5 Ways Legal Billing Software Increases Law Firm Revenue

In any business, keeping an eye on the bottom line is essential. For law firms, this can be a challenge, as there are many ways that money can be lost throughout a case. From inefficient time-tracking to inaccurate billing, there are many potential pitfalls. However, there is one solution that can help to increase law firm revenue: legal billing software. Choosing the right legal billing software is essential for maximizing its benefits. Consider time-tracking, billing accuracy, and customer service when evaluating different packages. Take a look at solutions built specifically for the legal industry to get the most out of your investment.

3 Common Ways Law Firms Lose Money

Time Tracking Issues

Many lawyers still rely on manual methods of tracking time by using spreadsheets or notepads. This antiquated approach to timekeeping is fraught with problems, including the potential for lost billable time and revenue, vulnerability to billing disputes, and high administrative costs.

With spreadsheet or notepad timekeeping, it is easy for lawyers to forget to record their time or lose track of their records, leading to lost billable hours and ultimately lost revenue for the firm. Manual timekeeping doubles the work since someone must manually enter all data into the system.

Manually keeping track of time leaves attorneys vulnerable to billing disputes. If a client questions a lawyer’s billing records, it can be difficult for the attorney to prove that the charges are accurate without detailed and meticulous records.

Invoicing Frequency

When it comes to law firm revenue, timely billing is everything. The longer you wait to send a bill, the longer you wait to get paid. Clients can’t pay a bill they haven’t received.

Not billing promptly sends the message to your client that prompt payment is not that important to you. Sending your invoices at the end of each month helps to avoid confusion or miscommunication and ensures that you and your clients are on the same page.

Billing Bottlenecks

Getting paid by clients is a significant problem for 61% of small law firms, according to 2019 research conducted by Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute. Law firms that don’t provide clients with various payment options, like online payments and accepting credit card payments, are more vulnerable to decreased law firm revenue due to not getting paid on time.

What is Legal Billing Software?

Legal billing software is downloadable or cloud-based that helps lawyers accurately track their time and invoice their clients. A robust software, like Bill4Time, will have the capability to track time, LEDES billing format, create custom invoices, accept online payments, and meet state bar regulations for billing. Law firms use dedicated legal billing software to improve their bottom line by improving invoicing processes and reducing inaccurate time management and billing bottlenecks.

What Billing Software do Law Firms Use?

Lawyers are always looking for ways to be more efficient and maximize their billable hours, so they prioritize cloud-based software solutions that have integrated time tracking, easy invoice options, and a client portal for online payments.

Law firms need industry-specific features like trust & IOLTA accounting which allows lawyers to reconcile trust accounts without a secondary application. They also look for software that provides LEDES billing, the most widely used e-billing standard for law firms invoicing corporate clients.

Why Does My Law Firm Need Legal Billing Software?

As a law firm, you know that time is money. Every minute spent on administrative tasks is a minute that could be spent on billable hours.

Automate the billing process

You, and your team, enter matter information as time-tracked once, and the software will take care of the rest, generating invoices and sending them out to clients on your behalf.

Manage your cash flow

You will always have a clear record of what has been billed and remains outstanding. You can responsibly allocate your resources to maximize your profits.

Track payments and expenses

Having this information organized and readily available can save you a great deal of time and hassle when it comes time to file taxes or apply for loans or lines of credit.

Billing automation will save you and your team considerable time each month, which can be spent growing your business.

How to Identify the Best Legal Billing Software

When choosing legal billing software, there are a few key factors to keep in mind.

Choosing a program compatible with your firm’s existing tech stack, including your law practice management software, is critical to success. Consider the cost, ease of use, and customer support options. Mobile access is also crucial for lawyers who can access their files on any device — iPhone, iPad, or Android.

And finally, security is always a top priority when it comes to sensitive legal information. Look for software that has industry-standard security protocols in place to protect your data.

By keeping these factors in mind, you’ll choose the best legal billing software for your needs.

Best Practices for Implementing a Legal Billing Software

There are many different types of legal billing software on the market, and it can be challenging to decide which one is right for your law firm.

When choosing new software for your law firm, there are a few important factors to remember:

  • You must ensure that the software is compatible with your existing legal practice management software.

  • Be sure to clearly understand your law firm’s billing policies before setting up the software to ensure everything is billed correctly.

  • The software should be easy to use, but you still need to take time to train your staff on how to use the new software.

  • You want a responsive and helpful company when you run into problems. If you run into issues, you can contact the support team.

A little upfront investment will pay off in the long run by preventing billing mistakes and increasing efficiency. Following these simple tips, you can set your law firm up for success with legal billing software.

Increase Law Firm Revenue with Legal Billing Software

Ultimately, you can improve your firm’s bottom line and the client experience by investing in legal billing software. Here are five ways a legal billing software can help you achieve success:

1 ) Accurate Time Tracking

Time entry and expense tracking are crucial for any organization looking to boost productivity and improve profitability. Yet many organizations struggle with manually tracking time and expenses, leading to inaccuracies and lost data. The software makes tracking time and expenses by the user, client, or project easy.

Move beyond the notepad, and start tracking your time with a cloud-based software solution.

Whether on the go or at the office, easy time entry makes it simple to run timers simultaneously, record multiple time entries on one screen, and automatically convert appointments into time entries. You’ll always know your organization’s productivity and financial status with daily and weekly time summaries.

2 ) Automated Billing

Automated billing and online payments can make it easier for clients to pay their invoices, resulting in quicker payment turnaround times. Clients tend to delay payment if they don’t understand the invoice. Prevent this from happening by providing detailed and informative invoices.

With legal billing software, you can set up invoice templates with custom settings such as your billing policy and payment links to pay online —  you can even perform batch invoice creation to save administrative time.

You can even extend your brand while increasing workflow efficiencies by personalizing and creating branded invoices with your logo.

3 ) Online Payments

Online payments are becoming increasingly popular, and customers expect businesses to offer this option. You may even miss out on potential customers if you don’t offer online payments.

Online payments allow firms to quickly and easily receive payments from clients. This can be done via credit card, debit card, or even PayPal. In addition, online payments are more secure than traditional methods, such as mailing a check.

4 ) Custom Reporting

Real-time data is essential for any growing business and managing cash flow. You’ll want a solution with comprehensive reporting to manage your firm’s financial performance better and identify trends to ensure success—review payment history, balance due, collections, expenses, productivity, and summary reports.

Legal billing software should be able to run user activity reports, so you can get detailed insights into how your team works, including efficiency, expense, schedule, and internal tracked time.  This data can help you identify areas of improvement so your team can work smarter, not harder.

5 ) Enhanced Client Experience

Client portals are a great way to provide your clients with more information and control over their billing. Empower your clients to log in, view their account balances, make payments, and see a detailed fee history.

Grow Your Law Firm Revenue with Legal Billing Software

The legal industry is one of the most competitive and rapidly-changing fields. To succeed, law firms must be cutting edge in all aspects of their business – including billing. With so much at stake, it’s no wonder that more and more law firms are turning to legal billing software to help them stay ahead of the competition.

This article was authored by Dan Bowman of Bill4Time.

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2006-2022, BILL4TIME. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

How to Practice Law in a Different State

There are plenty of benefits to being a multi-state lawyer.  Besides the most obvious advantage which is expanding your client base, it can also be practical when you live near a border between two different states. So, if you find yourself asking how to practice law in multiple states, you’re certainly not the first.  

In this article, we’ll detail how to become a multijurisdictional lawyer as well as some of the perks and drawbacks involved.

The Benefits of Practicing Law in Two or More States

Greater Client Base

It’s understandably appealing to be able to take on clients in different states.  It’s economically advantageous to generate more business in multiple locations.  Not to mention one state may have more demand for a certain practice area than another which can be practical for tapping into your niche market.

Furthermore, you may have clients that need representation in different states who don’t want to have to hire multiple lawyers.  Being able to offer all-in-one legal services can give you an edge over the competition. Of course, it goes without saying that you’ll need to allocate a bigger law firm marketing budget to market in not just one but multiple states. Or, just be more savvy with marketing strategies, such as familiarizing yourself with email marketing for law firms.

Greater Flexibility

Life events can spring up suddenly, forcing lawyers to relocate to a different state. Some states may only offer bar exams as little as twice a year, and as such, it can cause a significant delay before being able to accept clients. For many lawyers, anticipating the possibility of relocation without the worry of having to lose a second of work is an important advantage. So, ensuring they can practice anywhere is a nice added security to their business.

Ethical Responsibilities of Practicing Law In Multiple States

As more and more lawyers are working remotely since the onset of COVID, many are  accepting clients in other states.  Unfortunately, in many cases, these lawyers are violating the rules.

Rule 5.5 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that lawyers may not practice in jurisdictions where they are not admitted. The consequences of violating these rules can range from a fine to disbarment depending on the gravity of the violation.   That being said, there are some exceptions to this rule.

For example, a licensed attorney may provide legal services temporarily in a different jurisdiction as long as they are associated with a lawyer who is admitted in that state.

How to Practice Law In Multiple States

Check For States That Offer Reciprocity

Some states offer reciprocity if you meet certain conditions.  Usually, these conditions depend on the amount of time you’ve been practicing and they may consider you eligible to practice in their state depending on the state bar that you’ve already passed.

It’s important to note, however, that you should never assume that just because a state offers reciprocity, you’ll be qualified.  It’s always important to contact the reciprocity state bar to ensure you are up to date with the latest policies otherwise you could risk serious disciplinary consequences.

Take the Uniform Bar

You might need to brush up on your legal education to retake the Uniform Bar Exam. The  Uniform Bar exam, also known as UBE, is a version of the bar exam that lets you practice between states with greater ease.  It’s important to note, however, that each state has its own bar admission requirements for the examination, and the passing score may vary by state. So, although it can be a solution in some scenarios, it’s not a sure thing. This is certainly more convenient than taking New York State, North Carolina, or any other state’s bar exam each time.

Take The Bar Exam For The States You Want to Work In

The most practical way to practice in another state is to pass the bar for that state.  However, there are significant costs and challenges involved which may not be ideal for everyone, and taking the UBE or opting for a state that offers reciprocity is much more common.

