Tag: Law Offce Management

Avoiding the Funk…Overcoming Job Search Fatigue-Syndrome

left_1

As part of my role as a member of the Lawyers in Transition Committee for the NYSBA, I was one of four panelists asked to speak on the topic of “Avoiding the Funk During the Job Search.” It is a program we have run for the last several years since 2008 and for those of you that want to watch the full webinar you can download it for free on the NYSBA website.

So while the tips in this blog can be useful anytime the career funk sets in, this blog is for those persistent, noble, red-eyed, weary warriors of the legal job search who have had to weather weeks, months and, in some instances, at least a year of job searching in a weird legal climate.

First things first. You Are Not Unique. Career Funk  is everywhere…regardless of your work or job circumstances, whether you are employed, self-employed, unemployed or looking for a job, rest assured, that a sense of ennui, frustration, and good old-fashioned depression can creep into your workday and mindset and derail even the most gung-ho, caffeine-driven career.  It happens to me at least once a day like clockwork around 3pm and it hits hard, just like it does for everyone. I guess that’s my first point: You are not unique and neither am I. Career funk will come. Funk will set in for all of us and we all need tips and tools and rituals to help De-Funk.

So it has me thinking? What does Job Funk & Job Search Fatigue Syndrome for attorneys look like, what are the causes and what can you do to combat it? So here are some of my initial lay observations about lawyers and why the job search funk hits attorneys particularly hard.

Here’s the crux of it.  We are a community of professionals who like to be prepared for the worst and we are trained to throw ourselves into a difficult situation, issue spot, quickly problem solve, fix and move on to the next issue. On a day to day basis, we are accustomed to immediate gratification

So here’s the root of the job funk: many of my clients approach the legal job search with the same, immediate tackle, throw-down and conquer approach that they approached their legal practice. But soon enough within 3 -5 months, attorneys confront a harsh reality that job search in this climate can be a long, protracted and uncertain process. Attorneys come to learn that while they can control the effort they put into their job search, they cannot control the outcome, the timing and the results

Lack of control, lack of immediate gratification, and a lack of certainty define the new job search reality for many attorneys and can lead to job search funk.

 So what can you do to avoid the Funk? Here are some basic suggestions:

  1. Go Inward: Some of you know that in addition to being a former attorney, I am also a shrink. And so, in my experience, spending quiet time identifying and processing difficult emotions is the starting point for overcoming any funk. Many times when we are in a funk we do not even know what emotions and feelings are brewing beneath the surface; all we know is that we are not ourselves and in a rut. Denial of difficult emotions, such as—rejection, bereavement, fear, grief, loss, hurt, embarrassment, disappointment– breeds such career obstacles as procrastination, paralysis, indifference, fatigue and just guarantees us more funk.  So no more denial! If you are sensing that your job search is running on fumes, it might be time to go inward a little and figure out what is going on internally and emotionally with you.  Spending some time identifying what you feel, and allowing yourself to express and process the tough emotions associated with job loss or protracted job transition can actually be a starting point for re-energizing your job search. The only way through the grief and loss is through it… there is no way around it. And when we are in a funk…it’s a sign to start going inward, articulate and process the rough feelings with a friend, mentor, counselor or professional.
  2. Connect With Non-Lawyers: Reducing isolation and finding ways to connect interpersonally is key to reducing the funk.  But here’s the deal: while you are in the job funk, stay away from other attorneys and the networking events that draw other attorneys looking for employment. Why? Because misery likes company and the last thing you need right now is to surround yourself with other well-meaning, highly articulate, equally frustrated and defeated attorneys who can creatively add to your own list of reasons to be miserable.  Part of getting out of the funk means protecting yourself.Find ways to connect with other professionals from other industries through alumni associations, civic organizations, local charities or through hobbies you may have left to atrophy over the last several years. Mix it up and you are more likely to find people that are like-minded and maybe more positive and energetic than you are right now.
  3. Eliminate Well-Meaning, Loveable Energy Drainers: I am about to give you a De-Funk mantra: Protect yourself. Protect yourself and then protect yourself some more. The reality is that while in the job funk, you are emotionally vulnerable. This means that for the immediate future you need to ruthlessly eliminate and/or reduce contact with those loving, caring and well-meaning people in your world—friends, colleagues, family members—who want the best for you, are worried about your “situation” but who, like clockwork, invariably give unsolicited advice that makes you feel worse about yourself, your job search efforts and your career. These are the well-intentioned people who always say and ask the wrong thing about the most sensitive area in your life. Do you have any people like that in your world? Yep. Thought so. Me too. To them and you, I say: BOUNDARIES. This is a time for you to create and maintain boundaries.Reducing contact with these people is imperative to protecting you from sinking deeper into the funk. You can always reconnect with them when you are stronger, more confident and less vulnerable.
  4. Structure Your Day & Get Moving: Some experts say that finding a job is a 40-hour a week “job.” I do not agree. I don’t know about you, but I can’t do the same project, task or activity for more than 3 hours much less for 40 hours a week. I need variety. But I do believe that your work week should be scheduled and that the job search game plan, i.e. your resume revisions, networking, and connecting with contacts etc. should be structured and scheduled at the same time every day.I also believe that exercise of some sort that gets you out of your home and into the world also needs to be structured into your “job search” day. It will help improve your mood, get you seeing other people and feeling that you accomplished something at the end of the day.
  5. Be Selfish by Giving to Others: My final tip sounds counterintuitive but it actually makes sense. Start paying it forward. I’m not being preachy…I am being practical. When you give you feel better. Full stop. Your situation may be difficult, hard and frustrating but there are people in more dire and difficult circumstances than you or me. Find a way to volunteer your time to a cause you believe in, or to a hospital, children’s cause, food pantry, soup kitchen or home for the aged and watch your funk lift! The most selfish thing you can do to get out of your funk is to give to others.Giving activates our feelings of gratitude for what we have and reminds us that everything in life changes. Giving to others will make your spirits soar, it is good for the soul and you will gain perspective about your current situation. All good things.

