Marketing Attorney Blog

American Bar Association (ABA) incoming President James R. Silkenat has reappointed attorney Micah Buchdahl to a three year term on the Standing Committee of Continuing Legal Education (SCOCLE). The committee is a driving force behind all aspects of lawyer professional development and continuing legal education programming.

Buchdahl is President of Moorestown, New Jersey-based HTMLawyers, a law marketing consultancy, where he works with law firms around the globe on business development initiatives and strategies. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.

The ABA Center for Professional Development (formerly Center for CLE) is guided by the SCOCLE, working closely with experts from ABA Sections and other entities and from the profession at large in developing programs and products. It serves as the central resource for the ABA and the profession for up-to-the-minute, quality CLE distributed through a variety of convenient formats.

Buchdahl served one year on an appointment by ABA President Laurel Bellows before his reappointment by Silkenat. During this time, he served on the SCOCLE's marketing committee. He also developed programming for the ABA Premier Speaker series, where he will lead an ethics CLE program on attorney ratings & rankings in October 2013. In addition, Buchdahl is Editor in Chief of the ABA's Law Practice Today, the most widely disseminated online resource on law practice management in the legal profession.

A past chair of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, Buchdahl developed the ABA Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference, a standalone business development workshop. He is a longtime faculty member of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, teaching ethics annually for more than a decade.

The SCOCLE is chaired by Vincent Polley. The Director of the ABA Center for Professional Development is Jill Eckert McCall.

For the May issue of Law Practice Today, focusing on the theme of professional development, I asked my colleague Megan Greenberg, formerly Director of Professional Development at Richards Layton in Delaware to lead the charge as issue editor. Megan's experience as a practicing attorney and PD director, along with her involvement in the Professional Development Consortium (PDC) made her the perfect person to put together leading experts and authors, with timely qualified topics on the ever-increasing role of PD in the law firm.

If you are looking for a compendium of professional development topics and expertise, look no further than this month's LPT. Among the highlights are:

Peta Gordon's very timely piece on "The Other Half." With the popularity of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg's best-seller Lean In, the author talks about work/life balance following the birth of her second child. Peta is a senior associate in Kaye Scholer's litigation department. Her story will resonate with many female attorneys working to balance a demanding professional life with raising a family.

Nick Gaffney's Roundtable series takes on Law Firm Associate Perspectives on Professional Development, with contributions from Chandana Ravindranath, an Associate at DLA Piper in New York, Henry Warnock, with Ford Harrison in Atlanta, and Tracy Weiss, an associate at Greenberg Traurig in Phoenix.

Why are associate attrition rates so high? Author Rachel Silverman asks and answers the question in "Associate Engagement Is No Laughing Matter." A key reason is a lack of genuine engagement in the most important drivers of professional satisfaction. A savvy associate engagement strategy will increase your associates' motivation and productivity--and your bottom line.

Of course, I'm going to highlight my own contribution. In "Ethics Imperative to Business Development Learning," I address the way PD and marketing programs intersection when it comes to ethics compliance. From websites and social media, ratings and rankings, the ethical implications of marketing activities are varied and complex. Ensure your professional development program isn't forgetting the ethics component of marketing. It is highly embarrassing to law firm management than the letter from the state disciplinary counsel citing a firm for violating the RPC in marketing, advertising or solicitation.

To read the May issue, CLICK HERE.

On February 28th, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a disclaimer was required under the state's advertising rules when posting results on a website. This is the latest outcome in the seemingly never-ending battle between Horace Hunter and the Virginia State Bar. This has been a widely watched case among ethics attorneys like myself that follow the bouncing ball of state bar advertising restrictions and first amendment scholars looking at the "free speech" argument. Is the next stop the U.S. Supreme Court?