Take on Federal Court Cases

In theory, if you’re allowed to practice law in any state then you should be able to do so out of state. Yet, there is still some debate around this topic, and it’s still possible to find yourself in hot water with the state bar if you take this route.

Is Getting Licensed in Multiple States Right For You?

In the big picture, it’s much more convenient to practice in one jurisdiction for your entire career.  Yet, lawyers looking to take their practice to the next level may choose to pursue the route of becoming a multi-state lawyer despite the challenges.

The good news is that thanks to advancements like the UBE and reciprocity laws (as well as advancements in law firm technology), practicing law in another state is much easier than it was 20 years ago.  Deciding whether to get licensed in multiple states will come down to your unique circumstances and above all, how much time you have on your hands.

Getting licensed out of state requires a time commitment and administrative pile-up that may be difficult depending on your firm’s current workload.  Putting in the work it takes to acquire additional state licenses will be much easier if your practice is streamlined with the help of modern legal technology like a CRM and client intake software.  Not only can you access your firm from wherever you are thanks to cloud technology, but automation can help you stay on top of your most important tasks, and put your firm on autopilot while you’re focusing on passing the bar in another state.


FOOTNOTES

Shari Davison,  Reciprocity: What States Can You Practice Law?
https://www.onbalancesearch.com/reciprocity-what-states-can-you-practice-law/

Richard J. Rosensweig, Unauthorized Practice of Law: Rule 5.5 in the Age of COVID-19 and Beyond August 12, 2020
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/ethics-professionalism/articles/2020/unauthorized-practice-of-law-rule-55-in-the-age-of-covid-19-and-beyond/

©2022 — Lawmatics

Law Firm Specialization: Why It Matters

While in theory, the idea of casting a wider net may lead you to believe that you’ll catch more fish, the truth is it doesn’t always apply to business. When it comes to catching customers, the more you appeal to one specific kind of customer, the higher your success rate, and the more qualified you’ll be at what you do. Practicing law is no exception. In today’s age, more and more law firms are starting to recognize legal specialization as a necessity for tapping into their target market. Not only does it benefit clients, but it also benefits legal professionals. 

Benefits for Lawyers

Better Client Relationships

When you specialize in an area of law, you intimately know your niche, whether that be corporate law, health law, criminal law, environmental law, or international law.  As such, you can provide the best possible representation to your clients and better pinpoint solutions to their problems as a certified specialist. Exclusively specializing also means that you are well informed of all of the latest updates, news, legal issues, strategies, and changes in that area of law. When compared to having a general understanding of the law, this is a tremendous benefit to your clients since you offer tailored legal guidance unique to their circumstances. A law practice that has handled hundreds of cases similar to their clients’ can anticipate and navigate the nuances of such a case on a much deeper level than someone who doesn’t have the same kind of experience under their belt.

Less Competition

As an expert in a very specific area of law, you effectively position yourself as the easy choice to opt for you over a competing attorney with a more generalized approach. In essence, your competitor pool shrinks significantly. General practice attorneys with a wide breadth of practice areas are going to be competing with every other such law office within a ten-mile (or more) radius. Yet, if your law practice specializes in boat accident cases, you’re likely one of few options, if any, in your respective region, thereby lowering your marketing costs, and potentially increasing client acquisition volume for this legal specialization. Assuming your reputation is top notch, the more specific you can be about your legal services, the more challenging it is for competitors to keep up with you.

Improved Visibility

Law firms that choose to specialize don’t just stand out, but are often featured in publications related to their practice area. The more you can partner with local businesses that are related to or adjacent to your area of expertise, the greater your sphere of influence. For instance, if your practice focuses solely on estate planning for the highly wealthy, you’ll likely opt to leave business cards where the wealthy are bound to spend time, like country clubs, civic clubs or auctions. Get creative with candidates in your referral network; it’ll pay dividends over the lifetime of your business.

Greater Satisfaction

As the saying goes, “do something that you love and you’ll never work another day in your life.” When choosing what you want to specialize in, consider an area that speaks to you on an emotional and even philanthropic level. One of the benefits of choosing a niche is doing something that you truly enjoy day in and day out. Not only will you get a real sense of fulfillment on the best days of your profession but clients can easily sense when your practice area originated from a true passion of yours. Plus, it’s always more advantageous to be a big fish in a small pond as opposed to a small fish in a big one.

Increased Expertise

Expertise involves becoming a thought leader in your area of law. Naturally, mastery requires experience. Attorneys who bounce between different types of cases don’t have the same familiarity with the nuances and challenges as someone who handles the same type of legal representation every time. While it’s always a good idea to have legal malpractice insurance, specializing in one niche area of expertise may also lessen the chances of your law firm having to put it to use. When you are recognized as an expert in your specialization area, you don’t just attract more clients, but you also win more referrals through client trust.

Better Efficiency

Completing the same workflows and legal documents over and over again in quick succession equates to faster completion, since you know them inside and out. As such, specialized lawyers can master the administrative side of running their law firm in a fraction of the time.

In today’s legal climate, more and more legal professionals are turning to automation tools to streamline recurring processes such as client intake and billing. Time-consuming document generation, for instance, can now be done in a matter of seconds rather than hours thanks to automated workflows.

Greater Profitability

When your practice is specialized you’ll increase your value thanks to the power of referrals.  Concentrating on one type of case brings extra knowledge and experience to the table that clients yearn for, who will in turn refer you to their friends and family. Since 80% of a law firm’s business typically comes from referrals, the more targeted you are, the more your practice may benefit from word of mouth.

As a result of your greater understanding of the inner workings of certain cases, you’ll develop a strong reputation for getting clients the results they’re after, ultimately increasing your overall profitability. The more you can offer experience paired with efficiency, the more work you can take on, increasing your overall revenue.

Benefits for Clients

Improved Guidance

When a client seeks out a legal professional that is well versed and focused on their particular needs, they in return receive much better guidance for their specific context. Beyond the legal support that a specialist offers, also comes a deeper understanding of the emotional needs of their client. For more turbulent cases such as divorce cases or immigration, a specialized lawyer can be an enormous benefit to the mental well being of those they have trusted with their case.

Increased Network

Specialists have a wide network of other experts that they can use to the client’s advantage. Because they have a more comprehensive list of contacts to support their case, clients have greater access to leading experts who can provide adjacent services and even strengthen their case.

Better Success Rate

There’s a reason why general practitioners in the medical field typically don’t perform spinal surgery — because it requires unique skills. The same logic can be applied to law. Attorneys specializing in a particular field generally have a higher rate of winning cases in court or settling successfully. Specialized lawyers who see the same case types day in and day out can offer a much higher success rate based on experience and dedication. Those who hire specialized attorneys generally are more at ease knowing they’re in good hands when it comes to their legal proceedings.

When is a Good Time to Consider Specialization?

It can be unnerving to dive into specialization from a generalized legal focus, so it’s important that you read the room first. In order to ensure that whatever you choose to specialize in will deliver the kind of demand that you hope for, answer the following questions using the data at your disposal:

  • What trends are you seeing in the types of cases you currently manage?
  • What is your success rate in those cases?
  • How satisfied were the clients?
  • Which cases have been the most lucrative for you?

If you notice that you take on a considerable amount of one type of case that’s yielding happy clients, then it’s a good indication that it would make a great choice to specialize in. If you don’t feel like you have the experience or know-how to call yourself an authority on one particular niche yet, then allow yourself more time to grow.

Ultimately, there is no defining moment that is the same for every lawyer who chooses to specialize. It all comes down to how much knack and drive you have for one kind of legal resource.

How to Identify Your Specialization Niche

1. Create a Vision

Every achievement starts with a vision. Your vision will be the very foundation of your overall success, and how you are perceived as a brand. When creating your vision, take into account not only your skills but also what drives you. How do you see yourself representing your clients and what do you hope to achieve for them? Are you passionate about one type of law specifically, such as civil rights, intellectual property, or family law? What do you love about practicing law and why? Let these answers be your guiding light when forming a vision for how you hope to stand out.

2. Consider Your Experience

First and foremost, it’s ill-advised to choose a niche that you have no experience in. Choosing to specialize in something that you aren’t well versed in would not only be setting yourself up for failure, but it’s a risk to any potential clients who choose to come your way.

One of the greatest tools you have for narrowing down your choices is consulting with other more experienced lawyers and mentors. Ask them for their advice based on personal stories, recommendations, and experience-based guidance.

Talk to other lawyers that specialize in the area you’re considering and pick their brains. Be direct and ask the questions that matter most like:

  • What are the biggest challenges in this area of law?
  • What are the greatest rewards?
  • What is the success rate?
  • What are the long-term implications?

When you hear about the advantages that law firm specialization can offer, it may be tempting to jump in head first. Yet, it’s important to step back and assess all of your choices. Weigh out the pros and cons, and go back to your overall vision.

Rushing in too quickly can lead to prematurely pigeon-holing yourself into something that ultimately restricts you from your full potential and passions.

Pick a Specialization and Pursue it

There are many advantages to becoming a specialized legal professional. If you can manage to pick a niche and master it, you won’t just find yourself with less competition, but you’ll have a greater devotion to practicing law.

©2022 — Lawmatics

Episode 3: How Law Firms Can Benefit From CRM Technology With Chris Fritsch of CLIENTSFirst Consulting [PODCAST]

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 3 of Legal News Reach! NLR Managing Director Jennifer Schaller speaks with Chris Fritsch, Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting, about how law firms can thoughtfully and successfully integrate customer relationship management systems, or CRMs, into their daily operations—boosting contact management, business development, and client service in the process.

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

INTRO  00:02

Hello, and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for the National Law Review. Stay tuned for a discussion on the latest trends in legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices, and more.

Jennifer Schaller

Thank you for tuning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Jennifer Schaller, the Managing Director of the National Law Review. In this episode, I’ll be speaking with Chris Fritsch, who’s the CRM and Marketing Technology Success Consultant and Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting. She’s going to talk to us about CRM technology, specifically how it impacts law firms. Chris, would you like to introduce yourself?