Most importantly, there is a difference between job funk and full blown clinical anxiety and depression. If you believe your circumstances may be more serious than a “funk” then there is professional help for attorneys through the NYSBA and City Bar of NY to help address issues related to job loss that are more serious. And I would encourage you to capitalize on these resources to help move you forward.

And finally….I leave you with this quote about facing the challenges of uncertainty in the face of unwanted change, which I often find comforting. Peace.

“Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them; that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.” – Lao Tzu

Article By:

 of

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Pricing Legal Services in a Challenging Environment

LMA_Midwest Logo 300x125

The balance of power has shifted. In-house counsel, increasingly concerned with legal spend, are putting the pressure on law firms to control costs. In turn, many law firms, scared of losing work, fall victim to suicide pricing. Clients actively seek control of legal costs by demanding greater discounts, requesting alternative fee arrangements and meddling in resource allocation. Colin Jasper, principal of Jasper Consulting, said that all of these factors create a growing challenge for law firms, since pricing has a bigger effect on profitability than any other lever.

In his presentation during the April LMA Midwest Luncheon titled “Pricing legal services in a challenging environment,” Colin discussed the challenges firms face in setting a fair price, and ways they can improve price-setting discretion and avoid commoditization.

What is the “right” price?

Colin polled the audience on the characteristics of the right price. As hands went up across the room, “profitability,” “perceived value,” “sustainable rate,” and “responsive to the market” were among the responses. Colin agreed that all of these are important considerations and that the right price is one that is fair to the client and fair to the firm. Three implications flow from this:

It is the client’s responsibility to fight for what’s fair to them, and we should not begrudge them for doing so.

  1. It’s our responsibility to fight for what’s fair for the firm.
  2. We have a role to play in influencing our clients’ perceptions of fairness.

He described three common methods for setting a price:

  1. The cost-plus method, which uses multiples and margins to determine cost. This method reflects an accounting mindset.
  2. The market-based method asks “what will it take to win?” and sets a price that is competitive with others in the market and employs a sales mindset.
  3. Value-based pricing is the most talked about and perhaps least understood. It sets prices based on the value of the service to the client.

At its most basic level, pricing is the process of determining what a firm will receive in exchange for its services. It is important, said Colin, to think of pricing as a process, not as an event. The pricing process is comprised of key inputs (such as objectives, costs, competitors and client value), process elements (roles, strategies, tools and monitor, control and feedback) and components (fee level, fee structure).

