Recently in Law Practice Category

Twice in the last month, the New York Times has run articles about the legal profession. The first article, The Falling-Down Professions, reports that professions like law and medicine are losing social prestige. That theme elicits little more than a shrug from me, but I did find this quote interesting:

This decline, [author Richard] Florida argued, is rooted in a broader shift in definitions of success, essentially, a realignment of the pillars. Especially among young people, professional status is now inextricably linked to ideas of flexibility and creativity, concepts alien to seemingly everyone but art students even a generation ago.

"There used to be this idea of having a separate work self and home self," he said. "Now they just want to be themselves. It's almost as if they're interviewing places to see if they fit them."

You think?

With that in mind, we turn to the more recent article, Who's Cuddly Now? Law Firms, which relates how large law firms are trying to stanch the bleeding of associate turnover by allowing associates to take reduced billable hour requirements in exchange for salary reductions, increasing parental leave, and taking other steps

I tend to agree with Enrico Schaefer when he says,

Let me say it again. As bad as hourly billing is for clients, it's worse for lawyers. To live your life as though each minute spent doing something else besides billing the client was a wasted moment is a waste of life.

As a partner I know in a respected Denver firm recently remarked, "I'd gladly give up 20% of my income not to have to deal with billable hours."

Will my generation finally get law firms to rethink the life-affecting tradeoffs they make in clinging to the billable-hour system? Maybe. I hope so. But I wonder how these seeds of change will be affected by the threat of economic instability. Gerry Riskin has been warning of doom and gloom for the legal profession and warns against thinking of law practice in terms of business as usual. Bruce McEwen sees law firms as having a less cyclical business and suggests that some features of law practice are likely to change but that the upheaval may be less dramatic than one might think.

I think it will be interesting to see how all these dynamics flow together, and I hope that economic instability does not quash efforts to make it easier to practice law and still have a well-rounded life.

What comes to your mind when you hear the word "success"? "Success" is a concept that has given me some cognitive dissonance over the years, because I didn't really think much of "success" as such until I went to law school and the word was everywhere. And I resented that to some degree, because the message that we students got (and to varying degrees perpetuated) was this: "Success" means some combination of the following and the more the better: achieving a certain GPA or class rank; getting a clerkship; getting a highly-paid associate position in a large firm; and eventually becoming a partner in that firm, obtaining a high-profile government or corporate position, or becoming a judge or law professor. Although some allowance was generally made for the fact that not everyone shared those goals, acknowledgments that those paths aren't for everyone usually seemed to me to carry with them a hint of disdain.

It's relatively easy to think of success in terms of what one might call "public" career achievements (i.e. visible accomplishments in a particular field). But those kinds of events are not sufficient, nor in every case necessary, to what I would call success "in the broad sense" — a life well lived. It is one thing to be successful at something and quite another to be and feel successful in more general terms. One can be very successful in the deployment of one set of skills and yet relatively unsuccessful in the broader sense and unhappy in life.

Maybe the reason that notion of success is not given much airtime by career services offices in law schools and elsewhere is that it is simply outside the scope of their advising capabilities. They can provide some guidance on how one might think about career decisions in the broader context of one's life, but their expertise relates to job placement much more than to career counseling. So they talk about what they can help with and refer everyone with bigger-picture questions and concerns to books. Just a hypothesis.

The New York Post reports that according to NALP, 37 percent of associates leave large firms within the first three years and 77 percent leave within the first five years. It's not clear from the article whether those are New York or national figures.

Okay, so it's not a news flash. In fact, it utterly lacks shock value.

According to the article, the reason for this attrition is that associates find they don't like drinking from fire hoses. I find that entirely credible, though it's not the only reason people leave — one of the associates interviewed for the article was leaving his firm to take a position with an investment bank, hardly a line of work known for excellent 'work-life balance.'

Basic economic principles hold that everyone has a point at which he or she will trade off income for the opportunity to do things other than the activity that generates that income. On the margin, the value of the extra money to that person is less than the value of the extra time. Since I don't work at a big NYC firm, I've got no direct personal insight into the associate life there, but based on some accounts I've heard I have a vision of that life that makes choosing another path look very sensible indeed.

Merlin Mann links to this press release by ntl:Telewest, a UK telecoms firm, reporting on a study showing that "Two hours, 10 minutes was the amount that people wasted each day at work on average, of which one hour 38 minutes was due to communication technologies not being used to good effect."

Unfortunately, the press release doesn't say anything about how the study was conducted, so you can't tell much from it.

The press release notes,

Highlighted in the research was the over-reliance on voicemail when returning or making phone calls, having to wait for people to call you back before you get the answer you require. Similarly, a delay caused by having to wait for emails to be answered with relevant information was another area that increased time wastage each day.

That's potentially interesting, but I wonder if this is really an issue of misuse of technology rather than a weakness in the technology. One of the quotes in the release makes me think that might be the case:

"Often the root of reduced productivity is that you don't know where people are, be it in a meeting, at another location or away off site. New communication services with instant messaging features are changing this, as they can identify instantly what an individual is doing and enable the 'caller' to communicate with them in the most appropriate way. New services will aim to iron out the productivity blips that hamper organisations today and save employees from wasting time at work," [said Stephen Beynon, MD of ntl:Telewest Business.]

On the other hand, instant messaging has the inefficient side effect of interrupting whatever else one might be trying to accomplish at the moment. As a Hewlett-Packard UK study pointed out, that also impairs productivity. I doubt it would turn out to be best if everyone I worked with or for knew where I am and what I'm doing at all times.

I wonder if some of these technological problems have human solutions rather than technical ones.

(By the way, what's the story behind all these productivity studies by UK firms? That's two press releases in two weeks. Where can the public find detailed reports of these studies?)

A few days ago, Bruce MacEwen wrote,

Another set of firms … will also embrace the reality that the highest form of human happiness comes not with work alone, but with work and with love.

The good news is that those of us blessed in work and in love are often the most productive and creative as well. This is nothing more than centuries-old wisdom, but some of us lost sight of it at the end of the 20th Century.

I quoted him here. Stephanie West Allen picked up on the posts, reviewed some of the common traditional senses of the word love, then wondered, "If we love our clients and the people with whom we work, what type of love is it?"

I didn't read Bruce's words as suggesting that the love to which he referred would necessarily come from or be attached to the work. I feel strongly about the work that I do, the company in which I do it and the people that my work serves, but I would hesitate to use the word 'love' for that set of emotions. I thought Bruce was referring simply to having the time to cultivate one's relationships with family and friends. His point is still important: a person who has meaningful, caring relationships is more likely to be happy and thriving than a person who has fewer (or no) such relationships, but who spends endless hours working and gets paid buckets of money to do it. People who are concerned about how their work affects their quality of life as a whole human being still value professional achievement and working relationships, but they are willing to make some economic trade-offs to preserve their other relationships and other things that they value.

