You’ve seen the cartoon and its captions (or some version of it) a thousand times: On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.  And while it’s true that the cloud, the web and social media make it all too easy for a lawyer to throw up a website that conveys the impression of a statewide, multi-office firm but is really just a one-man shop, the Internet cuts the other way as well, making us question those who are the real deal.

Take my friend and Social Media for Lawyers co-author, Nicole Black for example.  Seven years ago, when I first met Nicole online through a comment on my blog , she’d just returned to the practice of law as a young mother following a two year hiatus from the law firm where she worked after having served as a public defender.  Today, she’s a superstar ;  of counsel at an upstate New York law firm, vice president of  MyCase, in-demand keynote speaker, a cloud-based law practice management platform, a syndicated Daily Record columnist, and author of the leading book on Cloud Computing for Lawyers as well as co-author of the social media book and author of a criminal law treatise o for Thompson-West publications.  And she still finds time to cook amazing meals for her family.

Niki does so many things and does them so well that it’s hard to believe.  If I didn’t know Niki as well as I do, I’d doubt it myself.  But having co-authored a book with Niki (which frankly, would never have been completed but for Niki’s speed-of-light writing pace which forced me to stay to schedule), I know of few people who work as hard or as efficiently or can match her prescient intuition.

A few weeks ago, Scott Greenfield bemoaned the demise of quality of continuing legal education (CLE) (if there ever was such a thing). As Scott observes, most CLE today consists either of panels of experienced lawyers who show up prepared with nothing but a bunch of war stories or fluff programs on marketing or ipad use taught by consultants.  While both categories of programs (war stories or practice management) may be valuable or interesting for lawyers, neither serves the purpose for which CLE was intended, which is to ensure lawyers’ competency in substantive law practice and serving clients.

So why has CLE quality declined even as all states except a scant few (DC and Maryland among them) have adopted mandatory CLE requirements?  The answer in a single word:  money.  Great CLE costs good money because of the extensive time and effort that goes in to preparation of a solid, worthwhile and useful program.

Though I can’t speak to other CLE providers, here’s an example of the kind of effort that I put into my recent  Art, Science & Ethics of the 21st Century Retainer Agreement , a web-based program priced at $49.95 (after positive feedback from the first two runs, I’m embarking on the CLE certification process).  First, I identified the 21st century issues, from alternative billing to electronic billing and outsourcing that lawyers may want to cover in a retainer agreement but for which there are few examples. 

Solos and startups seem like an ideal match.  Most obviously, startups don’t have the cash to hire in-house counsel or expensive mega-firms and solos can offer competitive rates and flexible service.  Solos also have the ability to better understand and accommodate the demands of start-ups since solos are essentially start-ups themselves.  For these reasons, experts typically advise solos with an interest in or experience with corporate or business law to target startups as potential clients.

But is that advise wise?  Not really – and I’ll debunk that myth below.

First, focusing your law practice in a set of impoverished clients isn’t very wise –  even when the target  is as sexy as startups.   When company founders are living in houses mortgaged to the hilt to fund their companies or are subsisting on ramen noodles, they won’t be inclined to spend even a couple of thousand dollars on legal services from a solo.   Theres a reason, after all, why so many new small companies use Legal Zoom
A low priced  subscription service  may fare better, though my impression is that many early stage start ups do not have the same ongoing, routine legal needs as more established companies.  And while a solo could offer quality, low-priced unbundled services to start up entrepreneurs (which is the approach taken by Upstart Legal) that’s more of a long term strategy to build a relationship with a promising company in the hopes of a payout down the line.  Unbundled services, in and of themselves, aren’t a viable standalone business model . Finally, even where a solo does manage to snag a start-up, there’s no guarantee that those companies with dance with the ones that brung ’em when venture capital starts pouring in.

In the meantime, solos also face stiff competition for the more promising startups from mega law firms that can afford to defer compensation or even work entirely for free.  Firms like Perkins Coie have set up slick websites where you can create a termsheet or a Delaware corporation free of charge.  Large firms can offer startups other benefits that solos can’t, like  free offices ,  meeting space  and introductions to wealthy contacts.  These firms offer these benefits to attract the most promising startups, taking the wheat while casting the chaff (think toiletpaper.com) to the small fry.  In other words, while solos can still attract startup business, they’re going to be stuck with the companies less likely to succeed.

Increasingly, consumers are exploring client reviews on sites like Avvo  as part of the process of hiring a lawyer.  Though it’s hardly scientific evidence, over the past few weeks alone, I’ve heard several examples of lawyers who attracted fairly decent cases as a result of their presence on Avvo or Yelp and the positive feedback they’d received. [Note: See Comments for caveat]

Even though testimonials and reviews can assist consumers in hiring a lawyer, many lawyers are reluctant to participate in review sites.  A few harbor concerns about ethics restrictions, which in my view, are a red herring since grievance boards can’t infringe on clients’ First Amendment rights to comment about their lawyers.  Still, most lawyers don’t use review sites because of fears that disgruntled clients or competitors will post negative reviews.