If you never lose work because of price, you are pricing too low.

“We are taught that we need to pay attention to client feedback, but that’s true only to a point,” he said. “Client feedback tends to define our place in the market.” He noted that losing work because of price is absolutely bound to happen as long as you are maintaining your competitive position and pricing. A premium firm, for example, will have high pricing and greater benefits. Their clients will say “we love your benefits, but you’re expensive.” The mid-market firms will hear similar. Economy firms, with low prices and fewer benefits, will hear the opposite (“we love your price, but wish we were getting better results and/or service”).

 I just don’t want to be ripped off.

When it comes to pricing structures, clients are steering away from the hourly rate, which Colin says is overused in the legal profession. Other structures, such as fixed fees, event fees, monthly retainers, value billing and hybrid structures, are preferred instead. These bear much more resemblance to value billing and allocate risk between the client and the firm. With hourly fees, a disproportionate amount of risk falls on the client.

All of this does not make for a greedy client. Instead, said Colin, clients are buying emotionally and justifying rationally. They are saying “I’m happy to pay what’s fair, but I don’t want to be ripped off.” Clients are looking for signals as to whether the resulting price is fair and that they got good value for their spend. One of our roles as legal marketers is to influence the client’s perception of value. Many factors come into play when clients are determining the fairness of price. They are comparing price to a range of alternatives, including competitors, benefits, discounts, estimates, options and even competitors in a different market position. The heightened role of procurement in these purchase decisions has further exacerbated these comparisons.

The key, says Colin, is to have clients focus on what is at stake. If you’re the firm who can do this, you automatically have an advantage. Additionally, the biggest area marketers can see improvement is in communicating the firm’s value. The more we can do so, the less pushback we will get on price.

There is no such thing as a price sensitive client.

When a client perceives that the benefits of one firm are equal to the benefits of the others, your work is seen as a commodity. Colin said, “there is no such thing as a price sensitive client, only a client who has grown indifferent to your differentiation.” However, there are so many ways that legal services differ from firm to firm, that they are really not commodities by nature. In conclusion, Colin offered three ways to combat commoditization:

  1. Become the low cost provider.
  2. Fight the good fight of differentiation and help them understand how the benefits you offer are greater than the benefits of others.
  3. Change clients and transition away from clients who are pushing you down. Know your “walk  away” position.
Article By:

 of

Making a Difference at Your Firm: A Checklist from Two Law Firm Chief Marketing Officers

LMA_Midwest Logo 300x125

It is a fact that none of us majored in legal marketing in college.  While some of us did receive a formal education in general marketing or business, it only takes a few months before you realize that working with lawyers is a whole different ballgame.  How lucky we are as LMA members, then, that veterans are eager and willing to share their wealth of knowledge with not just legal marketing rookies, but also other veterans, and everyone else in-between.

Anne Schuster chief marketing officer at Thompson Coburn LLP, and Lou Ann Wilcox, chief marketing officer at Armstrong Teasdale LLP, recently collaborated to create a checklist on how other legal marketers can make a difference at their firms, which they kindly shared with their colleagues in St. Louis.

 1)  Understand the Big Picture

Clearly, marketing is not carried out in a vacuum.  Our speakers encouraged everyone to know what the firm’s management is trying to accomplish (both short term and long term) along with their overall vision for their firm  and how marketing fits in.  In fact, understanding what the firm’s goals are will often guide you in developing your marketing plan.

 2)  Focus on What Matters

Anne and Lou Anne explained that there are two types of activities that legal marketers carry out:

  • Business development activities that affect the bottom line
  • Reputation enhancement activities that do just that – enhance the brand

This was further illustrated by the “Marketing Continuum” chart which divided activities into “Sales” (big seminars, networking events, face-to-face business meetings, etc.) and “Reputation Enhancement” (tables at events, PR, articles, golf hole sponsorships, etc.).  Lou Ann expressed that we should be pushing our lawyers towards the sales activities while teaching younger lawyers how to become more involved in reputation enhancement activities.

 3)  Know How Your Law Firm Works

In addition to knowing the basics of how your firm works, our speakers also recommended knowing how influence happens in your firm.  One specific way to determine who is an “influencer” at your firm is to look for the person your managing partner bounces ideas off of.

