The only good solution to attorney licensure this year is diploma privilege.
There are a bunch of almost good solutions and they deserve credit where it’s due, but where we sit right now there is no way to have a functional in-person exam without delaying until next year or massively curtailing those sitting for it and remote alternatives are preferable but with the uncertainty surrounding the process they are unfair to the applicants.
For anyone out there eye-rolling about the concerns of applicants, just check out this thread from one that lays out the challenges these folks are facing that radically outstrip the standard pressures of the exam.
With little movement on diploma privilege adoption around the country, some law school graduates in Minnesota took it upon themselves to file their own petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court seeking a diploma privilege option. It’s the sort of uphill battle that one might expect to see from graduates before the weight of the practice beats the idealism out of them. But the twist is… it worked!
That’s some compelling performative evidence that law school graduates are ready to practice law right there!
After filing the petition on Monday, Chief Justice Gildea issued an order on Wednesday taking up the petition and opening a public comment period until July 6. So if you’re in Minnesota, do your part to help the cause by filing a comment.
It’s a massive win and hopefully a blueprint for applicants out there looking to get some progress from their states. Good luck!
(Petition and order available on the following pages.)
Year in and year out, we watch law firm after law firm pay lip service to their commitment to diversity in the legal profession, with promises to put women attorneys on equal footing with their male counterparts, whether it be through hiring and retaining more women attorneys, promoting more women attorneys to equity partnership ranks, providing more leadership positions to women attorneys, or adopting more family-friendly policies to ensure that women attorneys are able to excel at their jobs while maintaining a stable work/life balance. Despite these continued assurances, and despite the fact that a number of firms have made great efforts to improve women’s stature in the law, there are only a few that offer women the chance to rise through the ranks to become major power players and to receive startlingly booming compensation.
Thanks to the Women in Law Empowerment Forum (WILEF), we have a way to find out exactly which firms are on top when it comes to offering women attorneys the chance to perform on par with their male colleagues in terms of prestige and pay.
WILEF offers Biglaw firms with 300 or more lawyers practicing in the United States the chance to become Gold Standard certified, meaning that they must comply with four of six benchmarks meant to drive women lawyers to succeed in business development and leadership roles. Here are the criteria (one of which is mandatory):
20% of equity partners or 33% of the attorneys becoming equity partners during the past twelve months are women (mandatory)
15% of the firm and US branch office heads are women
20% of the firm’s primary governance committee are women
20% of the firm’s compensation committee or its equivalent are women
15% of the top half of the firm’s equity partners in terms of compensation are women
10% of women equity partners are women of color, or 4% of women equity partners are LGBT
This year, 48 firms made the cut, compared to last year’s showing of 45 firms. Biglaw firms continue to tout their commitment to women’s initiatives, yet once again, not even half of the Am Law 100 appears on this list. Still more must be done when it comes to Biglaw firms raising the bar for their female attorneys.
Here are the 2020 recipients of Gold Standard certification:
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz
Ballard Spahr
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Cooley
Covington & Burling
Davis Wright Tremaine
Dorsey & Whitney
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
Foley & Lardner
Fredrikson & Byron
Frost Brown Todd
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Goodwin
Haynes and Boone
Hogan Lovells US
Holland & Hart
Hughes Hubbard & Reed
Ice Miller
Jackson Lewis
Jenner & Block
K&L Gates
Kutak Rock
Latham & Watkins
Littler
Manatt. Phelps & Phillips
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Morrison & Foerster
Norton Rose Fulbright
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
O’Melveny & Myers
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Perkins Coie
Pillsbury
Polsinelli
Quarles & Brady
Reed Smith
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Sidley Austin
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Stinson
Stoel Rives
Thompson Coburn
Vorys
Womble Bond Dickinson US
Although WILEF doesn’t tell us how the firms stack up against one another in terms of the criteria needed for certification, we do know that 23 firms met all six benchmarks. Those firms are: Ballard Spahr; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney; Cooley; Covington & Burling; Foley & Lardner; Jenner & Block; Hughes Hubbard & Reed; K&L Gates; Kutak Rock; Littler; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips; Morgan Lewis & Bockius; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Pillsbury; Polsinelli; Reed Smith; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Sidley Austin; Stinson; Stoel Rives; and Thompson Coburn.
