Category Archives: Practice Management

Posted on

Saving Paper

by

A couple of recent experiences have prompted me to think about the number of wasted pages that attorneys generated. And I am not talking about poorly drafted arguments. I am talking about exhibits.

I am involved in an appeal in an insurance coverage case. The issue is discrete and is strictly a legal issue. There are no real facts at issue. In the case, the Complaint was 14 pages long. A similarly sized amended complaint was also filed, along with a counterclaim from another party. With answers to each complaint and counterclaim along with the motions for summary judgment and responses, there is, in total, maybe 300 pages of pleadings filed in the case.

The common law record on appeal, however, is 2,841 pages long. What is the rest of the record comprised of? For the most part, copies of insurance policies. I know, this is an insurance coverage case. The applicable policies are important. In this case, there were a lot of them because there were multiple companies and multiple policies involved.

However, the reality is that the provisions relating to the lawsuit comprised less than 10 pages from each of the policies. Notwithstanding this, the attorneys for the insurance companies attached the complete policies for every policy to both the applicable complaint (or counterclaim) and the motion for summary judgment.

This is something I see all of the time. I understand the desire to attach the complete policy to the complaint. However, is it really necessary to attach hundreds of irrelevant pages as an exhibit to a motion for summary judgment? In this case, those extra irrelevant pages amounted to, literally, thousands of pages. And that was just in the record on appeal. In the case before the trial court, those thousands of pages were served on three other parties.

In a less extreme, but still wasteful example, I was recently served with a motion to dismiss a complaint I had filed. The defendant’s attorney had attached a copy of the complaint to the motion. Why? Sure, give the judge a copy of the complaint when you provide him with courtesy copies of the moition. However, I can think of no reason to actually attach it as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. It’s not like the complaint is information outside of the record. It’s what got the court file started in the first place. This seems to be a common practice in Illinois. Does this happen in other jurisdictions as well?

Anyway, what I am saying is think about the paper you are wasting. I don’t want to scan it, store it, or mail it, if it is irrelevant or unneeded. Certainly, there are exhibits that you need to attached to your pleadings. Further, there is no question but that in some cases you will have to attach an entire contract. However, if you exhibit is hundreds of pages long, and you are looking only at a couple of pages, think about paring down that exhibit.

The common law record on appeal contains 2,841 stamped pages. In reviewing the record, however, I noticed several unstamped pages that were missed because the pages were stuck together. As a result, the waste is even greater than it initially appeared to be.

Posted on

Two Lessons I Learned Last Week

by

Last week I learned two lessons that I plan to apply in my practice going forward. To understand these lessons, a little back story is needed.

Part of my practice is doing mechanic’s lien work. In order to properly prepare a mechanic’s lien, I have to have a title company run a tract search for me. This search identifies, among other things, the property owner, the mortgage holder, and anyone else has a record claim on the property (such as other lien holders).

For years I have used a company that is a subsidiary of the a large title company. I have dealt with two offices in this subsidiary. The suburban office is great to deal with and I have had a good relationship with them. for property in Cook County, however, I cannot deal with the suburban office. Instead, I have to deal with the Chicago office. I have had less dealings with that office over the years, and therefore, do not have as established a relationship with them. Also, in the past, they have not been as responsive as the suburban office.

So, last week I attempt to order a tract search in the same way that I have ordered one in the last 10 years. I send an email to my contact, I give them the information that I have about the property, and I tell them what I need (a tract search). In the past, this has generated a return email telling me that my order has been received and I should have my information in 2 to 3 days.

This time, however, I get an email back with a form attached. The email tells me that I have to complete the form and that I have to pay for the tract search in advance.

In reality, I find neither one of these requirements offensive. Having customers complete a standard order form probably makes things work more smoothly. Also, it is not unreasonable to request payment up front. Given, however, I have not had to do this before, I sent an email back asking if the payment in advance was a new policy, because I had not encountered it before.

In response, I was told that they require payment in advance for anyone who does not have an account set up with them (reasonable), he had checked their records and found that my firm had not ordered from them before (not surprising, it has been in existence for less than a month). Consequently, they require payment in advance from me.

Again, all of this was reasonable. What I did not find in the email, however, was information on how to establish an account with them, or how to pay them in advance. In a return email, I asked how I could pay in advance, and I was told that I could mail a check or drop off payment at their office. This last option is particularly convenient for me given that I am sure my Naperville office is next door to their Chicago office. It would probably take only 3 hours of time and $30 in parking fees to drop the check off.