Chris Fritsch

Happy to do so! I am Chris Fritsch, I’m actually a CRM Success Consultant. And no, that is not an oxymoron. For the last over 15 years, my team at CLIENTSFirst has helped hundreds of top firms succeed with CRM and related and integrated technology. I’m actually a little bit of a recovering attorney, which is sort of how I got into the industry. And it’s just been a great 15 years working together with top law firms.

Jennifer Schaller

What prompted you to start CLIENTSFirst Consulting?

Chris Fritsch

You know, that’s a good question. I actually worked at a CRM company years ago, and those companies are terrific at building and selling and installing and implementing software…not necessarily as great at being able to take the time to get to know each law firm to really understand the firm’s needs, the requirements, the culture in order to really help them succeed with the technology. So I saw that was a real opportunity to be able to help clients succeed. The company’s called CLIENTSFirst. And so we’re really focused on sharing information, ideas, best practices for success gained from years of experience doing this, and it has been a great 15 years of growth. And the most important part is we get to help clients.

Jennifer Schaller

So what are the main reasons that prompt law firms to implement CRM systems?

Chris Fritsch

CRM systems are about communication, coordination, and client service. And of course, business development. Law firms of all types and sizes really are focused on those areas. So I think that’s why CRM has been such an important piece of technology over the years.

Jennifer Schaller

What are the most common uses of CRMs in law firms?

Chris Fritsch

Use in most firms starts with contact management and list and event management. Those are some of the fundamental capabilities that CRM systems provide. You know, in law firms we write, we speak, we do events and webinars and seminars. That’s a really big need, and CRM fills that need very, very well. These are things that are maybe not exciting, but essential. So that’s creating a centralized repository of information that can be clean and correct and easily updated. That’s usually where firms start. Being able to have marketing build and manage the list to be able to get all the events done and managed, to be able to allow the attorneys or assistants to update lists, and just basically making sure that clients and prospects and other contacts are getting the information that the attorneys and the law firm need to put out there. You know, because as attorneys, if we can’t share information about our experience and our expertise and changes in the law and capabilities, then it makes it really challenging to develop business. And so that’s where CRMs start, but what we’re seeing more recently is a focus on more advanced business development features. Business development has taken a little bit longer in legal than in some other professional services, but I think we’re getting there. So we’re seeing a lot more emphasis on those tools right now. A lot of people right now are actually switching CRM systems because they want to get some more of these advanced business development features.

Jennifer Schaller

What are some of the features law firms should be implementing but that aren’t being utilized enough, in your opinion? Or does that kind of piggyback on business development stuff?

Chris Fritsch

Yeah, that’s a big piece of it. The big thing is activity tracking. That’s one of those things that everybody agrees, it would be incredibly valuable to know who’s taking who to lunch, who are we doing proposals with? Who are we having phone calls and meetings with? But the challenge with that is those have to be entered manually. A lot of things in CRM we’ve been able to automate, but that’s one that you really just can’t because the information lives in the attorney’s head, right? So it’s got to be done, and you can’t have computers or even assistants doing that really well. But everybody wants the information. So I think that has been a big challenge. Probably one of the biggest firm challenges is to get attorneys to sort of function that way and think like salespeople, whereas outside of legal, you know, you can mandate behavior and do reporting on activities. In a professional services, specifically, in a law firm model that’s a little more challenging, there’s sort of a hesitancy to mandate anything. So we do have challenges with that. That also sort of turns into adoption. You know, that has always been a challenge as well. In a law firm time is money, literally. And so anything that they have to do in terms of technology that takes away from serving the clients and frankly, billing time, there’s got to be a lot of value there. Any of the features that require them to do data entry are going to be challenging because we have taken a little bit longer to be focused on business development. There are really advanced pipeline features in a lot of the CRMs, outside of legal, and now in some of the ones that are vertically focused for law firms, but getting attorneys to enter data into a pipeline is probably going to be challenging, and it may not be the highest and best use of their time. And so a lot of firms that are dealing with implementing pipelines, they’re having internal business development resources actually do the data entry, and then just getting the information related to reports and pitches and things. Let them give that information to the attorneys to use when they need it.

Jennifer Schaller

These people are billing their time in six-minute increments. What are some of the built-in features of CRMs that help law firms capture the things that lawyers are reluctant to do other than…. obviously, there needs to be a culture change. But what are some of the things that make it smoother?

Chris Fritsch

So there’s actually a tool that I’m a big fan of called ERM, or enterprise relationship management. And it is a technology most of the CRMs in the legal vertical do have built in, but there are also some freestanding systems. And what they do is they create the contacts from the signature blocks of the emails. So the attorneys don’t have to deal with contact data entry and collection and updating. In the past, the systems worked with sort of an Outlook Sync process where the contacts would flow in, but lately, people don’t use Outlook like they used to. I mean they still use it for email and for calendar, but not so much address books. So the problem with address books was people were putting data in but never removing it. And so you just ended up with more and more contacts. And you know, they’re not particularly relevant anymore. These ERM systems will create good contacts, because frankly, if you just got a signature block, the information is probably good. And so you enter that data–it does it automatically. And so attorneys don’t have to do data entry, which is great. But it also creates a who-knows-who relationship, which is something we really want to be able to capture. You know, if you want to pitch some client or get a connection in a corporation, you might want to know who in the firm knows that person. The ERM uses an algorithm based on recency and frequency of communication to tell us not just who, but how well they know that person based on frequency and recency of communication. There are also some calendar capture features that are available; I think ERM is really the one that has changed the game. Also being able to have a connected email and e-marketing and event management tool that allows the data to flow seamlessly between the systems is incredibly important, because otherwise you end up with disconnected databases and double data entry, and I think e-marketing systems are also a really big deal.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, wow, I didn’t know the depth of that. That’s really interesting. One of the things that you’ve touched on is lawyers and law firms and culture and change, so how large, or substantial or established, does a law firm need to be to benefit from a CRM?

Chris Fritsch

Pretty much any firm can benefit from CRM, because again, it is the fundamental communication coordination, client service, business development that’s important to every firm. So they’re different types of software for different sizes of firms. And I’ve worked with the largest firms in the world, and we help them find systems that meet their needs. But every once in a while, I’ll work with a solo or small firm, and they have different needs, and, of course, different budget requirements. And so they have different types of products that make sense for them. But I think pretty much anybody from the largest firm in the world to a solo can benefit from CRM.

Jennifer Schaller

Knowing that small law firms are not a homogenous group, meaning that intellectual property law firms or even a solo can have different needs than a family law practitioner, what would be some of the core features that even smaller law firms can look for in CRM systems, or should kind of have as, like, table stakes?

Chris Fritsch

Smaller firms for the longest time had challenges trying to implement CRM because they were licensed models, they require a lot of professional services to install and implement, and they required a lot of staff to manage, and that’s contrary to the small firm model. Ideally, in a perfect world, they want a less expensive option that doesn’t require as much training and ongoing sort of care and feeding. And what’s happened is most of the software providers have gone to a subscription model because it makes it easier to budget for the software over time, you don’t have a big upfront cost, and a lot of them have also moved to the cloud.

Jennifer Schaller

You’ve touched a couple different times about large law firms having multiple data stewards and dedicated CRM people, but smaller firms or firms that are not in the select 100 may not have those resources. What type of staff is required to succeed with CRM technology, or what tasks would need to be at a bare minimum assigned to somebody within their teams to get it up and running or to make it a viable option within the firm?

Chris Fritsch

The larger the firm and the more complex the system and processes required, the more staff and the more resources that are going to be needed, the more training that’s going to be needed, the more communication and planning and strategy. That’s always important. But right now we’re working with a firm that has a database with 7 million records. They’re bringing together information from databases all over the world, that’s a big undertaking. Whereas the most essential staff in bigger firms with a bigger implementation, you’re going to need perhaps a CRM manager, whereas a smaller firm with a smaller implementation that’s less complex, you’re not going to need a CRM manager, perhaps you might just need someone part time. The most important staff though, is in the area of data quality, because data degrades rapidly. And now with all the changes taking place, people are changing jobs left and right. So data is degrading faster than ever, and you’ve made this investment in the technology. But as an attorney, I can tell you, if the data is bad, then the system is bad, and I’m not going to use it. So you definitely have to focus on that data to get the return on investment from the technology. And you know, firms don’t necessarily want to hire a data steward, but it’s super important to focus on.

Jennifer Schaller

So firms are stretched, and plus, you touched upon too, everybody’s changing jobs. So it’s really tough for smaller firms to hire, any smaller organization to hire. So how does the firm stretch their existing staff to implement or, you know, make viable a useful CRM system, because as you mentioned, it’s only as good as its data?

Chris Fritsch

You know, one of the biggest trends we’re seeing is the move to outsourcing and having that really escalate. You know, firms have been outsourcing data stewards for decades, well, for at least the 10, 15 years that I’ve been around, because not every firm has the luxury of being able to hire a data steward or an experienced CRM manager who’s done a rollout before. Again, most firms don’t have the ability or even the desire to have their internal people doing data work. And so they’re turning to outsourcing to fill these positions, because the great thing about it is you can get the experience and the expertise, and just the amount of hours that you require. So especially for smaller firms, you wouldn’t want to hire a 40 hour a week data steward anyway. But with outsourcing, you can get you know, 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, whatever you need during the rollout, and then you want to focus ongoing you might need even less, but you need to dedicate those resources, and you don’t have to do it with internal people, because data quality work is not particularly fun, and a lot of people don’t enjoy doing it. But yeah, we outsource a lot of data stewards. It’s actually our highest growth area right now because of the focus on outsourcing.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so a part of lawyers is–speaking lawyer to lawyer—a bit of a control freak. You might not have noticed or heard about it, but you know, anyway. So outsourcing is kind of a scary thing to them, meaning, you know, a smaller firm might be in the devil of not being able to hire somebody or being able to hire too much of somebody, as you indicated. So with outsourcing, what would they look for?

