The traditional advice on this topic is that you go out, and ask around. Only, lawyers (especially your competition) are fairly reticent about sharing their rates, probably obviously. This is also a taboo topic in terms of bar association engagement, since those organizations don’t want lawyers publishing or discussing rates under their auspices, for fear of being implicated in price fixing. The majority of lawyers do not publish their rates on their own websites, either — because they don’t want to be undersold by new law firms entering the market. I know lawyers who have asked staff or friends to pose as clients of other law firms, to call and acquire rates; but, the majority of lawyers think that’s cheesy — and, rightfully so. So, your best bet is to find lawyers outside of your geographic area or jurisdiction, or a mentor who may share a niche but not target clients, to help you get a handle on the market. Failing that, you’ll figure it out eventually, after trial and error. That’s not encouraging, of course.
There’s another approach, however; and, that is to start by figuring out what you need to pay your bills, and to create rate sets around that. Once you have that number, add your expected law firm overhead, and then think about how many cases you’ll want to take on in your first year. Divide that total number of cases by your personal and business expenses, and that’s your required hourly rate. You can then adjust up (if you think the value of your services means you can charge more) or down (adding to your required case total). Readjust after six to twelve months.
This is, certainly, a very basic analysis of fee setting, based almost entirely on an hourly rate model, that most law firms still use. Other factors that will relate to your rates include: whether and how much you charge for retainers, and what types of retainers you use; whether you need to construct rates for associate attorneys or staff; whether you need to build in coverage for processing fees or other expenses; whether you can charge more based on your expertise or experience; etc. In some cases, and this may be true of entire practices, contingencies or statutory requirements establish fee structures for you.
. . .
If you want to start your own law firm, join me for an exclusive workshop, coming up in Boston (August 24-26) and New York (September 7-9).
For more information, visit the official site: www.buildyourownlawfirm.com.
Social media hashtag: #BYOLF.
Visit our Sponsors:
]]>No, I’m not holding up a sign, and talking about the end times. I am, however, addressing software versions. Even now, I regularly run across law firms that operate different versions of local applications. So, maybe three different vintages of Adobe Acrobat, with different settings and different costs, all ostensibly meant to do the same thing: manage PDFs. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, ‘Hey, I have, like, seven different versions of Adobe Acrobat – it’s all good in the hood!’ However, running that many different versions of a software can be problematic, for a variety of reasons.
For one, thing it’s more difficult to train/update employees and troubleshoot existing issues. Internally, someone trying to a question about how to use a program may be flummoxed by the fact that their process (built in one version) may not work for the questioner (who may be using another version). That issue can also be exacerbated when clients deal with multiple staffpersons, who themselves are attached to different systems. From a budget management perspective, your replacement table may be all over the board (meaning you won’t effectuate it — because it’s harder to do), and the different payment requirements for different versions means that it will be impossible for you to flatten your cost allocations. Law firms are also historically bad at updating local software applications. Not only does that mean that your systems won’t be working as effectively as they could be, it could also leave you exposed to viruses and nefarious data hacks.
Neither is this problem localized to non-cloud-based technology infrastructures. There are plenty of law firms running different desktop versions of cloud-based software that they also utilize. For example, there are a lot of law firms that use Office 365, along with other version of Office, all the way down to Office on XP — which is a dangerous thing to do.
This is all so much easier with cloud-based software. Let the developers worry about the versions. All you need to know is that, since the software is cloud-based, your version is always the latest version. Everyone is working with the same tools, in the same way. Clients are exposed to the same features. Your payment schedule is synchronized and predictable.
Now, that’s a version of events you can stick to.
. . .
Liner Notes
The Eagles are alright; but, if you’re really talking about the evolution of the pop country sound, Poco is where it’s at. They’re one of the most underrated bands of all-time, led by one of the most underrated band leaders of all-time: Richie Furay, who is less than famous.
Here’s a smattering:
Man, that is SO good.
Know that I do celebrate Poco’s entire catalogue, and could go on — even though I won’t.
]]>If it’s not one software license that gets shared, it’s that law firms are buying fewer licenses that they actually need, forcing users to double up. Maybe there’s a shared log-in for staff.
Of course, this is less of a problem than it used to be. Modern software allows for simultaneous log-ins, so no one’s getting booted anymore.
However, there’s one big problem with shared log-ins: it’s so much harder to manage tasks. If there is a shared license, the name of the user to which that license is associated is irrelevant. That ‘person’ has become a ‘group’ of people, by definition. Let’s take that simple example of a shared staff log-in. If three staffpersons are sharing a license, you’ve essentially made it impossible to assign specific tasks to any one of them, because you’re required to assign those tasks to the group, due to the way you’ve set up your system. If you want to assign specific tasks to specific staffpersons, and to more effectively manage workflows, you must acquire a license for each of those staffpersons.
Lawyers who want to practice at the top of their law licenses need to delegate effectively. Only then can you spend the most time performing those creative tasks that lawyers get paid the most to do. To effectively delegate to individuals, lawyers must provide those individuals with their own software licenses.
The good news is that the cloud has brought down the price of software to such an extent that individual licenses are less costly than ever.
See what I did there: Don’t be cheap up-front, and you’ll make more in the long run. That’s a beautiful thing.
. . .
Liner Notes
Speaking of which . . .
‘The Long Run’ by the Eagles
This is my jam, actually.
R.I.P. Glenn Frey.
]]>Of course, it’s true. Data transfer, or migration, is costly; or, if the law firm endeavors to go it alone, it is time-consuming to transfer data using staff or attorneys, whose time is better spent (and more valuable) elsewhere.
So, don’t bother.