In drafts of this post I sought to explore further the theme that "quality of life" is not just about time spent at the office versus time in other activities. I quickly discovered (or not so quickly, since I had planned to be falling asleep by now) that I wouldn't be able to cover that territory and do it well. At least, not tonight.

So that must wait for another day, but meanwhile, consider these recent posts:

Rees Morrison: All management expresses values ("managers express values, explicitly or implicitly, as they exercise their power and decide on courses of action")

Arnie Herz: Law firm reinvention: nurturing the partner-associate relationship (law firms where partners hoard work and don't delegate don't do themselves any favors by it in the long run)

Over the last few months, I've gotten the impression from reading legal weblogs that quite a few older lawyers who struggle to understand what motivates the newest generation of lawyers. I don't know if it's true. I see the phrase "work/life balance" bandied about a lot (though no one quite seems to agree on what it means), and I've sometimes seen that phrase used disparagingly, as if to say, "If you want to have priorities elsewhere, I wouldn't want you to work for me." I don't generally meet this character in my daily life, but lots of people are telling me he exists (it's almost always a 'he') even if the stereotype that circulates is a bit of a caricature.

Bruce MacEwen has been posting about this issue periodically, most recently with a post titled "Can We See the Log in Our Own Eye?"

I'll make no pretense of being able to speak generally about what my generation wants. Over-generalization is seldom useful, and I'd guess that most of us don't know at this point what we 'really' want (will we ever?). But I can say that there are many in my generation who insist upon trying to be not only good lawyers, but also good, well rounded human beings. They find great value in the former enterprise but find that value dramatically diminishes when it detracts from the latter enterprise. This does not mean that attorneys who think this way view their professional work as trivial. In fact, as David Maister points out (picked up by Michelle Golden), they yearn for meaningful and challenging work, and they recognize the importance of that work. What's more, they can do it well; after all, their value systems don't make them inherently less capable. Like anyone else, they want financial security, too. They're just not willing — perhaps not able — to make that work the only source of value in their lives. Even financial security yields diminishing returns when traded off against other human needs.

Bruce concludes:

I believe firms may increasingly find themselves in two camps.

• One set of firms will cling to the "safety" of tradition, keeping associates in the dark, as the second-class citizens they are presumed to be, pointedly oblivious to "work/life" issues, letting the fungible young things sink or swim in the deep end of the pool they're being paid well to inhabit.
• Another set of firms will embark on the adventure of embracing this generation of graduates as true professional peers and colleagues, every bit as ravenous for challenge, stretching, and unfamiliar new assignments as we were— and will also embrace the reality that the highest form of human happiness comes not with work alone, but with work and with love.

The good news is that those of us blessed in work and in love are often the most productive and creative as well. This is nothing more than centuries-old wisdom, but some of us lost sight of it at the end of the 20th Century.

Where would you choose to work?

"I have met many hot worm lawyers and I suspect there may be whole firms composed primarily of hot worms."

I couldn't resist. How often do you read a line like that?

Stephanie says to let the workaholics be. I can live with that, as long as the workaholics can realize that non-workaholics can do valuable work even if they don't like to do it at the expense of absolutely everything else.

The Wired GC promises us one client's view on the salaries paid to associates in large law firms in the United States. The GC begins with a question:

But today I’ll end with a question. Why is this news? Why don’t we hear what new MBAs make at Fortune 50 companies? Or new residents at major research hospitals? Or new CPAs at the Big Four (or however many there are left this week)?

Do the major legal publications torture managing partners to extract this information? It’s sort of unseemly. Guess how much my new Mercedes convertible cost! Guess how much my new IWC watch cost! Guess how much my new associate cost!

The answer to that question is straightforward enough: Firms quite readily tell law students what first year salaries they pay. They volunteer this information to candidates and to the National Association for Law Placement. Anyone can look at the NALP Directory online (though it might be a bit out of date - for example, it doesn't appear to include the latest salary increases). So, information about starting salaries flows freely. Does the same thing happen at other kinds of businesses? I assume not, but I wouldn't know.

Am I the last one to hear that the gargantuan national law firms have raised first-year salaries yet again?

I heard or read somewhere that Irell & Manella started the trend by bumping first-year salaries for the current class to $135,000 per year. (I was vaguely aware that until then the national BigLaw starting salary had been around $125,000.) Not only did a bunch of BigLaw firms follow suit, but some twelve or so New York firms decided to raise the ante by pushing salaries even further, to $145,000.

This weekend, prompted by an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, a few respected voices in the legal blogosphere weighed in on the change. The op-ed suggested that law firms are just adding associates to increase their "leverage" (i.e. net profit from associates that partners get to take home), and that having hired more associates the firms simply assign more associates to work on projects than is necessary. Larry Ribstein's post here seems to play around with that idea a little bit to see if it was tenable, and Ribstein suggests that law firms over-recommend legal services when something else would suffice.

Bruce MacEwen gives Prof. Ribstein's observation a nod, but proceeds to conclude that the WSJ op-ed's theory is still absurd; young associates (unlike their more senior counterparts) just don't make much if any money for firms, and clients won't tolerate firms that churn projects. MacEwen suggests that the high salaries of the premium NYC firms reduce turnover, provide an incentive to work harder, and draw out the highest quality workers. He also suggests some cultural angles to the story. Steve Bainbridge doesn't believe the economic interpretation suggested by the WSJ op-ed, either.

It's all a little through-the-looking-glass from my perspective. Those New York kids would sneer at my salary now and guffaw at what I made in my first year of law practice. But I sure wouldn't trade places with them. I guess the good news is that there are places in law for each of us to do good work. I'm with Gerry Riskin on this:

I said then and I will say it again that salaries alone do not buy you motivation, commitment, drive and the desired peak performance. They buy you compliance with extremely high billable hour targets. I believe the long term winners have to be competitive in their salaries but also must learn how to enhance the satisfaction of both lawyers and the clients they serve.

Supplement: Arnie Herz's two cents on this point are worth a lot more than two cents.

Stephanie West Allen has started a weblog called IDEALAWG. I've seen Stephanie's name connected with various CLE-type programs in the Denver area, but I haven't met her yet.

[via Gerry Riskin's Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices.]

The Denver Post article I interviewed for ran today. It's available online here. I'm quoted near the end.

