Archive for the ‘FreeStyleFriday’ Category
I removed the boiler-plate from my “about me” page
For awhile I have thought it would be nice if my “about me” website page talked in normal language and described who I am, rather than simply listing services and accomplishments (the standard attorney about me boiler-plate). I finally made the change today. You can see it here. Let me know what you think. Is it an improvement?
Giving the pink slip . . . to a client
Attorneys need to get and keep quality, paying clients to stay in business. An attorney without any clients is unemployed, the same as if he lost a job working for a company. The competition for clients can be intense, particularly in an area where I live that has over 7,000 licensed attorneys in the county.
It is against this backdrop that I tell you I had to fire (give the pink slip to) a client for the first time recently. This was a quality, paying client. It was a client I had worked with for nearly six years. I do not have another client of this size ready to move in. I have lost clients and had clients that simply didn’t call me any longer. However, until now I have never made the decision to fire a client who wanted to continue to work with me.
Why did I fire the client? The costs of continuing the relationship (financial, emotional, psychological) outweighed the benefits of continuing the relationship, such benefits being primarily financial.
This decision didn’t come easily. I made it after months of thinking, analyzing and praying about it. What I realized was if I do not exercise some discretion over who I represent, I have eliminated the benefits of being self-employed. Along those lines, the toll that working on this client relationship takes on me detracts from other work and finding new clients.
I do not relish this situation nor do I take it lightly. One of my primary concerns is making certain that the client is able to transition to another attorney, to which it is better suited, with a minimum of difficulty. I don’t think so highly of myself to believe I the am only one who can represent this client.
Am I crazy to cast away a client who is quality people, pays regularly and provides a decent amount of work?
A reminder of the power and peril of social media
There are many wonderful things about social media – access to information, opportunities for new relationships without traditional time and distance limitaions, interaction and community. At the same time. the ability to community with the world instantly comes with cost – that you might communicate something you regret. 
This happened to well-known designer Kenneth Cole recently. Cole sent out this tweet:
Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online.
Yes, he really said that. First, he apologized for it on Twitter, then deleted the tweet and apologized in more detail on Facebook. Obviously, deleting the tweet does not erase it from our minds. It apparently has made quite an impact. Will there be serious damage to the Kenneth Cole brand? It seems possible. Shelly Kramer on ragan.com asks the question: Did Kenneth Cole commit brand suicide on Twitter? and Social Media Erupts over Kenneth Cole Tweet.
All from one tweet. Instant communication with thousands of people. Be careful what you tweet, it doesn’t go away.
**^* Are you bothered enough by Kenneth Cole’s tweet to stop buying his clothing?
Should we know as much about Steve Jobs’s health as Gabrielle Giffords?
I came across an article from Kathleen Pender on The Chronicle with Bloomberg today, Giffords’ detailed updates, Jobs’ nondisclosure, comparing Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Apple CEO Steve Jobs approaches about how much information to release when there is a health issue. The title of the article and, to some extent, the article’s tone suggests that Mr. Jobs should be releasing more information about his health condition because we know so much about Rep. Giffords condition. Any comparison between the two scenarios is facially appealing but functionally bunk. Mr. Jobs and Rep. Giffords are public figures who have suffered or are suffering serious health issues. It is at this point that the comparison crashes:
- Different health situations. The circumstances of the injuries/health issues are drastically different. Rep. Giffords survived a cold-blooded assassination attempt and know, thankfully, appears to be making a phenominal recovery. Mr. Jobs appears (although we cannot be certain) to be in a downward spiral of health due to natural illnesses. Ms. Giffords is rightfully viewed as a hero by most people. It seems to me that Mr. Jobs’ condition is viewed with more sadness than anything else.
- Different purposes. Mr. Jobs is responsible for the day to day operation of one of world’s most valuable companies. Even a slight slip up or loss of momentum could have drastic consequences for Apple’s stock price and the company. Ms. Giffords is responsible for representing the people of Southern Arizona in the United States Congress. Her absence does not stop Congress from conducting its business or even have a major impact on the way Congress conducts its business. (Let me be clear here: I am not saying Rep. Giffords is unimportant, only recognizing her position as 1 of 435 members of the House).
- Institution vs. Company. Rep. Giffords is accountable to the people she represents while Mr. Jobs is primarily to his Board of Directors (indirectly to Apple shareholders).
- Downside. There is little downside to Rep. Giffords’s health condition being released, we are rooting for her recovery and the news has been overwhelming positive. As morbid as it may sound, Apple’s competitor’s benefit from negative information about Mr. Jobs. Reports on his health which are grave or concerning threaten and weaken Apple (even if only temporarily) giving competitors an edge. I am not saying Apple’s competitiors are wishing ill will to Mr. Jobs, only recognizing how the system typically works.
- Immediate vs. Future Threat. Ms. Giffords was perilously to death and survived injuries that 98% of people die from. It is not clear what Mr. Job’s health status is. While his health issues may be very serious, the grave threat to his life is not apparent from looking at him.
Is the comparison between the way the Giffords and Jobs situations have been handled valid?
What people look for in hiring an attorney
What are people looking for when they hire an attorney? What are the key characteristics? I was curious to hear from people on this since my experience has been primarily as the person being hired. I asked this question on Linkedin (you can view it on Linked, if you are a member, by clicking the link) earlier this week:
What are the most important one or two qualities for which you look when hiring an attorney?
The responses are listed below.
If I were to hire an attorney, I’d want someone I could rely on. For me that is a person that is well informed, honest, sincere, and practical.
