legal sanity

A few weeks back, I wrote about the importance of creating a connection culture in the law . One of the best ways for law firms to create connecting points for their lawyers is to gain insight into points of disconnection. As I’ve previously noted, two frequently cited causes of lawyer disconnect are the competitive nature of the business and long working hours.

According to a post from Chris Bailey at the always-interesting Bailey Workplay blog, another major cause is invisibility. Bailey attributes this problem to incompetent leadership. Specifically, he asserts that managers can do a lot of damage when they ignore employees. Ignoring actions, in turn, can take different forms, including:

• Not acknowledging contributions
• Not recognizing expertise
• Not seeing the individual worth
  

As this post from Matt Homann suggests, anxiety can also promote lawyer disconnection. Homann points to a Harvard Business article that tells us How to Deal with Anxious People. The piece leads with an anatomical fact: When we’re anxious, our minds constrict and we’re more apt to cut off our rationality and act impulsively. Consequently, law firm leaders looking to alleviate anxiety – and the disconnection it can foster – need to talk to or with anxious lawyers rather than at or over them.

The article goes on to instruct that the best way to navigate these challenging talks is to observe the anxious person’s body language. People who feel that they’re being talked over will “leave the conversation at the earliest opportunity.” When they’re talked at, people tend to tuck their chin down or stick it out to show that they’re intimidated or ticked off, respectively. By contrast, when you talk to an anxious person, they’ll “nod from the neck up.” Similarly, someone who senses that they’re being talked with will usually relax their shoulders and neck, “as if you've told them: ‘It'll be okay. We can work this out.’”

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In past posts, I’ve discussed the broken windows theory as it relates to the practice of law and, more specifically, to the creation and cure of client service problems. In a nutshell, the theory holds that firms should focus on identifying and quickly repairing their broken windows – those aspects of their operation that signal an indifference to client satisfaction.

As this Small Firm Business article conveys, law firms looking to stem client dissatisfaction - and the attrition it can compel – often conduct client surveys. The surveys are drafted and administered to obtain feedback about:

• Clients' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the attorneys and staff who served them

• The timeliness, responsiveness and value of work performed

• The need for additional services and greater cost or quality control

• The need for greater lawyer specialization

• Whether clients would use the firm again and refer the firm to friends and associates

As the article suggests, it’s a fairly futile and wasteful for firms to undertake these surveys if they don’t follow-up and redress the client service issues brought to light.

To bridge this gap between intelligence gathering and action, some firms are “creating specific positions to facilitate and organize communication between major firm clients and the attorneys representing them.” That’s the message in a recent article from The Recorder featured at law.com.

Led by client service executives with titles like Chief of Practice Excellence; law firm client relations teams “provide attorneys with news on the clients' activities and goals, serve as point people for clients with questions or issues and help attorneys maintain regular contact with clients.”

It would be interesting to compare the client opinion on firms embracing this team approach with the client perception of firms that do little or nothing to inspect and repair their broken windows.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A little while back, I wrote a post on creating a more fulfilling legal career. It conveyed my thoughts on a New York Times article describing the diminishing lure of the law.

One of the resonant complaints I hear from lawyers is that they feel very disconnected from their colleagues and firms. They attribute their sense of isolation to, among other things, the competitive nature of the business and long working hours. These kinds of complaints inspired me to write posts like:

• fostering connecting points for employee engagement

• connecting with others – a key lawyering skill

• making the connection: engagement, evangelism and experience management

Their common theme is connection – the damage caused by its absence and ways to build it in the legal profession.

Connection is also the theme of a new ChangeThis manifesto by leadership expert Michael Lee Stallard. Titled The Connection Culture: A New Source of Competitive Advantage (pdf), the manifesto poses the compelling question: What is it about connection that makes it so powerful?

Stallard offers up this gem of an answer:

“[W]e are humans, not machines. We have emotions. We have hopes and dreams. We have a conscience. We have deeply felt human needs to be respected, to be recognized for our talents, to belong. [ ] When we work in an environment that recognizes these realities of our human nature, we thrive. [ ] When we work in an environment that fails to recognize this, it is damaging to our mental and physical health.”