Furthermore, you should know your firm’s financials, or at least understand the six levers of law firm profitability:

  • Leverage
  • Demand
  • Rates
  • Productivity
  • Realization
  • Expense

Once you understand how the firm works, go forth and teach your lawyers!

4) Manage to the Numbers

Anne showed how analyzing your client base can reveal new opportunities in untapped practice areas.  Specifically, she illustrated the green-space chart that she attributed to Altman Weil.  In it, practice areas are plotted on the x-axis with top clients on the y-axis; dollar amounts are filled in the cell where the points meet.  Empty cells on the chart represent opportunities for client teams to market additional services to those existing clients

5) Create Opportunities to Listen to Your Clients

Lou Ann recommended a formal client feedback program consisting of annual client meetings, frequent visits and post-matter surveys.  If a problem comes up during the client feedback process, it should be fixed immediately and then the client needs to be notified that the problem has been fixed.  What’s more, Lou Ann discussed how during an annual client meeting outlining expectations, her firm also asks the client marketing-related questions such as, “How do you like to be entertained?” (what type of events?  What time of the day?) and “What are your expectations regarding how the firm donates to your favorite charity?”  Asking these types of questions not only opens up the lines of communication with the client, but also eliminates wasted effort on behalf of the marketing department and the client team.  In the end, we should be asking itself, “Are we doing everything we can for the client?”

Lou Ann also revealed that her marketing department frequently asks the firm’s lawyers how they are doing, as well.  This simple act shows that the department values the firm’s client feedback process while also putting the lawyer in the client’s shoes.

6)  Educate and Communicate

Anne and Lou Ann both illustrated a few ways that their firms have facilitated educating their lawyers on the practices and clients of other lawyers within their firm.  Methods included a deck of cards with facts on different attorneys, a splashy video highlighting opportunities for cross-selling and an innovative passport program that encourages lawyers to simply get to know each other.

The second component, communication, is necessary in order to keep the firm’s lawyers aware of the successes of their colleagues.  Lou Ann shared a newsletter her firm’s managing partner sends out that simply lists recent successes and awards.  This simple act builds trust among the practice groups and reduces the perceived risk of cross-selling another practice.

7)  Push Lawyers Out the Door

As marketers, we should be encouraging our lawyers to talk to their clients along with visiting them at their place of business.  This tends to take lawyers out of their comfort zone, so the panelists discussed ways we can make it easier for them, such as preparing talking points.

8)  Push Back on Bad Ideas

Anne and Lou Ann provided some great tactics on how to deal with lawyers presenting bad marketing ideas.  Overall, they both advised re-directing ideas that you know won’t work.  Instead of saying “No,” offer two or three alternative ideas to the individual.

9)  Know Your Strengths

Lou Ann recommended the book, “Strengths Finder 2.0” which helps individuals discover their strengths.  When you discover what you naturally excel at, operate within that strength at let others operate within theirs; this is what makes a truly effective team.

10)  Market Yourself

Anne began by stating that this item is the one we most frequently forget.  In order for marketing to stay relevant within the law firm, we need to tell our story ,since no one else will.  Additionally, we should be documenting our activities and results.  Lou Ann explained that her marketing department records their activities through a shared document which lists tasks and objectives stated for the year.  In it, marketing staff members enter when tasks are completed; the document then serves as a report on what the marketing department completed in that year.

This unambiguous checklist created and shared by Anne and Lou Ann provided a fantastic set of guidelines on how marketing professionals can make sure they are making a difference at his/her firm.  Moreover, the real-world examples and case studies our speakers presented further illustrated how these items can be carried out at any firm, simply and successfully.

Article By:

 of

Using Technological Innovation to Enhance Law Department Management

180x180-w-tagline

In today’s law firm environment, legal marketing professionals hold the dual role of preserving value as well as creating value. One of the best ways of accomplishing both goals is to take full advantage of technological innovation while minding the inevitable limitations that exist in law firms, such as budget constraints and reluctance to accept technological advancement. From website development to social networking, the right technological tools can steer law firms to align their system capabilities with their clientele needs. By taking advantage of such tools as analytics and systems of engagement that raise the level of awareness, legal marketers can justify technology budgets and get shareholders and partners on board with the tech express.