Chris Fritsch

I think number one is experience and reputation. All of our folks that do data work, you know, we try to hire the right people that have the aptitude to actually enjoy the work and then train them, train them and retrain them. We spend a lot of time really getting them to understand not just how to use the CRM tools and how to do the data quality, but also to do the research and how to also understand the law firm. There’s a lot of complex relationships in terms of financial institutions, I think that’s a really big piece of it, you know, having a lot of knowledge and experience doing it. For a lot of our clients, very, very large law firms, they have often significant privacy and security issues, so we have a team of US based people, because that helps them with challenges around GDPR. So you may want to ask, where are your people based? Can they do background checks is a really big important thing.

Jennifer Schaller

Oh, wow. That’s true, yeah, especially if they’re doing government or any type of work. You brought up some really good points there. So you mentioned training, so law firms that would consider outsourcing would be then benefiting from the training not only that they receive from a company like yours, but experience that they’ve picked up from other law firms along the way.

Chris Fritsch

The training is challenging. So you know, you have to train and retrain, you know, things are changing all the time with the software and systems. And it really is a big component, making sure that you have good experienced people. And then we also have a team that does quality checking as well, because I think in law more than any other industry even more than in other professional services, you mentioned earlier, you know, being a little bit of a control freak, we want good data. Outside of legal people are thrilled to have data quality of 70% . “We have automated data sources that’ll get you 70% correct data.” In a law firm 70% would get you fired! Right?

Jennifer Schaller

We got 70% of your lawsuit correct! That tends to not be an acceptable thing for attorneys, and I think they tend to hold anybody else that they work with or any product that they use to similar standards. It’d be really challenging. What are some of the things, not that there’s any silver bullet–and I’m sorry, legal marketers, there isn’t–to kind of overcome some of the, you know, maybe they were at another firm, or they had a friend who had a problem with it. Lawyers actually talk amongst each other and have a tendency to, well, they’ll discount it for their own clients, other people’s experiences, but if they have a lawyer friend who went through something, and it was negative, that’s, you know, good as gold. How do you overcome some lawyers’ reluctance, because of bad data quality, which seems to cause the problems to incrementally kind of chip away at that?

Chris Fritsch

You know, we used to think—and these things are tied together–so bad data is a big challenge. And adoption is a big challenge, getting attorneys to “use” the system, right? So we forever have defined adoption as attorneys would get trained, they would go through their data, they would, you know, mark the ones that they wanted to share or didn’t want to share, the assistants had to get involved and it all sort of fell down because again, we’re busy, and you know, time is money, literally. You know, I think the adoption challenge is tied to the data. Because again, if the data is bad, they don’t want to use the system. So going to these more automated ERM systems that pull in good data, I think it’s time that we really need to redefine adoption from attorneys doing data entry, which is probably not the highest and best use of someone’s time who’s billing $500, $200, $1,000 an hour, whatever it might be, let’s do more automation. And the other thing with the data is, it used to be the researchers would say 30% was degrading each year. Now it’s got to be closer to 50% with, you know, the Great Realignment and you know, staffing and people working from home and hybrid and people are moving and companies are starting and ending and getting acquired. So if you don’t focus on the data, if you don’t have good data, it’s going to hinder adoption, and it’s sort of all tied together. So we have to really sort of think through things, and that’s, again, why we are so focused on the ERM methodology. It minimizes attorney data entry, it maximizes good data, it automates the process, it really just is a very helpful tool.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s really interesting. Anything that can be used to make it simpler to get it off the ground. You mentioned data quality. And you mentioned ERM software implementations or kind of pairing it with the CRM system or having a CRM system that has that built in as a way to help with data quality. What is the part, you mentioned, that’s still gonna leave maybe 20 to 30% of the data in there? How are ways that law firms or outsourcing groups or, maybe I got the statistic wrong, cleaning up the balance of that, or is that, even within law, acceptable?

Chris Fritsch

What we’ve arrived at is a process that I have named True DQ, and it’s a multi-step process. For some firms, it might just be one step, an outsourced data steward. But for some firms, it’s multiple steps. First thing that you need to do is assess the mess. Figure out how bad is your data, if you’re getting a new system, right, you may not want to move, if you’ve had your system, 10, 15 years, you probably don’t want to move all that data, you definitely don’t want to clean all that data, it can cost more than the CRM system. So helping figure out strategically, what are the right contacts to move, key client data, top lists, getting all that data together and getting it cleaned and deduplicated  because, again, as, attorneys, we all know the same people. Some of us have good data, some is bad, and it’s got to be researched but you want to minimize the amount of data so you want to do a really strong assessment process upfront. And that’s if you’re changing systems, or if you’re just trying to clean your existing system, you want to focus your limited time and resources where you can get the most value. So then there’s an automated data quality process. So you know, as I said earlier, automated, you know, only gets you part of the way there. But when you’re doing projects, like, sometimes we’re doing projects, where there’s 7 million records. You couldn’t hire enough people or have enough money or time to clean all that data. So you can take an automated process that will get you quickly and cost effectively part of the way there. And then you know, at each step in the process, you can say that’s good enough, or I want a cleaner, I want it better. And for a lot of law firms, they want it as clean as possible. And so the final step would be to add data stewards to kind of finish off the remaining data that couldn’t be automatically matched. And also we have a quality checking process to quality check the results of the automated process as well. There’s a lot that goes on to keep good data clean and correct and complete, but it’s absolutely imperative and essential to CRM success and people are investing a lot of money in these systems. They should be getting value from them.

Jennifer Schaller

I know you can’t, us lawyers are all profound individuals, lump them all into one group–

Chris Fritsch

We’re all special snowflakes.

Jennifer Schaller

We are all special snowflakes! But if you have noticed one trend, is it if the data is better, there’s more chance of a successful adoption in use, or does that tend to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome?

Chris Fritsch

A lot of the new systems that are ERM focused, the adoption model changes a little bit. So before with sort of the CRM systems that have been around longer, the idea was an Outlook Sync. And then everybody used Outlook. And so the contacts–you know, in a law firm, things are sort of inside out, we don’t just join the firm and get given the keys to the CRM, here are the contacts and clients. Instead, they come in with the attorney and new lateral joins, and the contacts are with them. And so we’ve had these tools to bring in Outlook data, and that required training and installations at the attorney level, and then the data would sync back. And if it was wrong, and it changed somebody’s Outlook, you’d hear about it. With the new ERM methodology, and or maybe a one-way sync, so we’re not, you know, pushing potentially incorrect or what people think might be incorrect data back into the Outlook for the attorneys to see, instead we’re gathering the data through an electronic process, we’re getting good data from the signature blocks, we’re bringing that data in. For some of us, what we do is we actually enhance the data with things like industries, because industry marketing is a big priority for a lot of firms. And nobody says they do it really well, you either have to spend a lot of money to get subscriptions, or you have an automated process, or you can do it manually. And so we try to help firms think through strategies to enhance the data when their data stewarding it with company information, size of company, industry of company, so then you don’t have to rely as much on the attorneys. Like they’ll come and say, “Hey, we want to pull an energy list. Because we’re doing an energy seminar.” Well, you can’t do that. “We want to pull a list of clients.” But without a time and billing integration, you really can’t do that. So these new tools are really helping automate that process, so suddenly, maybe I can’t pull 100% perfect energy or manufacture or whatever, pharmaceutical industry list, but I can get you at least a really good start, and then you can add individuals to it. These are tools we didn’t have years ago. And they really are taking the attorneys out of the process and taking them out of the data entry role. And instead, let’s give them the data they want. Let them be consumers of the data, let’s get them the reports that they need to do what they need to do and minimize the time required. Sometimes it’s staff that are helping to support these processes as well. So never underestimate the power of having good folks to help the attorneys get what they need. And so we’re going to define it instead of attorneys entering data into the system, it’s going to be attorneys getting value out of the system. And that’s how I think adoption needs to be redefined.

Jennifer Schaller

So once they see the value in it, they begin to adopt and of course they see another attorney getting value out of it.

Chris Fritsch

And while you might use ERM, when you implement a CRM you have to consider both a macro and a micro. So we’ve got to be able to get the contacts to do the list to do the events. That’s sort of a core component of it. And if you don’t get that data, you can’t do the other things like the fundamental who-knows-who and the business development. So a lot of firms are going to, “Okay, let’s do an ERM model and capture the context.” And most of the attorneys then don’t have to be users of the system. Instead, you can give licenses to key business developers or practice group leaders or whoever might need the information. And they have the data that they need to do what they need to do. But the day-to-day work of the attorneys is they can focus on the clients.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s interesting to hear, and good to hear actually, that it’s rolling out a lot better. You founded CLIENTSFirst Consulting 15 years ago. I’m not trying to age you, you must have founded it when you were 15 and, you know, even more of a prodigy. Name some of the ways that not only things have changed over the last 15 or so years, but some of the incremental successes I mean, it might have been a small firm, it might not resonate, but what are some of the wins that you’ve had, or some of the ways that you’ve been able to help firms succeed over the years?