After thinking about this for a second, I realized that this was a situation in which, in the recent past, I would have used the support staff that I no longer have. When encountering a situation like this, I would push it off to my assistant and let her handle this task. Now, however, I am also my own assistant. I was trying to figure out how to get this resolved without wasting more of my time and worry about getitng the check lost on its way to the title company office.

This is particularly important in a situation such as this. I charge a flat fee to prepare a mechanic’s lien. Thus, any time I spend wasting on administrative stuff is time I could be doing something useful.

As I was thinking, I was struck by inspiration. I am in the process of signing up to be a title agent with a title company. The sales person there has been very attentive during the process. Thus, I decided to use him as my support staff. I send him an email and asked how to order a tract search. In response, he emailed me the order form, with all of my contact information filled in, no less. I completed, the few remaining fields I had to, and placed the order in just a couple of minutes.

So what did I learn last week? First, don’t be afraid to use your vendors as support staff. Don’t be unreasonable here, but there are things that they can do for you more easily than you can try to do them yourself. Second, just because your rules are reasonable, that doesn’t mean they won’t cost you a customer. I have dealt with this title company subsidiary for essentially the last decade. However, because they made it difficult for me to place my order, I placed my order with someone else. As a result, I am reviewing my policies to identify areas that make it difficult for clients to do business with me.

Posted on

How to Increase Your Productivity

by

Chief Happiness Officer recently had an interesting post in which he talks about increasing productivity. He begins by explaining:

There’s just one problem: Most people’s view of productivity comes from an industrial age view of work. This leads to some fundamental misconceptions about work, including some of these:

  • If you work more hours, you get more work done.
  • Adding more people to a team means you can finish sooner.
  • Productivity is more or less constant and can be easily scheduled.

For knowledge workers, i.e. anyone who works with information rather than physically producing stuff, these notions are not only wrong, they’re actively harmful.

He goes on to suggest 5 new rules of productivity. As a knowledge worker, I found his rules interesting and applicable to myself as a knowledge worker.

His five tips are:

  • Your productivity will vary wildly from day to day. This is normal.
  • Working more hours means getting less done.
  • Working harder means getting less done.
  • Procrastination can be good for you.
  • Happiness is the ultimate productivity enhancer.

My suggestion is that you hop over to his post and read the entire post. However, I did want to highlight a couple things.

In his discussion, he has a great graph that shows how productivity is affected if you work 60 hours a week for several weeks in a row. In the beginning, productivity is high. By week two, your productivity begins declining and by week four it’s less productive than working only 40 hours a week.

As attorneys there are times, of course, where we will have to work more hours. That is the nature of the business. However, as the author points out, don’t get trapped in the manufacturing thought pattern that more work equals more productivity. Yes, a widget maker that runs 16 hours a day can produce twice as many widgets as one that runs 8 hours a day.

However, we are not creating widgets. We are using our knowledge and experience to help our clients solve their legal problems. Our work is not a commodity. Do not treat it as one.

In talking about procrastination, the author points out that we view tasks differently at different times. He explains:

Sometimes you’re in the mood for task X and doing X is ridiculously easy and a lot of fun. Sometimes doing X feels worse than walking barefoot over burning-hot, acid-covered, broken glass and forcing yourself to do it anyway is a frustrating exercise in futility.

Certainly there are times when we have something that must be done at a certain time. Most of the time, however, we can structure our tasks to work on them when we want. Don’t forget that fact. If you are more productive at a certain time, plan to work then. If you always start to drift off in the afternoon, schedule a break then, or make that your surf the internet time. Think about how and when you best work and try to match your tasks to that.

Like I said, you should read the entire post and think about how you can apply it to your work life..

Posted on

Going Paperless: A Contrary View

by

It is no secret that I am a big fan of having a paperless practice. Let me pause for one second to make sure that everyone understands that when I refer to a paperless practice, I am not claiming that there is no paper in my office. Unfortunately there is. However, what it means, at least to me, is that, to the extent possible, I work exclusively with electronic versions of documents, that I convert all documents I receive to electronic copies, and that I do not print documents to paper unless I have to.

