A few night ago, I left the office late after completing a day-long telephonic hearing in a different time zone. Because of the late hour and the freezing weather, I decided to treat myself to a cab ride home instead of waiting for the metro at my stop and then again, at the connection. At 11 p.m., I could have easily hailed a taxi on the street.  But having read so much about Uber  – a modern-day car service (or online matchmaker for drivers and passengers, depending upon the audience being pitched), I decided to give it a try.

My Uber experience worked seamlessly.  Once I set up my account and downloaded an app for my phone, I requested a cab, which I was told would arrive in five minutes and that Pedro (with a 4.8 star ranking) would be my driver. As the car drew within range, I could see it on my app so I was able to wait inside until I received a call that the car had arrived.  The car – a black Suburban SUV – was clean and warm.  Pedro was courteous, opening the door for me as I entered and exited the vehicle and not rolling his eyes when I told him I wanted to go to Bethesda, which is outside of D.C. He also made polite but non-intrusive conversation throughout the trip. When we arrived at my house, I didn’t have to fumble with cash or credit cards –  I simply clicked the app and remitted payment.  Then, Pedro told me that he was giving me a five-star passenger rating (a weird touch) so I gave him a five-star rating as well.

For my trip, Uber was slightly more costly – perhaps ten percent more – than what I would have paid a cab. But Uber’s pricing depends on a variety of factors – another recent D.C. passenger wrote that his shorter Uber trip cost about twenty percent less than a taxi, but there have also been reports of rates as high as $23/mile due to Uber’s surge pricing model, which increases fares to encourage more drivers to come out during periods of high demand.

Now, I realize that legal services aren’t the same as a taxi ride. But Uber enjoys success because it took everything that people hated about taxis – lack of availability, dirty interiors and surly drivers – and fixed them. As a result, customers are willing to pay slightly more for something that works better.

In one of those press releases-cum-SEO drivers that routinely crop up in my news aggregator, I noticed this announcement about Stephanie Fierro’s promotion from law firm associate to senior counsel at Frutkin Law, a mid-sized Arizona law firm.  Nothing out of the ordinary there – but what most caught my eye was that prior to joining the firm as an associate a few years earlier, Ms. Fierro had operated her own practice.

That a younger lawyer would use her own firm as a stepping stone to employment isn’t anything new either. In fact, Fierro’s resume confirms what I and many other solo-supporter have long maintained: that starting a firm can help new, unemployed graduates find a full time job, if that’s their ultimate goal.

Still, at some point – and I’m not sure when – does solo and small firm practice go from the functional equivalent of an economy ticket on the bargain bus to the next point in your career to a near-worthless frequent flier voucher that you can’t redeem for a trip?  Of course, that’s not always the case.  Lawyers who run solo or small firm practices with a deep roster of six-figure clients will find dozens of law firms willing to court them. Likewise, a solo who’s started out handling occasional work for a tiny company that goes public might be invited on board to serve as general counsel. And even in today’s economy, it’s still possible that a highly skilled and experienced solo with an impressive track record but lacking a dependable book of business could transition to a senior advisory role or of counsel at a larger firm.

Last week, MyShingle held our second DC-based meet up featuring Priori Legal founders Basha Frost Rubin and Mirra Levitt. Though 48 people registered for the event unfortunately, the weather didn’t cooperate and between federal government shut-down, early law firm closings and unplowed roads, attendance was lighter than expected. Nevertheless, we still went ahead with the meet-up, with all attendees having ample time to speak personally with Basha and Mirra about how their site works and future plans.

The Meet Up also promised advice and lessons learned for lawyers who serve or seek to attract small firm clients. Here are a few points to keep in mind.

1. Clients Can’t Stand the Sound of Silence

So what do small business clients really dislike about lawyers? Surprisingly, high fees aren’t at the top of the list – though smaller clients do greatly prefer fixed rates or predictable fees. Rather, it’s “silence.” Clients dislike not hearing from their lawyers. If a lawyer can’t finish a matter on schedule, clients can work with that, so long as the lawyer explains the reasons for the delay and provides a new timeline for delivery. The solution? Either check in with clients periodically by email to let them know the status of the case, or develop a template that you or support staff can complete to share updates with the client. Be proactive and send status reports before  the client asks. 

Solo and small firm lawyers account for roughly sixty-five percent of all attorneys. Unfortunately, as I’ve written before , solos and smalls are grossly underrepresented in the Reinvent Law space – even though solos and smalls have traditionally been (and in my view, still are) the driving force of innovation in the legal profession.

