LawBizBlog

Gaming is real life

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:55:40 -0500

In response to my last post, the following comment was forwarded to me:

Q: Isn't gaming what they teach in law school, essentially? Probing for weaknesses and exploiting them ruthlessly when found? It seems that with the adversarial legal system, gaming is built right into the DNA of the experience. I agree they are being poor ethical exemplars by gaming the rankings but I'm not sure it's entirely inconsistent with the legal system.

The issue here, however, as I saw it, is that the "system" was lop-sided. If it's adversarial, there must be a balance. And the applicant to the law school was not informed of the parameters that allowed the Dean of the school to adjust the perception of the school.

Another example of this is in economics ... again from the legal community: Law firms are not publicly traded and don't give out their financial information. Yet, there is a publication that is able to rank law firms by revenue, profits per partner, and other factors. This has become almost like a stock exchange. Lawyers may move around, either to a law firm or away from a law firm, by virtue of these numbers. Thus, the "top" law firms have become interested in presenting the best face to the lawyer public. How do they do this? One way is by adjusting the revenue and profits per partner figures.

How do they do this? Obviously, by increasing revenues and increasing profits. These are numerators. They can also adjust the figures by tinkering with the denominator. The fewer partners, the higher will be the "per partner" result. How do you get fewer partners? Ah, that's the rub ... Current trend is to slow down the process of making associates partners ... and by "de-equitizing" partners who don't "perform" to the new standard. De-equitizing is a fancy word for "firing" a partner ... or taking the partner's equity position away and keeping him/her as "Of Counsel" or an "Income Partner" only ... This is another way to "game" the system.

Isn't this what publicly traded companies do as well? Everyone, not just lawyers, are involved in gaming the system.

Gaming the system

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:20:22 -0500

The WSJ, August 26th, front page, discusses law school rankings ... and the ability of school deans to "game" the system used by U.S. News & World Report to rank law schools. This reminds me of the accounting adage, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

The "how" they do it is not so important because there will always be those clever enough to understand any system and seek to manipulate the system.Unfortunately, it is always the "few" gamers who spoil the system for the others, those with legitimate interests and procedures.

The "why" is important, in my opinion. The conclusion of one dean, and I'm sure many others, is that if it's not illegal, it's not immoral. This is not the same, again in my opinion, as the tax code that urges taxpayers to seek tax "avoidance," but not tax "evasion!" A very large difference.

The problem in this case is that we are dealing with the law, with lawyers, with the very foundation of our society. Somehow, it seems o.k. to do what is legal, though not traditional, to defend an accused --- this is part of our history and Constitutional guarantees. But, it's not o.k. for the very law schools that are training our future defenders and leaders to mislead applicants to get them to their schools via higher school rankings. There is something unseemly about the process.

The practices at universities and law schools are merely precursors to students' future actions. Many of those who were accused and convicted in the Watergate scandals had similar records in school. Then, they were pranks; in Watergate, they were illegal!

Law school teaches how to read the word, and argue both sides of an issue. After all, our system provides for two advocates, neither of whom is the trier-of-fact, the decision-maker. Are the law school deans merely reflecting what is legitimate to teach, to read the word, interpret the words for their benefit and let the third party make the decision?

The difference is that there is only the decision-maker (the applicant, this case) and the advocate for the the law school (who submits the statistics to U.S. News & World Report). There is no other advocate to highlight the methodology being used by the law school so that an appropriate evaluation of the statistics can be made.

It's not illegal; by most standards, it's not immoral. But, it does seem wrong nevertheless for the teachers of our defenders and future leaders to be "gaming."

Katrina statistics

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:49:55 -0500

Many lawyers (some of whom were my clients) were directly impacted by Katrina; the practices of some were wiped out. Almost all suffered revenue declines.

Many other lawyers helped in the reconstruction efforts. Now, 3 years later, much yet needs to be done. Bill Quigley gives us the following startling (at least to me) statistics, and much more:

0. Number of renters in Louisiana who have received financial assistance from the $10 billion federal post-Katrina rebuilding program Road Home Community Development Block Grant — compared to 116,708 homeowners.