1) Exceptional analytical skills
2) Problem solver mentality rather than antagonistic
Ability to bring new knowledge and insight that I didn’t already have or think about. If I’m trying to decide on which attorney to use, I’m more likely to choose one that makes me feel like he’s valuable for more than just filing paperwork.
When I was looking for an adoption attorney, the most important things was that he/she listened and answered my questions. Recommendations from others was also high on the list.
1) Do I know them and know them to be honest?
2) Do they pay it forward with their services?
3) – if I was able to give a third, it would be simply, do that have a clear pricing schedule listed where I can look it up.
Without knowing what type of law you practice it is hard for me to answer that question. I’d be more than happy to meet over coffee something & discuss with you.
A committment to customer service Ability to help clients make the best decisions that fit them and their situation Timeliness of response
Honesty and tenacity.
***What are the key characteristics to you when hiring an attorney?***
5 reasons you need a written agreement.
It is probably a mantra of most attorneys: get it in writing. However, it turns out there are some stellar reasons to “get your agreement” in writing at the start of the relationship:
1. All parties to the agreement know what the terms are.
2. The process of reducing the agreement to writing spurs conversation about the terms and usually helps clarify to what the parties are agreeing and issues that might exists.
3. It is much easier to enforce something that is written down. Enormous legal obstacles exist when trying to enforce an oral agreement.
4. People who were not part of making the agreement can know what the agreement is. This tremendously improves efficiency.
5. The written agreement provides a pathway to resolving disputes, without having to go to court.
5 considerations in naming your children’s guardian
Last week in FreeStyleFriday I reviewed the process of naming a guardian for your minor children. This week I cover the important considerations in determining the guardians:
1. The stage in life of the proposed guardian(s). Are the people at a place in their life or will they be in place where they want to have children? People who are finishing raising their children and moving on to another stage in life may not want to take on children.
2. The resources of the proposed guardians(s). Raising and supporting children can be expensive. When thinking about guardians consider whether the people who would be guardians generally have the resources to care for additional children. This is an area where life insurance (on the lives of the parents) can be helpful.
3. The religious beliefs of the proposed guardian(s). The guardians could end raising your children having a profound impact on their development both physical and spiritual. If it is important to you to have your children raised in the faith which you believe, this is something to consider.
4. Special needs. Do any of your children have special needs? If so, are the proposed guardians prepared to meet those needs and care for the children in the way that is necessary?
5. Legal qualification. These requirements are usually minimal (e.g., not a convicted felon, non-US citizen etc. . .) but something to consider as a threshold requirement.
The process of naming a guardian for your children
While it is not the most exciting part of the estate planning process, nominating the people you want to be guardian of your children obviously has a huge impact. When parents pass away, the guardianship of minor children is established by a court. The court either follows a statute which lists relatives who are entitled to be named guardians or, looks to your nomination. If the court has consider people named in a statute, there is more potential for conflict over who is named guardian.
Conversley, nomination is important because unless there are specific facts that make the people you nominate unfit, the Court usually appoints the people who are nominated. You “nominate” people by simply naming them in a Will or Trust. In the process of addressing many other estate planning issues, people can cover the issue of guardianship.
Next week, I will discuss the factors to consider in determining who your guardian(s) should be.
Oops, we lost your mortgage, now pay us!
Remember those documents you signed at your last loan closing? Your mortgage company sent you a copy or maybe, if your mortgage company was particularly efficient, it emailed you a copy. You probably assumed that your mortgage company was safely storing the originals. Not so fast, assume nothing with the chaos inherent in the home mortgage over the last few years.
Time Magazine chronicled the story of a Florida man who has stayed in his home for over two years without making a mortgage payment because his mortgage company could not find the original promissory and mortgage. The originals are typically required to convince a Court to grant foreclosure. In the process of investigating this particulary homeowner’s case, Time discovered something that is not surprising:
Just how bad is the problem? TIME dug into the mortgage of one troubled borrower. What we found suggests that many promissory notes are not lost. In an effort to rush homeowners to foreclosure, and hide damaging information, bankers’ have needlessly created a huge legal mess that once again questions the financial industry’s credibility and ethics. “They [banks] don’t comply with the law when they’re taking people’s homes,” says Michael Olenick, who owns Legalprise, a legal research firm.
It is not surprising to me because I have witnessed shoddy work by mortgage companies that want to enforce their legal right without providing the homeower with their rights. If it is documented in this case by Time, there are probably quite a few more cases where poor record-keeping leads to a breakdown in the process.
The lessons for homeowners? Keep copies of the documents you sign and know your rights in the foreclosure process.
You can read the entire Time article here.
The benefit and burden of being connected everywhere
I am connected to my work, family and friends to a degree that was unimaginable 10 years ago. It is not just calls on the cell phone, it is email, text, Twitter, IM, Facebook and an immnumerable number of other services. The opportunities this connectivity brings are tremendous; people collaberate, connect and achieve in amazing ways. In many ways, actual physical presence has become irrelevant.
This level of connectivity also means it is nearly impossible to disconnect, even for a brief period of time. The expectation is set that one will always be available, even it it is only a text message or email. This means lines between work and play are blurred and, if one is not careful, the quality of both work and play diminishes.
Occasionally I wonder if the benefit of being “connected” whereever and whenever is worth the burden of essentially being “on-call”, permanently. Do you ever have this concern? How do you address it? I am interested to hear your thoughts.
Follow Us!