Chris Fritsch

A key thing that we do, I think, that firms have found particularly valuable is called a CRM Success Assessment. And so whether you’re getting your first CRM system or you’re looking to change systems, or just improve your current implementation, we come in really getting to know the firm. So we do meetings with key stakeholders throughout the firm to really understand their different needs and requirements, and document that. The last thing you want to do is oh, we need a CRM, let’s figure out what everybody else is using, because that has proven over time to be a recipe for disaster. Instead, it’s all about your unique firm, your needs, requirements, and culture. And so we document that for the firms and then we help them go through a selection process where we take the information from the assessment and turn that into what we call a vendor demo roadmap that we can provide to the providers so that they can follow a roadmap during the demonstration. “Hey, focus on these things that the firm really cares about. Let’s compare apples to apples. Let’s put together the right proposal and get the right technology.” Because that’s the first thing is making sure you get the right system. The other thing is back many years ago, success was defined as, “We’re going to roll it out all at once and everybody’s going to use it.” Right? All the attorneys are going to log in every day. Well, I think it’s been 20 years, and it hasn’t happened yet. So again, we’re sort of redefining success doing the macro for the whole firm, but then really being able to, and this sounds a little counterintuitive at a big firm, but you really focus on the micro. Let’s get the macro right, you know, lists and events. But then let’s find the strong leader that has a problem to solve or a process to improve. And the beauty of CRM is it can do 1,000 things, the problem has been it can do 1,000 things, you should probably do three, or maybe even one. And so you get all these tools, but you only want to implement one here. And then you know, each group might want to do something a little differently, one group may actually track activities, there’s a big firm, we’ve worked with that one group is really focused on activity tracking. And so then configure the system to support that one thing, build the reports out the processes around it, the training materials around it, and you train that group on that thing, and maybe just that thing. You know, but then you might have, you know, a labor and employment group that does a lot of events, and webinars and seminars. Let’s show them how to manage the invitation process and add people to lists because they care about that. And so you focus on special snowflake scenarios, one group at a time, and you call them a pilot group. I had a smart Managing Partner say to me, you do a pilot group, and you get them success, you communicate that success, and you do another pilot group, and everybody feels like a special snowflake. Everybody gets their needs met. But it’s not quick. But it’s not designed to be quick, because CRM is not a project. It’s not an initiative, it is a fundamental improvement in how the firm manages its most important asset, its relationships. So as a result, it never really ends. And so if you do it in little pilot groups, you know, you’ve got forever to get better at it. You know, a lot of it is sort of daunting, you’re like, “Oh, our data is terrible.” Well, that’s okay you know, you don’t have to clean it up 100% right now, you want to do it in pieces and get successes, do it in increments, focus on top clients, focus on, you know, one group is doing an event, focus on their lists. There are a lot of different ways to do it to be effective, and get incremental successes, because they do they all add up.

Jennifer Schaller

Start with a coalition of the willing. Thank you, Chris, for going through some of the pilot groups at larger law firms, that sounds like a good way to find some early successes and kind of replicate it, but maybe in a customized form with different groups within a firm. But again, the majority of law firms are small. And while it’s great to learn from what the larger firms are doing, are there any initiatives, you know, to help smaller firms, either within your company or industry-wide, to work with CRMs?

Chris Fritsch

There are definitely some products out there for smaller firms. But what I have seen over the years is it’s been a little challenging because of the resource constraints and the staffing constraints. And so for years, smaller firms would come to me and say, you know, can you help us find a system? And you know, now the software is less expensive because of the subscription model. But the professional services has always been $50,000 plus dollars. And for a smaller firm, that’s without integrations. You’re looking at a lot of money to do the professional services. And so we’ve actually come up with a new piece of software we’re about to come out with that, hopefully, is going to make it easier for smaller firms to get a system to do what they need to help capture and augment the data and do lists. And so we’re pretty excited about that.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so if I can ask, what are some of the features in the product that CLIENTSFirst has coming out that helps small firms?

Chris Fritsch

As you can imagine, because I talk so much about it, I really think ERM is a fundamental piece of it. And we’re also going to be doing data cleaning, because obviously that’s a big focus for us as well and data augmentation with the things that we talked about, business information and industry information. And we’re going to make sure the data is clean and correct and complete. And we’re also going to have a built-in email functionality too. So it’s all integrated into a single platform to help smaller firms succeed as well. So the largest firms in the world, they need a certain type of software, and we thoroughly enjoy helping them succeed. And we just think that the smaller firms could benefit from some additional options.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s good to hear. Otherwise, a whole portion of the market is underserved. As always, thanks to Chris Fritsch from CLIENTSFirst Consulting for joining us today and for updating us on the nuances of CRM, specifically in the legal world or in the law firm environment. Law firms have such a challenging time to know where to start or what to do with what they already have. And thank you for helping us understand some of those steps or decision trees that go into law firms or especially smaller firms picking a CRM system. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Fritsch

Happy to help and thank you for the invitation to be here.

OUTRO 

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Summertime 2022 Legal Industry News Roundup: Law Office Hiring and Expansion, Legal Industry Awards, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s law firm news roundup. We hope you are staying safe and healthy – please read more below for the latest updates in law firm hiring and expansion, legal industry awards and recognition, and diversity and inclusion initiatives!

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Beveridge & Diamond has added two new environmental litigators and regulatory advisors, Jackson Garrity and Tim Nevins.

Mr. Garrity handles natural resource management and litigation at the firm’s D.C. office, with a special focus on state and federal compliance under the Clean Air ActAdministrative Procedure ActCERCLANational Environmental Policy Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. He advises clients on matters such as compliance, litigation, administrative enforcement actions, and more. Mr. Nevins, who works out of the firm’s New York office, practices environmental litigation and provides regulatory guidance to his clients. He has a background in toxic torts, groundwater, administrative rulemaking, and site remediation.

“We are thrilled to have Jackson and Tim as part of the B&D team,” says Paula Schauwecker, Beveridge & Diamond’s Chief Talent Officer. “Their past experiences have enabled them to hit the ground running at B&D. We are excited to see how they will continue to help our clients and contribute to B&D’s long success of being a leading environmental law firm.”

National law firm Dykema has selected Commercial Litigation Practice Group member Isaac Villarreal as Managing Member of the newly established Houston office. Mr. Villarreal is a 13-year complex commercial litigator who frequently works as outside general counsel for midmarket businesses. A highly successful trial attorney, Mr. Villarreal has won a majority of the over 50 cases he has served as first-chair counsel for. He is well-known in the Houston legal community for his work with groups such as the State Bar of Texas Litigation section and Houston Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution section. He has been recognized in publications such as Houstonia MagazineH-Texas Magazine, and Texas Super Lawyers.

“It’s been an absolute thrill to be a member of the group establishing Dykema’s Houston office,” Mr. Villarreal says. “The firm’s culture, strong national presence, bench strength of top-notch attorneys, and its pragmatic approach to building upon that foundation in a market where I have practiced extensively throughout my career have helped make the launch of the Houston office an early success.”

Michael Kornak has joined the Partner Recruiting Practice Group as a Managing Director at Major, Lindsey & Africa, in order to assist with the international firm’s legal search and lateral recruitment efforts. Mr. Kornak joins the Chicago office after more than two decades of experience as a litigation and hiring partner, managing professional reviews, work allocation, and various business law practices.

Expressing excitement for Kornak’s arrival, Partner Practice Group Executive Director David Maurer said, “We are thrilled Mike decided to join the Chicago Partner Practice Group. He has extensive firsthand knowledge of all aspects of partner recruiting, including compensation and conflicts analysis, and can adeptly identify opportunities as well as potential issues for both partners and firms.”

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has added two tax incentive financing experts to the firm’s Impact Investing and Community Development practice. D.C.-based Corenia Riley Burlingame and John Dalton each have over a decade of experience managing tax credit construction and preservation projects for stakeholders interested in benefiting communities through low-income housing, historic preservation, and energy-efficiency investments. Ms. Burlingame assists clients with issues related to resyndication, scattered-site portfolios, and year 15 properties, while Mr. Dalton assists with energy and New Markets tax credits, Opportunity Zone investing, and post-closing asset management concerns.

“As developers, lenders and investors place greater emphasis on social impact investment opportunities, Corenia’s and John’s deep understanding of the nuances within each respective transaction, and their impressive backgrounds guiding clients through these sophisticated matters, further solidifies Manatt’s position as a leader in these types of tax credit deals,” said Neil Faden, leader of Manatt’s Impact Investing and Community Development Practice.

Industry Awards and Recognition

Frank E. Schall of Moore & Van Allen PLLC has been recognized as a leading litigator by Benchmark Litigation. Mr. Schall, who focuses his practice on white-collar, internal investigations, and regulatory defense work, is listed in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under guide to the nation’s most notable up and coming litigation attorneys. He has significant experience in a wide range of matters, including healthcare litigationcommercial litigation, and financial services.

“We congratulate Frank on being recognized by Benchmark Litigation as one of the top young litigators in the country,” said John A. Fagg, Jr., Co-head of Litigation and White Collar Defense & Investigations practice. “We are very proud of Frank’s successes and achievements for our clients.”

ArentFox Schiff LLP was awarded the Chapter 11 Reorganization of the Year by The M&A Advisor at their 16th Annual Turnaround Awards. Of more than 250 participating companies, The Turnaround Award nominees were judged by an independent panel of industry experts. ArentFox Schiff LLP was selected for their work as counsel to CoverFX, a high performance, vegan, and cruelty-free cosmetics company. Partners George Angelich and Justin Kesselman, and Associate Patrick Feeney served as counsel.

Roger Aguinaldo of The M&A Advisor said, “The award winners represent the best of the distressed investing and restructuring industry in 2021 and earned these honors by standing out in a group of very impressive candidates.”

Los Angeles Business Journal has recognized Partners Roland Juarez and Anne Marie Mortimer of Hunton Andrews Kurth in the 2022 Leaders of Influence: Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers list. The list recognizes 76 litigators chosen by the LABJ as “lawyers who go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients before judges and jury [and] have their own unique set of skills.”

Notably, Mr. Juarez was recognized as a top litigator, handling high-stakes labor and employment cases for California’s largest and most high-profile employers. He has served as Chief Counsel of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for nearly a decade. At Hunton Andrews Kurth, he developed two mentorship programs for minority lawyers.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Field

In conjunction with CT ConsultantsShumaker Advisors has awarded $10,000 worth of scholarships to three minority college students for the Fall 2022 semester. Since 2008, Shumaker and CT Consultants have offered more than $100,000 to minority engineering students attending accredited Ohio universities; this year, the organizations were able to offer the $5,000 Edwin B. Hogan Memorial Scholarship, as well as two $2,500 Ohio Minority Engineering Student Scholarships.

“We are extremely proud of this year’s awardees,” said Ami Williams, Shumaker Advisors Director of Client Relations and Administrator of the CT Scholarships Program. “The field was highly competitive and we look forward to supporting these well-deserving students as they continue their education.”