It’s also worth noting that 12 firms have received Gold Standard certification every year since 2011, when WILEF first created this award. Those firms are: Ballard Spahr; Davis Wright Tremaine; Holland & Hart; Hughes Hubbard & Reed; Littler; Morrison & Foerster; Quarles & Brady; Reed Smith; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Stinson; and Stoel Rives.
Last, but certainly not least, only one firm has received Gold Standard certification every year since 2011 while meeting each and every benchmark: Reed Smith.
Here are some interesting facts about how this year’s certified firms did overall:
6% of certified firms met the criterion of 20% women among US equity partners
the average was 30% of women as US branch heads
women constituted 30.9% of the members of the firms’ governance committees
women constituted 32.6% of their compensation committees
16% of women were in the top half of equity partners, in terms of compensation
12.4% of certified firms met or exceeded the 10% threshold for women of color, and 3.8% met or exceeded the 4% threshold for LGBT women
Congratulations to all of the firms that met WILEF’s criteria for Gold Standard certification. You have our thanks for rising to the top of the Biglaw pack when it comes to women’s empowerment. We still have a way to go but these firms are making strides in the right direction. Thank you for helping women shine in legal practice.
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.
Normally, I use this column to try to call people’s attention to the immigration-related skullduggery the Trump administration quietly sneaks through while we’re all distracted by the latest tweetstorm. Because my only power is to call attention to those things, these columns tend to end with the text equivalent of that gif of Ilana Glazer screaming.
But today, I have a special treat for you: Something you can actually do something about! And you don’t even need to put on pants.
Last week, on the same day the left was celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock, the Department of Homeland Security announced a proposed rule that effectively guts federal asylum law. The proposal is framed as a series of rules based on United States asylum law, but it could be better understood as an attempt to radically change that law without bothering to get the Congressional approval that the Constitution requires. The proposed rule would deny asylum to:
Anyone who passed through two or more countries on the way to the United States.
Anyone who stayed in another country for at least 14 days before arriving in the United States.
Anyone who has been unlawfully present in the United States for at least a year. This is even though the statute directly says aliens may apply for asylum “irrespective of such alien’s status.”
Anyone who claims they were persecuted based on gender (because nobody ever does anything mean to women!)
Anyone who claims they were persecuted based on opposition to gangs or terrorist organizations.
If you’re familiar with why and how many Central Americans come to this country, it’s difficult not to see these as geographically/racially targeted.
It would also:
Redefine “persecution,” the basis for an asylum grant, to cover only “extreme” harms. (The rule literally says that military strife, harassment, and intermittent detentions are not persecution, which is the kind of statement you can only make when you are not subject to any of them.)
Allow immigration judges to use the fact that someone entered the country without papers as a “significant adverse factor” when deciding whether to grant asylum. Again, this is despite language in the statute directly saying asylum is available irrespective of immigration status or whether the applicant came through a designated port of entry.
Broaden the definition of a “frivolous” application for asylum, which makes the applicant ineligible for any other kind of immigration relief.
Redefine “firmly resettled” in another country to mean “could possibly have resettled” because those are totally the same thing.
Raise the standards for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, which are fallbacks for asylum applicants.
But wait, there’s more! If someone managed to apply for asylum despite all these other rules, they wouldn’t get an ordinary immigration court hearing. Instead, they would be shunted into a “streamlined” proceeding where the court will consider only asylum, not any other kind of relief the applicant might be eligible for. Furthermore, immigration judges would be permitted to deny asylum applications without a hearing if they don’t think there’s enough evidence in the applications. This will come down hard on pro se asylum-seekers, who are the vast majority, because there is no right to a lawyer in immigration court.
Now, I am not saying that the Trump administration will actually do what people suggest. Elie Mystal, in these hallowed pages, once accurately noted that the agencies “never give a rat’s ass.” And fans of net neutrality know how that notice and comment period went.
But you should still do it, because — as Mystal also noted — the comments do matter when the rule is later challenged in court. The Trump administration’s failure to even pretend to go through this process is why they lost the DACA case last week. When the inevitable Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit is filed, I would love to see the plaintiffs’ counsel well armed with evidence that the people did not want this.
Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.