Last April (2012), I was part of an ABA CLE panel that discussed "Is Your Legal Blog Compliant? Ethical considerations in the wake of Hunter v. Virginia State Bar." The panel included Mr. Hunter, myself, employment law blogger Molly DiBianca and noted Virginia ethics attorney Tom Spahn. We discussed and debated the many issues in the case. It is effectively a case of first impression in the law blogosphere. That was prior to the case heading up the ladder to the state supreme court. Read more about the program in Your ABA's e-news--Blogs can be legal minefields.

Blogs have been around since the late 1990s, yet this cyberspace battle in Virginia is the first real challenge by a state bar to the often cloudy areas of interpretation. Is a blog advertising, marketing, editorial, personal, or business? Where does the First Amendment end and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct begin? Should a state bar look at a blog as marketing or something else?

I've found that heavy bloggers and those that sell blogs to law firms are often quite vocal in the opinion that the blog is somehow "media" and exempt from rules under "marketing." As a former journalist, I've always been disturbed by the concept that someone with a blog is suddenly a "reporter." Clearly, there are blogs that have become popular enough in the mainstream that they become influencers and sometimes garner "media" status for credentialing and access. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to credential bloggers for various conferences. Usually they are just too cheap to register. And in most cases, I've never heard of them. There are blogs that are clearly online media. But they are usually a standalone entity and not promotional in the sense that the goal is anything more than traffic generation. The goal of most lawyer blogs is to generate business as lawyers--whether it is direct or in many cases, helping with search engine optimization, increasing media inquiries or branding visibility. Any way you slice it, we are not doing it as a personal "dear diary."

The ethics attorney part of me clearly believes that a law firm or lawyer blog is advertising, marketing or a communication that falls under the respective RPC. It is simply ridiculous to differentiate between a law firm website and a law firm blog (with, of course, exceptions). When doing an ethics compliance review of a blog, I look at numerous factors--including disclaimers, links to the main site, bar states of contributors and various other criteria in making sure a law firm blog is compliant--based on advertising and solicitation rules, not based on the concept that the attorney is an objective journalist making a comment.

Of course, if you are reading this, you realize that this is a blog! I do it for all the aforementioned reasons. But if you think the underlying goal is anything less than business development...please. We blog to get attention--for our practice, for our business. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We give advice, opinions and provide news for our niche targets.

It will be interesting if Hunter gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because a ruling there would likely elevate or dilute the level of restriction and requirements accompanying the thousands of law firm blogs out there. A good blog offers expert opinion--but it is marketing. This is not The New York Times.

This month marks the first of our two annual "Young Lawyers Survival Guide" issues of Law Practice Today, developed in coordination with the ABA's Young Lawyers Division. Thanks to issue editor Elizabeth Henslee for putting together an outstanding collection of articles designed with the young lawyer audience in mind--although almost all of the content is relevant to attorneys of all ages.

New to LPT this month are two rotating bimonthly features, including Professional Development (now rotating with Career Paths) and Diversity & Inclusion (rotating with Women Rainmakers). This month, Jennifer Bluestein writes about time management. Jen is the Director of Professional Development at Greenberg Traurig. She also serves as Chair of the Professional Development Consortium (PDC). LPT is working with the PDC to produce timely articles on PD. We also welcome a contribution from Aracely Munoz Petrich on watching the Supreme Court with apprehension. Aracely is the vice chair of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee of the ABA Law Practice Management Section. Professional development and diversity are becoming more and more significant in the day-to-day operations of a law firm. LPT's editorial board recognizes that there is a demand and interest in more features relating to those important law practice management topics.

A renowned panel of experts from the academic world and law firm world participate in a roundtable discussion, moderated by Nicholas Gaffney of Infinite PR, on what law firms expect from new lawyers. Gaffney's roundtable series appears a few times each year, and provides multiple perspectives on our monthly issue themes.

To read the March issue, click here.

Thanks,

Micah Buchdahl
Editor in Chief
Law Practice Today

My marketing column in the March/April issue of Law Practice focuses on the many ways that charitable involvement--be it time or money--can also pay significant dividends for a law firm's marketing efforts. Too often it is not fully embraced (or simply ignored) as a tie-in to everything from image branding to professional development.