In many cases, the objection to data transfer is really a repudiation of the adoption of a new system, any new system. What law firm managers are truly worried about is the productivity downturn that all new systems cause in the near-term. And, that relates to another major concern: that all staff, and all attorneys, won’t ‘buy-in’ to the new system. For relationship databases to work effectively, all attorneys and all employees have to commit to entering and managing data through it; when they don’t, the whole endeavor falls downs. In many ways, it’s easier to maintain your old system — because, even though it’s busted, everyone is comfortable with it.
So, keep it.
There is a way to avoid the data transfer question, and stop short of burning the binkies, like so many velveteen rabbits. The trick is to maintain your old system and to install the new system simultaneously. First, you’ll have to settle on the new system you want to use (it helps if you allow the members and employees of the law firm to have a hand in making that choice — since they’re more likely to ‘buy-in’ at that point), and install it. Next, you determine a date from which all new matters or events (or whatever items that system will manage) will be added to the new system, rather than the old system. From that moment on, any new items drop into the new system, and you’re only using your old system to access historical, or archived, data. Eventually, you’ll stop using your old system altogether, as it will naturally age out. Your old system becomes your ‘legacy system’ . . . until it becomes a relic.
No data migration. No fuss, no muss.
In most cases, those traditional objections to data migration are red herrings. They are excuses that law firms use to avoid the implementation of new systems. Remove the impediment, to find out whether your objection is truly about the installation of a new system, or merely a trick of the mind to sidestep necessary change management.
You know when people say ‘your past is holding you back’? This is literally the case in this hypothetical.
Don’t hold yourself hostage to antiquated, failing systems, because you’re afraid to move into new ones.
. . .
Liner Notes
This is a good time to talk about legacy, I suppose, because Tom Brady just brought his crashing down upon the Atlanta Falcons’ Super Bowl dreams.
Too soon? Nah.
]]>Of course, usability is a two-way street. Software vendors have to build and update truly useful platforms for law firms; but, law firms must also engage those platforms effectively. Lawyers must decide to put the effort in to make the most of their use of software. In the end, software requires data and direction. Users must submit relevant information, and perform, or set in motion, certain functionality. The typical lawyer’s dream, of a zero-effort installation, where the new software works just like the old software — right away, avoiding any initial productivity dip — is a fantasy.
In sum, if you don’t want to pay for licenses you’re not using, or if you want to use more than 5% of a program’s functionality, it is incumbent upon lawyers and staff to understand the software they’re attached to, at a more than superficial level.
The following represents a three-point strategery check, to help you figure out whether you’re getting the most out of your software.
Sherpas in the Low Altitudes. Gladys Knight had the Pips. Harold Melvin had the Blue Notes. Ringo has his All-Starr Band. Who you got? Lawyers have traditionally leaned on often-younger, presumably more tech-savvy staff to act as in-house troubleshooters respecting the use of software programs. If there is a candidate in your law firm, it can be tremendously helpful to have a resident ‘technology expert’; and, if that expert exists mostly to support one program, and if it is a high-use program, like an accounting software or a case management system, then that’s probably all right. Finding someone on your staff who can perform this role can lighten the load on your IT staff (if you have one), will likely reduce your out-of-pocket support costs and can reduce the time you waste developing unnecessary workarounds.
Yeti in the High Altitudes. Law firms have often applied the above-referenced formula to graft technology expertise onto an existing staffing infrastructure. Far too often, however, such a scheme becomes a crutch, allowing attorneys a ready excuse to avoid learning about, and coming to a deeper understanding of, the software they regularly use. Total reliance on staff, however, is a bad decision at a number of levels. For one, it decreases your personal efficiency; and, for another, it places you at the mercy of a particular staffperson. If you have ‘one person who knows how to use the software’, what happens if they want to leave, or if they want a raise? Also, given new ethics requirements respecting technology competence for lawyers, it could be argued that a totally hands-off approach contravenes, at least the spirit, of those rules, as well as existing rules concerning the supervision of staff.
Knowing When to Call for Help. Just as there is no perfect software, there is no perfect software user. Unless you’re the law office equivalent of Bo Jackson in ‘Tecmo Super Bowl’, you’ll need a hand every now and then. So, you want to be careful to pick a software program that features a robust knowledgebase and support structure, potentially including a paid support component. Plans will differ for various providers; so, you should ask, and the select the option that works best for you. If you can’t figure it out, and the support desk can’t help, it may be time to consider a consultant.
. . .
Liner Notes
My understanding is that this would have been the perfect song, if it wasn’t just a tribute.
‘Tribute’ by Tenacious D
]]>The below review is written by Nerino Petro, CIO at Holmstrom Kennedy PC, and a former practice management consultant for the state bar of Wisconsin.
. . .
Here’s a wakeup call for lawyers — you DO need to know about information technology! As more and more states adopt the American Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20 recommendations requiring lawyers and firms to understand the technology used in their offices, lawyers and their staff need to have at least a basic understanding of how to secure their digital information and computer systems. To that end, you need to buy and read ‘Locked Down: Practical Information Security for Lawyers’.
The authors have created a terrific resource that covers all aspects of law office digital security in a well-organized and detailed book. To meet your ethical obligations and educate yourself about the dangers facing your practice and the steps you need to take to protect yourself, you need to have a basic understanding of the fundamentals of information security and how those affect you and the technology you use. If you want to acquire that understanding: This. Is. The. Book. To. Own.
You can read the book from start to finish, or you can start with the first several chapters, and jump around thereafter. Since it is organized into clearly-titled, standalone chapters, this book can serve as a go-to resource for you and your law firm staff. It’s full of practical examples, resources for accessing additional information and sample policies for small firms that can be easily adapted for your practice. This is the best resource I’ve found to get you and your staff up to speed on protecting your digital assets.
You can buy the paper book or ebook here, direct from the ABA.
]]>