I was a little surprised at first that the article tended to focus on the difficulties and resistance some lawyers have encountered because of their weblogs. I'm not surprised at the resistance itself, though. Law firms generally tend to be conservative, especially when it comes to the ways they present themselves to the world.

Knowing that, many young attorneys write anonymously. I explained this to the reporter, Greg Griffin, and it was on this point that he quoted me: It was on this point that Griffin quoted me: "I think I share with a lot of associates a general anxiety about saying something that someone with control over my future might think is unprofessional." I probably have less to worry about because I generally don't write about my practice, and I avoid ever writing about my firm. (Suffice it to say I think it's a great firm that does high-quality work and I enjoy working there. When I comment here on issues that seem to afflict the profession or certain segments of it, I hope you will not think that my firm is similarly afflicted.)

Fortunately, the article turned more optimistic after its initial paragraphs. For those who would think about writing as part of their law practice, consider this statement about Greg Piche's blog: "The blog also brings in business, in part, he admits, because it shows off his expertise. Piche said about a third of his clients found him through the site."

Apparently once Holland & Hart got over its initial anxiety about Piche's weblog, it saw fit to launch two more firm-sponsored weblogs, and I doubt they'll stop there. As the Post article explains:

For many lawyers, blogs are a natural way to stay abreast of an ever-changing legal landscape - and to set themselves apart as experts in their domain. Increasingly, law firms see blogs as a key marketing tool that's far more dynamic than the traditional website and newsletter.

I suspect that law firm marketing will, in the long run, head in the general direction that weblogs represent. I've got a feeling that regional firms and specialty boutiques stand to benefit the most from weblogs as marketing devices. But for now, I'm quite content to keep my writing here separate from my work.

I'm preparing a pro bono matter for hearing and I don't have much time to post my own commentary on the work-life balance aspects of the New York Times article that ran today titled "Why do so few women reach the top of big law firms?" (NYT registration required, I'm sure.)

Instead, I'll just point to David Giacalone's comments on the article, which appear here. The conclusion I found most incisive was this:

Life will not get more balanced for associates, male or female or male, if the regime of billable hour quotas is discarded, unless it becomes perfectly acceptable for the young lawyer to generate less income without it affecting future partner status. Indeed, if not, and the firm management still expects each lawyer to produce the same amount of billed income, it might get even more stressful -- the associate won't know how to keep score; won't know if he or she is keeping pace for the year. That might be especially true if fee contracts with clients are based on some post-completion assessment of the "value" or the performance to the client.

In other words: It's not about billable hours. It's about money, the tradeoffs people are willing to make for it, and the social and economic contexts in which those tradeoffs happen.

By highlighting the question of partnership eligibility, David identifies an important factor at play. It's not enough that there are many associates (and some partners) who would be willing to trade off lower salaries for lower billing requirements and, thereby, more time to spend on other aspects of their lives. There have to be workplaces that can and will accommodate that trade over the long term.

Many associates actually want to work less and would be willing to make less; yes, they keep asking for salary increases, but in many cases that's because it's considered much more acceptable within the firms to ask for salary increases than it is to ask for free time.

An associate attorney making $115,000 might be happier making $100,000 and cutting her or his workload by a proportionate amount, but if no employers offer such an opportunity, the associate's desire to make the tradeoff doesn't matter. The associate may not even bother asking for the opportunity if she or he thinks it will lead to being branded an unprofessional slacker. (Make what you will of the salary figures I chose as illustrations. Young associates in large national firms tend to make much more than that, while associates starting off in smaller, more local firms make less — sometimes much less.)

These issues have many facets, but I can't pretend to be informed enough to discuss them all, and for now I don't have time — I have to get back to preparing for that hearing.

Lawyers have a love-hate relationship with the comma. Recently, I've noticed that they've been trying to avoid the comma as much as possible by simply eliminating them from sentences. And it's no wonder, because they've been quite properly told that the proliferation of commas in their sentences looks like a row of icicles dangling from the edges of a roof after an ice storm. Many writers who just strike commas with abandon fail to realize that the comma is a symptom of their writing problems, not the problem itself.

I see the adverse effects of comma elimination most often in contract drafting. Instead of including commas in the right places to ensure that subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases modify the correct terms, lawyers sometimes create sprawling run-on sentences that lack those curly guideposts to help the reader sort out what modifiers apply to what terms. Sometimes, this practice doesn't create ambiguity, but quite often it does — I spent ten minutes the other day trying to decode a sentence that lacked commas in the right places. Because of a missing comma, the literal text meant something very different from what its author had intended.

There's a catch — a sentence is no less a run-on because it has commas in the right places. Some attorneys feel that the period places too firm a separation between concepts or events that they want to connect. In the effort to make matters clear, they construct sentences that span five, six, even ten lines of type. A maze often results. On the other hand, sometimes breaking the same content out into separate sentences requires one to use even more words to make sure that the ideas connect properly. The drafter must strike an appropriate balance.

I suggest that to the extent possible, lawyers should avoid long, overwrought sentences. But if one must use long sentences with lots of dependent clauses, one must equally take care to ensure that commas appear in exactly the places where they're needed. The effort to cram a complicated idea into a single sentence is fruitless if a lack or overabundance of punctuation distorts the sentence's meaning.

On Monday, I'll begin orientation as an associate attorney in the real estate practice group at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP in Denver. I've written here even less frequently than usual recently because I received the offer only this past Monday, and I've been scrambling to get life in order and prepare for the transition.

I'm excited. The people of the real estate practice group (and others from the firm whom I've occasionally encountered) have all given very good first impressions. The firm has a strong professional reputation, and seems also to have a good reputation as a firm to work for. And for me, it's an opportunity finally to focus on transactional work instead of litigation, working on sophisticated projects with people who have a lot of experience with the kinds of work that they do.

I will probably continue to write here, but only very lightly at first. I expect to have a very busy summer. When I do write, I intend to avoid writing about anything having to do with my law practice. In particular, I don't plan to write about any specific working experiences. I do not plan to write about real estate law at least for a long while. (I haven't written about it before, so that's no big change.) I'm making these decisions entirely on my own initiative.

I used to use my time on bus rides to free-write short essays about what I saw on the bus and other stories of living in the area. I never posted them here. If I find myself doing the same sort of thing once I'm a regular bus rider again, maybe you'll see some of those sorts of things on this weblog.

But for now, I'd better get back to work on all of the tasks I've got lined up for this weekend!

Arnie Herz writes about "positive psychology" and its management theory analogue, "positive organizational scholarship." The notion of positive psychology comes from, among others, Dr. Martin Seligman, former president of the APA. There's a Psychology Today article about him and others working in the area of positive psychology. Here's a quote that sums up why you should have a look.