If you have a law firm marketer, is s/he aware of and involved in charitable contributions? Is this discussed by the marketing partner and marketing committee? There are so many ancillary benefits that come from "doing good" that unwittingly get overlooked. Is there an internal list that shows charitable involvement--financial contributions, pro bono, board appointments, events, relevancy to clients? "Giving back" is a hallmark of law firm involvement in a community. Being recognized for those efforts is far greater "branding" than a promotional advertisement or marketing campaign. Read the article to see if your law practice is making the most of your philanthropic endeavors.

It is rare that I make a trip to Chicago or Toronto without spending an evening at Second City. There is nothing more entertaining (to me) than great improvisational comedy. Growing up, I was a Second City TV groupie of sorts, now possessing the entire DVD collection of SCTV. I love the creativity, thinking on your feet and ability to laugh at oneself (and others). So it was easy to talk about Drexel University Law School's "Improv for Lawyers" class in an article written this week by Associated Press reporter Kathy Matheson.

Matheson was writing about the uniqueness of such a law school elective, taught by actress/comedian Sharon Geller, who has also provided improv training as a CLE to lawyers in various settings. While this all coincidentally took place in my home base of Philadelphia, it was my role in the American Bar Association--as a past chair of the Law Practice Management Section and a current member of the ABA's Standing Committee on CLE that led her to ask about my experience and views on the subject. I was asked about the uniqueness of the program and the value to a new or seasoned attorney.

In many law firm retreats where I've participated in some manner--either in organization, as a speaker, or in conjunction with a business development project--an improv session taught by one of many skilled troupes in the United States (including Second City traveling casts) is used to develop skills including team building, public speaking, "thinking on your feet" and training for improved client and prospective client interactions. Improv has also been used by a number of law firms I work with for associate and partner professional development training programs in-house. Whether or not they qualify as "substantive legal training" as a CLE is a state-by-state matter--but that is a subject for another post. Whether or not it is CLE accredited, the program provides a useful training ground that incorporates numerous elements of law practice.

The Drexel class is a huge hit. The school has always been known for providing some out-of-the-box "real world" training. In a short time, the law school has done a nice job carving out space and a good reputation in an excellent Philadelphia area law school market (led, of course, by my undergrad and law school alma mater Temple).

In the AP article, Matheson quotes a former course participant and present Ballard Spahr associate about being prepared for responding to difficult things or difficult people. Yes, those are not wasted skills for a new attorney to possess. And at a time where law firms are becoming increasingly more focused on PD and business development, an ability to be creative, think outside the box and challenge conventions is not a bad thing to include in the workplace curriculum. Many law firms should take note of the interest that a course such as this one has generated. It takes some guts and personality to succeed on the improv stage. There is no question that the skill set translates to the practice of law.

The ABA Section of Family Law has dedicated its entire winter 2013 issue of the Family Advocate to the topic of marketing your practice in the digital age. The feature that the publication asked me to author, Finding the Magical Mix for Your Digital Marketing Plan, presents a wide range of options for the family law practitioner--including websites, blogs, use of video, search engine optimization, mobile sites, social media, directories and ratings. In other words, there are a lot of options and a lot to think about.

Among other features in the issue is an article on Common Ethical Pitfalls of Digital Marketing, authored by my ABA LPM colleagues Sharon Nelson and John Simek. While ethics rules should not discourage or hamper an attorney's involvement on social media and lawyer referral websites, compliance is critical. As an ethics attorney myself, I've worked to get a few attorneys out of digital "jams", not to mention implementing lots of preventive medicine.