0. Number of apartments currently being built to replace the 963 public housing apartments formerly occupied and now demolished at the St. Bernard Housing Development.

0. Amount of data available to evaluate performance of publicly financed privately run charter schools in New Orleans in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years.

.008. Percentage of the rental homes that were supposed to be repaired and occupied by August 2008 which were actually completed and occupied — a total of 82 finished out of 10,000 projected.

1. Rank of New Orleans among U.S. cities in percentage of housing vacant or ruined.

1. Rank of New Orleans among U.S. cities in murders per capita for 2006 and 2007.

Why is it that we have to repeat history? In 1927, much of the Mississippi Valley was destroyed by similar flooding. More than 1/3 of the country was directly impacted by this flood! The impact, economic and otherwise, from this was devastating, not only to this 1/3 of the country, but to the entire country!

We can't control the weather, the storms that befall us. Just last night, in the news, there was a commentary about another major storm off the Gulf of Mexico. It could leave another devastating mark on the U.S., having already killed one person in Haiti. But, we seem to ignore these vagaries of nature. If we can improve our land area and structures in earthquake country, why can't we do the same in other parts of the U.S.? Where is the political will to do something? We certainly have the skill, knowledge and technolgoy! What is missing?

Outsourcing legal and legal support services

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:21:21 -0500

A new, ABA Formal Opinion 8-451 (August 5th), states the obvious: A lawyer may, but is responsible for, outsource work to lawyers and non-lawyers support appropriate to represent the interests of his/her client.

Parameters of this approval include i) the fee for the outsourced work must be reasonable; ii) the client should be informed of such relationship and may need to consent; iii) the lawyer not assist in the unauthorized practice of law; and iv) the lawyer must supervise the outsourced work to assure that competency and quality assurance standards are met.

Delegation is a main principle to profitability and success. By delegating, you can get the best person to do the work, and you can thereby liberate some of your time to seek new, high interest, profitable work.

But, be careful! As my wife says, "... there's no free lunch." When you get more clients, more business, you need more people to work on the matters ... And now, one day, you wake up and find that you have the increased revenue you want, and too little time to do it without more delegation, more people ... and you become more of a manager of legal services and less of a hands-on lawyer. Some can handle this role change, some can't ... Of course, that's the only way to become a larger law firm and earn more money ... and have more responsibility.

Many sole practitioners utter the refrain that they want to be "lone rangers." They want to be on their own, without the political "games" of an organization. Yet, interestingly, almost to a person, I hear them say they want more revenue. How can you have more revenue without growth? How can you have growth without having an organization? How can you have an organization without a role change, i.e., becoming a manager of legal services? It would be nice to be able to move toward a specific goal, a certain "line in the sand," and stay right there all the time. But, ours is not a static world. Oh, what a wonderful web we weave when we start having "wants." <g>

Your response time sucks!

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:02:35 -0500

My frustration level has been exceeded! How about yours? Have you had dealings with vendors who fail to respond to your reasonable inquiries and requests? Have you had appointments (doctors and lawyers are the stereotypical examples) that have kept you waiting beyond the stated appointment time?

If you're a lawyer or other professional reading this, think about how your clients feel in conducting their business with you. Read on for nuances of this issue.

I know the title for this post is not politically correct. I was tempted to change it, but then decided to stay with it to express how I am feeling at this moment ... and to see if this frustration is shared by anyone else reading my columns.

In recent days, I’ve sent emails to several people who are interested in doing business with me, but who have failed to respond. In order to do business with someone, you’ve got to keep the dialogue moving forward. There is no one whom I’ve coached or who has called me inquiring about my coaching service that doesn’t have uppermost in their mind the desire for more business. My experience with entrepreneurs tells me that all businesses are the same, they want more customers/clients; that’s the way increase revenue, a desired goal for most people.

How do you get there, however, if you fail to respond to emails of inquiry?

Michelle Obama, in her speech before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, in describing her husband, said he is a “man of his word,” his “word is his bond.”