I also know that not everyone has jumped on the paperless bandwagon. I recently read a blog post at Paralegalese in which the author asserts that she does not believe that a paperless office is possible. She explains:

Perhaps the first reason I have a hard time envisioning a paperless office is that my own office is very paper-full. We print everything, from the e-filed orders to drafts of motions for review. We make copies of everything that leaves the office. When I am researching case laws, I print out the cases to highlight the pertinent parts. We print emails from clients to place in their files for quick future reference.

Now, I understand that everything we choose to print could actually be saved to file, and we could scan all of our paper documents into the system. But that is impractical for a law firm with one lawyer and one paralegal and, at any given time, fewer than 100 active client matters. I would spend much of my day scanning documents. Some days would be completely shot.

I understand her thoughts on this and they are not different from the thoughts I hear from others. In fact, she goes on to point out two other arguments that I often hear:

First, I must print out research material for the sake of my poor eyes. It is unhealthy to stare at a computer screen for hours of reading. I also have to highlight the relevant parts. Second, since we keep copies of everything that leaves the office, we keep copies of all signed letters. It seems impractical to print a letter, sign it, then rescan it into the system before sending it off. At least, in our office it is.

And if time and effort cannot be saved, then going paperless to save paper seems silly, too. In my office, we would still hit the print button. But without a file in which to save the newly printed paper, we would shred it when we were done.

Each of these arguments could be addressed in turn (for my thoughts about legal research see this article). However, I think the larger issue to be addressed is one of mindset. Going to a paperless office requires someone to be willing to let go of that physical document. It means spending a few dollars to get good quality, large monitors so you can easily read documents on a computer screen without having to print them out. It means learning how to use Adobe Acrobat so that you can highlight and annotate your research on the screen and not on a piece of paper. It means learning that it is ok to not print a copy of every order entered electronically or printing a fax received on your virtual fax number. And for heaven’s sake, it means not printing every email that you receive.

In addition to the post by the author, I encourage you to read the comments, Many of them are insightful and make going points about changing workflow habits, as well as the fact that going paperless improves productivity.

Posted on

Tips for Going Paperless

by

Going to a paperless practice was the best thing I have ever done to improve my law practice. It enables me to easily access any document on any case in a matter of usually seconds (although at times it may take a couple of minutes). When compared to how I used to practice, including digging through file folders in expandable files, or boxes of documents, there is just no comparison.

I love the fact that I have all of my files with me, wherever I have my laptop. I also love the fact that I can easily access, make backups, print copies, or search these files. Getting here was not a quick process, however, it also was not a difficult process.

After working with a paperless practice for a few years, I have some tips for anyone thinking about making the switch.

  • Start now. Don’t delay. Also, don’t try to go back in time and scan everything in your old files. Time marches forward. If you start today, soon enough, you will scan everything you are currently working on. Once you start the process, you will start identifying those active files that you need to scan the documents you have received.
  • Scan Everything. If you receive a letter. Scan it. If you receive a pleading. Scan it. If you receive document production. Scan it. The last thing you want to do is not know whether your document is scanned or not. To solve this problem, scan everything. Also, think about encouraging people to send you documents electronically rather than on paper. This saves you from having to scan it.
  • Scan it when it comes in. Don’t let the scanning pile up and try to do it once a week. Scan it when it comes in.
  • Get a Scanner that is easy to use. One of the biggest mistakes I see is someone who tries to start the scanning process with an all-in-one machine that has a scanner that is slow and difficult to use. This is a sure recipe for disaster. If you have a networked copier/scanner/fax machine, these usually work well and scan quickly. If you don’t have one of these machines, then I recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap S1500. This is a workhorse of a scanner, it has a large ADF, it scans quickly, and it includes a copy of Adobe Acrobat Standard. All of these are great features, but they are not why I recommend the ScanSnap. I recommend the ScanSnap because it works easily. You put the documents in the ADF and press the go button. Shortly thereafter, the documents appear on your computer. It is that simple.
  • Learn how to use Adobe Acrobat. This is the part that most people never attempt. However, I think it is the most important. Acrobat has lots of features that allow you to handle and manipulate electronic files. If you are unsure where to start, I would recommend the blog Acrobat for Legal Professionals along with the training videos from Rick Borstein and Mark Middleton.

For other perspectives on going paperless, see the posts from Lawyerist here and here as well as the post from slaw.ca here.