Simply noting that the ABA Family Law Section has dedicated an entire one of its quarterly issues to this subject should be enough to wake up any family lawyer not paying attention to the World Wide Web. The bottom line is that like many consumer-oriented practices, competition is fierce and ever-increasing. Family law is such an interesting animal. Perhaps no other area of practice is likely to impinge on life more than divorce--if not directly on your household, indirectly through a relative or friend. In regard to advertising, you are often targeting a more sophisticated client base than might be the case for a plaintiffs' practice. Visibility is a necessity. No other area of practice is represented more in many of the lifestyle and regionally-based print publications I peruse from the mailbox. The radio and billboards tout family law practices (not so much on television). Facebook is both a contributing cause and effect of many divorces--meaning that a target audience is right there for the taking. The use of mediation and forms of alternative dispute resolution bring in other competitive marketplace issues. A few years ago, I presented a marketing ethics CLE program at the ABA Annual Meeting for the ADR section, with many of the examples coming from issues relating to family law attorneys competing with huge, non-law firm divorce mediation services.

Personally, I enjoy marketing family law practices. There is a mix of general law practice marketing principles with non-law firm specific avenues of consumer marketing targets. The challenge is often to out-"visible" the other guy or gal, while being in the right places at the right times. Like it or not, the prospective client is highly likely to utilize the Internet as a source of information, referral and attorney selection. Failure to appear is simply a lost opportunity.

For examples of some solid online efforts by family law attorneys (all noted in the ABA feature, and a reverse disclaimer - none are clients and I've never met any of them), see the links below:

Blogs - www.sandiegodivorceattorneyblog.com and www.fortlauderdaledivorcelawyerblog.com
Video - genxsmartie.blogspot.com and thelaw.tv/Kansas/Divorce+Law
Social Media inclusion - www.sblumenthallaw.com
Niche - Cordell & Cordell

Last month, at the invitation of Joshua Peck and the Law Firm Media Professionals organization, I attended their monthly program in New York City, at the offices of Dechert. As always, the topic of "Surveys and Rankings" attracted significant interest (and conversation) from the many law firm communications and public relations people in Manhattan.

On the panel were Reena SenGupta, representing "FT Innovative Lawyers" for the Financial Times; Anne Szustek, Deputy Editor of the Benchmark Litigation survey, run by Euromoney; and Steven Naifeh, President of Best Lawyers, which also publish the US News & World Reports "Best Law Firm" rankings.

The audience questions (and skepticism) reminded me that nerves are still raw when seeing the friction that exists between these businesses and the law firm professionals that choose to participate in them (or not). Everyone continues to preach "separation of church and state" as it relates to the editorial evaluation versus the advertising opportunities that are offered. I made particular note of the Benchmark folks reminding everyone that they are journalists and researchers, not lawyers. That just makes me give second thought as to how good they can be in evaluating the leaders in litigation. I can't say that either FT or Benchmark did anything to increase credibility, based on their presentations. If you buy in, you are probably still in. But if not, I doubt opinion shifted at all.

What I find interesting in looking at the Best Lawyers business is how they have been able to maintain their place in the rankings "market", while shifting and rebooting to reflect the growing competition. The addition of the U.S. News law firm rankings was a brilliant response to the entry of Chambers USA to the field. In the meantime, Martindale has slowly responded to reworking AV ratings--but it was slow to react and the business both suffered and allowed competition to eat a big slice of what was their pie. The good news for Martindale and Best Lawyers is that they have stemmed the Chambers tide. As everyone shifted the way they evaluated lawyers and law firms for ratings, rankings and surveys, Chambers slowly increased the "buy" opportunities, so that the tables at awards dinners, increased publishing buys and profiles make them look like a cross between an American Lawyer "awards" dinner and an AV-rating (or "Top Rated Lawyer" as now referenced in most cases). Getting ranked, and what you do with the ranking continue to be a fluid space in law firm circles.

With the American Bar Association, I've worked on numerous programs related to the rankings and ratings industry. The Pennsylvania Bar Institute program I conducted in 2012, "Lawyer Rankings & Ratings: The Impact on Ethics and the Profession" was one of the best received and responded to programs I've conducted in the last decade. It is important to know the players and understand the business models.

The real question for the law firm in 2013 is which rankings, ratings, reviews and surveys will you participate in, and why? And which "honors" will be used for marketing purposes, and how much are you going to spend with these companies to tout those awards? The answer varies significantly, based on your practice, your firm and client base. You can't say yes or no to all.

Someone woke up yesterday and thought it might be a good idea to provide better professional development training for attorneys. Go figure.

Last week, I had the privilege of spending some time with the leadership of the Professional Development Consortium (PDC) at their annual meeting in Washington, DC. For the record, this organization has been looking to organize and improve PD in (mostly large) law firms since 1990. While the group is growing rapidly, the reality is that for a long time it has been a relatively small gathering of people dedicated to delivering PD for larger law firms. However, the idea that the need for stronger and better investments in PD for partners (and in some firms, gasp, associates too), is not new or news.

With the ABA, I have had the opportunity to further professional development initiatives on multiple fronts. First, as a speaker and planning board member for the first two ABA New Partner Conferences, designed to provide a wide range of training--from business development and ethics to issues of diversity, electronic discovery, and managing legal relationships. Secondly, as the creator and chair of the ABA Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference, founded in 2007, focusing on BD, marketing and overall rainmaking skill sets. Third, as a current ABA presidential appointee to the ABA Standing Committee on CLE--now entitled the ABA Center for Professional Development (go figure). Finally, as Editor in Chief of the ABA's Law Practice Today monthly webzine, we have joined forces with the PDC to provide a bi-monthly column (beginning in March 2013) from some of the country's leading PD professionals from the largest law firms, along with an entire themed issue dedicated to PD in May 2013. Thanks to PDC leadership, including Jennifer Bluestein of Greenberg Traurig and Jeanne Picht of Stites & Harbison, for helping to further develop this relationship. In addition, ABA LPM's sister publication, Law Practice, has an issue devoted to the topic as well in the coming months. In other words, the American Bar Association has long recognized the importance of PD and continues to provide numerous resources to lawyers and law firms interested in better training.

Recently, Claire Zillman of The American Lawyer, wrote about her publications' latest survey of new partners. The most significant finding she reported form the survey was that "new partners fear lack of training will hamper ability to win clients." The survey confirmed what many law firms know--that reaching partnership usually means you learned how to practice law pretty well, but nobody is talking to you about the need to develop your own book of business--until now! The survey results highlight the obvious. For decades, the concept of understanding the law biz outside of actually practicing law was considered an afterthought.

The incoming chancellor of my hometown bar, Kathleen Wilkinson of Wilson Elser, is touting the need for expansion of training and educational programs for the Philadelphia Bar Association, as one of her highlighted initiatives, according to Chris Mondics in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The story touts her plan to "institute a new speakers' series next year that will focus on bolstering young lawyers' skills in networking, business development, and other areas on the theory that many are not getting that guidance from their firms." In reality, especially at mid-size and larger law firms, this training needs to be as much a part of the internal curriculum as legal research and billing.

Over the years, I've had the opportunity to do numerous programs in conjunction with a law firms' PD professional or department, including introductory marketing training for summer and first year associates, rainmaking strategies for new partners, use of social media, ethics for everyone, and related areas of "the business of law." But the number of firms that do it seriously and do it right are small. Of course, this could mean I'm not being retained enough as a speaker, or firms are not doing it. Let's just call it a little of both. Either way, the concept and need for effective professional development in law firms is not news--but the changing marketplace, increasing competition and higher business acumen has once again brought the need to the forefront. PD is suddenly hot again, and just in time to grab an increase in the line item for your 2014 budget. Lawyers--young and not really young anymore--recognize that a lack of investment from the firm into an individuals' well-roundness as an owner or potential owner in the practice sends a message too.

In August, I wrote about the Consumer Reports evaluation of online do-it-yourself legal sites (Legal DIY sites no match for a pro). This week, Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Smith writes on "No-Frill Legal Services Grow," addressing many of the same DIY websites.