Still, not all solos and smalls innovate and there’s nothing wrong with that either. Some are simply too busy serving clients; others are too practical to innovate just for the sake of looking cool.  But there’s another far more serious obstacle to solo and small firm innovation that many futurists overlook: ethics regulations which have a chilling effect on solo and small firm lawyers.

It’s no coincidence that many of the innovations in the legal profession – the Axioms or RocketLawyers and matchmaking platforms are non-law firm entities that aren’t subject to ethics rules.  As a result, these companies can push the ethics envelope without fear of serious repercussions. By contrast, if a solo or small firms experiment with a new approach to serving clients, like a virtual office space or a networking arrangement, they can lose their license or reputation if it turns out they made the wrong call (like the Connecticut solos who were prosecuted for ethics violations for participating in Total Attorneys’ lead gen program).

Futurists ignore these very real constraints on solos and smalls. And why not? It’s far more provocative to portray solos and smalls as a bunch of luddites with a guild mentality rather than as responsible business owners reasonably assessing risk in a heavily regulated environment.  And frankly, many futurists — particularly those interested in  access to venture capital — stand to benefit from the ethics hurdles that keep solos and smalls in their place. After all, if ethics rules stymie solos and smalls from competing with new business models, that simply makes it easier for these #altlaw ventures to push solos and smalls right out of the market.

So how can we provide solos and smalls with guidance as well as insulation from punishment making the wrong decision? Two ways: ethics safe harbors and crowdsourcing ethics opinions. Here’s how these would work.

Figuring out how much to charge isn’t just a conundrum for lawyers,  it’s common to most small businesses. For example, how many times have you as a lawyer, asked yourself or a colleague the same questions posed in this New York Times story, Businesses Go Creative on Pricing, Applying Technology.

Many business owners struggle with pricing. Should their first concern be covering costs or figuring out what the market will bear? How do they determine what the market will pay without raising prices high enough that some customers flee? And can they offer discounts without damaging their price brand?

Yet, even though lawyers and small business owners may have the same questions about pricing, small business owners are discovering new solutions through a concept known as dynamic pricing that allows rates to vary according to demand. Whereas once, dynamic pricing options were available only to the largest companies, now, thanks to technology, small business owners can avail themselves of these solutions as well.

Perhaps the most well-known example of dynamic pricing comes from Uber, a private taxi service that employs “surge pricing,” raising rates on high-demand nights in an effort to draw more drivers out on the road.  Although higher prices bring complaints, Uber discovered that when “you set expectations ahead of time, the more you get to a place where there’s no issue with it.”

Other small business dynamic or alternative pricing models described in the article include (1) a company called FeedVisor that makes re-pricing software for Amazon sellers which algorithmically decides the best price within parameters that you set and with reference to what others are selling for and (2) a company called Savored that enables restaurants to offer a certain number of tables on “off nights” for substantial discounts without damaging a restaurant’s brand. Another technique discussed is employed by an Atlanta-based realtor which charges a modest flat fee for listing rather than a set percentage of the sale price, but also provides fewer services in exchange for the lower flat fee.

Although businesses have reported success with alternative and dynamic pricing, most lawyers by contrast are reluctant to depart from the billable hour or flat/fixed fee pricing even where doing so would benefit lawyers and set appropriate pricing signals for clients. For example, most lawyers don’t want to take on a case at the last minute. It creates added stress for the firm, leads to the possibility for error and a worse result for the client. Thus, lawyers who communicate and charge higher fees or an added premium for last-minute retention can incentivize clients to act timely. And if clients still insist on paying the higher fee, at least the lawyer is more fairly compensated for the opportunity costs of putting other matters on hold to complete the rush job.

I love TED Talks. Over the years, I’ve  shared a bunch of them at MyShingle. In many ways, Ted Talks are like a trip to the gym or an easy run: they make me feel both refreshed and virtuous without the sacrifice of a real lifestyle change needed for long term health benefits.

Now, however, I love TED even more. Because TED turned on itself, allowing a TED Speaker, UC San Diego Professor Benjamin Bratton to criticize the TED format from the inside. And boy did he ever. Not only did Bratton, predictably deride TED talks as trite or superficial, he lambasted them for being downright dangerous:
 In this case the placebo is not just ineffective, it’s harmful. Because it takes your interest, energy, and outrage and diverts it into this black hole of affectation. Keep calm and carry on innovating. Is that the real message of TED? To me that’s not inspirational, it’s cynical. In the U.S. the right-wing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality. Other constituencies have TED.
Did Bratton’s critique kill Ted Talks? Of course not. In fact, the opposing view inspired interesting discussion and could potentially, give rise to other formats that might lead to real change.