Why do we only focus on negative behavior patterns, rather than learning to nurture our children's--and our own--untold strengths? "There is a misguided emphasis in psychology on finding the problem and correcting it." …

The overall goal of "positive psychology" is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play. It is a psychologist's "birthright," says Seligman, to explore optimism, love, perseverance, originality, responsibility, good parenting, altruism, civility, moderation and tolerance. "This is a revelation for a group that has focused on dysfunction, illness, healing and coping strategies," which are just a small corner of the mental health field.

It is no surprise that in the psychological literature over the last 30 years, there have been 54,040 abstracts containing the keyword "depression," 41,416 naming "anxiety," but only 415 mentioning "joy."

Well-being is something more than just surviving, merely coping.

Others are trying to apply the same kinds of principles in the study of businesses and other organizations. Arnie linked to an interview [S.D. Bernstein, for the Mich. J. of Mgmt. Inq.] that discusses the topic from that perspective.

David Swanner, on his South Carolina Trial Law Blog, sums up why law practice management is important:

• Tremendously Talented Trial Attorney + Poorly Run Office = Miserable lawyer
• Moderately Competent Attorney + Well Run Office = Happy Lawyer

His post is here.

Seth Godin, Richard Hall, and Al Nye the Lawyer Guy point to this object lesson in how clumsy, confrontational lawyers can compound (or even create) a dispute instead of resolving it.

The link points to a website by Hank Mishkoff, a fellow in Texas who built a website about a shopping mall he liked only to be sued by the mall owner and its attorneys because his domain name included the name of the mall (which is not a trademark violation all by itself, no matter how much the mall or its lawyers wanted it to be). This website (which is not the site about the mall itself) describes the dispute from start to finish and includes copies of the correspondence and papers in the case.

I can spot at least two ways that the mall owner's attorneys might have tempered the dispute early on: First, their initial demand letter might have been less formulaic and abrasive. (Think, "is this really how I want to introduce myself here?") Second, they might have taken Mr. Mishkoff's letters more seriously before going forward with the case.

The plaintiff's lawyers could have at least framed their letters so as to preserve some kind of relationship that would in turn have given them a better negotiating position. Instead, their hollow responses made it pretty clear to Mr. Mishkoff that they were blowing him off. They didn't care to address his questions and arguments about the merits of the putative case.

We'll never know whether blowing off Mr. Mishkoff's letters was a "strategic decision" or just an expression of habit. We'll also never know whether the plaintiff's lawyers told the plaintiff at the outset that the case might not be a sure win. I hope they did. I also can't help but wonder if they have been just as eager to sue if they had been forced to bring the case in Texas instead of Michigan. If only the pro se defendant had a chance of knowing that he'd need to bring the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in his first responsive pleading. But what fraction of pro se federal defendants is going to know that?

But let's wander back to the topic of how one opens a conversation with an adverse party. I'll freely admit that some adverse parties (and counsel) are jerks, duplicitous, deceptive, or fraudulent. But sometimes they're decent people who really want a fair resolution, but differ with one's client about what counts as "fair." Sometimes — perhaps even often, depending on one's area of specialty — there's a possibility of a positive working relationship with an adverse party or counsel. There's no good reason to squander those kinds of opportunities, and good reason to seek them out.

Am I in the wrong field if I do not think that law practice is all about manipulating others? If I loathe the cases most polluted with manipulation by parties and attorneys? I've had some experiences in litigation that have caused me grave doubt, but I've also negotiated successful settlements that were good both for my client and for the adverse party. That and other work I've done tells me there's more to law than trying to clobber "the other guy."

[Edited to add: Check out Marty Schwimmer's post on "Between Lawyers": How to Lawyer When Everyone's Watching?]

I don't have any samples of my legal writing from the last two years. That's not good, because it means the most recent examples of my formal legal writing are about three years old, and come from law school instead of actual law practice. I have some of my research materials, but no memos or pleadings.

I'll have to make do with what I've got.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has some observations that reflect the expectations that many of today's new associates have about law firms, especially large law firms:

Most of my knowledge of law firm life is second-hand, so my own take on this is sheer speculation. But I wonder if the article is missing a better explanation for the shift: law school graduates today understand that law firms — particularly large firms — are businesses. Law firms hire associates to make money, not for the esprit de corps. Big firm partners want to maximize their profits, and hiring lots of associates and having them bill lots of hours with little hope of making partner is a way to do that. Partners who have created this sort of environment are in an odd position to complain that today's young associates lack loyalty and don't volunteer for committee work. …

Prof. Kerr's notes that his observations (like most of mine) are based on hearsay. There are also comments to his post and elsewhere that suggest that the National Law Journal article that started this conversation just reflects a few voices in practice and not a general trend.

This is still a worthwhile discussion even if the trend is an illusion, if only to drive home a few key points.

• First, firms that do not treat their associates as long term investments should not expect much emotional commitment from those associates. (If a firm's business model depends on overstocking associates, it can make a rational business decision to keep on doing so. But it's probably a less ideal place to work.)
• Second, the first principle applies regardless of how much money the firm offers to associates. You can call this the "can't buy me love" principle. Paying high (excessive?) salaries only goes so far. As Reed Smith fifth-year associate Alicia Powell said, "After you make so much money, it's enough." I suspect more good attorneys will choose firms with somewhat lower salaries if they offer better opportunities for professional development and a personal life outside of the office. There are economic terms for this sort of tradeoff, but I'll leave those to the experts.
• Third, the impact of the first principle is even greater if a firm has abusive supervisors or otherwise engages in corporate hazing. Firms with bad supervisory techniques ought to expect broad decreases in morale and that similarly-situated employees will sympathize with each other more than with management. In many respects, this is an entirely different problem, but still it creates a great decrease in an employee's commitment to the firm.

You may have noticed that bad supervision techniques and law firm morale are pet issues of mine. They are, and that's the case no matter the size of the firm. I've seen small firms that have had great potential but completely missed the boat on retaining good associates because someone with supervisory authority couldn't contain a foul temper. That causes turnover and all of the costs that come with it. Other attorneys and staff suffer from the pain of transition, and the clients suffer because they lose the benefit of associates familiar with the issues in their cases and projects. If I read too much into the comment of the managing partner that Leigh Jones included in her NLJ article, it's because I think that issue is important and too often overlooked.

During a post on The Care and Feeding of Laterals, Bruce MacEwen notes, "The answer to associate churn is a smart, heads-up, formal (meaning partners get billable-hourly "waivers" for participating) professional development program."

Well, that seems an excellent idea. Law firms: Do you have such a program? What does it involve? And shouldn't associates get billable-hourly "waivers," too? (Maybe he meant that.)

