint venture on her practice. This type of partnership can allow a solo to work on more and bigger cases and earn larger fees. It can also increase the solo's stream of business, as battle-tested co-counsel often become strong sources of referrals. It is not uncommon for joint venture partners to become good friends -- no small consideration given the potential isolation of solo practice.
Solos who are fortunate enough to partner up with better known co-counsel when joint venturing cases can also increase their standing in the bar, like the poor farmer who entered his tired old mule in the Kentucky Derby. Told by race officials that his broken-down beast had no chance to win, the farmer replied, "I know, but I thought he'd benefit from the association."
Contrary to common perception, working as a solo presents endless opportunities for collaboration. Choosing joint ventures wisely is the key to success. Just because a solo is a lone wolf doesn't mean that, every now and again, he can't run with the hounds.
Paul Schorn is a solo practitioner with offices in Lockhart and Austin, Texas.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202428476148
-------------------------------------------------
WBA Tech Tip of the Week: Accessing Microsoft Office 2007 Documents
Accessing Microsoft Office 2007 Documents
With the release of Office 2007, Microsoft introduced new file formats for
Word (Docx), Excel (Xlsx), PowerPoint (Pptx), and Access (Accdb). Many users
receiving these documents via email or disk can¹t open them because they
have an older version of Microsoft Office or use WordPerfect for their word
processing.
Individuals using Office 2000, Office XP, or Office 2003 can download and install the Office 2007 File Converter software, available free from Microsoft¹s website. Go to www.microsoft.com, access the link for the Microsoft Download Center, and search for the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack. Or, type Œdownload Microsoft office compatibility pack¹ in a Google search and follow the links. Download and install the software, and from now on you¹ll be able to open Office 2007 documents using your earlier versions normal File, Open dialog box.
WordPerfect¹s latest X4 version can access Office 2007 documents directly.
If you have an older version of WordPerfect, a pre-2000 version of Microsoft
Office, or don¹t have Office at all, you can also download and install
Microsoft¹s Word Viewer 2007 utility (again, either from Microsoft¹s
download site or, in Google, search for ŒWord Viewer 2007 download). You
need both the Word Viewer program and the File Converter software. Once both
are installed, you load Word Viewer, locate and open the 2007 document,
click Edit, Select All and then Edit, Copy.
Then bring up your older version of Office or WordPerfect (or any other Windows based word processor) and click Edit and Paste.
-------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Lawyers Want More Time, Less Stress, Not More Money
(article originally published in Law Practice Management - October 2008)
Asked what one aspect of their law practice they would change, if they could, 31 percent of the 300 large law firm and corporate attorneys recently surveyed by Robert Half Legal said they wanted a less stressful work life. And another 30 percent wanted to work fewer hours or increase their personal time.
Only 2 percent said they wanted more more money, the California-based legal consulting firm reports in a press release (PDF).
To try to resolve such concerns and retain talented lawyers, many employers are adding benefits such as flexible and part-time scheduling, job sharing, telecommuting and compressed workweeks, says Charles Volkert, the consultant's executive director, in the release. "Job-related stress and work/life balance issues can lead to employee dissatisfaction and staff turnover, which may decrease a firm’s productivity and directly impact its ability to remain competitive.”
By Martha Neil for Law Practice Managment
http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/survey_says_lawyers_want_more_time_not_more_money
__________________________________
Asked what one aspect of their law practice they would change, if they could, 31 percent of the 300 large law firm and corporate attorneys recently surveyed by Robert Half Legal said they wanted a less stressful work life. And another 30 percent wanted to work fewer hours or increase their personal time.
Only 2 percent said they wanted more more money, the California-based legal consulting firm reports in a press release (PDF).
To try to resolve such concerns and retain talented lawyers, many employers are adding benefits such as flexible and part-time scheduling, job sharing, telecommuting and compressed workweeks, says Charles Volkert, the consultant's executive director, in the release. "Job-related stress and work/life balance issues can lead to employee dissatisfaction and staff turnover, which may decrease a firm’s productivity and directly impact its ability to remain competitive.”
By Martha Neil for Law Practice Managment
http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/survey_says_lawyers_want_more_time_not_more_money
__________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