He then explains and explores the core elements of a workplace Connection Culture:

• Vision (“everyone in an organization is motivated by the organization’s mission, united by its values, and proud of its reputation”)

• Value (“everyone in an organization understands the universal nature of people, appreciates the unique contribution of each person, and helps them achieve their potential”)

• Voice (“everyone in an organization participates in an open, honest and safe environment where people share their opinions in order to understand one another and seek the best ideas”)

Stallard aids our understanding, and amplifies his message, by giving examples of businesses and business leaders who have successfully embraced these core components.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Service professionals often find it challenging to connect with clients on a human-to-human level. That’s because we’ve been trained to cultivate a business persona that’s distinct from the person we are in our down time with family and friends. The business face we put on typically reflects just how seriously we take our role as an advisor and advocate to people who don’t know as much as we do …. about the law.

I’ve written a number of posts on the importance of bringing ourselves to our work, including these:

• Finding ourselves in our work

• What lawyers can learn about the power of authenticity

• Self-awareness in the practice of law

• Likeability and the business of law

So, I was very happy to read the practical wisdom and guidance that communication skills coach Joey Asher offers in an article titled Faking the ‘Real You.’ Although he’s writing about public speaking, Asher’s advice applies just as well to any kind of live or written communication. His premise is that people who tend to come off as stiff, formal and standoffish when they communicate have to learn how to “fake [their] own authentic communication style.”

In presenting this “authenticity paradox,” Asher states: “Great speakers know how to fake their own "natural style" even when they don't feel natural at all. It's learning how to act like your real self.” So, instead of being formal, cool and distant when communicating with clients and other business contacts, we need to mimic our “natural personality” – the friendly cadence, rhythm and energy of the communications we have with people that we feel close to and comfortable with.

There’s no doubt that lawyers and other service providers can use Asher’s approach to foster successful business connections. I’ll be sure to incorporate his advice into learning programs I present on the building blocks of successful business relationships. My next offering on this front, a program called the Key to Workplace Success: Building Critical Relationships, will take place on March 12, 2008 at Harvard Law School. You can learn more about it here.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My vacation presented me with another opportunity to inventory the contents of my blog hopper. I found that much of it pertained to the ins and outs of lawyering. So, I decided to offer it to you here as a chain of related topics:

The top link in the chain is this article addressing why associates bail out of law firm life. Among the reasons cited are the:

• Absence of management expertise and meaningful feedback

• Law students’ misunderstanding about the practice of law

• Lack of work-life balance

The article goes on to outline steps that firms can take to remedy the problem of attrition, including:

• Mentoring Programs

• Hiring in-house professional development directors

• Providing business development training

Logically linked to these points is a post about coping with the anger and resentment that often accompanies career change and this piece questioning the sanctity of, and potential power imbalances in, the law firm mentor-mentee relationship.

The chain continues with information geared to helping young associates build their book of business. Pam Slim explains the business benefits of being a matchmaker and offers some concrete ways to take on that role, such as:

• Introducing like-minded people

• Forwarding information and resources to people who can use them

• Connecting people who have complementary interests, products or services

On a related note, in companion posts, Robert Middleton gives us some practical tips and tactics for quelling our marketing fears (and Part II ).

Jim Hassett rounds off the roundup links with a post profiling one firm’s efforts to help associates hone their relationship-building and business development skills. Noting the win-win nature of these initiatives, the article states: “business development training produces greater associate satisfaction, more satisfied clients and more interesting business opportunities.”

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm no Luddite. Some have even suggested that I’ve hot glued my Blackberry to my hand. Still, I’d be stretching it more than a bit if I called myself a techie. It’s my general belief that people should connect more with one another and less with their gadgets.

Nonetheless, yesterday, I found myself happily taking in the sights and sounds of LegalTech New York. Although there was a free breakfast offer, I was actually drawn there to share the company of fellow law.com bloggers, including:

• Carolyn Elefant
• Rees Morrison
• Robert Ambrogi
• Monica Bay

(I held back on engaging Monica in a conversation about Mets newcomer Johan Santana. She's a Yankees fanatic.)

After eating and chatting, I went to the exhibition floors and was pleasantly surprised.

I first stopped at C2Legal (e-discovery and document management tools) where I interacted with a gizmo of interlocking nails that mocked me as I tried to disentangle it. After way too much time, I caved and asked Jeffrey Stolter, the consultant manning the table, for help. He kindly obliged and I was delighted that something so simple could so engage me and a lot of other people. I asked Jeffrey about the importance of relationships in a technical world. He said, "software is software, but the relationship behind using the software effectively creates a bond of trust with your client. This bond is what sells the product." Wow. Who knew software could be so human.

