Last year was incredibly busy for me, first with writing The Reluctant Rainmaker and then with designing programs like the Lawyers Business Development Bootcamp, plus working with many 1-on-1 clients. It was a great year, but toward the fall I started to notice that I’ve met very few of my clients and newsletter readers in person over the last year. That has to change. And so, as I’ve been hinting, I’ve been laying plans for something new.

While it would be great fun to meet you in a social setting, I know we’re often too busy to set aside time just to chat. So, I created a 1-day workshop that I’m calling Effective Business Development Made Simple. In this highly interactive program, you’ll learn my 7-step Legal Rainmaker System, which will show you the steps you need to take to bring in the new business you need, and you’ll work on creating your own plans so you’ll have a roadmap to take back to the office with you. And then we’ll close the day with good conversation and refreshments at a reception. Presto – an opportunity to learn something that has the power to transform your practice, plus an opportunity to meet!

And, I’ve heard those of you who’ve been telling me that this economy has put a crimp in your budget: the workshop will be priced under $100 for the entire day!

Finally, I realize that it would be difficult for many of you to travel all the way to my Atlanta home base. That means it’s time for one of my favorite activities… A road trip! Effective Business Development Made Simple will be coming to TEN cities across the country. Here’s the list:

• Atlanta
• Boston
• Chicago
• Dallas
• DC
• Ft. Lauderdale
• Los Angeles
• New York City
• Philadelphia
• Seattle

I’m excited beyond belief at the prospect of meeting many of you and sharing the step-by-step process that will make your rainmaking efforts simple and highly effective! I’ll be announcing all of the details, including dates and exact locations, next week… So keep your eyes open.

Please join me on Wednesday, November 11 at 12:30 PM ET for a complimentary teleclass, “Business Development Made Simple.”

Do you have all the business you want?  During “Business Development Made Simple” I’ll share my rainmaking system, including:

• How to make the most of your networking (with action items you can implement during the upcoming holiday season)… Even if you dread traditional networking
• What it takes to get business from social acquaintances and friends (with no fear of damaging the relationship)
• Why you must stay in front of your potential clients and referral sources (and how to do it in a simple way, without being a pest)
• How to set up systems that will keep your efforts moving forward – even while you’re working elsewhere

In less than an hour, you’ll get an overview of a simple and effective rainmaker system that you can put in place beginning today.

Click here to register for the November 11 teleconference (12:30 PM ET. 11:30 AM CT, 10:30 AM MT, 9:30 AM PT).

Can’t be on the line?  Click here to register anyway, and you’ll receive an MP3 recording of the call that you can listen to at your convenience.  Only those who register will receive the recording.

This month’s ABA Journal cover story traces Mark Levy’s career, ending with his suicide in his office.  Friends and colleagues remember Levy as a true professional who had little use for the business of law.  The article suggests that Levy lacked the ability to bring in business and that he was never able to match his legal successes with financial ones. 

I still don’t know quite what to say about this story, but it seems to me that the profession needs to pay attention.  It’s a tragedy.  I believe that suicide is never the answer, and I have deep compassion for those who feel that it’s the only answer. I’ve written previously about depression and suicide prevention among lawyers.  It seems clear to me that the pressures of the current economy and layoffs contribute to an even higher level of stress and unhappiness, and perhaps — though I’m not a mental health professional — leading to more depression. 

Every state has a Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP) that works to help lawyers who are depressed or dealing with substance abuse.  A sidebar to the ABA Journal cover article recounts the increase that LAP programs have seen in recent months.  According to the article, the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs maintains a referral hotline for lawyers in crisis: 1-866-LAW-LAPS.

Washington and Lee University School of Law has thrown out its traditional third-year curriculum and replaced it with a series of legal simulations meant to prepare students to practice law in the real world.

First-year students at Duke Law School and the new University of California, Irvine School of Law will take a yearlong course examining different legal careers and the ethical and professional issues associated with those career tracks.

A new LL.M. program at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law is designed to give recent law school graduates the skills their predecessors would have developed as starting law firm associates.

The movement to incorporate practical skills into legal education isn’t new, but legal educators and researchers report that the floundering economy is increasing incentives for law schools to revamp their curricula to prepare students for the realities of the legal profession.

Read the rest of the article here.

I wish programs like this had been available when I went to law school.  I’ll never forget the gut-clenching fear that hit when I realized that although I could recite the standard for granting summary judgment in my sleep, I had no idea how exactly to transform the stack of evidence into a brief that would satisfy the standard.