Steps Legal Marketers Must Take Before Investing in Technology

Analytics: Measuring Data Integrity Holistically to Determine Performance Impact

Legal marketers must ensure that vendors provide detailed, structured analytics for marketing optimization purposes. Analytics deliver the data while metrics and dimensions can be queried together to measure performance. Analytics as a system allow legal marketers to analyze data and determine whether the technology garners a return on investment. In addition, the description of performance guides legal marketers in the decision-making process to predict outcomes and drive efficiency. It remains up to legal marketers to ensure that analytics are providing valuable knowledge and being used to improve business performance as well to justify investment into technology.

Analytics only fulfill their purpose when providing holistic and accurate data. They must present a clear understanding of a complex structure, likened to looking at the world through a keyhole. No one metric will account for all of the data in totality so the goal is to view the data holistically to get the full story. Moreover, data integrity remains essential to the equation as far as the quantification, quality and presentation of analytics.

Analytics are comprised of a two-prong system: how comprehensive the data serves as only the start—the challenging part is for the legal marketer to use context to asses and model the data. Because the function of marketing metrics is ultimately to gauge performance impact, every metric should remained nuanced enough from which to derive a take-away point. For instance, a metric may show that one legal project took two months to close while another similar project took two years to close. Because no two matters are the same, the metric and dimension should be nuanced enough to present variables accounting for the disparity. In its barest terms, the legal marketer wants to determine that she spent x time and resources for a y amount of value.

Business Intelligence and Systems of Engagement

Legal marketers must also select technologies that commoditize knowledge work, which serves as among the most strategic activities taking place within the law firm. IT systems in the past, known as systems of record, have focused heavily on technological features and processes rather than users. These systems are used in everyday business operations to compile, automate and store data and, while important, are not conducive to collaborative work amongst attorneys or interaction with clients.

In contrast, emerging IT systems called systems of engagement, which are the future of technology-led business innovation, raise capability to a higher order and allow for immediate and streamlined communication. As such, systems of record host processes while systems of engagement touch people and drive more interaction among colleagues on top of just maintaining data. This is not to say that systems of records are rendered obsolete—in fact, by using both systems of record and engagement to monitor transaction and interact with the data respectively, the full value of technology is tapped. Hence, legal marketers can take all of the data coming from the interactions mixed with the meaning derived from translating the data into insights to product true innovation.

 

The information in the this article was gathered from the Inside Counsel’s 2013 SuperConference from presentations by:  David Cambria, Senior Director, Enterprise Information Management, CDW; Mike McGuire, Corporate In-House Counsel, Axiom; and Pamela Woldow, Partner & General Counsel, Edge International.

Article By:

 of

When Persuading, Body Language Beats Words Re: Persuasion and Negotiation in the Practice of Law

In any law firm, there is a lot of persuasion going on.  Persuasion and negotiation are, after all, essential skills in the practice of law. But they are also important in other tasks performed at law firms.  In the human resources area, you must persuade someone to hire you, pay you more money and advance you in your career.  In the operations area, you must persuade your colleagues to work with you.

And of course, a lot of law firm persuasion takes place in the realm of business development.  You must persuade clients in your marketplace that you are expert in your field of practice.  You must persuade influencers to refer to you to others and potential clients to meet with you.  You must persuade current clients to stay with you and give you more work.

Wouldn’t it be much easier to persuade others if you knew what they were thinking?  The ability to read body language provides this valuable information.

Wouldn’t it be much easier to persuade others if they liked you and trusted you?  The ability to modify your own body language makes it much more likely that this will happen.

The ability to read and respond to body language was discussed by Traci Brown at the June 11 program of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Legal Marketing Association, held at Sullivan’s Steakhouse in LoDo Denver.  Brown is a Boulder-based persuasion expert who teaches lawyers how to use body language to pick and persuade members of a jury.  She is author of Mastering Magical Persuasion and Body Language Confidential.

Importance of body language

Lawyers tend to be word people.  As such, they put too much emphasis on what they are communicating.  They will spend hours researching and writing a presentation, and then simply read it. They place far too little emphasis on how they are communicating.  This can be a huge mistake.

“Research shows that people form first impressions about the likeability and trustworthiness of another person very quickly,” said Brown.  “This determination of ‘OK’ or ‘not OK’ happens instantaneously in the deep unconscious.  Once this impression is made, it is almost impossible to change.”