Posted on

Faxing

by

When I talk people in the business world, I find that hardly any of them deal with faxes on a regular basis anymore. They don’t deal with mail either. Almost everything is done electronically. Of course, the legal world is lagging behind the rest of the business world. Perhaps that is why I found this Dilbert comic so funny.

Dilbert.com

Click on the strip to see a version that doesn’t run into my sidebars.

Posted on

Fabricating Evidence

by

I read a recent story at Wired’s Threat Level Blog in which the artist who produced the Obama Hope image admitted that he had lied and destroyed and fabricated evidence to support his claim. I am no expert in copyright or fair use law, however, I am pretty sure that the artists actions in lying, destroying evidence, and fabricating evidence did more damage to his case than any actual real evidence ever could.

The blog posts explains:

Fairey [the artist] had long claimed he based his abstract graphic rendition on a photo of Obama seated next to actor George Clooney. In court documents (.pdf) filed Friday, Fairey admitted he actually used a solo shot of Obama from the same event, and had destroyed and fabricated evidence to support his lie.

A review of the linked to court documents reveals that the evidence he attempted to destroy were computer files. I am not sure when, but one of the days I think clients will finally understand that they cannot conceal their electronic actions. If the case is big enough or important enough, someone will eventually discover that electronic evidence has been tampered with. Moreover, in all likelihood the resulting sanctions or adverse inference instruction will probably do much more damage to the case than the destroyed evidence ever would.

Posted on

Owning Your Own Domain

by

Legal Technologist (and all around great guy) Nerino Petro recently a posted about the benefits of owning your own domain. Nerino points out two good reasons to own your own domain. First, it is a great branding technique. As Nerino points out, you don’t even have to have a website to own the domain and have an email account associated with it. Second, it provides you with a professional email address to provide to your clients.

Check out Nerino’s entire post. In the post he includes links to several additional posts that point out the benefits of owning your own domain.

Posted on

Unpaid Internships

by

Mark Cuban recently posted a screed about how he was unable to provide unpaid internships through the Mavericks.  Mark explains:

One silver lining of a “great recession” that we are now in is that there are a lot of incredibly talented people without jobs, or who have lost their jobs. I didn’t care if they were 18 years old or 73 years old.  I thought we could assemble a talented group who would enjoy the internships and could also gain valuable experience to add to their resumes.  When the economy opened up, one of two things would hopefully occur.  We were generating revenue from this effort and we could hire them, or they had just built up their resumes and improved their chances of finding a paying job.

Makes sense right ?

Wrong. Enter the US Government.

This is what our HR person, who his supersmart and really knows his stuff came back with

“The law says that interns have to be paid unless they are perfoming work that is of no value to the organization; ie., helps them in some way but we get no benefit from their work.  Thus we would have to create work that is useless to us  if we choose not to pay them.  How silly is that?”

I would love to hear the thoughts on employment lawyers on this one. The additional info Mark provides appears to support what he was told.

I understand the concept of not violating minimum wage laws. However, when I look back at the two internships that I did what I was in college, I am sure of a few things. First, if the “employer” would have had to pay me, I would not have had the opportunity offered by the internship. Second, if I had been paid for what I was doing (at least in my first internship) that would have been unfair. Third, the experience I gained in the first internship convinced me that I wanted nothing to do with local government. Fourth, the experience I gained at my second internship, provided me with foundational skills that I still use today.

It’s just sad to learn that the internships I had would be illegal today.

Posted on

The 5 Stages of Techno Grief

by

Nicole Black has posted a great article analogizing lawyers adopting technology to the five stages of grief. As Nicole explains:

In many ways, the legal profession’s response to technology, and online technologies in particular, can be likened to Kübler- Ross’s five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance.

The legal profession’s reaction to technology follows a similar path: denial, defiance, desperation, deployment, and then, at long last, dedication.

A few trailblazers, mostly solos and small firms, have worked through the process and are now reaping the benefits of technology and all that it has to offer. Unfor- tunately, the vast majority of the profession is currently stuck in the middle of the process.

The sad part is that she is absolutely right. I see attorneys who constantly do everything they can to avoid adopting technology. I love how Nicole describes the denial stage:

Until very recently, the majority of the legal profession was blissfully clueless about Internet technologies, their collective heads buried in the sand. Most attorneys seemed to think the Internet was a passing trend, and if they ignored it, it would eventually disappear.

Go here to read the rest of her spot on analysis. Although I think the acceptance phase may be just a little farther off than Nicole anticipates.