Even more, though, I’d wish for a class on the business of law.  How do law firms operate?  How does a lawyer get new clients?  What should I know about business to better understand the pressures my clients might face, not to mention those that the firm might experience?  And what exactly does “good client service” mean beyond doing the substantive legal work well?  Although I had wonderful mentors, learning the answers to those (and many other questions) was more difficult and more delayed than necessary.  Perhaps some of today’s students will fare better.

I’m curious, readers: if you could go back to law school and add in one class, what would it be?

Of course, large firms tend to recruit primarily from top law schools, and the authors address the implications of their findings on future hiring opportunities, suggesting that large firms hire more graduates of non-elite schools, improve working conditions, and cut associate pay.  The authors’ conclusion:

[I]f large firms respond to the economic crisis by substantially reducing starting salaries, they will be able to more quickly right themselves financially, hire graduates willing to work for less pay, and perhaps even take a little pressure off partners who face the constant pressure of finding work for associates. If firms lower pay but keep the same misery and engineered attrition for associates, they will get a short-term profit boost. But if lower pay also means a better lifestyle, more instruction and responsibility, and better evaluation, firms can lay the groundwork for success well beyond the end of the current recession.

The full article is worth reading.  Personally, I’m skeptical about seeing sweeping changes along the lines proposed… But I’ll be curious to see whether some aspects (such as further cuts in associate pay in exchange for an “improved” lifestyle for associates) may be implemented.  While the authors have a point that “[t]he general restructuring that takes place in a changing economic landscape creates room for organizational innovation,” large firms’ response to the recent economic challenges (and the fracture lines that culminated in the business crash) suggests that organizational innovation is not necessarily the strong point for the bulk of firms in this category.

So I smiled today when I read this article from Hank Grezlak, Editor-in-Chief of The Legal Intelligencer.  It starts with this:

The pessimists are pissing me off. Look, I’m not delusional. I know things are tough. The Dow dipped below 8,000 for the first time in five years the other day, the automobile industry is begging for a government bailout and everywhere you turn there’s another analyst or corporate suit talking about how bad the economy is and how they have no idea when the bad news is going to stop.

But I’m sick of the doomsayers. Most didn’t predict this mess, most don’t understand this mess and most have no clue how to get us out of it. So they might as well shut up. I mean, seriously, if you can’t explain what’s going on, then what good are all those MBAs?

…

I’m not suggesting we should all chant “the fundamentals of the economy are sound” and pretend that everything is sunny. But there’s a difference between understanding that bad things happen and times are tough and believing that nothing will ever get better. Greatness is rarely the result of a pessimistic view.

Times are tough. But if we’re going to get out of this, what’s needed is optimism, ingenuity, hard work, boldness and rethinking certain attitudes and focusing on long-term solutions. One of my late father’s favorite movies was Clint Eastwood’s “Heartbreak Ridge.” In it, Eastwood had a great mantra to describe the ideal mindset for Marines encountering adversity: “Improvise, adapt, overcome!” Words to live by in times like these. 

Grezlak includes some specific suggestions for law firms and identifies areas of opportunity that are developing.   His article is well worth a read.

Last week, the ABA Journal reported on Judge Kimba Wood’s Order denying (in part) the firm’s motion for summary judgment and permitting the case to proceed to trial.  A New York Law Journal article reports the fact in more detail than the ABA Journal’s summary:

The judge said remarks by Cohen Pontani managing partner Martin B. Pavane that Collins was insufficiently “sweet” in dealing with a paralegal “could be construed as reflecting discriminatory animus.”

“A reasonable jury could find that Pavane’s statement indicates that (1) he holds stereotypes that women should be ’sweet’ and non-aggressive, and (2) that Pavane believed that Plaintiff did not fit this stereotype,” Wood wrote in Collins v. Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane, 04 Civ. 8983.

Collins joined 30-lawyer Cohen Pontani as a litigation associate in 1997. . . . 

According to her November 2004 complaint, Collins was told in 1999 that she would never be promoted to partner, despite positive reviews, because the partners, all of whom were then men, were “uncomfortable” with her. The firm’s Web site currently lists two female partners.

Collins claims she was thereafter passed over for work assignments that were instead given to male associates. This allegedly led to her having low billable hours, which the firm then cited in denying her salary increases.

On Sept. 16, 2003, Collins sent an e-mail to Cohen Pontani partners citing an article about the potential benefits of having women serve as lead counsel in patent litigation. She said Cohen Pontani was “behind the times” because women lawyers at the firm were not being given positions of responsibility.