According to a widely cited study by UCLA professor Albert Mehrabian, body language accounts for an overwhelming 55 percent of that impression.  By comparison, 38 percent of a first impression comes from the tone of your voice and a mere seven percent from your actual words.

Body language includes how we position our bodies (including how close we stand or sit to someone), how we use our hands (including shaking hands), how people perceive our facial expressions (especially our eyes), how we touch ourselves and others, and how our bodies connect with items like pens, eyeglasses, jewelry or even the change in our pockets.  It can include breathing rate and perspiration.

“If the person you are meeting is somber and guarded,” said Brown, “you will never persuade them by being cheerful and demonstrative.  That will only set off their alarms.

“If you want to get different results from your efforts to persuade others, you need to do things differently,” said Brown.  “To get better results in the area of business development, one of the most effective things you can do is to change your body language.  With an understanding of how body language works, you can talk just about anyone into anything.”

Reading and responding to body language

An effective persuader will pay close attention to the body language of the person he or she is trying to persuade, and then mimic that body language.  “People like and trust people whom they perceive to be similar to themselves,” said Brown.  “The more you can be like the person you are dealing with, the more you will be able to establish essential rapport.”

Good friends and romantic partners, for example, tend to do this naturally.

Is the person you are sitting across from soft-spoken? Does he speak slowly, smile and laugh a lot? Is his notepad on the desk or his lap, does he take copious notes, are his legs crossed, is he leaning forward or backward?  These are important things to notice and reflect in your own body language.

Two terms often heard in the field of neurolinguistics are mirroring and matching. “Mirroring occurs when you copy a person’s body language as if you were that person’s reflection in a mirror,” said Brown.  “If the person you are facing leans to the left, for example, you lean to the right.  In other words, you might both lean towards the door.

“Precisely mirroring another person at exactly the same time can be too intense,” said Brown.  “It can actually backfire by making the person too uncomfortable.  The only time mirroring works well is when you are sitting across from someone who is very stiff and symmetrical.”

Almost always, you want to match rather than mirror the person you are speaking with.  “When you match, you copy the person more loosely,” said Brown.  “If the person you are facing leans to the left, you lean to your left – the other way from a mirror image.  If the other person leans towards the door, you would lean away from the door.

“You don’t want to do this immediately after the other person moves,” said Brown, “but perhaps five or ten seconds later, or when it is your turn to speak.

“When having a conversation, it is a good idea to stand or sit at a 45-degree angle to the person on whom you want to make a positive impression,” said Brown.  “Standing or sitting right across from someone and staring them straight in the eye can be seen as confrontational and put that person on his or her guard, rather than creating rapport.”

How to interpret a handshake

Brown discussed a number of circumstances where it can be useful to understand and correctly respond to another person’s body language.

The handshake, for example, is the standard greeting in business situations. The ideal handshake is the “equal shake,” where the clasp is vertical and the grasp is firm.  It says that you are meeting on common ground and want a nice, even interaction.

When the other person shakes your hand and turns their palm down, they want to dominate the interaction.  The same holds true for a ‘bone crusher.’ When the person turns their palm up, they are welcoming and likely to do what you want.  A limp ‘dead fish’ handshake indicates a lack of backbone.   A person who shakes hand with just the fingertips is unlikely to want to do business with you.

Article By:

 of

Women, Influence & Power in Law – October 2-4, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference:

 

WIPL2013_250x250

When:

The Only National Forum Facilitating Women-to-Women Exchange on Current Legal Issues

Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference is presented by Summit Business Media’s Legal Suite – InsideCounsel magazine, InsideCounsel.com (website), producers of the 13th annual IC SuperConference, the prestigious Transformative Leadership Awards, and creators of Project 5/165.

Presented by InsideCounsel Magazine, the pioneering monthly magazine exclusively serving general counsel and other top in-house legal professionals, the first annual Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference offers an opportunity for unprecedented exchange with women outside counsel. This unique event was created with the assistance of an unheralded advisory board comprised of highly placed women attorneys who are all direct reports to the general counsel and were drawn from across the country. These attorneys have the highest levels of expertise and experience in key practice areas.

The Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference is not a forum for lawyers to discuss so-called “women’s issues.” It is a conference for women in-house and outside counsel to discuss current legal topics, bringing their individual experience and perspectives on issues of:

  • Governance & Compliance
  • Litigation & Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • Government Relations & Public Policy
  • Global Litigation & Transactions
  • Labor & Employment
  • Executive Leadership Skills Development

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

In a Pro-Employee World, U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Offer Employers Hope

GT Law

In a pair of important opinions released last week, both of which are helpful to employers, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for employees asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. _, No. 12-484 (2013), the Court ruled that an employee claiming retaliation must do more than show that retaliatory animus was a “motivating factor” for discipline – it must be the “but-for” cause.  In Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. _, No. 11-556 (2013), the Court ruled that for employers to be held vicariously liable for the actions of a “supervisor,” the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “supervisor” had power to take a “tangible employment action,” such as transferring or terminating the employee. Authority merely to direct aspects of the employee’s work will not suffice.

Nassar and Vance represent significant victories for employers faced with Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims. The heightened requirements that charging employees now face should enhance an employer’s prospects for obtaining summary judgment and, failing that, impose a more rigorous hurdle for plaintiffs at trial.

Nassar Imposes More Stringent “But-For” Causation Test for Title VII Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff in Nassar was a physician of Middle Eastern descent. The defendant university hired him as a member of its medical faculty, and under the terms of the university’s affiliation agreement with a local hospital, the plaintiff also worked at the hospital as a staff physician. The plaintiff alleged that the University’s Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine harassed him because of her discriminatory “bias against Arabs and Muslims.” The plaintiff ultimately resigned from the university faculty, and accused his superior of discriminatory bias in his letter of resignation, which he sent to the university’s chair of Internal Medicine and other faculty members. The chair was allegedly dismayed by the public accusations of discrimination, and said that the chief must “be publicly exonerated” of the charges against her. When he learned that plaintiff had been offered a staff physician position at the hospital, the chair objected that the affiliation agreement required all staff physicians to also be faculty members, and the hospital therefore withdrew its offer to plaintiff.

Plaintiff brought suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that he had been constructively discharged by reason of the chief’s discriminatory harassment, and that the chair subsequently allegedly retaliated against him for complaining of that harassment. A jury found for plaintiff on both claims, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed only as to the retaliation claim, holding that retaliation claims under Title VII required a showing merely that retaliation was a “motivating factor” for an adverse employment action rather than its “but-for” cause.

The Supreme Court vacated that decision, concluding that “the text, structure and history of Title VII demonstrate that a plaintiff making a retaliation claim … must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” The Court reasoned that because Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision appears in a different section from the status-based discrimination ban, which utilizes the lesser “motivating factor” causation test, the “but-for” standard applies to Title VII retaliation claims. Accordingly, “Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” To establish a retaliation claim, employees must now show that their employer would not have taken the challenged employment action but for the employee’s protected activity.

Vance Limits “Supervisors” to Those with Power to Take a Tangible Employment Action

In a second critical decision for employers, plaintiff in Vance, an African-American woman, worked in the university’s Banquet and Catering Division of Dining Services. Plaintiff alleged that a fellow employee, a white woman named Davis, harassed and intimidated her because of her race.  Plaintiff sued under Title VII, alleging that her white co-worker created a racially hostile work environment. “The parties vigorously dispute[d] the precise nature and scope of Davis’ duties, but they agree[d] that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance.”

The District Court granted defendant summary judgment, holding the university was notvicariously liable for Davis’s alleged actions because she could not take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff and therefore was not a “supervisor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “who qualifies as a ‘supervisor’” under Title VII. The Court held that “an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII [only] if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim” and affirmed.

In analyzing when an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, the Court defined “tangible employment actions” to include effecting “‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.’” The Court specifically rejected the EEOC’s definition of “supervisor,” which tied “supervisor status to the ability to exercise significant direction over another’s daily work[,]” as “a study in ambiguity.” Hence, under Title VII, if an employee is not authorized to impose tangible employment actions against another, the employer cannot be vicariously liable for the subject employee’s alleged harassment.