After efforts to strip him of his honorary degrees and a call for him to resign from his law school faculty, Attorney General Bill Barr’s high school is now entering the debate over whether to tear him down like the walking Confederate statue he kind of is.
The Horace Mann school is holding a Zoom call today to discuss striking Barr from its list of distinguished alumni. Class of 2020 students Kiara Royer and Jessica Rosberger started a petition to get the school to make the move and quickly garnered over 8,000 signatures. Sources told the NY Post that it’s touched off a big debate within the alumni committee.
Barr received the Award for Distinguished Achievement in 2011 despite his primary achievement to that date being his successful effort to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal. Per the Post:
Alums decrying Barr is nothing new. Since 1991, a Horace Mann peer of his, Jimmy Lohman, now an attorney, has been publicly accusing the AG of being a racist who bullied him at school because he supported civil rights.
Earlier this month, in partnership with our friends at Lake Whillans, we released our Outside Counsel rankings, a look at the Biglaw firms most trusted by corporate legal departments. Today, we look at the firms that were rated highest by in-house attorneys based on the industries in which they practice.
Drawing on input from GCs and in-house counsel from a range of business categories, we’ve compiled rankings for seven different industries: Consumer Products, Telecommunications, Energy, Media/Entertainment, Life Sciences/Health Care, Finance, and Technology.
Seventeen firms appear on more than one of our industry lists; these three firms below show up on three (!) or more:
Yesterday, a Virginia court dismissed Devin Nunes’s defamation suit against Twitter, ruling that federal law immunizes the media company for content posted to its site. Looks like California’s most litigious congressman won’t be getting that $250,000,000 payout after all. Womp womp!
In the first of his many gonzo suits, last March Nunes filed a claim against Republican strategist Liz Mair, Twitter, and two anonymous Twitter accounts, known as @DevinNunesMom and @DevinNunesCow. Nunes claimed that he was grievously injured because Mair and the Twitter handles poked fun at him for his investment in a winery which allegedly hosted a fundraiser on a yacht featuring cocaine and prostitutes. In fact, he was so grievously injured when the hashtag #YachtCocaineProstitutes started trending that he only won his reelection race by five percent in 2018.
And even though Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifically states that, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” Nunes was sure that Twitter’s occasional moderation of content magically transformed it into a co-author of every tweet on the site.
Twitter creates and develops content, in whole or in part, through a combination of means: (a) by explicit censorship of view points with which it disagrees, (b) by shadow banning conservatives such as Plaintiff, (c) by knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory — providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers — thereby facilitating defamation on its platform, (d) by completely ignoring lawful complaints about offensive content and by allowing that content to remain accessible to the public, and (e) by intentionally abandoning and refusing to enforce its so-called Terms of Service and Twitter rules – essentially refusing to self regulate — and thereby selectively amplifying the message of defamers such as Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ Cow, and materially contributing to the libelousness of the hundreds of posts at issue in this action.
Hooboy!
Sadly for Congressman Cowpoke, Judge John Marshall of the Henrico County Circuit Court did not agree with his interpretation of the federal statute.
“Plaintiff seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its Internet platform,” he wrote in a letter opinion dismissing Twitter from the case. “The court refuses to do so.”
Even if it were true that Twitter is censoring conservatives and monetizing hate speech, it would still not subject the company to liability under Section 230. And Trump’s executive order directing Bill Barr to draft a proposal to change the statute to allow him to sue Twitter for slapping a warning label on his tweets — a proposal which Nancy Pelosi will use to blot her lipstick before tossing in the wastebasket — doesn’t change that.
Which leaves Nunes suing the two Twitter avatars that he has still failed to unmask, plus Liz Mair, who pretty clearly does not have $250,000,000 dollars lying around. Which very much sucks for Liz Mair, who has to pay her lawyers to fend off the congressman, but counts as a victory for free speech. But never fear, because Nunes still has pending cases against CNN, The Washington Post, Hearst, McClatchy, and Fusion GPS. It’s a wonder he finds time to legislate with all that mooin’ and suin’!
Imagine leveraging all the power and might of Biglaw, and law firms in general, in order to fight racism, Well, imagine no more, Over 125 firms (so far!) have signed onto the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) and it includes some of the biggest and most prestigious firms in the country. According to the LFAA charter, the purpose of the group is to “leverage the resources of the private bar to amplify the voices of communities and individuals oppressed by racism, to better use the law as a vehicle for change that benefits communities of color and to promote racial equity in the law and in government institutions.”