Technology innovations address some of these concerns.  As I blogged at Solo Small Firm Innovation, computer scientists have developed algorithms that can ferret out fraudulent reviews.  Though currently fairly accurate, as these tools gain more use, they’ll improve even more.

In addition, lawyers retain more control over the review process than they believe.  Though lawyers can’t stop a clients from posting negative reviews, at a minimum, you can encourage clients to come to you first to fix the problem. Likewise, you can also proactively seek reviews from clients satisfied with your service to balance negative reviews that you might receive.

Sounds great in theory – but in practice, how can you ensure that clients come to you with complaints or take the time to fill out a review?  Through your  21st Century Retainer Agreement and Law Firm Policies, of course.  As part of your retainer letter (or better yet, as an appended Law Firm Policy sheet, so you don’t clutter the basic agreement), consider the following clause:

Although I question the value of  business plans , starting a law firm without even a vague idea of anticipated revenue sources or expected expenses is foolhardy.   To help guide the law firm planning (or prediction) process, I’ve developed, with the help of my computer-savvy husband, a basic calculator to list and total your costs…

Editor’s Note: Sometimes solo practice doesn’t work out.  Recently, a member of one of my listserves shared one of the best and most objective post-mortem analyses of a solo practice that didn’t quite make it to the finish line.  Despite increasing momentum towards the end of the second year, the author (who has a family and young children) opted to accept a job opportunity in a practice area that he enjoyed which would offer more financial security.  The post is long and the author shares many valuable lessons about what he might have done differently.  What’s particular notable about his experience is that while referrals and personal contacts were useful (indeed, that is how the author ultimately found contract work and his current position), the bulk of referrals were for matters that he could not, or did not want to handle.  On the other hand, the author’s online marketing plan (which is included in a companion post did begin to bear fruit, albeit too late in this case.

For what it’s worth, though this author’s firm didn’t make it, the author is a success.  He left a high-paying job that he didn’t enjoy and took huge risks to find meaningful work and a lifestyle that served his family.  Ultimately, his solo practice helped him develop the skills that made him attractive to his current position and may open other doors down the line.  And with this post-mortem, this lawyer will help other solos more than he’ll ever imagine.

Regretfully, I will be leaving solo practice at the beginning of next month.  I will be starting a full-time job at a non-profit, practicing  consumer law, which has been half my solo practice.  I expect to be taking many of my consumer cases with me to the new organization, and am looking to farm out my contingency civil rights and hourly commercial litigation matters…. Below follows a summary of my almost two years in solo practice.

I came to solo practice through a wholly voluntary decision to leave a partnership-track position at one of the most prestigious and high-paying  “white-shoe” firms.  I had a significant pool of savings to draw on as start-up capital and to cover living expenses during the early going.

The reasons for leaving my position were two-fold:  no interest in practicing high-stakes business litigation, and a desire to have more time to spend on family and personal interests.  My last six months at the firm I spent largely working on a pro-bono immigration matter which eventuated in a trial and a significant published decision…During the same time period I attempted to conduct market research, select a location in [the state] to build a solo practice, and write a business plan.

My family was resolved to leave [the City] due mostly to the expense of residing there; our savings would go a lot farther elsewhere in the state.  I had no particular connections there that would have helped me get the kind of business I wanted with any more ease than elsewhere, and the practice areas I was interested in appeared very competitive there compared to other places.  We ultimately settled on moving to [smaller city] because (a) [most urban of the options],  (b) cheap, and (c) seemingly better suited to the kind of practice I wanted.  I planned to practice criminal defense, immigration, civil rights (police and corrections misconduct), and consumer law (debt defense and FDCPA).  My essential plan was to finance contingency civil rights work with revenue from flat-fee criminal, immigration, and consumer work and contingency FDCPA work.  My market research told me that criminal defense would be very competitive and hard to generate business in; however, I had always wanted to do it.  Immigration also appeared competitive based solely on the number of lawyers practicing it; however, because one of [state immigration courts is in smaller city], I anticipated generating business representing individuals from a broader area and so felt the demographics overstated the competitiveness.  My research showed very little competition and a lot of need for civil rights representation and for certain aspects of consumer law (debt defense) but other areas very competitive (FDCPA).

After moving here, I put up an active website, rented office space downtown near the courts, and sought to generate business by networking through the [bar groups] and by contacting other solos and other consumer lawyers and having lunch or drinks with them.   I also got on the local bar referral list.  These actions generated some early leads, and the referral list in particular generated a steady stream month after month.  The bulk of the referrals were for things I simply did not do or could not help people with, but I did generate a steady stream of matters through these referrals.  On the other hand, I had very little success with online marketing until just a few months ago, when I significantly updated my web presence.