Unfortunately, the TED-Style Reinvent Talks won’t have a squeaky wheel in the mix. Although my friend and respected criminal defense lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield offered to provide  an opposing view, there have been no takers. 

These days, most consumers who decline to purchase a pair of shoes or jeans or car insurance from an online site are accustomed to discovering that jilted object of their interest is stalking them around the internet, turning up everywhere in the form of  “retargeting ads.” While many consumers find these ads downright annoying, for others, they can be potentially embarrassing or downright dangerous when they involve legal services.
At least one #altlegal business provider, Legal Zoom uses retargeted advertising. After visiting the Legal Zoom site to research some offerings for a blog post, I began noticing Legal Zoom ads popping up on my Facebook page and other sites that I’ve visited.


That’s troubling. For example, consider what might happen if a domestic violence victim ventured to the Legal Zoom site on a shared home computer looking for information on divorce. Later that evening, her spouse uses the machine and notices LegalZoom ads popping up at other websites – which could rouse his suspicion and trigger additional abuse.  While it’s true that retargeting ads don’t necessarily reveal the nature of a prospective client’s legal problem, because retargeting ads are generated in response to an earlier visit to the site, they signal that a prior user visited the site.

Like many other bloggers, I too am a frequent recipient of offers of dubious gifts like guest posts, info-graphics or paid back-links. Usually, I simply hit delete. But this most recent proposal that came through my inbox merits a shout out because it involves a company called SpeakeasyMarketingInc.com that works for lawyers – and engages in tactics that are both ineffective and potentially unethical.

Here’s the email – or rather the second identical email that I received from Andrew Hudson, an agent for SpeakeasymarketingInc.com (in my first response, I said that I wasn’t interested and would post negatively about the company if I heard from them again):
I work for 30 different attorneys throughout The United States, and I have a simple proposition that will benefit your website and ours.

One of my attorney clients would like to Place a link from his website to your website, Which will elevate you in Google’s eyes and help You get higher up in Google results.

In return, we ask for a link from your website to A different attorney client of ours.

No money exchanges hands, the links are not Reciprocal, and both parties benefit.

This is NOT a ‘black hat’ technique, or anything daily harassment form indian may That violates Googles’ terms of service.

100% straight up, legitimate, tit for tat.

Are you open to this simple arrangement?
No, Mr. Hudson, I am not open to this simple arrangement – and lawyers shouldn’t be either. First, an attorney should never allow a marketing company to “blind-market” its site on its behalf. What if the site where SpeakEasy seeks to place the link is one of your competitors or opposing counsel? That’s potentially embarrassing and could be upsetting to a client if discovered. 

Perhaps the best — and worst — aspect of a solo or small firm law practice is that no matter how much you plan, you’re always in for surprises. In some months, you may go from no clients on the horizon on the first of the month to an overflow docket a month later. Or you might discover that a client who retains you to handle a trust and who’s never left the state turns out to have property all over the country. Or that the web developer who created your site a decade ago is no longer in business and you need to update the site right away.

Because of the steep ebbs and flows in solo and small firm practice, it’s very difficult to figure out staffing levels. For that reason, I’ve often advised against hiring permanent employees if you can avoid it (and here’s 19 ways to avoid permanent hires, courtesy of Lee Rosen’s Divorce Discourse). Still, sometimes the effort of finding a law student or an assistant or designer to handle a relatively small task doesn’t seem worth the bother – and so you either stay up late another night or put the work off.

Enter Docket Hero. Conceived by Florida small firm practitioner Long Duong, DocketHero is an online marketplace that allows lawyers to connect with qualified service providers – the “heroes” – who can help lawyers with a one-time matter or ongoing tasks so that they can “clear their docket.” Though Docket Hero resembles services like Elance, which help users find freelance labor, or TaskRabbit or Craigslist which are useful for finding less specialized services (like babysitting or dog walking) locally, Docket Hero meets unique needs that none of these services fully address. First, lawyers frequently need “on-the-ground,”  assistance in other jurisdictions – for example, a paralegal who can pull a deed from court records or a trustworthy messenger who can print out an emailed pleading and file it at the court – but finding location-specific help at these more general sites can be difficult. Likewise, many times a lawyer may want services specific to the legal industry – such as an inexpensive web-developer with experience in creating lawyer-websites, a notary or a paralegal – and may not have the time or desire to comb through the more general sites to address a specific need. The site is also simple and mobile-friendly, making it easy for a lawyer to post on the fly and browse responses.