The impetus for the article is the lawsuit filed last month by LegalZoom.com against up-and-coming rival Rocket Lawyer. It is ironic that these entities are now fighting over what is and is not "free" in terms of form filing and other stuff where you apparently either don't need a lawyer, or perhaps just need one that works for them at really cheap rates. Interesting side note: Both LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer have real lawyers doing the fighting--I don't think they are using their own self service offerings.

The debate often revolves around the potential "unauthorized practice of law." Regardless of the semantics involved, the consumer is thinking this is a cost-effective way to resolve a legal issue. It is not like this business is new. Strip malls stores (Divorce! Bankruptcy! Wills!) have provided similar services for decades. Storefronts such as "We the People" have largely evaporated (thanks in part to the Internet and in part to State Bar issues with unauthorized practice). In recent years, the online offerings have changed the language in describing offerings to something akin to providing documents and/or providing a lawyer somewhere that can answer questions.

I've rarely seen any (non-anecdotal) data that shows the bottom line impact on the lawyers that practice in many of these consumer and small business spaces. My guess is that many of these companies will (accurately) tell you the amount of revenue opportunities they are generating for solo and small law firm attorneys that might be hurting for business should not be discounted. "We are hiring lawyers and getting them clients!"

If you can't beat them, join them

Many lawyers and law firms are getting into the business of online delivery of legal services. My ABA colleague Stephanie Kimbro (quoted in the WSJ article) provides web-based services to clients. The article mentions Jacoby & Meyers as entering the online legal forms business. For practitioners, there is a realization that automation and use of online delivery services will be one way to combat lost business (and generate more by charging less). However, the dollars will need to be competitive. As an attorney, it is hard for me not to suggest that these "online legal document" businesses--which most customers see as an adequate law firm substitute--are not damaging to both the lawyer and the client. I'm not only a lawyer, but I'm a client. I've gone to colleagues over the years for assistance in real estate matters, estate planning, intellectual property, employment law issues, and for friends (not me, friends), criminal and family law issues--all what I would call consumer-based matters. In every instance, I can think of a component that simply would not have been identified or resolved properly without a sharp lawyer's eye. Documents don't issue spot. They try, but they don't.

This leaves us with the dilemma of where these online services belong in the legal spectrum, whether it is proper or realistic for the ABA or a State Bar to play much of a role in their existence, and many lawyers that are walking a fine line--providing many of the exact same services online, but arguing that they are positioned to do so as licensed attorneys and not simply a "not a law firm" business. One thing that can't be debated, in looking at LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer--they would not be fighting over these issues if there were not huge bucks on the table. And based on previous governmental and political responses to Joe Consumer being provided with affordable legal services, there will be continued growth. And much of it will be attorneys recognizing that they need to operate in this space as well.

This is the time of year where I'm working with law firms on developing strategic marketing and business development plans (and budgets!) for 2013. As I said to one marketing partner yesterday, while we need to be fluid and creative, you still need an outline and parameters to be as effective as you'd like to be. It is with that thought in mind, as we enter the final "holiday" phase of the calendar year that this month's LPT asked for contributions along that line.

Many thanks to Barbara Brown of Meagher & Geer in Minneapolis, MN for serving as the issue editor for the timely "Prepare your 2012 business development goals now" theme of this month's Law Practice Today.

Among the excellent contributions are those from a number of my Philadelphia-centric colleagues. Nancy Gimbol of Eastburn & Gray (and a member of the LPT editorial board) discusses establishing a culture for marketing and business development in a mid-sized law firm. Amy Galie and Amanda Steinbach of big firm Fox Rothschild address big law issues in "Business Development - Fail to Plan and Plan to Fail." Greg Stephens provides the managing partner view in "How to obtain and retain clients." Thanks as well to this month's feature contributors Allan Coleman, Greg Stephens, Steve Henning and David Freeman.

To read the November issue, click here.