She was terminated on Sept. 18, 2003. The firm claims it fired Collins that day because she sent a series of “insulting and unprofessional” e-mails to lawyers and paralegals distinct from her Sept. 16 message. According to Cohen Pontani, Collins had a history of clashing with other lawyers and staff and the Sept. 18 e-mails were the “last straw.”

While the suit itself is interesting, the ABA Journal report produced comments that are fascinating.  Many of the comments are brief, concluding that the firm did discriminate against Collins or that a woman who is criticized for being insufficiently “sweet” is no worse off than a man who is criticized for being insufficiently “masculine.”  A few of the comments purport to share stories from women lawyers who were faced similar situations and yet made partner at their firms.  One woman reports being the only woman left from her class by her 5th year of practice and realizing that more junior male associates received preferential treatment:

Later, of course, when I realized what was going on and that the partners weren’t going to lift a finger to help me – and in fact, said that the reason for the problem must be that I wasn’t “nice” – I did get angry. Then, I admit, I wasn’t “sweet”; I came to the conclusion that I could get my job done, or I could have all the staff think I was “nice”, and since their behavior was unfair, I was not so worried about them liking me so I’d get my job done. Nonetheless, this is an impossible position to be in. At one point, our head of secretarial services, the person who was responsible for instructing the staff on what their jobs were and how to do it, explained to me that she fully sympathized with staff who didn’t want to work for women, because after all, they shouldn’t have to do menial work for women. I repeated this to the supervising partner; he thought it was funny . . . .

While it’s easy to line up (largely anonymously) either for or against Collins on the basis of only a small amount of information about the case and the evidence, the comments — and the amount of time the responders took to share their comments — are striking.  I’m inclined to agree with the several commentors who suggested that the case will likely settle and so we’ll learn nothing more, but the conversation is, nonethless, fascinating.

I’ve worked with assistants (plural!) who’ve told me flat out they prefer not to work for women, and I’ve seen a number of women succeed in law firms (of various sizes) apparently without facing substantial gender-based issues.  Anyone care to comment here?

You’ll notice a few differences now: if you don’t yet subscribe to my weekly email newsletter Leadership Matters for Lawyers, you can do so simply by filling out the sign-up form at the top of the middle column.  And if you’re wondering what LML is, you can click on the “View the LML Archives” box to see back issues.  In addition, you can get blog posts delivered directly to you either by using the RSS feed (click the orange button at the top of the far right column) or by signing up to receive posts by email in the subscription box in the middle column.  As always, you have my personal guarantee that I won’t use your email for any other purpose (no spam!) and I won’t provide your information to anyone else for any reason.

We’re still updating a few things, such as bringing back the Blogroll, so you’ll notice changes here and there.  If you see anything that bugs you, or if there’s something you’d like to see, please leave a comment to let me know, or you can email me directly if you’d prefer. 

Thanks for visiting!

 A snippet from the article:

Over the last few years and, most strikingly, the last few months, law firms have been forced to rethink longstanding ways of doing business, if they are to remain fully competitive.

As chronicled by my colleague Alex Williams in the Sunday Styles section earlier this month, lawyers are overworked, depressed and leaving.

Less obvious, but potentially more dramatic, are the signs that their firms are finally becoming serious about slowing the stampede for the door. So far the change — which includes taking fresh looks at the billable hour, schedules and partnership tracks — is mostly at the smaller firms. But even some of the larger, more hidebound employers are taking notice.

It includes a quick recap of Deborah Epstein Henry’s FACTS proposal, which suggests that:

work time can be: Fixed (allowing lawyers to choose less high-profile work for more predictable schedules), or Annualized (intense bursts of high-adrenaline work followed by relative lulls); Core (with blocks mapped out for work and for commitments like meeting children at the bus); Targeted (an agreed-upon goal of hours, set annually, customized for each worker, with compensation adjusted accordingly); and Shared (exactly as it sounds).

And sure enough, some firms seem to be listening.

“There have always been, and inevitably will be, a certain number of bullies, braggarts, brutes and bigots who manage to insinuate themselves into any assemblage of humans, the legal profession not excluded. In the past, these misfits have been dealt with by peer pressure and sanctions; however, as the rude, degrading behaviors creep ever closer to becoming a norm, there is cause to ring the warning bell.”