This would be a good topic for a later post. Maybe someone more experienced in management and training than I am should take it up. Anyone?

A current National Law Journal article by Leigh Jones reports on rumblings that the newest "Generation Y" associate attorneys are lazy, or at least have priorities of which some law firm partners are less than fond.

I could comment on a number of aspects of the article. But what I found most astonishing was the following quote from an unnamed "managing partner at a national firm."

[Newer associates] have a very strong connection with each other as opposed to the institution. If someone is treated badly, they all react to it.

My first thought on reading this was along the lines of, "Holy crap! How can you not expect treating an employee badly to impair morale among other employees!?"

Does the speaker mean to say that these young associates aren't willing to stab each other in the back and watch each other rot in hopes of rising above the rest? Because that's a good thing!

Morale is real

The management implications of this quote stunned me. At least the way the author presented the quote, it sounds like the unnamed managing partner is surprised that treating someone badly has a collateral impact on that person's peers. It almost reads as if the manager is aching to be able to go out and treat someone badly but is dejected because he now feels constrained.

Any manager should expect that if one subordinate employee is treated poorly, morale will decline among the employee's peers. No, treating people uniformly badly will not remedy the problem. Anyone who thinks it's a fine idea to go around treating subordinates "badly" should be shuffled as far as possible from supervisory roles. Management must take morale seriously. (The black hole of turnover costs can be a topic for some other post.)

I'm not saying management ought to roll over on important issues. It is also a morale-killer to fail to deal with an associate who does bad work or displays questionable ethical standards. I'm saying only that 'management by temper-tantrum' and 'motivation through degradation' come from a rotten breed of supervision techniques, they still exist, and firms should make it a management mission to expunge those 'techniques' and their ilk.

Loyalty among co-workers is an opportunity

Loyalty among co-workers is a good seed trait. It seems to me that firms should aim to grow something better and further-reaching out of it. The hard part is to find ways to build and reinforce that loyalty so that it grows upward and outward to encompass the company as a whole.

Find out what makes associates cynical about management, and then get creative in finding ways to disarm that cynicism. This might mean adjusting some practices you had taken for granted. Don't forget to humanize employees. If your associates feel like you only see them as little revenue generators to be rewarded periodically with trinkets, you've lost already. As Bruce MacEwen noted in his review of the recent Hildebrandt report:

It cannot be said too often: Your associates are your future, and your partners are your current, revenue stream. It is literally an act of insanity (in the sense of being divorced from reality) to be inattentive to these indispensable, core assets.

More importantly, leadership skills are not taught in law school, but today's complicated, globalized firms demand both strong and nuanced leadership ability. Leadership is difficult to develop, but that's all the more reason to devote focused attention to it. ("Reed Smith University" being a prime, laudable, example.)

His use of economic terms comes across as a little dehumanizing, but his point doesn't. Leadership counts. Other human traits count. Traits above and beyond one's hours billed.

Loyalty counts too. There have got to be ways to benefit from loyalty among workers and expand that loyalty to the benefit of the firm. Focus on team-building, knowing that team-building and treating people badly are generally incompatible. Loyalty provides an incentive for cooperation and consequent increased productivity among people working together. De-incentivize each and every manner in which associates might undermine each other.

This is a brainstorm and is likely to include at least some nonsense

Now, understand I'm just brainstorming here, trying to come up with even a germ of an idea that could help firms bridge gaps between management and the subordinate employees and create productive offices that are good places to work. I'm not a management consultant. And I'm not afraid of hard work myself — in fact, I've had employers tell me I needed to slow down. I'm just excited about this topic because I think there's a lot of opportunity in employees who have a strong loyalty trait, if managers can cut through whatever makes the employees cynical about management.

Tales of cutthroat intra-firm competition promote cynicism

Trying to drive wedges between employees would be the worst approach to take. Stories abound, in fiction and real life, of law firms where the associates spent what little spare mental time they have scoping out opportunities to step over (and on) each other and prove each other to be dead wood, in hopes of beating out the others for the coveted partnership. Increasingly often, these stories seem to be historical rather than current. I envision the quoted managing partner as wishing his firm [still?] drew in those kinds of associates.

I suspect that the continued circulation of those stories substantially contributes to associate cynicism. Young, inexperienced associates might assume that they've gone to work for people like that. Some of them probably assume they have. I don't make assumptions like that, but you can tell those stories have affected this blog post.

I wouldn't want to work with other associates like the ones in those stories. I wouldn't want to have employees like that, either. I want to trust the people I work with, I want to trust the people I work for, and I want to trust the people who work for me. If I don't trust and respect my co-workers now, how can I trust and respect them when we are eventually partners? And if we don't have some baseline amount of trust and mutual respect as partners, how can we run a firm well?

But what do I know? I'm just an associate.

I'm not particularly cynical, myself. (Maybe that's because I missed "Generation Y" by a year, according to the article.) But I do hope that management where I work next is at least aware that treating one employee badly is likely to be bad for morale throughout the office.

Reid Trautz recently posted ("Files That Talk") on the power that the cleanliness and clutteredness of one's desk, office, and files can have on a client's impressions. I think clutter also makes a difference in the effectiveness of one's work and one's comfort in one's workspace. I say this based on my experience transitioning from having cluttered desks, to organized desks that still had lots of paper on them, to clean desks.

I confess that in the not-so-distant past I had a rather cluttered desk and office. The files themselves, the folders in which I kept original paper documents, were carefully maintained. But they filled my office in untidy ways. At work, I blamed it on the fact that the documents in my cases had far exceeded the volume of storage space available in my office and on the firm's shelves. (At least my desk was far from being the most cluttered desk at the firm.) Numerous file-boxes lived in my office. At home, I blamed it on having too much work to sort through the clutter at home. Yes, in both places, the piles were organized. I really could find what I needed in there — but they were still piles.

Piles are problems. Even "organized" clutter can disorient. As a packrat, I often kept paper close at hand for quick reference even though all of the paper documents had been scanned into the computer. When someone walks into your office with a question, it's nice to be able to have the key documents within arm's reach. But I still always felt best when I took some time on a Friday afternoon or weekend to send most of the encroaching paper to the nearest shred-and-recycle bin. Having stacks of paper around means that you have paper right in front of you that you have to track and index in your head constantly. That's a waste of brainpower that could be focused on real problem-solving. It may not be a huge waste — I'll allow that many people are very good at keeping track of things in their heads, and I often like to think that I'm one of them — but it adds a layer of stress and increases the amount of thinking that you have to do to find anything.