If you are interested in writing for LPT, please contact ABA LPM for more information. We are always looking for good, original contributions from "real life" lawyers and industry experts.

Thanks,

Micah U. Buchdahl
Editor in Chief
Law Practice Today

In the November/December issue of Law Practice, my marketing column is entitled "Auditing Your Efforts" and discusses the value and importance of a law firm objectively auditing its marketing and business development efforts. Read it to see how I compare myself favorably to Tom Cruise (although the editorial team deleted my reference to Scientology).

There was a time when spending money on an audit would have been borderline crazy--since so little time and effort was being invested--what did you really have to lose anyway? Today, however, law firms are investing heavily in these endeavors and often find that efforts are often...overpriced, ineffective, or simply off the mark. A proper audit is an important accompaniment to a strategic plan and a budget. The time has come where ROI needs to be measured, and a firm's marketing foundation solidified. It is not all that different from the recent energy audit conducted on my home--imagine how much I would save with the right equipment and resources in place? If your law firm has never conducted a thorough marketing audit, talk to me about it. Year-end and the start of a new year are perfect times to evaluate. As I like to say, stop throwing good money after bad.

READ the LPT Special Edition: Dealing with Disasters - Emergency Preparedness: A Joint Effort of the Law Practice Management Section and the ABA's Special Committee on Disaster Response and Preparedness

With Hurricane Sandy bearing down on my backyard (in Southern New Jersey), it reminded me of an all-too-timely issue of the American Bar Association's Law Practice Today from last April. For the past two years, I have served as the special issue editor for the Law Practice Management section, working with George B. Huff, Jr., Special Advisor, Special Committee on Disaster Response and Preparedness.

The articles included the following timely subjects, which may be relevant in the days and weeks ahead:

Fight or Flight: On Enforcing Mandatory Evacuations
By David Bohannon
When a disaster strikes, sometimes the best response is to get away. But many hesitate to heed mandatory evacuation orders.

Aftermath Recovery: Beyond an Afterthought
By Guy Sapirstein, PhD
In the field of contingency planning, there are often phases for continuity of operations, IT disaster recovery and sometimes mitigation plans, but what about planning for the aftermath?

Consequence-based Analysis: An Emerging Risk Assessment Paradigm
By Donald Byrne
Media coverage of recent catastrophes has heightened the legal community's awareness of these events' potential to disrupt business. In some cases entire communities have been shattered for prolonged periods while others have disappeared forever.

Protecting Civil Liberties During Quarantine and Isolation in Public Health Emergencies
By Sarah Pope, JD, MA; Nisha Sherry, CPH; and Elizabeth Webster, JD
If you were diagnosed with a communicable disease tomorrow, would you know your rights in regard to government-forced quarantine and isolation? There is a delicate balance between public health and our individual rights.

The Mandatory Vaccination of Health Care Workers
By Daniel Goodman and Christopher Webster
Many of us have spent time during the last few winters in search of flu vaccines, as outbreaks of H1N1 and other strains have focused global attention on pandemic prevention.

The Value of the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act Model Bill: Encouraging Volunteer Response
By Markus Rauschecker
You would think that health care professionals volunteering in emergencies would be welcome. In the case of Dr. Anna Maria Pou, her dedication to helping others during Hurricane Katrina led to charges of second-degree murder.

Metro Bag Searches: Inconvenient or Unconstitutional?
By R. Sabra Jafarzadeh and Megan Timmins
Bombings on commuter trains in Madrid, London and Mumbai killed hundreds and injured thousands. Extra security measures in New York, Boston and Washington subway stations have given rise to debates over the constitutionality of random bag searches.

It is my pleasure to serve as Editor-In-Chief for the American Bar Association's Law Practice Today monthly webzine for the 2012-2013 bar year. This month's theme is "billings and collections." Thank you to issue editor George Leloudis of the Woods Rogers law firm in Roanoke, Virginia, and Associate Editor Andrea Malone of White & Williams in Philadelphia, for their hard work on this issue.