From there I visited probono.net (resources for pro bono and legal services attorneys and others working to assist low income or disadvantaged clients). Their case management tool facilitates information sharing on pro bono matters. Four big firms have already signed on to use it. What a fantastic channel for technology -- helping law firms more effectively help people in need of free legal services. While I was checking out their wares, one of the reps asked if I know of any disgruntled lawyers who’d like to employ their legal knowledge in a non-legal/tech capacity. If you’re ready for a career move, here’s a link to the company’s job openings page.

Navigating the sea of information, people and booths at this event can be overwhelming and exhausting. So, you can imagine how happy I was when RVM, Inc. (e-discovery and litigation support solutions) invited me to kick up my feet in one of their massage chairs. Ten minutes later, I was refreshed and ready to learn about their products and services. Taking steps to first restore the depleted energy stores of potential buyers is a great sales tactic. It fits nicely with the XE Factor model I often write and speak about.

I met a lot of other great folks and learned quite a bit about their business offerings. I found that, even in the technology world, it’s all about people. The better you are at engaging them, meeting their needs and improving their lives, the more likely it is that you'll successfully sell your products and services and feel good about what you’re doing.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The FC Experts Blog recently featured a three-part interview with Mike Dulworth (part two and part three), the author of a new networking book called The Connect Effect: Building Strong Personal, Professional, And Virtual Networks.

Dulworth, the head of a professional networking business, defines The Connect Effect as “the positive outcome derived from having a strong, vibrant, diverse network.” He also describes a complementary concept of entering The Network Zone. Like an elite athlete who achieves flow during a game or competition, business people enter the network zone when their “network is so broad and deep that almost anything can be accomplished more efficiently and effectively through” it.

According to Dulworth, we can cultivate this kind of peak networking performance by assessing our NQ (yup, that stands for Networking Quotient). Like our EQ (emotional intelligence) and MQ (moral intelligence), our networking intelligence isn’t fixed. We can raise it. The first step is to honestly appraise the “scope and strength” of our network and our networking activities. Beyond this candid assessment, Dulworth says, the key “is to find a way to build and maintain your network that is comfortable for you.”

I’ve addressed the importance of charting our own networking paths in posts like this one on re-connecting with your business network and this one discussing how to grow an organic business network . My friend Curt Rosengren adds to this point – and does us a major favor -- by publishing this extensive compilation of articles on networking for shy people.

For more insight into the art and science of building strong business connections, you can take a look at lawyer/marketing consultant Cole Silver’s new Expert Audio Series. I’m one of the contributors, along with a host of other legal bloggers, including:

Stephanie West Allen
Larry Bodine
Carolyn Elefant
Jim Hassett
Daniel Hull
Dennis Kennedy
Patrick Lamb
Susan Cartier Liebel
Ed Poll
Gerry Riskin

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In the last several years, I’ve logged a lot of online and offline hours learning, thinking and teaching about work-life synergy for lawyers (pdf). Although different issues converge under this umbrella, one topic that garners a lot of attention is flexible work options. It’s something I’ve addressed in posts on:

• Becoming more flexible

• Flexible work for lawyers 
  

• The flexible law firm: reality or pipe dream?

About a month ago, I came across a boston.com article on workplace trends for 2008. In it, columnist Maggie Jackson declares: “Fluidity is in. Piecemeal flexing is out.” She’s referring to a movement in corporate America to retrain the focus away from flexible work programs and towards the more fluid “Mass Career Customization" (MCC).

Championed by Cathleen Benko of Deloitte & Touche, MCC presumes that, today, more and more employees want to tailor their careers by “periodically adjusting their work pace, job setting and schedule, workload, and company role.”

After reading the article, I went over to Deloitte’s website and continued my MCC studies through a podcast that explores how MCC is not just a women’s initiative. Given the emergence of a dual-centric workforce, career customization serves the needs of men and women alike. I also vetted this series of in-house articles on Building a Lattice Organization. (The MCC model can be visualized as a career lattice - with numerous paths leading to different kinds of success – as opposed to a career ladder.)

In the wake of this education, I started considering the ways MCC might play out in the legal profession. Law firms aren't known for being early adopters of new workplace trends. That’s why it was so interesting to read a recent New York Times article – aptly titled Who’s Cuddly Now? Law Firms – that profiles a new proposal to bring customized career tracks to the law.