As reported by Law.com, Kimberly Jones Merchant and the Racial Justice Institute and Racial Justice Network at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law is the LFAA’s initial point, and she said the increased resources for their work will be able to make a real difference:
She said that while efforts to facilitate change on a systemic level have received temporary support in the past, the disproportionately dire effects of COVID-19 on Blacks as well as the murder of George Floyd galvanized efforts in a way that had not been present previously.
“APBCO [The Association of Pro Bono Counsel] and other organizations like the EJI [Equal Justice Initiative] bring advocates to the table,” Jones Merchant said. “But they have constrained resources and can’t operate at the ‘high’ levels. Now we have those resources behind us.”
The LFAA plans on holding two summits this year, and Jones Merchant anticipates a steep learning curve, what with so many well-meaning allies having to unlearn a lot about privilege and race:
“We are going to have some bumps in the road,” Jones Merchant said. “It is an experiment, and both sides are going to have to make adjustments. We are going to learn from each other. Pro bono counsel will have to learn a lot about systemic racism.”
Still it is a great step forward, and it’s exciting to imagine what such a talent group of lawyers can accomplish when racism is the target of their efforts.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
In the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, Rhode Island imposed a rule stopping motorists from New York from entering the state without undergoing a 14-day self-quarantine. Governor Gina Raimondo claimed that locking off access to New York was a critical public health initiative. Governor Andrew Cuomo responded by screaming bloody murder and threatening to sue Rhode Island over the discriminatory practice. Raimondo defused the situation by changing the standard to apply to people entering the state from any other state.
Now, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have the virus more or less under control and have decided it’s time to impose their own quarantine upon visitors from states that they’ve decided represent intolerable hotspots because the unconstitutionality that they couldn’t brook two months ago now makes for a good opportunity to preen for the cameras and look tough themselves — not unlike Raimondo tried to do when Cuomo was neck-deep in a public health crisis he exacerbated himself. But now he’s the one with low numbers and turnabout is fair play as they say in constitutional law! Oh, sorry, no. Only Neomi Rao says that about constitutional law.
The new policy is based on the ostensibly neutral standard of a seven-day rolling average of 10 percent positives thus cutting out Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Utah, and Texas.
Texas and Florida, coincidentally, also put up travel restrictions against New York in the past and are now complete dumpster fires suggesting that these political stunts might not be as effective in fighting the virus as wearing masks and not forcing people to work in offices within your own state, but put the efficacy of this proposal to one side for a second.
No one wants to be exposed to the virus and states can and should be working a lot harder to combat it. But, alas, you can’t start singling out people from certain states for discriminatory treatment like this. We’ve had bouts over this within the legal profession when New York declared that its first go-around of the bar exam in the fall would be closed to non-NY law school grads. Illinois Law School’s Dean Vik Amar noted that discriminating against economic actors based on their state like that would trigger a sort of strict scrutiny review. I argued that because New York’s bar exam proposal (like the quarantine Rhode Island eventually settled on) would probably pass muster in part because it was a blanket policy and there are decent arguments for fast-tracking in-state graduates. Either way, the point was that discriminating against out-of-staters requires a really good reason.
In any event, it’s hard to imagine Cuomo and his neighboring governors can provide a particularly strong justification for shutting out Utah while remaining open for business with its fellow hotspot California. One would think that the volume of travel should be far a more important component in any credibly crafted policy. Even if California doesn’t hit the threshold the Tri-State governors drew up at random (and it looks like they are very conveniently just under the line the governors chose to draw) it’s a fairly safe bet that considering the number of Angelenos coming to New York every day as opposed to Provoites (or whatever they’re called) the risk of exposure is far higher allowing unchecked travel from California. So if the stated purpose of the law is to prevent exposure this standard is poorly tailored to do that.
How arbitrary is the line that the Tri-State governors drew? Washington dropped off the list before the day was over! Phew. Glad to know they went from serious threat to perfectly safe so quickly. The irony of this is that the original Rhode Island and Texas policies, forged when New York was hundreds of times sicker than other states with upwards of 1000 deaths per day, presented a far stronger, if still likely uphill argument, for singling out citizens of a specific state.