Foley & Lardner LLP has been awarded with the 2022 Gold Standard Certification for promoting gender diversity in the legal industry. The Women in Law Empowerment Forum, which issued the award, grants Gold Standard recognition to major firms that meet specific objective criteria regarding the number of women among equity partners, in firm leadership positions, and in the ranks of their most highly compensated partners.

Foley has now been recognized with this honor for three years in a row. In order to meet 2022’s certification metrics, firms had to satisfy two mandatory criteria: 25% of equity partners or, alternatively, 40% of the attorneys becoming equity partners during the past 12 months are women, and 10% of women equity partners are women of color or 4% of women equity partners are LGBT. Firms additionally had to meet two of the following for criteria:

  • 20% of the firm and U.S. branch office heads are women.
  • 25% of the firm’s primary governance committee are women.
  • 25% of the firm’s compensation committee or its equivalent are women.
  • 20% of the top half of the firm’s equity partners in terms of compensation are women.

Yvette Loizon, a partner at Clifford Law Offices, has been recognized by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company as one of the Top Women in Law in 2022. On July 20th, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and Chicago Lawyer Magazine recognized Clifford’s Ms. Loizon at the 2022 Salute! Top Women in Law Awards Celebration.

The honorees were chosen by the Law Bulletin Media selection committee for their noteworthy efforts in the legal field, more specifically their “work to mentor and promote other women in the profession, their success in the legal community, and being a shining example of leadership.”

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Between the Legal Lines — Jessica Pfisterer [PODCAST]

With big dreams of helping people, Jessica Pfisterer began her career in public interest law, though she soon realized she wasn’t going to see the change she hoped for at the pace she wanted. Where Jessica truly found her passion was in People Operations and HR, thanks to her GC at the time. In this episode of Between the Legal Lines, Jessica shares with Andrea Bricca the story of how that pivotal role shaped the future of her career and what she has learned as a human resources leader who is also a trained lawyer.

Jessica Pfisterer is an HR leader and dancer, with a background in civil rights law and social justice work. She currently heads the People team at Lively, and dances with Duniya Dance and Drum Company. She is also on the board of TurnOut, a nonprofit that supports LGBTQ+ organizations, support for LGBTQ+ organizations, ensuring they are positioned to succeed and to continue serving the community. She is a Bay Area local and spends her free time traveling and exploring the great outdoors.

©2022 Major, Lindsey & Africa, an Allegis Group Company. All rights reserved.

Three Ways to Use LinkedIn’s Notifications Tab to Build Your Network and Business

Here’s an easy and effective way to leverage LinkedIn for business development and networking – use information and updates about your connections from the Notifications tab to build stronger relationships.

LinkedIn gives you many reasons to reach out to people in your professional network through the Notifications tab

These reasons range from new business, networking, jobs, referrals and branding opportunities.

Prompts from the LinkedIn Notifications tab about your connections’ birthdays, work anniversaries and new jobs can serve as powerful catalysts to get back in touch with your connections.

I have seen these prompts lead to new business and reignited relationships many times.

I call these notifications “low hanging fruit” because they require very little effort on your part and they’re easy to do, and can yield major benefits.

Marketing strategies don’t have to be complicated to be successful. We often overlook them when it’s so basic.

So how do you leverage them?

  1. For a work anniversary notification, you could say, “Hey Jim, I can’t believe it’s been X years since you joined your company! Time sure flies. How are you?” Then take it a step further, suggest an off-line conversation either in person, over the phone or via zoom.

  2. For a new job announcement try, “Congratulations on the new role – how is it going so far?” again offer to take the conversation off-line and have a separate conversation either in-person or virtually.  (Many people don’t send an email when they get a new job anymore – it’s up to us to do the due diligence to find out where they landed and then take the initiative to congratulate them on their job move).

  3. Wish your connections a happy birthday.  Just saying a simple “Happy birthday – I hope you’re having a great day – would love to take you for lunch or a drink to celebrate” is a great way to make someone’s day. Adding your birthday into LinkedIn works – I had about 200 LinkedIn birthday well wishes and one of them actually led to a new client.

Sometimes the basic actions that take just minutes are the most impactful.

Having reasons to reach out to your connections is powerful versus the dreaded “just checking in” email.

LinkedIn has made it even easier now to stay updated on others’ notifications by enabling us to follow certain individuals by clicking the bell on their profile.

No one knows who you are following, so use it strategically and follow your clients, referrals, VIP connections and even your competitors. You should also follow content creators whose information you find useful.

I’d love to hear how the Notifications section has worked for you.

Copyright © 2022, Stefanie M. Marrone. All Rights Reserved.

SEC Commissioner Signals Need to Fulfill Mandate of Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Develop “Minimum Standards” for Lawyers Practicing Before the Commission

In remarks on March 5, 2022, on PLI’s Corporate Governance webcast, Commissioner Allison Herren Lee of the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that 20 years after its enactment, it is time to revisit the “unfulfilled mandate” of Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and establish minimum standards for lawyers practicing before the Commission.1  Commissioner Lee, who announced that she will not seek a second term when her current one ends this month, took issue with what she called the “goal-directed reasoning” of some securities lawyers—that is, focusing primarily on the outcome sought by executives, rather than the impact on investors and the market as a whole.  Such lawyering, Commissioner Lee observed, has a host of negative consequences, including encouraging non-disclosure of material information, harming investors and market integrity, and stymying deterrence.  The solution, Commissioner Lee opined, is to fulfill the mandate of Section 307, which empowered the Commission to “issue rules, in the public interest and for the protection of investors, setting forth minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers.”2

Over the last 20 years, the Commission has declined to adopt enhanced rules of professional conduct for lawyers appearing before the Commission.  There are good reasons for the Commission’s inaction, including the attorney-client privilege, the goal of zealous advocacy, the fact-specific nature of materiality determinations, and the traditionally state-law basis for the regulation of attorney conduct.  Commissioner Lee, moreover, did not propose specific new rules and recognized that the task was difficult and should be informed by the views of the securities bar and other stakeholders.  Nor did she say that action by the Commission was imminent; it is unclear whether the Commission has authority to promulgate new rules under Section 307 given a 180-day sunset under the statute that occurred in 2003.  Indeed, neither Commissioner Lee nor any of the other SEC commissioners have issued statements on this topic since the PLI webcast.  SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal has, however, indicated an increased emphasis on gatekeeper accountability in order to restore public trust in the market.3  Nonetheless, given the Commission’s existing authority to impose discipline under its Rules of Practice, practitioners should be mindful of the potential for increased scrutiny moving forward.

Background

In the wake of corporate accounting scandals involving Enron, Worldcom, and other companies, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 “[t]o safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets.”4  The Act was aimed at “combating fraud, improving the reliability of financial reporting, and restoring investor confidence,”5 including by empowering the SEC with increased regulatory authority and enforcement power.6  To that end, the Act includes provisions to fortify auditor independence, promote corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures, and enhance corporate fraud accountability.7

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed just six months after the collapse of Enron in December 2001, and neither the House nor Senate bills originally contained professional responsibility language.8  Hours before the Senate passed its version of the Act, however, the Senate amended the bill to include language that would eventually become Section 307.9  Around the same time, 40 law professors sent a letter to the SEC requesting the inclusion of a professional conduct rule governing corporate lawyers practicing before the Commission.10  The letter picked up on a 1996 article by Professor Richard Painter, then of the University of Illinois College of Law, which recommended corporate fraud disclosure obligations for attorneys similar to those imposed on accountants by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.11  Senator John Edwards, one of the sponsors of the Senate floor amendment of the bill, emphasized the importance of including professional conduct rules for attorneys in such a significant piece of legislation, stating that “[o]ne of the problems we have seen occurring with this sort of crisis in corporate misconduct is that some lawyers have forgotten their responsibility” is to the companies and shareholders they represent, not corporate executives.12

In its final form, Section 307 imposed a professional responsibility requirement for attorneys that represent issuers appearing before the Commission.  Specifically, Section 307 directed the Commission, within 180 days of enactment of the law, to “issue rules, in the public interest and for the protection of investors, setting forth minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers,”13 and, at minimum, promulgate “a rule requiring an attorney to report evidence of a material violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary duty or similar violation by the issuer or any agent thereof to appropriate officers within the issuer and, thereafter, to the highest authority within the issuer, if the initial report does not result in an appropriate response.”14

Since the enactment of Section 307, however, the Commission has promulgated only one rule pursuant to its authority, commonly known as the “up-the-ladder” rule.15  The up-the-ladder rule imposes a duty on attorneys representing an issuer before the Commission to report evidence of material violations of the securities laws.  When an attorney learns of evidence of a material violation, the attorney has a duty to report it to the issuer’s chief legal officer (“CLO”) and/or the CEO.16  If the attorney believes the CLO or CEO did not take appropriate action within a reasonable time to address the violation, the attorney has a duty to report the evidence to the audit committee, another committee of independent directors, or the full board of directors until the attorney receives “an appropriate response.”17  Alternatively, attorneys can satisfy their duty by reporting the violation to a qualified legal compliance committee.18  To date, the SEC has never brought a case alleging a violation of the up-the-ladder rule.

Commissioner Lee’s Remarks

In her remarks, Commissioner Lee stated that it is time to revisit the “unfulfilled mandate” of Section 307 and consider whether the Commission should adopt and enforce minimum standards for lawyers who practice before the Commission.  Commissioner Lee criticized “goal-directed reasoning” employed by sophisticated counsel in securities matters, and cited as an example Bandera Master Fund v. Boardwalk Pipeline,19 a recent decision in which the Delaware Court of Chancery rebuked the attorneys involved for their efforts to satisfy the aims of a general partner instead of their duty to the partnership-client as a whole.  The Court, specifically, stated that counsel “knowingly made unrealistic and counterfactual assumptions, knowingly relied on an artificial factual predicate, and consistently engaged in goal-directed reasoning to get to the result that [the general partner] wanted.”20  Bandera and cases like it, according to Commissioner Lee, are emblematic of a “race to the bottom” caused by pressure on securities lawyers to compete with each other for clients, while failing to give due consideration to the potential impact on investors, market integrity, and the public interest.

