“I am happy because I’m grateful. I choose to be grateful. That gratitude allows me to be happy.”
~ Will Arnett
The other day I received a private message from a lawyer who I have never met in person. She expressed her appreciation for my contributions to the profession in my retirement and did so in a manner that was warm and sincere. I practically blushed when I read it. She made my day.
I came across a lawyer the other day who makes mistakes in his communications with clients and the other side. None of the errors will likely land him in too much trouble. They may even be excusable based on the theory that spending too much time trying to be ‘perfect’ is unhealthy and expensive for clients who are being billed based on the amount of time spent on the matter. But they are mistakes nonetheless, and they could all be caught with a bit more thought and proof-reading.
I believe that lawyers should not compete based on price. I tell this to my mentees, and sometimes the response is, “that is easy for you to say from a cruise ship in the Pacific. I’m struggling to get files in the door and pay my rent.”
I also think that new lawyers should avoid practicing in areas that have become commodities and are particularly fee sensitive, such as residential real estate. My young friends tell me that they have to get cash in the door and that doing some real estate files is the best way to do it.
Those of you who have been following this series know that I said that Part Seven was the final article in the series. It turns out that I lied.
The purpose of the series is to set out the questions which Articling Students and new Associates should figure out about their firms when deciding whether to stay there over the long-term.
This time it is about the Chief Marketing Officer (“CMO”).
This is an abridged version of one of my first posts from several years ago.
Supervising lawyers fall into two groups.
The Users justify their approach in many ways. They are too busy. They do not believe in “hand-holding”. The “sink or swim” approach is the best way to train someone. At the end of the day, it is all nonsense – these lawyers simply do not want to earn less money by wasting billable time, and sometimes do not want to expose their Associates to their clients and risk losing the loyalty of the clients.
In my experience there are more Users than Mentors, and I believe that there is a historical reason for this.
In the old days, lawyers joined firms with a view to working their way up the ranks, becoming partners, and cashing in. Senior lawyers were willing to spend their time and effort in developing their Associates who would be their future partners and stay with their firms throughout their career.
Then things changed. Salaries of Associates increased beyond their actual value to the firms. In bad times, firms cut Associates loose. In good times, Associates rewarded the lack of loyalty by jumping from firm to firm for more money. Partners had to put in more hours to maintain the levels of profitability that they had come to expect, and gradually senior lawyers developed the attitude that they were not going to invest their time at personal cost in lost billings to train Associates who would likely not be with them that long anyway.
So here we are. We now have Mentors who will sacrifice their time and short-term billable hours to help the next generation develop, and Users who will not.
The challenge for new Associates looking for jobs is to find out who is willing to work with them to help them reach their potential, and who just wants to use them.
When automobile manufacturers first put vanity mirrors on sun visors, they only put them on the passenger side. Their reasoning was that the passenger was usually a woman who had makeup to apply. The car was being driven by a man and men did not wear makeup.
Why do you figure that the manufacturers eventually started putting vanity mirrors over the driver’s seat? Did they come to believe that men also like to look at themselves in the mirror? Or was it that they suddenly discovered that women also drive cars?
Now and then I will tell a story about something that I did back in the day when my wife Maureen and I practiced at the same law firm. Typically my story involves a brilliant legal strategy that I developed, a big win, and a grateful client.
Occasionally Maureen will observe, “how quickly my good idea becomes your great idea.” Her point, I guess, is that she was the brilliant one and I just took her idea and ran with it. It could have happened that way. It was a long time ago and it really is not in my interest to remember the details that clearly.
When I practiced law, I worried a lot. I worried about making a mistake on my files. I worried that I was too busy. I worried that I was not busy enough.
This is the last in a series about the questions which Articling Students and new Associates should figure out about their firms when deciding whether to stay there over the long-term.
This time, I will speak about supervising lawyers (“SL”).
There is a restaurant in Lakefield, Ontario called the Canoe & Paddle. On their regular menu is a panini called the “Ultimate Grilled Cheese” which comes with smoked bacon, cheddar, asiago, tomato, and garlic butter.
On their Kids & Seniors menu they offer a grilled cheese sandwich for which the ingredients are listed as “white loaf, cheddar.” They call this the “Grilled Cheese Please.”