I've implemented a system more recently that helps keep paper from accumulating. I really like it. Right now my desk at home — which is for the moment my only desk — has the following pieces of paper on it:

• Two 8.5 x 11 inch ruled notepads, stacked
• Two 5 x 8 inch ruled notepads, stacked
• A file folder with notes and documents related to an upcoming interview

That's all. The notepads don't have any notes accumulating in them — those go immediately into nearby files for current projects. The shelves supported by the desk contain CDs, a few books, a photo or two, and even some open space, and the rest of the desk surface area contains only the computer monitor, a lamp, and those office tools that I use every day. Several expandable folders nearby contain files for my current projects and temporary storage of material I need for upcoming tasks.

I plan to keep it that way. It won't always be easy, because reducing entropy requires some investment of work. I may "fall off the wagon" occasionally. It's definitely not a perfect system (please let me know if you find one!) But I think it'll be a lot easier once the stage is set and some kind of structure is already laid in place, and having the space clear makes everything else easier.

The same principles apply to your computer. If you have a cluttered computer desktop with icons you never use spilling all over the place, or your personal documents (or worse, a shared filing system) are poorly organized, you will have great difficulty finding anything. What's worse, a bad filing system, whether electronic or paper, can gain traction among a group of users when they become adequately accustomed to it that they know where to find certain key documents in it, even though it's lousy as a general document-finding system. That makes it even harder to do what really needs to be done.

Like Reid said, not a sermon, just a thought.

A few entries ago I made fun of those who insist on being called "attorneys" rather than "lawyers" because it sounds more prestigious.

A college friend of mine wrote (separate from the blog, because my comments were broken at the time) and said that she prefers the term "attorney" because she sometimes gets the impression that the public associates "lawyers" with 'ambulance chasing,' frivolous claims, poor client care, and other such law-practice malaises, but associates "attorneys" with more respectable accomplishments.

I don't know if that perception is accurate; if it is, maybe it's only because people who criticize lawyers may prefer to use the less formal and more easily pronounced term. (Try it! "Lawyer" is easier to say than "attorney.") "Attorney" is a more formal term, and appears on my letterhead and business cards.

Either way, I'd guess that "correcting" someone for using the "wrong term" doesn't present a good image.

My favorite word associated with the work that we do is the word "counselor." My certificate from the Colorado Supreme Court declares that I am an "Attorney and Counselor at Law," and I'm glad it uses that full phrase. It reflects an important part of the attorney-client relationship that is hard to perform well, crucial to the client's experience and value received, and too easily ignored by lawyers who too quickly assume that they understand what the client wants or needs.

I want to develop the client counseling aspects of my work just as much as all of the other aspects. To help clients achieve goals, avoid risks, resolve their differences with others, and understand litigation when parties can't resolve their differences, one must make sure the client understands the legal aspects of the transaction or dispute. It is not enough simply to be a good technician, draftsman, or advocate. Some clients are sophisticated enough that they do not stand to benefit from additional counseling — whatever issue is at hand, they've done it before. Few law practices serve only those highly-sophisticated clients.

The very first attorney I chatted with about the possibility of law school emphasized client counseling in his discussion of law practice. That conversation still resonates with me.

Mark, one of the managers of my old office building, told me a story about a conversation among a gaggle of young lawyers and professionals walking through the lobby. One of the lawyers, an associate at a "prestigious" national, nay, international firm, was busy making it very clear that he was not just a lawyer. No, he was something more: an attorney. If I recall Mark's story correctly, this lawyer went on to describe how he had explained that same distinction to his family at Thanksgiving.

People. Get over yourselves.

Think of it this way: imagine that you are trying to convince a roomful of [mere?] laypersons that there is a distinction between "lawyer" and "attorney," and that you are the latter, a member of some more prestigious, accomplished, and respectable subset of those-with-law-licenses. Now, if you can, try to imagine the thoughts passing through the minds of those whom you have just addressed. Do you imagine that they respect you more thanks to the speech you've just given, or less?

If you tried that little scenario in real life, I know which outcome I'd bet on.

In case you were wondering, I use both the terms "lawyer" and "attorney" interchangeably, as I believe they should be used. I view "attorney" as the more formal term and use it on my business card and letterhead. A certificate from the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, declares that I am an "Attorney and Counselor at Law," a phrase too clumsy for everyday speech. But I use both "attorney" and "lawyer" to communicate the same content about their referent, and view neither as derogatory nor superlative relative to the other.

When lawyers — by which I mean attorneys — try to bend those words to elevate one above the other, it maligns only the speaker, and just reinforces stereotypes of "attorney" elitism. Edited to add: I'm not saying that law practice isn't a profession that brings with it responsibility and, among some practitioners, honor. I'm only saying that I find no useful distinction of meaning between the words "attorney" and "lawyer." I would hold them both up to that level of responsibility and respect. (I do think "attorney" is the more formal term.) The fellow who insists on being called one word instead of the other just makes us all look silly.

What will weblogs mean for law firms? It's too early to tell anything for sure, but law firms face a slightly different business reality than most other businesses, and that will affect how law-firm and other legal weblogs develop. There'll be no legal analogue to the Scobleizer. But both firm-sponsored corporate blogs and privately-maintained individual lawyer weblogs could have great positive effects for law firms. Firm-sponsored weblogs showcase firm expertise and keep clients up-to-date on new developments in the law. Meanwhile, independent weblogs humanize the practice of law while demonstrating individuals' talents and participating in worthwhile conversations.

Microsoft may be one of the greatest implementers and beneficiaries of weblogs in business these days, between its MSDN blogs and Robert Scoble. As weblogs begin flourishing in a business context, I wonder more and more what impact they will have on the business of law practice.

Law firms have a different kind of customer relationship and a different kind of culture from what you would find at Microsoft. That reminds me of stories from lawyers who have worked for Microsoft as outside counsel about how they love visiting the Microsoft campus because of its different company culture, but those aren't my stories to tell. Can you imagine a law firm where an associate publicly criticized a controversial product or service the firm had once provided? (Scoble: "SmartTags in IE were evil".) How about where an associate criticizes an unnamed department for making a bad internet marketing decision? (Scoble: "You should be fired if you do a marketing site without an RSS feed.")

I'm sure Scoble is making more than a few people at Microsoft anxious, but the awareness that these kinds of conversations might be happening at Microsoft plants in me a seed of hope for a company I haven't trusted for ages. (Just a seed, folks. I'm still planning to switch, although Apple's recently aggressive legal strategies have been bothering me.) I hope they'll realize there's an opportunity there.