In Commissioner Lee’s view, “goal-directed” lawyering not only falls short of ethical standards but causes harm to the market and reduces deterrence.  Commissioner Lee expressed concern that, in an effort to give management the answer it wants, lawyers may downplay or obscure material information.21  Although recognizing that materiality determinations are fact-intensive, Commissioner Lee said that should not provide blanket cover for legal advice aimed at concealing material information from the public.  Non-disclosure has a host of negative consequences, including distorting market-moving information, interfering with price discovery, misallocating capital, impairing investor decision-making, and eroding confidence in the financial markets and regulatory system.  Further, such lawyering diminishes deterrence by creating a legal cover for inadequate disclosure, making it more difficult for regulators to hold responsible individuals accountable.  This type of legal counsel, in Commissioner Lee’s view, “is merely rent-seeking masquerading as legal advice, while providing a shield against liability.”

Commissioner Lee stated that the existing framework governing professional conduct is not adequate to hold lawyers accountable for such “reckless” advice.  According to Commissioner Lee, state bars—the principal source for lawyer discipline nationwide—are not up to the task because they lack resources, expertise in securities matters, and the ability to impose adequate monetary sanctions.  Additionally, Commissioner Lee noted that state law standards focused mostly on the behavior of individual lawyers, assigning few responsibilities to the firm for quality assurance.  Indeed, state law standards are mostly drafted in a “one-size-fits-all fashion” according to Commissioner Lee, and do not take into account the different issues faced at large firms that represent public companies, which are quite different from a solo practitioner handling personal injury or estate law matters.  Likewise, although the SEC has the power under Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice to suspend or bar attorneys whose conduct falls below “generally recognized norms of professional conduct,” there has been little effort to define or enforce that standard.22  Nor has the SEC rigorously enforced standards of attorney conduct under the one rule it has issued under Section 307, the “up-the-ladder” rule.

Commissioner Lee stated that it was time for the Commission to fulfill its mandate under Section 307.  Although not proposing any specific rules, Commissioner Lee offered the following concepts as a starting point:

  • Greater detail on lawyers’ obligations to a corporate client, including how advice must reflect “the interests of the corporation and its shareholders rather than the executives who hire them”;
  • Requirements of “competence and expertise” (as an example, disclosure lawyers should not opine on materiality “without sufficient focus or understanding of the views of ‘reasonable’ investors”);
  • Continuing education for securities lawyers advising public companies (similar to requirements set by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for minimum hours of qualifying continuing professional education for audit firm personnel);
  • Oversight at the firm level (similar to quality-control measures implemented at audit firms);
  • Emphasis on the need for independence in rendering advice (similar to substantive and disclosure requirements implemented in Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X for auditors);
  • Obligations to investigate red flags and ensure accurate predicates for legal opinions (similar to the obligations that an auditor must perform to certify to the accuracy of their client’s financial statements); and
  • Retention of contemporaneous records to support the reasonableness of legal advice.

Commissioner Lee noted that the content of any specific rules or standards will require “careful thought,” as well as assistance from the securities bar, experts on professional responsibility, and other interested parties and market participants.  She invited input from the legal community and other stakeholders and noted that she appreciated the complexity of the task and concerns of the American Bar Association and others regarding protection of the attorney-client privilege.  Indeed, outside auditors are generally regarded as “public watchdogs” and such communications between the corporation and an auditor are not entitled to the affirmative attorney-client privilege afforded to legal counsel.  Accordingly, regulating the legal profession using a similar framework to that applied to the accounting profession has sparked more controversy.  Nonetheless, in Commissioner Lee’s view, those concerns should be weighed against “the costs of there being few, if any, consequences for contrived or tortured advice.”

Implications

The Commission has declined to adopt enhanced rules of professional conduct for lawyers appearing before it in the 20 years since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Commissioner Lee’s call for minimum standards, however, potentially signals increased scrutiny by the SEC with respect to lawyers who “practice before the Commission.”  As Commissioner Lee noted, that means “counsel involved in the formulation and review of issuers’ public disclosure, including those who address the many legal questions that often arise in that context.”23  Nonetheless, Commissioner Lee cautioned that she did “not intend with these comments to address the conduct of attorneys serving as litigators or otherwise representing their client(s) in an advocacy role in an adversarial proceeding or other similar context, such as in an enforcement investigation.”24

Although framing her call for standards in terms of Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it is not clear that the Commission will—or even can—promulgate any further rules under that authority.  Commissioner Lee did not state that she was speaking on behalf of the Commission or indicate that the Commission would be taking concrete, imminent steps to adopt such standards.  The Commission has not put its imprimatur on the remarks by incorporating them into a formal release or statement of policy.  Moreover, the text of Section 307 appears to foreclose the possibility of further rulemaking, as it provides that the Commission shall issue any such rules “[n]ot later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act,” i.e., January 27, 2003.  Consistent with that constraint, the SEC proposed the up-the-ladder requirements on November 21, 2002, in Release No. 33-8150, and the rule became final on January 29, 2003.25  But the SEC has not issued any other rule under Section 307 to date.

Even if official action under Section 307 may not be forthcoming, Commissioner Lee’s call for action should not be discounted.  Setting aside the up-the-ladder requirements, the SEC has authority under Rule 102(e) of the SEC’s Rules of Practice to censure or bar a lawyer from appearing or practicing before the Commission if found, among other things, “[t]o be lacking in character or integrity or to have engaged and unethical or improper professional conduct.”26  Commissioner Lee cited prior SEC guidance to indicate that Rule 102(e) may apply to attorney conduct that falls below “generally recognized norms of professional conduct,”27 a standard that has been left undefined to date.28  In practice, the SEC “will hold attorneys who practice before it to the standards to which they are already subject, including state bar rules.”29  At a minimum, then, Commissioner Lee’s objective of greater accountability may be achieved through a more aggressive application of Rule 102(e), which, as she noted, has generally only been applied as a follow-on penalty for primary violations of the securities laws by lawyers.

Commissioner Lee’s term expires on June 5, and she has announced that she intends to step down from the Commission once a successor has been confirmed.30  Should the Commission nonetheless take up her call to action in the future, it will be no easy task to adopt clear standards that can be implemented in a predictable manner.  In particular, Commissioner Lee’s focus on the role of lawyers in advising issuers on determinations of materiality and disclosure does not lend itself well to oversight or enforcement.  The well-established standard for materiality—whether “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote”—is far from clear-cut.31  The Supreme Court, moreover, long has recognized that materiality “depends on the facts and thus is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”32  As such, and as evidenced by the sundry cases concerning disclosure issues reversed on appeal, disagreement between litigants—as well as jurists—on matters of materiality and disclosure are par for the course.  If that is so, how can a lawyer’s advice on such matters (which will inevitably turn on the facts and the lawyer’s judgment and experience) be subject to oversight in any objective sense?

Even if lawyers’ materiality advice could be evaluated under objective standards, there are other difficulties.  First and foremost is that oversight of legal advice implicates the attorney-client privilege and the underlying benefit of candid advice from securities disclosure and corporate counsel.  As the Supreme Court has observed, the attorney-client privilege “is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure.”33  Aside from situations in which the client has voluntarily waived privilege (as sometimes occurs in SEC investigations) or where another exception to the privilege applies, it is unclear how the SEC could evaluate legal advice without invading privilege.  Such attempts could have led to an increase in corporate wrongdoing as corporate executives could be more reluctant to seek expert legal advice.  In addition, it is unclear how regulators assessing materiality advice would—or could—balance an assessment of whether a lawyer has given the “correct” advice with a lawyer’s ethical obligations of zealous representation of the client.34  The divide between overreaching “goal-directed” reasoning and permissible zealous advocacy for the client is often murky, and reasonable minds can differ depending on the circumstances.  Moreover, it is already well-accepted that a corporate lawyer’s obligation is to the corporation as its client, not to any individual officer or director.35  That obligation carries with it ethical duties to “proceed as is reasonably necessary for the best interest” of the corporation, including when the lawyer is aware of violations of the law or other misconduct by senior management.36  In that sense, Commissioner Lee’s proposal could be viewed as a call for the SEC to take on enforcement of existing ethical rules, rather than for the development of novel “minimum standards.”

Ultimately, there are good reasons for the Commission’s reluctance to date to formally adopt minimum standards of professional conduct for lawyers appearing before it, including the attorney-client privilege, the goal of zealous advocacy, and the fact-specific nature of materiality inquiries.  The manipulation of facts and bad reasoning targeted by Commissioner Lee are not only the exception, and difficult if not impossible to eliminate completely, but are largely covered by existing rules and practices.  Nonetheless, Commissioner Lee’s call for lawyers to strive for higher legal and ethical standards in their counsel should be welcomed.  Sound legal advice is not only important for issuer clients, but also for the financial well-being of investors, the integrity of the markets, and public confidence in the regulatory system and capital markets.  Enhancements in ethical standards for the legal profession could also lead to reputational benefits and greater integrity in the profession.  It remains to be seen whether Commissioner Lee’s remarks will serve as an aspirational goal for securities lawyers, or translate into concrete action by the Commission.


1 Commissioner Allison Herren Lee, Send Lawyers, Guns and Money: (Over-) Zealous Representation by Corporate Lawyers Remarks at PLI’s Corporate Governance – A Master Class 2022 (Mar. 4, 2022), [hereinafter “Commissioner Lee Remarks”].

See Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, § 307, 15 U.S.C. § 7245 (2002).

3 Gurbir Grewal, Director, Division of Enforcement, Remarks at SEC Speaks 2021 (Oct. 13, 2021).

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429, 432 (2014).

5 Stephen Wagner and Lee Dittmar, The Unexpected Benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley, Harvard Bus. Rev. (Apr. 2006).

See Sarbanes–Oxley Act, § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 7202 (2002).

See Sarbanes–Oxley Act, § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 7201 (2002).

8 Jennifer Wheeler, Securities Law: Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Irreconcilable Conflict with the ABA’s Model Rules and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct?, 56 Okla. L. Rev. 461, 464 (2003).

Id.