Vance enhances an employer’s ability to limit the company’s responsibility for harassment. Employers should remain mindful of the duties of their employees, ensuring that only key management and supervisory personnel possess the power to effect a “significant change in employment status”. Clear definitions of an employee’s responsibilities should greatly limit any future claims of vicarious liability against employers. This more precise definition of “supervisor” should, like Nassar, increase the likelihood of dismissal at the summary judgment stage and help obtain favorable in limine and trial rulings.

Conclusion

Nassar and Vance afford significant advantages to employers defending against discrimination and retaliation claims.  Importantly, although the decisions themselves were concerned with claims arising under federal anti-discrimination (not just Title VII) laws, the Court’s reasoning may well find acceptance among state courts, which frequently apply the Title VII analysis to claims asserted under analogous state laws. Nassar and Vance are likely to prove valuable tools to employers defending against claims of discrimination and/or retaliation, increasing both the prospects of obtaining summary judgment and, if necessary, the odds of success at trial.

Article By:

Achieving Success in the Legal Profession: Women Helping Women

National Association of Women Lawyers

The National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) is 115 years old this year.  It is not only the oldest women’s bar association, it is also the only national bar association for women, dedicated to advancing women lawyers and the interests and rights of women under the law.  NAWL truly is the voice of women in the law™.

As the voice of women in the law, in 2006, NAWL challenged corporations and law firms to double their number of women general counsel and equity partners from 15% to 30% by 2015.  Recent statistics indicate that the “NAWL Challenge” for corporate legal departments in Fortune 500 corporations is close to being met.  Women today comprise close to 30% of General Counsels, when only a few years ago they comprised only 15% of the General Counsels in the same companies.   This achievement is in sharp contrast to the fate of women lawyers in the 200 largest U.S. law firms (“AmLaw 200”), where women have stagnated at 17% or less of those law firms’ equity partners since NAWL’s annual survey of the advancement of women lawyers began.

To be sure, there are thousands of women lawyers in this country in many different practice settings who have advanced, are leaders, and love the practice of law.  I am one of them and have spent almost 35 years loving what I do as a professional each and every day.   Many of NAWL’s leaders and members have similar feelings. As an organization, NAWL brings those lawyers together whenever it can to share their experiences with younger lawyers and impart views as to how the practice of law can be a nurturing professional experience for women, and one in which they can achieve whatever success they desire.

This year’s NAWL Annual Meeting on July 24-25, 2013, at the Waldorf=Astoria in New York, brings together the remarkable attorneys who are the NAWL Annual honorees; an exceptional series of CLE programs that will benefit younger lawyers in their career development, to more senior lawyers, in theirs; and networking opportunities that will help lawyers advance in their careers and defy the statistics.

The Annual Meeting is the culmination of a year in which NAWL presented its three major national programs—the 8th Annual General Counsel Institute, its Mid-Year Meeting and now the Annual Meeting—and several regional programs, all designed around the central theme of what women lawyers in different practice settings, at different stages of their careers, need to advance into the upper echelons of the legal profession.   At the Annual Meeting, NAWL will honor lawyers who have advanced women and women lawyers in a variety of ways:   Yale Law School Professor Judith Resnik, for her work in advancing women and women lawyers in the justice system; Sheila Kearney Davidson and the corporate law department that she heads (New York Life Insurance Company), for their work together in advancing women lawyers in the corporate setting; Veta Richardson, for her tireless work in promoting diversity in the legal profession; Catherine Douglass, founder of inMotion, for her inspirational work in helping women under the law; Daniel Goldstein, for the example he sets for all by his devotion to the advancement of women in the corporate setting; and four outstanding members of NAWL—April Boyer, Sandra Cassidy, Jennifer Champlin and Elizabeth Levy—for their hard work in helping NAWL provide its members, and women lawyers across the country, with the skills and strategies they need to chart their own course and reach the highest echelons of the profession.

The July 25th Annual Meeting will conclude with a networking reception with a philanthropic bent (a NAWL Night of Giving), which will benefit inMotion and its remarkable efforts on behalf of victims of domestic violence.   The Annual Meeting events will be preceded by an afternoon of NAWL committee and practice group meetings on July 24th.       The two-day event will bring together women lawyers from across the country and will inspire them in their efforts to achieve what they aspire to in their own careers and to help their colleagues, and those coming along behind them, in achieving their own aspirations.

Article By:

 of