One reason you won't see this sort of blogging at a law firm is that most of what lawyers do involves the confidences of their clients. I certainly can't say anything that would reveal my client's confidences. If I'm working on litigation, I may not want to disclose aspects of my litigation strategy until a certain time in the case. Most anything a lawyer could say about a case would come across as an attempt to try the case to the general public rather than a jury or the judge — just an attempt "to try the case in the [new] media." In the legal industry, the customer depends on confidential advice tailored to the client's specific situation. This conversation between the service provider and the customer cannot take place in an open forum.

A lawyer-weblogger would also have to take extreme care in criticizing any of the firm's prior work. When it comes down to the strategic decisions a law firm makes, no one can say, "I think we should have argued that losing case differently to the judge," because that's tantamount to saying, "Our client should consider suing us." Even if the perhaps-faulty strategic decision doesn't rise to the level of malpractice (and many bad decisions don't), that's a door you just don't want to open.

I suppose one could criticize the firm's marketing approach, or any of the very few other aspects of the firm that don't directly involve client service, but you had better not criticize your firm's methods of delivering its services. After all, as Andy Havens pointed out last week, your clients don't need you, and they can probably get comparable services from another firm. On the other hand, open criticism of old billing methods might fit well into an effort to show how clients get more better service under a new approach.

I also just haven't met that many law firms where people feel like saying, "This is a great place to work and we do wonderful things for our clients!" Microsoft gets that benefit from its employees' blogs, but most law firms won't. Perhaps that betrays something else wrong with law practice, but I'm not going to go there right now. This topic is more than enough to work on already. I'll just say that if I did find lawyers who were that enthusiastic about their firm, they'd get my attention very quickly.

So large law firms probably won't have the kinds of weblogs where the rank-and-file employees gloat about their amazing employer or where they openly criticize current or past company practices. The weblogs that law firms sponsor will probably be those that are designed to showcase a firm's talent in a particular area, demonstrate that the firm is on top of the latest developments in that field, and signal clients about developments in the law on which clients might want consultation. Off the top of my head, I can think of several large-firm weblogs in this vein that are already off and running: the Holland & Hart Health Care Law Blog, the Davis Wright Tremaine Telecom Law Blog, and Preston Gates Ellis's Electronic Discovery Law. There are more, and I expect they will serve as helpful marketing tools.

I've been focusing on firm-sponsored weblogs, especially in the large-firm world. But the weblogs that attorneys independently keep can also bring incidental benefits to their firms. In their independently-maintained weblogs, writers often participate in cross-blog conversations that thus far tend to exclude the staid corporate weblogs. I think that, as long as attorneys show a modicum of discretion in talking about their work, their personal weblogs can reflect positively on firms large and small. Consider: If you or a client had a civil legal problem arise in Louisiana, whom would you call first? I'd call Ernest Svenson without thinking twice. A case in California? Denise Howell would come to mind right away. And there are many more people whom I'd think of contacting first because of their weblogs, people who I'd trust to handle the matter well or to refer it either within their firms or to someone else qualified. Many webloggers cast a positive light on their partners and employers by their positive presence in the blogosphere.

What's more, I like to know that the lawyers I work with are real human beings with real lives and interests outside the law. The legal weblogs I read most avidly talk about more than law practice. (I could stand to improve my own writing in that respect.) They include glimpses of the author above and beyond that person's role as a practitioner. I deeply appreciate those glimpses, and they tend to promote my trust in the lawyer's integrity and wisdom. I trust the judgment of the well-rounded person more than I trust the person who never leaves the office, and that's also the kind of person I'd rather spend time with.

Now of course, a firm that has outspoken, lousy people for lawyers probably won't stand to gain from its lawyers' blogs, but I'll shed no tears for them. If a firm has to worry about that, it has more serious problems to think about than anything related to blogging.

I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of an imprint blogging makes on this profession. It's an exciting time, and I'm glad to be a small part of it.

I've never understood the students whose goal is to make six-figure salaries straight out of law school, and who elevate that goal above other job-related factors. Don't get me wrong, I like financial stability and being able to have things that are nice (but not too lavish). But there must be a lot of those for whom money makes all the difference, or at least the firm Buchanan Ingersoll seems to think so.

In his post "When your only tool's a $115k hammer...", Andy Havens takes umbrage at Buchanan Ingersoll's justification for increasing its starting salary for associates from $105,000 to $115,000. Andy quotes Howard Scher, the manager of that firm's Philadelphia office:

We have clients who want first-class legal representation, so we have to compete for the best people. While I don't think that $5,000 or $10,000 should be the basis for making a career decision, it is for people at that stage of their careers. So we hope this shows law students that Buchanan Ingersoll is a first-class firm.

Andy criticizes the quote for a few reasons, among them the fact that no client is thinking,

"I should check and make sure that my surgeon (dentist, mechanic, kids' teacher, banker, insurance agent) is the HIGHEST PAID PROFESSIONAL IN HIS INDUSTRY!!..."

I'll point you to his article here for the rest.

Jim Calloway advises people who use public computers to flush the browser history after using the computer, so that people can't see the sites you've visited.

That's a good idea. You should also consider emptying the browser's cache, which will probably be controlled from the same dialog box. When a web browser displays a page, it saves a temporary copy of the page on the computer you're using. It won't delete that temporary copy until it needs the space, which means that copy could sit around for a very long time. I've sometimes found documents in my browser cache from months before. That information is probably more precious than notes about what sites you visited.

But don't be lulled into thinking that these two techniques make your use of a foreign computer secure. They will help keep information about where you've been private, but you have no way of knowing whether the computer is polluted with viruses or spyware. You don't know if the kid in the hotel room across the hall from you is a "script kiddie" who has gotten bored and found a way to install a keystroke logger on a public computer. You may not be able to find out what kind of networking equipment the computer uses, so you don't know who may be listening.

Most e-mail providers transmit and receive passwords and e-mail data over a secure connection. In that case, one can probably feel safe against most threats other than keystroke logging, but I'd still be a little nervous.

I'm not really that paranoid most of the time — honest! — but I'd hesitate to handle client or other critical communications over an unfamiliar computer without some assurance that the computer owner maintained the computer well and had some kind of anti-tamper mechanism in place.

Evan Schaeffer (Notes from the [Legal] Underground) has posted the question, "What Do You Like Best About Being a Lawyer?" The question has started off a stream of comments from lawyers and law students. Evan's post begins,

Last week, I was at the kitchen table making some notes when I came up with the title for this post. But I only had the title. I didn't know what else to write.

Andrea was in the kitchen too. "Hey," I said. "What do you like best about being a lawyer?"

She stood there looking at me. Clearly, she'd heard the question. But she wasn't speaking.