10 Id. at 468-69.

11 See generally Richard W. Painter & Jennifer E. Duggan, Lawyer Disclosure of Corporate Fraud: Establishing a Firm Foundation, 50 SMU L. Rev. 225 (1996).

12 Wheeler, supra note 8, at 465 (quoting 148 Cong. Rec. S6551 (daily ed. July 10, 2002) (statement of Sen. Edwards)).

13 See Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, § 307, 15 U.S.C. § 7245 (2002).

14 Final Rule: Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Securities Act Rel. No. 8185 (Sept. 26, 2003).

15 17 C.F.R. §§ 205.1-205.7.

16 17 C.F.R. § 205.3(b)(1).

17 17 C.F.R. §§ 205.3(b)(3), (b)(4).

18 17 C.F.R. § 205.3(c).

19 Bandera Master Fund LP v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, No. CV 2018-0372-JTL, 2021 WL 5267734, at *1 (Del. Ch. Nov. 12, 2021).  In Bandera, plaintiffs brought suit against a general partner for breach of a partnership agreement stemming from the general partner’s exercise of a call right without satisfying two requisite preconditions.  The court held for the plaintiffs and found the general partner had engaged in willful misconduct.  Id. at *51.  Contributing to the misconduct was the general partner’s outside counsel, who drafted an opinion letter justifying the general partner’s exercise of the call right.  Id.  Throughout the drafting process, the court found, that the outside counsel manipulated the facts in order to achieve the general partner’s desired conclusion.  Id. at *18-*47.

20 Id. at *51.

21 Commissioner Lee specifically cited, among other matters, environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) disclosures.  The Commission is currently considering additional climate change-related disclosures to Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X.  See Jason Halper et al., SEC Proposes Climate-Related Changes to Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Mar. 23, 2022); see also Paul Kiernan, SEC Proposes More Disclosure Requirements for ESG Funds, The Wall Street Journal (May 25, 2022, 6:26 pm ET).

22 Rule 102(e) states, in relevant part:

(1) Generally. The Commission may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is found by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing in the matter:

(i) not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others; or

(ii) to be lacking in character or integrity or to have engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct; or

(iii) to have willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation of any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.

17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e)(1).

23 Commissioner Lee Remarks, supra note 1.

24 Id.

25 Proposed Rule: Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Securities Act Rel. No. 8150 (Nov. 21, 2002); Final Rule: Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Securities Act Rel. No. 8185 (Sept. 26, 2003); see also 2 Legal Malpractice § 14:114 (2022 ed.).

26 17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e).  The Rules of Practice generally “govern proceedings before the Commission under the statutes that it administers.” 17 C.F.R. § 201.100.  The SEC has the authority to administer and enforce such rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. See Comment to Rule 100, SEC Rules of Practice (July 2003).

27 In the Matter of William R. Carter Charles J. Johnson, 47 S.E.C. 471 (Feb. 28, 1981) (“elemental notions of fairness dictate that the Commission should not establish new rules of conduct and impose them retroactively upon professionals who acted at the time without reason to believe that their conduct was unethical or improper.  At the same time, however, we perceive no unfairness whatsoever in holding those professionals who practice before us to generally recognized norms of professional conduct, whether or not such norms had previously been explicitly adopted or endorsed by the Commission.  To do so upsets no justifiable expectations, since the professional is already subject to those norms.”).

28 In the past, the Commission has sought to discipline lawyers for violating securities laws with scienter, rendering misleading opinions used in disclosures and engaged in otherwise liable conduct, but not for giving negligent legal advice to issuers. See In the Matter of Scott G. Monson, Release No. 28323 (June 30, 2008) (collecting cases).

29 In the Matter of Steven Altman, Esq., Release No. 63306 (Nov. 10, 2010).

30 Statement of Planned Departure from the Commission (Mar. 15, 2022).

31 TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976).

32 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 250 (1988).

33 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (quoting Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888)).

34 Rule 1.3: Diligence, American Bar Association, (last visited Mar. 18, 2022) (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”); Rule 1.3 Diligence – Comment 1, American Bar Association,  (last visited Mar. 18, 2022) (“A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.”).

35 See, e.g.Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389.

36 Rule 1.13: Organization As Client, American Bar Association, cmt. 2  (last visited April 19, 2022).

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

To Search or To Sink: The Importance of Clearing Your Brand

So many times in my three decades of practice I’ve shaken my head at the perils a trademark owner can so easily avoid by searching and clearing a mark. The litigations! The unnecessary attorneys’ fees! The time and resources lost! All because my client (or adversary) didn’t conduct a proper trademark search.

Adopting a Trademark

So what’s all the fuss about? Well, before adopting a trademark (that is, a brand name for goods or services) you should have an attorney commission a proper clearance search, review it, and provide you with a well-reasoned opinion as to the availability of the brand for “use” and “registration.” (Yes, they are different things, as explained below.) I’m not talking about an Internet search or an online search of U.S. Trademark Office records, though both can be useful to make sure there aren’t any easily found barriers to use or registration of a mark before a full search is commissioned.

I’m talking about a full clearance search done by a reputable vendor the attorney commissions to uncover all uses (registered and not) of the same or similar marks for the same or similar goods/services as you want to use your brand for. The resulting vendor’s report sent to the attorney is typically anywhere from 300 pages up to 1000 pages. Then the (experienced trademark) attorney reviews it and lets you know in a detailed opinion if the mark is free for you to use and register without entangling you in the risk of a dispute/lawsuit. If it’s not available, you pick another brand, and search again.

Using a Brand and Registering It

So what’s the difference between freedom to use a brand and freedom to register it? In the U.S., “common law” trademark rights can exist based solely upon use (that is use of a trademark without registration). That’s because consumers can associate a brand with a single source (the trademark owner/producer of goods/services) even if it’s not registered. (It’s different in other countries, and searches should be done in every country for which you want to use your brand.)

So it’s possible that there’s a barrier to use but not to registration, because a common law (unregistered) trademark is too similar to the brand you want to use, and is being used in connection with identical or related goods/services as your proposed brand. That’s why you want clearance to both use and register a mark. (Registration is important because it provides you with nationwide rights in your brand; common law trademarks cover only the geographic territory where sales under the brand occur.)

So please clear your mark. It’s pennies on the dollar compared to what you will spend in a dispute or (heaven forbid) litigation. Here’s to happy searching!

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

How Attorneys Can Overcome the Fear of Cross-Selling

Being able to help your client with multiple legal issues can be a boon for your firm. After all, it generally takes much longer to develop new relationships than to maintain existing ones. The opportunity to cross-sell to clients by keeping them “in-house” after resolution of a matter, is one that shouldn’t be passed up. Extending this relationship should always be the goal because it’s frankly cheaper, not to mention more effective and efficient to nurture an existing relationship than to cultivate one from scratch.

Overcoming Attorney Fears About Cross-Selling

The above shouldn’t imply that there aren’t valid concerns about cross-selling, both within your firm or through collaboration with attorneys outside of your firm. Some of the common fears or objections to cross-selling to a client you’ve built a relationship with include:

  • Fear of losing the client to another attorney or firm.
  • Fear that you’ll refer a client and the other attorney will not be successful.
  • Fear of sharing compensation.

The fear of losing a client to another attorney or firm is legitimate. However, if the client came to you for a “one-off” legal matter, it is entirely possible that with or without your referral to a trusted colleague, they will pursue a bid from another firm or attorney anyway. So, you really have nothing to lose in this regard.

As for the fear that you’ll refer them to an attorney within or outside of your firm and that attorney won’t do a good job, thereby making you look bad—the best way to overcome this is by sending your client to someone who has a vested interest in ensuring that you continue to send referrals to them.

Finally, in regard to fear of sharing compensation, simply agree ahead of time to a compensation split with the attorney with whom you plan to collaborate.”.

While it is true that there is some risk that all three of these fears could potentially materialize, when compared to the potential benefits to be reaped by collaborating with other firms or other attorneys, the potential pros overwhelmingly outnumber the cons.

Client Benefits of Collaborating with Other Attorneys

You’ll notice that from here on out, we will replace the term “cross-selling” with “collaboration” because the last thing your clients need—who are coming to you for help during a possibly negative or complex time in their life—is to be upsold anything. Your role as counsel is to be a trusted advisor and confidant not a salesperson working on commission.

As a trusted advisor, with your client’s best interest in mind, your role as counsel is absolutely to point them in a direction or guide them to a colleague either within your firm (this is ideal as you can begin to build teams), or at another firm who can help when a legal matter arises that is outside of your wheelhouse. This is particularly true today as specialization in a niche practice is prevalent. In sum, your clients deserve access to the best experts available.

Collaboration also reduces the number of vendors that your client has to work with. Whether you team up with a colleague in your firm or partner with an attorney at another firm your client will see you as a team. They won’t feel as if they are adding yet another advisor and ensuing legal fees.

Collaboration also helps you better understand the business of your client. By working outside of your primary or preferred practice area with another lawyer, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of your clients’ overall needs, business, etc. Knowing as much as you can about them will make you a better and stronger advocate.

Clients aren’t the only party to benefit when you decide to collaborate with a colleague—attorneys benefit by maintaining the existing relationship, learning to work as a team in an area of law that isn’t a primary focus and by earning income from an existing client.

Tips for Successful Collaboration with Other Attorneys

Here are a few strategic “dos” that should help you successfully collaborate with other attorneys:

  • Determine compensation share from the beginning.
  • Take time to get to know the other attorney outside of the scope of the case.
  • Create a communication plan, including method and frequency.
  • Clarify roles from the outset of the collaboration.
  • Develop a reporting/information sharing protocol.

And one major “don’t”: Turn a client over to another attorney and then disappear.

When done correctly, collaboration leaves every practice better off. It’s not just “more money for more products.” It is far more cost-effective and efficient to maintain and grow an existing relationship than to develop new business, and it’s often in your client’s best interest. It’s also an avenue for team building and an opportunity for reciprocal referrals, which can only help your law firm.


© 2019 Berbay Marketing & Public Relations

For more on attorney marketing, see the National Law Review Law Office Management page.