When you already are doing business with someone, let alone wanting to do business with someone, and you fail to respond to communications of inquiry, when you fail to keep your promises of performing at a designated time, you break the bond, you destroy the trust. This may be a small item to you, but it's huge to the customer/client.

How can you expect to receive more business from that person, how can you expect to keep that business in the future, and how can you expect to get referrals from that person? ... Because you won’t get referrals, you won’t get more business, or a higher share of their market from that client/customer, and you are likely not to keep that business in the future, especially if there is an alternative source (and there usually is!).

What I find particularly interesting is that the size doesn't matter! The size of the organization (whether for goods or services) has nothing to do with the response time. Whether the organization is large, small, or even a solo, response time is a matter of philosophy. I know larger organizations who regularly fail to respond quickly. And I know larger organizations who respond quickly. In fact, one promotes the concept on its web site, saying they will respond within 2 hours of your call or donate $100 to your favorite charity and buy you lunch at a fancy restaurant. Oh, and they suggest that you call your current vendor and leave a message requesting a responsive call -- their bet is that they will respond before your current lawyer.

And I know sole practitioners (literally no staff at all) whose stated policy is to respond within 90 minutes! When I asked him about this, the sole practitioner said that it builds trust. If he responds within 90 minutes, as he says he will in his phone message, you will begin to trust him not only on this small matter, but also on other, larger matters of consequence. In other words, he says, trust is built in small chunks. But, it can be destroyed in one fell swoop!

Size doesn’t count in this instance. Philosophy does. Commitment to service does!

Where are you on the scale of responsiveness? What can we do to encourage better response time from those with whom we’d like to do business?

Competitive intelligence

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:00:41 -0500

Does more information become competitive intelligence ... or just more information? Read Ann Lee Gibson at her new blog only if you want to learn more, i.e., become more intelligent! Congratulations to Ann for a great start.

Virtual world is real

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:05:59 -0500

Is the Virtual World real? It apparently has more “life” than I knew. Even the IRS is involved, recently ruling that independent, virtual contractors were, in reality, part-time employees for whom taxes needed to be withheld. What impact will this have on other “virtual businesses?” What impact will this ruling have on “virtual assistants?” Are they independent contractors, our assumption in the past, or employees, though at a distance?

It's the economy, stupid!

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:19:17 -0500

Famous words. And the legal community is beginning to feel them.

Start dates for new associates are being pushed back, from September to the beginning of 2009 ... and even further in some cases. Partners are being terminated or de-equitized. Some firms are experiencing lower billable hours. Even if other lawyers in the same law firms are not directly affected, they can’t help wonder when the axe will fall on them.

No wonder the “fear factor” is spreading among associates in major law firms. Recent surveys suggest that nearly 30% of lawyers fear losing their jobs and 19% think billable goals will be missed. These responses are much higher than similar surveys at the end of last year.

More than ever, even associates must be cognizant of their clients needs and wants in order to create and maintain the bonds of loyalty between the two. In the case of associates, their clients include not only the “outside” client who pays the bill, but also the “inside” client who makes the work assignment and who supervises the work product of the associate.

Marketing department layoffs - same as lawyer layoffs?

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:39:03 -0500

Is there a connection between marketing department layoffs and associate layoffs?

In laying off attorneys, the managing partner of a client of mine told me that he was "culling" the ranks, that the lay-offs (calling it what it is, "firings") was not related to the condition of the firm. I don't believe this language. I do believe that folks tend to act rationally, in their own self-interest.

Why, then, would you terminate lawyers when, in doing so, you are costing the firm between $300,000 and $500,000 per attorney - bottom line - according to the conversations I've had with managing partners.

Why not hire "right" (correctly, based on your needs at the time) and keep those folks, educate/train those folks to be attorneys who can handle any of your practice area needs, and develop a firm culture of unity?

Failure to do this is economic suicide ... and only when the law firm follows the Corporate Model will this change. And then, the partners can begin to earn more money.

These principles apply to the marketing department as well. When you can connect the layoff impact to the marketing department to the layoff impact to attorneys, then the marketing directors can and will sit at the management table, talking about the real life business aspects of running the law firm.

Surveys of law firm clients

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:40:00 -0500

In our Managing Partners Roundtable discussion this morning, we talked about the effect and value of surveys. Not enough law firms ask their clients "how am I doing?" Too often, marketing gurus suggest that written surveys be sent in the mail after a matter or litigation is concluded. I suggest that this is the wrong time ... no matter what you learn from the responses (and in my experience, you won't get many responses, probably not even a statistically valid amount), it's after the fact. That means that you will not be able to salvage that client relationship if there is real dissatisfaction!

One of my clients taught me an important lesson: Send a short survey with the first billing. If there is anything wrong, it's best to know at the beginning when you have time to correct any deficiency.

Most lawyers are reluctant to ask the question. They're afraid of the answer. But, what better result could you get than to be told there is something that you can correct ... and thereby strenghthen the relationship when you do. The client feels appreciated and heard ... and recognizes that you care enough to ask and to make a change.

In larger firms, we concluded that it is very beneficial for the managing partner to periodically visit the top 10 clients of the firm. Even when I was in industry, the fact that I as CEO cared enough to visit a customer had a dramatic impact on our relationship and the buyer's/customer's goodwill toward us.

Bottom line, we don't exist in a vacuum. We must understand and know the needs and wants of our clients ... and what better way to find than to ask, directly. In addition, this process confirms that the relationship is between the client and the firm, not an individual lawyer in the firm.

Obviously, there was much more said this morning, but this concept caused the managing partners to vow to make changes in their firms. What are you prepared to do in your relationships?

Collaboration and Conflict Resolution

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:00:31 -0500

Stewart Levine, author of Getting to Resolution and his latest work, Collaboration 2.0, talks about the benefits of collaboration, the higher heights that can be reached through collaboration, and the use of technology to aid this process. Among other comments, Stewart talks about 7 requirements for effective collaboration, it is important for lawyers to learn collaboration and to use this skill appropriately.

24 minutes, 14 seconds
5.6MB

Click here to listen.

JDSupra - another networking opportunity

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:19:46 -0500

I have now joined JDSupra. See my profile.

The organization is designed to gather documents used by one lawyer that the first lawyer is willing to share with another lawyer ... this is a great way to find a starting point in a practice area in which you are not well versed. It may even be a great way to find a good format and content to use in your matter/case that someone else has used in another, similar matter.

Years ago, when practicing law and as chair of the Beverly Hills Bar Association's Family Law Committee, I organized and chaired a stellar group of family law lawyers to create and edit a Bar/Bench book with forms that the trial judges were using in the Los Angeles Superior Court. It was called The Billy G. Mills Bench Book. Judge Mills, at the time, was the presiding judge of the Family Law Court. The joint effort produced an outstanding work that helped many lawyers address the concerns of the Bench for the benefit of clients.

Today, JDSupra is using technology to produce an even greater result for attorneys seeking the right form at the right time to be more efficient and avoid rifling through files to find that elusive document that they remember seeing, but just can't find right now, the moment of need!

JDSupra will also introduce content that I will produce for law firm management. We hope to provide an ever broader platform to help lawyers become more effective with their clients, more efficient in the delivery of their legal services and more profitable for themselves, the objective of LawBiz Management.

Notice of Unavailability

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:09:26 -0500

Someone asked what I think of an attorney charging a client for work done while he/she is on vacation?

The comment, specifically, was: "Attorneys do need a vacation... what do you think about attorneys that (sic) file Notice of Unavailability and charge clients for work performed while on there (sic) vacation."

Wherever and whenever an attorney performs legal services, he/she should be able to charge for the work done so long as it is in compliance with the engagement agreement. There is normally no exception for work done for clients while on vacation or after "normal" business hours. So I don't see any problem here, unless there is a subsidiary inference that the attorney is not truly working or working at a slower pace than would have been the case if he/she were elsewhere.

As an additional point, I believe (as I've said quite some time ago) that the attorney has the right to charge the client for preparing and filing (and even appearing in court thereon) the Notice of Unavailability. But for the notice, the attorney might have to spend much more time defending against notices/motions if the adversary takes advantage of the attorney's absence on vacation ...

Social networking for lawyers

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:55:10 -0500

Nick Abrahams, chair of the Sydney, Australia office of Deacons, which has branches throughout Asia, discussed his firm's survey on technology.

The survey, among other things, that "If you’re over 35, you're the loneliest person on Facebook because only 1 percent of workers in that age group are using it." But a quarter of the survey respondents between 25 and 34 are on Facebook, he said, and for workers under 25, the rate of Facebook users increases to a third of those surveyed.

It is still early to discern how the new social networking sites will impact a law firm's marketing efforts; but, it is clear that these sites will not disappear in the new future ... and lawyers will need to pay attention to whether these sites can benefit them in the market places in which they operate.

I don't think we've yet got to the "tipping point" in this phenomenon, though we seem to be getting closer and closer with ever greater speed.

The Power of Nice

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:09:27 -0500

Linda Kaplan was another leader who appeared at the National Speakers Association. She is a legendary marketing guru and founder of The Kaplan Thaler Group, a billion dollar advertising agency. Her book, The Power of Nice, is a best seller.

Unlike Leo Durocher's famous statement that "nice guys finish last," she believes that "nice girls finish first." After all, she asserts, people like to buy from people they like ... And we generally don't like people who are not nice to us. Kaplan says it's easier to be mean and gruff. It takes a special effort to be nice. Paraphrasing a saying my mother used so often, "You get more with honey than with vinegar."

This seems so obvious to me, but obviously is something that our profession finds so difficult to understand. Many Bars have adopted "Lawyer Civility Codes." Why should this even be needed? Quoting an infamous source, "Why can't we all just get along?" Why is it that we need be rude and obnoxious to our adversaries? Do we truly believe that such conduct will win us points or cause our client's position to be moved forward? On the contrary, such behavior often merely entrenches the opposition further. Being nice, courteous and kind requires neither that we be a doormat nor that we cave in to our adversary's position ... we can stand forthright to advocate our client's interest and position, yet still be civil and nice.

Again paraphrasing, "Try it, you might like it." Certainly, there will be reduced stress all around.

P.S. This works with colleagues and staff as well.

Learn from the greats

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:49:40 -0500

As a member of the National Speakers Association, I had the learning opportunity to participate with several of the great voices of our generation.

Marshall Goldsmith, who coaches more than 50 of the top 100 CEOs of corporate America, commented on several psychological observations that I found interesting:

What we do at home, we do at the office, and vice versa. In other words, if we are unkind to our colleagues, our staff and our adversaries, we're probably exhibiting to same behavior to our spouses and our children.
Among the annoying habits that can hold successful people back is winning too much. Generally, we're successful because we're competitive. Being competitive, we win. But, we don't know when to stop. We even compete on who is to select the restaurant to go to for dinner.
Successful people often add too much value. In other words, we add something to another person's idea. Instead of saying "thank you" and being quiet, we say that is a great idea, but it would be better if you add x, y, or z. He says that the quality of the idea may go up by 5%, but the participation will go way down ... because it now is no longer the other person's idea. We have stolen the other person's investment in the process.
Destructive comments prevents forward progress. Avoid the use of the words, "no," "but" and "however." These words discount the value of the other person and their ideas. By merely saying "thank you," we can create, maintain and retain our team with significantly greater results for all involved.
Leadership is a contact sport! Studies show that where the leader followed-up, there was greatest improvement.
What got you here, won't get you there. Those competitive attributes that got you to the leader's position are different than the attributes of a successful leader. You must alter your skill set in order to succeed in your new position.

Powerful thoughts, indeed. How can you apply these thoughts to your law practice. How can you coach your team to greater heights? Do you have a coach yourself? What do you want from your coach? Have you told him/her? How can a coach help you reach greater heights?

I knew something was wrong

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:24:53 -0500

9-11 has become a date fixed in infamy. Like December 7th (Pearl Harbor). Like many other dates.

The other day, I was listening to NPR; the topic under discussion was 1945 ... another date of disaster. On that date, a B-25 plowed into the Empire State Building. Fourteen people died, but it was a tragedy nonetheless. It was an accident, not premeditated murder, not a political statement. Yet, it was a large plane colliding into a tall building in a densely populated area.

Funny how we forget history. I never learned of this. The people of the time suffered and experienced pain, but it did not become a cause celebre. But, also funny (in a sad way), how the politicians of our day used this event for their personal benefit. Sad that this one event spelled the historical demarcation for Pres. Bush's presidency and how everything done after that was tied to this one event. Sad (not funny) that so many of our civil liberties have been peeled back after decades and centuries of fighting to attain them. Contrast that with 1945 when that event was the catalyst that created the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 that allowed citizens to sue the federal government for injuries visited on them by the government. One might say that the government did something to soothe us ... rather than to rile us up as we have been in the last 7 years ...

Just a personal observation on the importance of leadership ... leadership that soothes us and that helps us recover, reassemble and build a better future. Lyndon Johnson failed to do this and it took us at least a generation to overcome his folly. George Bush failed to do this and I'm fearful it will take us more than a generation to recover, if ever. And here, I'm merely mentioning economics, not liberties which seem to be lost altogether.

Leadership is essential for the effective performance of a team ... There are many examples in government and in industry. Law firms need to find leaders to better serve their clients as well as the members of the firm. Leadership skills can be taught ... and law firms need to focus on this skill if they want to advance.

Paralegal compensation

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:09:08 -0500

A recent ALM Research annual compensation survey for Paralegals/Legal Assistants and Managers, suggested some interesting statistics.

Compensation increases averaged between 3 and 5%
The highest paid paralegals are litigation support/technology managers who earned a median annual base compensation of $115,000
The average billing rate for paralegals was more than $150 per hour, with rates for most positions exceeding $175
Paralegal case managers in law firms averaged 1,642 billable hours, followed by senior paralegals at 1,530 hours

Many lawyers are still charging less than $200 per hour. Though faced with competition from other lawyers (and now paralegals), lawyers must fight to find ways to increase their fees, whether by the hour or otherwise. If they don't, their economic well-being will be endangered. In fact, recent statistics I saw in a California study says that 50% of California lawyers earn less than $100,000 and 50% of those earn less than $50,000. The scene is echoed in New York and elsewhere.

Like every other profession and trade and business, the practice of law is a business ... That means we're governed by the same formula: P=R - E. Profit (take home pay) equals revenue collected less expenses.
Remember the ABA study that opined that lawyers who billed 1,500 hours per year would earn a substantial income? Apparently, the standard today is between 1800 and 2200 hours of billable time. That doesn't leave much time to eat, brush your teeth or say hello to your kids. And, of course, this does not include the hours spent on visioning the future of and operating your practice today as a business, which it is.

We need to spend many hours tilling the soil if we want to advance, both professionally and economically. "The grass is NOT greener on the other side." It's just a different set of challenges.

"No regrets - I gave it my best shot"

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:13:50 -0500

Tonight, ABC did a program about Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon University computer professor who recently died of cancer. His "last lecture" has become famous, is a book and apparently will be a movie in the near future.

His story is inspiring. His last comment: When you walk off the field, can you say that you gave it your best shot, that you "left it on the field," and that you have no regrets, even if the end result was not as you would have liked. One of his last comments was to say that he waited until the age of 39 to marry because it took him that long to find a woman whom he loved more than himself. The love and support between these two humans, and their children, also, was a joy to witness.

His comment is an outstanding rule for life, a mantra to live by ... and it's also a very good rule for your law practice. Are you truly committed to your and your law firm's success? Are your clients the focus of your attention and your primary concern? Can the circle of your joy be extended to include your colleagues and staff? Do you have a toxic law firm environment? What can you do to eliminate this toxicity? What can you do to have a life and a law business you enjoy and value?

Earthquake land

edpoll@lawbiz.com (Ed) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:00:52 -0500

We just experienced a major earthquake! One of the largest I've ever felt, with the house swaying back and forth. Also, this is the first one in the mid-day. The others I've experienced have been in the very early morning. Not sure whether this part of the earth warming or just Mother Nature speaking her piece again!

Hope y'all are o.k. wherever you may be.