"You're drawing a blank, aren't you?" I said. "So did I."

The commenting seems to have been dominated by litigators so far, and I wonder if any lawyers who focus on transactions have anything to add. I favor transactional work over litigation (though I've done both).

I enjoy working with business clients who are developing intriguing products or services. I also enjoy working with business clients whose products and services seem more mundane, but they like what they do, and they're looking for someone who will really listen to what they have to say and make the effort to learn about their businesses. I enjoy learning about clients' businesses, and I feel like I'm in a much better position to help them once I've spent time talking to them and learning the details about how their businesses work and what their goals are — even if some of that time has to be "off the clock." I also enjoy working with public entities and aiding their efforts to provide important services or facilities.

Maybe I should be aiming for a career in business management instead of practicing law, since the business aspects of my clients' work often interests me more than the legal aspects. I could end up there someday. In the meanwhile, I just hope I my work keeps giving me opportunities to meet interesting people who are doing "cool" things.

Tom Mighell (Inter Alia) points out the current edition of the ABA Law Practice Management Section's webzine, Law Practice Today. Tom specifically mentioned the technology-centric articles. I want to note some of the articles that focus more on management of the human aspects of the firm.

David Freeman bases his article, Developing the “Great” Law Firm, on principles discussed in Jim Collins's book Good to Great (which I haven't read). Applying those principles to law firms, Mr. Freeman observes that often, law firms have the wrong people in leadership positions, or their efforts to lead are consumed in dysfunctional dynamics.

Alas, a short article can't really provide enough information or inspire enough reflection to make a change, and to me Mr. Freeman's article reads a bit more like a promotion for his consulting services than anything else. Still, he raises questions worth asking, especially in any mid-sized or larger organization: Are our leaders in leadership positions because of sheer seniority or because of real leadership skills? Are we hiring and grooming people with leadership skills, people who have a "mix of personal humility and a strong desire to help the organization succeed. … who have strong ambition, not for themselves, but for the organization"?

Stewart Levine's article, Courageous Conversations, encourages introspection and reflection both on the individual level and the business level. He remarks, "Though it might seem surprising, what we do to earn our keep as part of an organization is engage in conversations with others." He proceeds to ask,

• What is the conversation you are not having with your unknown future?
• What is the conversation you are not having with your customers?
• What is the conversation you are not having with other divisions of your organization?
• What is the conversation you are not having with your work group and the people you phone, e-mail, and speak with everyday?
• And most important: What is the conversation that you are not having in your own heart and mind, with your partner and loved ones?

Mr. Levine acknowledges that some of those conversations pose daunting prospects, that sometimes we'd emotionally prefer to have our heads in the sand. But he proposes that by having certain conversations, we can be both better lawyers and more successful humans.

Neither of these articles really carries their ideas especially far, but one can't expect much more from webzine articles.

I know some lawyers who bear disdain for such "touchy-feely" contemplations about law practice and management. Although my initial suspicion is that such disdain predominates, I am not at all sure that suspicion is justified. I hope it's not, because the kinds of questions the articles discuss seem to be worth asking.

I'm working on some questions of my own about how law firms envision, identify, and draw upon the strengths of their personnel. Those questions aren't yet well enough conceived to pose here.

(I'll also note Roger Hayes's article, The Aligned Law Firm and Partner Compensation, but say no more because I must confess that partner compensation isn't a topic to which I've yet given serious contemplation.)

I'm in a job transition and would appreciate any advice, contact referrals, or other information that any readers here might be able to offer. Even if you don't anything about law firms in Colorado, if you know any people out here you think I should meet, please e-mail me or comment below.

I'm looking for work involving commercial, real estate, or IP transactions, or some combination of them, in a healthy, promising law firm or legal department. Ideally, the firm will be located in Boulder or Denver, Colorado, or in the general vicinity between those two cities. I'm looking for a firm that makes smart use of technology and that will be attentive and responsive to the potential changes in the market for legal services in the next several years. The firm should also have friendly lawyers who are involved in their local bar and community, and should encourage its lawyers to thrive both in and outside of the office.

I think of "success" as helping clients achieve worthwhile and interesting goals, and also leading a well-rounded life overall.

I have more background information here and here.

Update: Thanks to Dennis Kennedy for his generous compliments and link. (I've actually been blogging since September 2002!)

Later update:
— and thanks also to everyone else who has linked here!

Dennis Kennedy is skeptical about anonymous weblogging. In his guidelines to would be bloggers, he includes the following bit of advice:

6. Think Carefully About This Anonymous Thing. I really struggle with the idea of anonymous legal blogs, but I'm an old-school kind of guy. On the one hand, I am very disturbed by the current legal culture in which associates in law firms live in such a state of terror that they will not blog unless they are anonymous. On the other hand, I don't understand how blogging anonymously helps you. Of course, look what I named my blog.

On one hand, I can see his point, especially since he is coming from the perspective of a seasoned lawyer who uses his weblog primarily to comment on what he sees as the future of law practice. But not every weblog author shares that perspective, and I can understand their point of view as well.

I've gone from writing anonymously, to publicly, back to anonymously, and back to public again. I recently gave up on anonymity simply because publicity in early 2003 means that Googling my name leads people here anyway. The tph-lex.com domain is on my business cards, and I use it for my business-related e-mail. It's not hard to figure out who this is.

Many lawyers avoid thinking of their weblogs as marketing devices. They're looking for an outlet that they can use to communicate with other lawyers and non-lawyers about whatever is on their minds. (Some may want to take the potentially dangerous step of writing about work.)

If these authors write under their own names, they will feel the pressure of marketing standards. Firms generally want to present a unified image, a "brand," if you will. They want clients to see a particular professional image that may clash with the writer's desire to write about his or her personal life. (This facially good marketing idea can have poor side effects, but that will have to wait for another post.) They worry about losing their jobs or not getting jobs that they want.

The public weblogger who is looking for work experiences the same constraints. The job-seeker or client-seeker must hone, or at least be attentive to, a public image that may exclude some of the very topics the writer feels a need to express. This is probably especially true among many of the law school webloggers. They're acculturated and trained to be very concerned about the image that they present to potential employers, but they're also going through a trying experience that prompts many people to seek expressive outlets.

I often feel like my entries are too "stuffy," so I always laugh at myself a bit when Evan Schaeffer asks the question, "Why are lawyers so stuffy?" In my case, it's for the very kind of reason I discussed above — I feel a need to be very cautious because I don't want to say anything to dissuade employers or clients. I'm probably overcautious, and there are probably ways to be careful without being "stuffy."

What do you think?

See also: Robert Scoble, A little more on Mark Jen's story.