Among the interesting articles in this month's issue is Arthur Greene's "Collecting Your Fees with Ease," Ed Poll on "effective collection requires a collection policy," and Richard Goldstein discusses "inspire your clients to focus on the value rather than the bill." In addition, we have our interesting monthly practice management themed columns.
To read the October issue, click here. And be sure to subscribe to receive LPT at no cost each and every month, compliments of the ABA and LPM.

If you are like me-- seemingly spending half your life reviewing state bar rules, regulations and ethics opinions for my clients that seek to ensure compliance in the states in which they practice--I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully, like most attorneys, you are more of a casual observer. In August, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association approved a series of changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Many in my realm of marketing and business development circles ask how it will impact them and what, if anything, they should be doing about it.

For starters, I remind you that these are "model rules" as opposed to "rules." As someone long involved in various aspects of ethics and professionalism in the ABA, I can assure you that the time it will take many states to implement all or some of the rules will be "not tomorrow." I'm pretty sure some states are still mulling over pieces of the ABA's Ethics 2000 initiative. But it is only 2012 now, and you really just want to update your rules before the year 3000 hits or risk being seen as behind the times. And these changes come from Ethics 20/20, which is 20 years longer than 2000, divisible by 20.

Of course, the impetus for the ABA changes is simple--technology has far outpaced the long arm of the professional conduct law. The Ten Commandments would be delivered today via cloud computing, as opposed to having a long hike and getting stone tablets. Oy veh!
While the changes address areas of confidentiality, outsourcing, job changes and jurisdictional issues, I'm only focused here on those regarding changes related to client development. The continued massive growth of internet marketing and clever entrepreneurial spirit among lawyers far outpaces what is currently on the books. Rule 1.18 better defines prospective clients in a world of pay per click, social networking, question and answer sites, etc...and the need to put in safeguards to properly avoid creating an unwanted or unintended attorney-client relationship.

My age-old favorite, 7.2, or ADVERTISING as the devil calls it, adds the tricky topic of not paying others for "recommendations" via online lead generation services. The original 7.2 from many moons ago was written for yellow page ads (what are yellow pages, my kids ask?), billboards and other distasteful mechanisms that--god forbid--might provide your law firm's name and contact information to a consumer in need.

And, of course, with prospecting for clients and advertising comes the need to better define "solicitation" and exactly what that means in a world with technology. We know about letters, phone calls and runners. What about all things Internet that flow through the clouds, DSL, broadband and the one guy still dialing up on AOL (buddy, you make me laugh, you cheap skate). Solicitation has been expanded to "a targeted communication initiated by a lawyer that is directed to a specific person and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood to provide, legal services," as opposed to communications with the general public.

OK, so you feel like I've told you nothing to this point. What should you do about these rule changes? First of all, if they are not adopted in full or part by the states that matter to you (where you are admitted, where you practice, where your firm has offices, etc), then at this point in time, it does not.

Keep an eye out for RPC changes that are adopted over the next 6-36 months, depending on how quickly your state bar gets off its' you-know-what.

What you should always remember--and I'm in an ongoing debate with some over this topic--is that such "communications" stretch the cybersphere--whether it is a web site, a blog, a Facebook page, a Twitter post, a Yelp profile, maybe even your JDate profile (not really). The rules don't need to state the technology by name for it to fall in the realm of prospects-solicitation-advertising. If you've followed my commentary on the Virginia Bar blog case, you know about the sensitivity to revealing too much about a client or his/her matter--even if it is in the public domain. I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that just because a statement is true does not mean you can say it. Bart Simpson should write "deceptive or misleading" 1,000 times on the chalkboard. Technology is not an end-around for the rules and comments in place from 7.1...to 7.? (depending on your state). In my opinion, the new rules don't change anything, they simply clarify. The real key is not in the rules themselves, but in understanding the technologies you are using--and how misuse can lead to discipline and worse--people knowing you can't figure out Twitter for your life.