The proposal, called FACTS, is the brainchild of work-life consultant Deborah Epstein Henry. Henry doesn’t propose that firms do away with the billable hour. Rather, she suggests that they move from a liner to a more fluid billable hour model that recognizes how lawyers’ work-life needs may change at different stages of their careers. The acronym FACTS reflects the variety of work hour modes that Henry envisions:

• Fixed

• Annualized

• Core

• Targeted

• Shared

To learn more about the FACTS, you can read Henry’s article outlining her methodology (pdf). Those of you in the New York area can join in the conversation when Henry presents her program on Monday, March 3, 2008. To learn more about the program and register for it, visit Flex-Time Lawyers.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s probably no mere coincidence that at a time of political challenge and economic uncertainty in the United States, there’s been a flurry of coverage on the subject of … happiness.

For some time now, I’ve been intrigued by the science and study of happiness, as evidenced in this post on the road to lawyer happiness and this one that puts lawyer happiness under the microscope.

So, I eagerly read a pair of recent Christian Science Monitor articles on the subject.

The first piece - titled Actually, Happiness Isn’t Within - challenges the “firmly held and particularly American belief that happiness” is an internal quality; a state of being, or wellbeing, that we cultivate from the inside out. Citing new findings by social scientists, the article asserts that our happiness is a byproduct of external factors. Topping the list of those outside influences “is the quantity and the quality of our relationships.” (Journalist Penelope Trunk echoes this point in a post that offers a few tests for discerning what we need to be happier.)

Given this new happiness formula and the amount of time most of us spend on-the-job, it stands to reason that our happiness must be strongly linked to the quality of our work environment and business relationships. If we’re routinely unhappy doing what we do for a living, it’s a sure sign that these external components are unhealthy and stacked against us.

This is the underlying message of Alexander Kjerulf’s CSM commentary on cultivating happiness at work.

According to Kjerulf, it’s the norm for U.S. workers to be dissatisfied with their jobs. That’s because managers and employees alike fail to make workplace happiness a priority. This isn’t a gosh, well, I guess that’s too bad fact of life. As Kjerulf puts it: “Hating your job is not an inconvenience, it's a serious problem. It can cause stress and depression. Ultimately, it can kill you.”

Lawyers should be acutely aware of the seriousness of this issue. As Sue Shellenbarger (pdf) writes in an article on Lawyers Opening Up About Depression, studies have found that about “19% of lawyers suffer depression at any given time, compared with 6.7% of the population as a whole.” While some might question the exact correlation between career stresses and depression, it seems that it’s well accepted that the “practice of law, with constant conflict and billing pressures, can take a toll.”

Attorney Daniel Lukasik contacted me last week to let me know about a website he’s launched to support himself and other lawyers who are living and coping with the day-to-day realities of depression. I checked it out and it presents as a terrific and much-needed resource.

For another perspective on lawyers and depression, Stephanie West Allen points us to a new book exploring the “benefits of negative emotions” and “how we might view depression in a more constructive way.”

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Kevin O’Keefe and Carolyn Elefant , among other bloggers, recently posted about this New York Times piece on the diminishing lure of the law. I read the article when it first ran and liked it a lot. But, the news it imparted was not earth shattering by any stretch.

For years, theorists, academics and others have been decoding and commenting on the root causes of lawyer discontent and attrition. When legal sanity launched in 2004, one of its main objectives was to highlight their work and related efforts to remedy an ailing legal profession. Since then, coverage here has included posts on:

• the antidote for lawyer discontent
• the economics of lawyer depletion 
• connecting points for employee engagement 
• wake up calls for lawyers and law firms 
• toxic law firms
  

Threading through the broader conversation about life in the law today – and echoed in the New York Times article - is the realization that the legal profession is out of step with larger social-cultural-generational shifts towards creative personal and business pursuits. You can sample some of the discussion on the new “Creative Age” through these posts:

• working with meaning
• lawyers in the conceptual age 
• the brave new world of law 
• are you untouchable?
  

The lingering question for law firms and practitioners alike is how to bring more creativity to the everyday practice of law. The first step, of course, is to acknowledge the creativity deficit and the problems deriving from it. From there, firms could take it to the people and ask their lawyers what kind of creative outlets and opportunities they’d like to have on the job. Beyond getting this direct input, firms could demonstrate their commitment to creativity through policy and marketing initiatives.

For some inspiration, firms can look to resources like this article on creativity and success (emphasizing the “simple and wonderful truth that all people have the capacity to be creative”) and this terrific marketing-lateral recruiting campaign from Chicago’s Ungaretti & Harris.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks