Innovative law schools would offer these courses

In addition to contracts, property, constitutional law, torts, and all of the other traditional law school courses the following courses should be taught, IMHO, at American law schools: 

1. Legal Project Management ("LPM")
2. Knowledge Management ("KM")
3. Business Process Mapping ("BPM")
4. Lean Six-Sigma for Service
5. How to Develop Knowledge-Based Client Relationships
6. Game Theory 

Do you have any courses you would add to this list? Do you agree or disagree with me? 

Wildfire Symposium at Texas Wesleyan School of Law

Texas suffered devastating wildfires this past summer and the State Bar of Texas did a great job extending help to those in need of legal advice. Texas Wesleyan School of Law will hold a symposium on wildfire law on Friday, March 23, 2012. For more information please visit the symposium's website or email the symposium's coordinator. Registration is $50 and includes the reception following the program. 

Have lawyers priced themselves out of a very large and very important market?

Billing rates at American law firms have been under attack for the last several years. The steady rise in hourly rates at firms of all sizes has left a large market in need of affordable legal services. Millions of individuals and businesses large and small cannot afford today's hourly rates. Their needs are being met not by lawyers but by innovative companies who recognize their needs. These companies are producing products and services that aim to meet those needs.

Many lawyers decry these companies for various reasons. Whether these lawyers are correct is beyond the scope of this post. Rather, my intent is to raise the following question: have lawyers priced themselves out of a very large and very important market?

The fact that one such company, Rocket Lawyer, raised over $27,000,000.00 in venture capital is strong evidence of the projected growth of such product and service offerings whose target market is exactly who lawyers seem to have priced themselves out of.

Do you agree or disagree that lawyers have priced themselves out of this market? If we have, should we be allowed to cry foul when innovative companies like Rocket Lawyer and Docracy (which has raised close to $1M) try to service that market?

How is knowledge management being used in law firm discovery practice?

The following is an excerpt from a post of mine in the Knowledge Management ("KM") for Legal Professionals Group on LinkedIn. I'm curious what you think as well. 

Most lawyers in small law firms (like me) have their own working file of discovery objections and questions for certain types of information (e.g., I have a specific request for production requesting the production of tax returns as-well-as a specific objection related to the production of tax returns).

How has knowledge management been deployed in your firm to assist lawyers with their discovery practice? What specific tools and solutions have been successfully implemented in your firm? 

It should be no surprise that implementing KM in law firms is a challenge. Teresa Pritchard Schoch explored the hurdles to doing so in this excellent Law Technology News article yesterday.

Watch out for this trap when drafting Texas series LLC docs.

In July 2009 I wrote this post about Texas' adoption of the series limited liability company. Recently, I reviewed a certificate of formation for a Texas series LLC on the Texas Secretary of State's website that failed to include the notice of limitation required by §101.602(b)(3) of the Texas Business Organizations Code. 

Section 101.602(b) states: 

Subsection (a) applies only if: ... (3) the company's certificate of formation contains a notice of the limitations provided in Subsection (a). 

Subsection (a) states: 

(1) the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses incurred, contract for, or otherwise existing with respect to a particular series shall be enforceable against the assets of that series only, and shall not be enforceable against the assets of the limited liability company generally or any other series; and  

(2) none of the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses incurred, contracted for, or otherwise existing with respect to the limited liability company generally or any other series shall be enforceable against the assets of a particular series.

I include the following notice in my certificates of formation in order to comply with §101.602(b)(3):

Notice of Limitation on Liability of Series

The Company Agreement may establish or provide for the establishment of one or more designated series of members, managers, membership interests, or assets that (1) has separate rights, powers, or duties with respect to specified property or obligations of the Company or profits and losses associated with specified property or obligations, or (2) has a separate business purpose or investment objective.

Subject to the provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code (1) the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses incurred, contracted for, or otherwise existing with respect to a particular series shall be enforceable against the assets of that series only, and shall not be enforceable against the assets of the Company generally or any other series, and (2) none of the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses incurred, contracted for, or otherwise existing with respect to the Company generally - or any other series - shall be enforceable against the assets of a particular series.

Specific series of assets shall be separately labeled or enumerated in such a manner as to identify each series’ assets, structure, and operations. Pursuant to §101.614 of the Texas Business Organizations Code, and as more fully set forth in the Company Agreement, a specific series and its business and affairs may be wound up and terminated without causing the winding up of the Company. The winding up of a series shall not affect the limitation of liability of members and managers of other series or the Company at large. 

Failure to include this notice (or a notice substantially similar to it) in the certificate of formation will bust the liability shields of the LLC and that of each of its series. 

Including this notice in the certificate of formation, by itself, is not enough to protect the assets of the LLC and each of its series. A closer look at §101.602(b) reveals that the LLC must also maintain records for each series and account for the assets associated with each series separately from the other assets of the company and other series as-well-as provide, in the company agreement, the same notice provided in the certificate of formation and set forth above.

If your company agreement does not also include the language of §101.602(a)--or if you fail to properly account for the assets of the company and each series--you expose the entire structure to liability. Litigators suing a series will certainly determine whether or not the requirements of §101.602 have been met and if not, will add the other series to the litigation to satisfy the judgment. 

Many business owners who form their own entities by simply filing a certificate of formation with the Texas Secretary of State without consulting an attorney run the risk of falling into traps such as this. It's far less expensive to hire an attorney to get your company set up correctly then to defend a lawsuit that could have been prevented. 

What's wrong with giving a law firm a trade name? Part 2

On Wednesday, Reuters ran a story that centered on the name of one of China's largest law firms, King & Wood. To the surprise of many, when the firm opened in 1993, it did so without any attorneys by the name of King or Wood.

According to Reuters,

[t]he practice of making up law firm names out of thin air is broadly prohibited in the United States, where legal-ethics rules generally require that the surnames in firms reflect those of partners who work there -- or did before they retired or died. No such strictures exist in China, where firms are free to pick any name they imagine will resonate in the international marketplace. 

Back in July 2009, I wrote What's wrong with giving a law firm a trade name? here at the Texas Law Blog. There, I quoted Rule 7.01(a) of the Texas Rules which specifically prohibits lawyers practicing under a trade name. However, in other states, such as Massachusetts, law firms are allowed to practice under a trade name. One of my favorites, is Christopher Marston's Exemplar Law (now a part of the Exemplary Companies).

While the reason for allowing fictitious law firm names in China appears to be the courtship of Western law firms and Western clients the reason for disallowing trade names in Texas is the potential of trade names to mislead the public. Texas' position follows from the United States Supreme Court's 1979 opinion in Friedman v. Rogers which held that regulations prohibiting trade names aimed at preventing deception are constitutional.

Mike Downey, vice chairman of the ABA Law Practice Management section, was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal yesterday as part of its coverage of the King & Wood discussion. According to Downey, the ABA model rules, and most states, allow law firms to operate with trade names as long as the names are not deceptive.

In 2009, I wrote,

[i]n my opinion, it is time to re-evaluate Texas' position on law firm trade names....

Nearly three years later I still have the same opinion. What do you think? Should Texas (or  your state) re-evaluate its position on law firm trade names? If not, why not? If you could practice under a trade name, what would it be?

Client Collaboration with Basecamp by 37 Signals

In his popular book, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, Richard Susskind wrote this (among many other things) about online collaboration tools: "the central idea was straightforward and important— that a type of website could be set up to enable clients to monitor progress on work being undertaken for them, to look at documents, to offer their own input, and generally to keep in touch."

Whether your clients are in-house counsel for Fortune 500 companies, small, local businesses, or individuals, the need for a solution that allows clients to monitor progress on a matter, look at documents, offer input, and generally communicate with the legal team exists.

For me, 37 Signals' Basecamp has been the answer to effective and efficient matter collaboration with clients of all sizes.One of the problems Richard Susskind identified is that many in-house counsel do not want to use multiple platforms spread across multiple law firms.

Many of my clients already use or are otherwise familiar with Basecamp. More than five million people around the world use Basecamp so chances are pretty good that many of your clients use or are familiar with Basecamp as well. So far, I have found Basecamp to be the best option for collaboration with clients due to its simplicity and effectiveness. I can hardly wait to see what my friends at 37 Signals have done with Basecamp when they release BasecampNext.

Previous posts about Basecamp:

My Experiment with Legal Project Management in the Cloud
5 Web Applications for the Virtual Attorney

Friday Favorites (February 10, 2012)

Friday Favorites is a list of the top 7 articles I read or wrote this week about law, technology, marketing, entrepreneurship, or social media.

1. Western District of Texas Chief Judge Fred Biery's extraordinary "personal statement" in school prayer case. (Tex Parte Blog). 
2. Pepper Hamilton Puts Nonlawyer as Head of Firm: Now we're talking business. (Law and More).
3. Stealthy Legal Startup DocRun Raises $1.1M from Resolute.VC, Don Dodge and Others. (TechCrunch).
4. States Target Foreign Law. (Wall Street Journal).
5. Volatile future will demand law firms bring more to the party. (Legal Leaders Blog).
6. The Wrong End of Lawsuits. (Wall Street Journal).
7. Judge dismisses suit accusing SeaWorld of enslaving whales. (Thompson Reuters News & Insight).

Don't be shocked when it happens in American law firms

The legal world is waking up to the news this morning that the world's first publicly traded law firm, Australia's Slater & Gordon, will purchase UK personal injury firm Russell Jones & Walker under the 2007 Legal Services Act for £53.8m. Although passed in 2007, the Legal Services Act didn't take effect until October 6, 2010, making RJW the UK's first publicly traded law firm. (Press releases from SG and RJW are available here and here.)

In my opinion (and that of others much smarter then me), it is only a matter of time before American law firms are opened up to outside investment. On May 18, 2011, New Yourk personal injury firm Jacoby & Meyers brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging New York rules of professional conduct which prohibit outside investment in law firms (that litigation is still pending). Like the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.04 of the Texas Rules specifically prohibits outside investment in law firms. 

For an interesting look at the impact of outside investment on law firms see this excellent post at Legal Productivity.

Sound off: will outside investment in American law firms compromise the lawyer-client relationship? 

Friday Favorites (January 27, 2012)

Friday Favorites is a list of the top 7 articles I read or wrote this week about law, technology, marketing, entrepreneurship, or social media.

1. May Lawyers Offer Groupon Deals? New York Ethics Opinion Allows It, with Caveats. (ABA Journal). 
2. Implementing Legal Project Management - The Work Break Down Structure. (Texas Law Blog).
3. A cautionary tale: Don't say "renew" when you mean "extend." (Technology Law Notes).
4. How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work. (New York Times).
5. Dear Google: Crappy Results Like this Don't Give the Impression You Care About Search. (Search Engine Land).
6. Listen to What Innovators Don't Talk About. (Harvard Business Review).
7. Findings from the 4th Annual Law Department Operations Survey. (Inside Counsel).

Implementing Legal Project Management - The Work Breakdown Structure

Last week we defined legal project management (“LPM”) and the reasons why solo and small firm lawyers should implement LPM in their practice. This week, we break down LPM and take a closer look at the work breakdown structure (“WBS”).

The WBS is at the heart of project management. The Project Management Body of Knowledge guide (“PMBOK”) defines the WBS as a “deliverable oriented hierarchical decomposition of the work to be executed by the project team.” In LPM, this means breaking down the case into its parts and assigning resources and a budget to each part.

In a typical Texas divorce case, a simple WBS may look like the following recognizing, of course, that not all parts may be necessary (for example, a final hearing is not necessary if the case is settled at mediation):

1. Client Intake
2. Original Petition/Answer
3. Temporary Orders
4. Discovery
5. Mediation
6. Final Hearing
7. Final Documents
8. Appeal

This WBS may further be broken down as follows (recognizing that not all tasks may be necessary):

1. Client Intake
1. Initial Consultation
2. Execute Engagement Letter
3. Retainer
2. Original Petition/Answer
1. Draft Original Petition (if petitioner)
2. Draft Original Answer & Counter-Petition for Divorce (if respondent)
3. Temporary Orders
1. Draft Motion for Temporary Orders & Temporary Orders
2. Set Hearing on Motion for Temporary Orders
3. Attempt to Negotiate Temporary Orders
4. Prepare for Hearing on Temporary Orders
5. Hearing on Temporary Orders
4. Discovery
1. Send Request for Disclosure
2. Send Request for Production
3. Send Interrogatories
4. Send Deposition on Written Questions
5. Schedule Oral Depositions
6. Respond to Discovery Requests
5. Mediation
1. Schedule Mediation
2. Attend Mediation
3. If a Mediated Settlement Agreement is Executed:
1. Draft MSA
2. Schedule Prove-Up
3. Draft Final Documents (see below)
4. Attend Prove-Up
5. Record Real Property & Other Security Documents
6. Final Hearing
1. Set Final Hearing
2. Subpoena Witnesses for Final Hearing
3. Prepare for Final Hearing
1. Prepare Witness Outlines
2. Prepare Exhibits
3. Prepare Witnesses and Client
4. Prepare Electronic Presentation of Evidence
4. Attend Final Hearing
7. Final Documents
1. Draft Final Decree of Divorce (and Agreement Incident to Divorce)
2. Draft All Real Property Documents
3. Draft All Personal Property Documents
4. Draft Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
5. Record Real Property & Other Security Documents
8. Appeal

The WBS can be broken down into as much detail as you want. What I have not included above is the corresponding schedule, assigned resources to each task, or a proposed budget for each stage (or task).

The WBS provides a roadmap for you and your client, helps manage your client’s expectations, facilitates communication about the case with your client, and provides a template for a repeatable process that will improve your efficiency and cost estimates in future cases.

Spotting probable trends in the legal market from an unlikely source

In his book The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, Richard Susskind wrote:

it is from clients that we can glean probable trends in the legal market. It is client demand for new working practices and new efficiencies that will ultimately incline law firms to adopt new technologies.

Do you know how your clients expectations and appetites are changing? What new working practices and new efficiencies are your clients demanding?