Maybe no one is going to sue the states over this. The states targeted by the quarantine certainly have their hands full right now, but it’s hard to imagine there’s no enterprising attorney general in one of these states doesn’t want a throwdown with New York. In fact, some of these states don’t seem to care much about actually fighting the virus so fighting New York is probably all they’re willing to do.
Everyone wants to be safe and everyone wants to see “action” to keep them safe. But discriminating against citizens of other states based on drawing random lines manages to protect almost no one while also being unconstitutional. Either make all states — or at least a lot more similarly situated ones — quarantine or just stay vigilant with in-state public health initiatives. Forcing people to wear masks may not be a flashy initiative, but we don’t need leaders to make waves, we just need them to do their jobs.
In Part I of this two-part series, I discussed why it’s so difficult for lawyers to resist the siren’s song of coaching and marketing programs that promise the sky but often fail to deliver. Here in Part II, I’ve set out a long list of factors to help lawyers separate the wheat from the chaff when choosing a program and to figure out whether or not some of the highly-regarded programs are the right fit for you.
What Does the Program Cost and Can You Afford It?
Most people would never dream of shopping for a home in a neighborhood where the cheapest house is more than $150,000 out of their price range. Yet many lawyers are often induced to spend far more than they can afford or that they feel comfortable spending on programs because they’re convinced by salespeople that the spend shows a “commitment” to success or will serve as motivation to work hard.
Nonsense.
If you spend more than you can afford, you’re likely to feel so stressed that you won’t be able to focus on doing what you need to do. Or you’ll second-guess or beat yourself up about what you paid which will lead to a loss of the confidence that you need to thrive.
Bottom line – spend only what you can comfortably afford to lose.
Will the Program Lock You In?
Related to the question of cost is the question of flexibility. Specifically, does the program offer refunds? Don’t assume that you can get out of a non-refundable program just because you decide that it’s not working. Bear in mind, some programs offer money-back guarantees or pro-rated refunds while others do not. Think about whether the program offers enough value to justify being locked-in and potentially precluded from trying another program if you didn’t find the right fit.
Does the Company’s USP (Unique Selling Proposition) Match Your Needs?
Every marketing or coaching program has features that make it unique. Some excel for mindset, others for sales, others for tech or creating system or innovating a practice. Some programs focus on helping former big firm attorneys break off and start a firm, others on managing a volume practice or multiple lawyers. Some programs include a few of these features but it’s extremely rare to find all in one place.
Though many marketers would disagree, I believe that practice area is also relevant. A lawyer or program with experience in helping lawyers serving consumers may not have much advice for a lawyer targeting corporate clients and vice versa.
If you’re going to invest a considerable sum of money in a marketing or coaching program, you want to make sure that it’s a fit for what you need. That means engaging in due diligence with pointed questions to the program or coach such as:
What kind of experience have you had in working with lawyers in my practice area?
Can you give me specific examples of how your program has helped lawyers with [increasing sales conversion or gaining confidence or managing staff]
Can you tell me what types of lawyers have not had success with your program and why?
Can you tell me what percentage of your program includes [lawyers just starting out? lawyers of color? Older lawyers with limited tech experience. Etc…]
Will I be personally coached/advised by XXX?
Will I be working with lawyers or non-lawyers as part of the program? And if I work with a non-lawyer, will they be familiar with law-specific technologies and legal ethics obligations?
A program isn’t objectively deficient because it lacks a module on tech or doesn’t have coaches experienced in helping immigration lawyers which might be your practice area. But if those features are important to you, then the program may not be right for you.
Does the Company’s Style Match Your Own?
You’re most likely to succeed if your values and propensities match – or at least don’t conflict with your chosen program. To figure that out, examine the approach that a program or coach takes to marketing their own services because chances are, that’s how they’ll advise you to do business.
Here’s one example – the practice of charging premium fees. If a coaching company charges premium rates, chances are that the program will advise you to do the same in your business. Some lawyers enjoy being top price in the market while others would rather hold themselves out as an affordable option. Neither approach is wrong – it’s simply a matter of preference. But if you fall into the affordable camp, tips on increasing your rates by 30% to make more money may not resonate and you may resist implementing them.