— Bruce Campbell, Counsel Columbus, Ohio, Bar Association

The latest issue of The Complete Lawyer has been released, with a focus on “No Jerks Allowed!”  The quote above (lifted from this issue) illuminates the theme: too many law firms and legal departments include at least one jerk, and we (as individuals and as a profession) must find a way to deal with those jerks.  I’m delighted to have an article included in this issue (more about it below), and I find myself in august company.

Here are some of the featured articles:

Robert Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule (recognized as one of the best business books of 2007 and a must-read for lawyers) and the terrific Work Matters blog, writes on Power Breeds Nastiness.  Remember the observation, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” made by Lord Acton in the late 1800s?  There’s merit to it, and Bob’s article (edited and updated from his book) explains more.   

 Victoria Pynchon, author of the fabulous Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, provides a breathtakingly transparent article titled Why Lawyers Are Unhappy… And Make Others Unhappy, Too.  It’s about why and how nice people (especially litigators) can become jerks, and how to identify a path out of the unhappiness that underlies nasty behavior.  This is a personal article, and I so respect the honesty in it as well as the insight that points to the way out.

 Gary Namie, co-author of The Bully At Work explains how to Create a Blueprint for a “Bullying-Free” Workplace.  This article draws the distinction between jerks who perpetuate incivility and bullies who “maliciously destroy people and organizations” and lays out a 4-step plan to correct and prevent bullying at work.

 “Recovering defense attorney” Allison West promises, Yes, There Are Ways To Reform Workplace Jerks through sensitivity training that’s designed to “give jerks direct feedback about their conduct, highlight the impact of their behavior on the workplace and provide tools to fix the problematic attitude and behavior. After that, it is all up to the jerk.”

         Garry Mathiason and Olga Savage of Littler Mendelson help to establish some bright lines about behavior in Defining And Legislating Bullying.  The article begins with a vignette of a rainmaker who defended the harsh comments made to two associates: “I sometimes raise my voice,” the rainmaker says. “If the associates can’t handle that, how will they ever hope to hold their own in litigation?”  Mathiason and Savage’s articles helps to clarify the continuum between acceptable behavior, abrasive behavior, and bullying and to propose some solutions when the behavior falls on the wrong end of that spectrum.

My article is titled How To Spot And Deal With Jerks: Learn when and how to confront, disengage, and manage the jerks in your life.  One aspect of coaching for lawyers involves workplace communications, including deadling with the jerks in practice.  Many of my clients have encountered these jerks (as have I), and I’ve recounted a few of the more flagrant stories — all true, though edited to protect confidentiality. 

The crux of the article is this:

Know What Kind Of Jerk You’re Dealing With And Choose The Best Strategy In Response

The first step is to notice when someone’s behavior leaves you feeling bad and then to identify the kind of jerk you’re facing.

The practice of law is often stressful, and even perfectly nice people may, on occasion, be rude under stress. Generally, though, nice people are aware of their bad behavior and apologize at least indirectly. These people may be situational jerks whose behavior unintentionally causes discomfort and pain. Dealing with such thoughtlessness is often relatively simple because situational jerks typically don’t mean to be jerks and may not realize the harmful effects of their actions.

Habitual jerks are more damaging. These people commonly yell, use sarcasm or mean-spirited teasing, engage in personal insults, or otherwise act in a demeaning or disparaging manner. Habitual jerks may strike out at any time. They don’t apologize, and they don’t notice or acknowledge the pain they inflict because they simply don’t care. Dealing with habitual jerks is difficult. Because of the habitual jerk’s disregard for others, the victim has fewer resources to call on to try to end the damaging behavior.

One of the following two options usually works best when dealing with a jerk:  confrontation or disengagement. Regardless of the response you select, you must manage the stress that results from the jerk’s nastiness.

This issue of The Complete Lawyer also includes articles on business development and marketing, career management and planning, and work/life integration.  It’s great reading.

Have you completed the 2007 Life at the Bar survey?  Your feedback is critical in helping me to offer up blog posts and articles that meet your needs.  When you complete the survey, your name will be entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card and you’ll receive a complimentary subscription to the twice-monthly “Leadership Matters for Lawyers” email newsletter, which will begin publication on January 15.  Each issue of “Leadership Matters for Lawyers” will include a feature article on leadership development, a relevant book review, summaries of recent posts on the Life at the Bar blog, and information about upcoming programs and presentations. 

Please complete the survey today!  Click here or copy this link into your browser: http://www.lifeatthebar.com/Menu2007Survey.htm