The same principles apply with regard to the “hard sell.” A company that hard sells its programs will be likely to persuade you to adopt the same approach in your practice. Some lawyers are perfectly comfortable with hard sell. After all, potential clients are all adults, the service that the lawyer is selling is generally important and necessary in most instances, many time, clients do need a push to move forward and and those who don’t want to buy can always say no and walk away. On the other hand, some lawyers believe that because many clients come to lawyers under stress to begin with, they’re uniquely vulnerable to hard sell and for that reason, lawyers should give them breathing room. Either position on hard sell tactics is valid and for what it’s worth, I waffle between the two. My point is that if you chafe at hard sell tactics, a program that uses them on you or teaches them as part of its program won’t work for you because you won’t feel comfortable implementing that approach. On the flip side, if you’re looking to grow fast, a program that focuses on building long term relationships and that takes a more passive approach to closing a deal may not deliver the results you want so you’ll likewise come away dissatisfied.
Does the Company Have a Stake In Your Success?
One thing that riles me about some coaching programs is that supposed experts refuse to take any responsibility for the success or failure of participants. I realize that coaches are reluctant to offer guarantees because they can’t control if participants will do the work. But if participants don’t do the work, isn’t that partly the fault of the coach for failing to keep them accountable? Likewise, if a program isn’t a fit, isn’t it the owner’s fault for failing to effectively vet participants? Strive for programs where the coach and owner are as accountable as they expect you to be.
When You Do Diligence, Are You Duly Diligent?
Many lawyers will often ask colleagues for recommendations for coaching or marketing programs but don’t ask the kinds of questions that I suggested above to figure out whether the program might be a match. Keep in mind that even if colleagues rave about a coach or program, it may not be right for you so delve into the reasons why it worked.
As for online reviews, all I can say is buyer beware. The coaching and online influence sphere is rife with conduct that in my view borders on fraud. You’ll see one coach offering a testimonial at another’s site with the implicit understanding though not overt agreement that the favor will be reciprocated. Others who recommend a program may get affiliate fees or discounts that they fail to disclose. And testimonials are often gathered from participants right after a live event when they’re still feeling a high and haven’t had a chance to implement what they learned.
Finally, what’s most unfortunate is that complaints about programs are often kept under wraps. Many high cost programs contain non-disparagement clauses that have a chilling effect on critical reviews. And most lawyers blame themselves and feel embarrassed when a program doesn’t work out so they’re loathe to share their opinions candidly.
Is the Company Diverse in Composition or What It Teaches and Supports?
In the wake of recent events, all lawyers must consider the diversity of a coach, consultant and their team as well as the diversity of the consultants and authors that the program teaches and supports. Why is this important? Because 85 percent of lawyers are white and 64 percent of lawyers are male, according to a 2019 ABA Report and until those numbers even out, we must all make sure that the voices of women and lawyers of color are not lost – and to do that, we must ensure that they have access to inclusive coaching and marketing programs to help them build successful, sustainable law practices that can power them to the top of the profession . How to tell if a program is walking the walk? Is the program’s leadership diverse? Does the program work with diverse professionals, or interview them on podcasts or feature them on their blog?
Does a Program Fall Into the TAO Category?
Because choosing the right program can be so daunting, I always advise lawyers to budget several hundred or even several thousand dollars (depending upon what you can afford to lose) for an annual TAO – try anything once category so you can check out something new with low risk.
The Bottom Line and My Guarantee
I’m always amazed that the same lawyers who spend weeks trying to select a computer system for their office or deciding which car to buy will spend the same or more money on a coaching or marketing program with little investigation. Don’t misunderstand – I’m not knocking coaches, masterminds and other similar categories of programs, some of which have helped some lawyers achieve incredible success. But these programs are not without risk – and if you don’t choose a program that’s the right fit, you may find yourself locked in for a year or more and unable to afford a better option. Or you may beat yourself up for choosing poorly and become so gun shy that you never try again and remain stuck when there might be a service that can help you grow.
I am hopeful that this post can help avoid that outcome. But I’ll also provide you with this guarantee:
If you go through all of the steps that I’ve listed for choosing a coach or marketing program and it still doesn’t work out, then know that you made the best decision on information available at the time and don’t beat yourself up and don’t feel ashamed. Instead, share your experience with others so that they can make a more informed decision and move on. You have my permission to set yourself free!
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of 
