Category: News Feeds

A tipster writes:

So WMU-Cooley reduces tuition by 21% and it’s reported everywhere but you clowns don’t even mention it?

Sorry, we cover law schools, not profit centers. While we’re at it, the headline should probably have some air quotes in there.

But, yes, as the ABA Journal pointed out yesterday, the program known as Thomas M. Cooley Law School before hitching up with Western Michigan University for branding purposes — despite the affiliation with a public institution, Cooley remains a private school — just announced that they will slash tuition 21 percent and close one of its four campuses. It’s the latest in the sad tale of Cooley’s sagging reputation — seriously, when Michael Cohen went there it was a perfectly fine school — and rather than being welcome news of a tuition reduction, only highlights how wildly out of hand its tuition had gotten.

Closing a campus is part of the natural ebb and flow for Cooley, which closed its Ann Arbor campus five years ago. The tuition cut is more “newsworthy” given that the school had hitherto exhibited the gall to charge a non-discounted price tag of $267,747 for the “honor” of graduating from a school with only 32.4 percent of grads in jobs requiring bar passage and a bar passage rate that sunk to 43.7 percent last year. This was, of course, after the ABA backed off of its accreditation challenge after Cooley filed an intimidating lawsuit against the organization for daring to adhere to its standards.

So dropping the tuition portion of that down makes it, what, $220K? This puts the school back to where it was in the early years of this decade when it was still overpriced and underperforming. It’s been “Rank Not Published” by USNWR for so long it’s forgotten what numbers even mean.

But the school will always be second to Harvard in our hearts.

In any event, yes, Cooley is lowering its tuition to a still absurd level despite no obvious change in the school’s performance. And so, we shall dutifully clown them.

Cooley Law School cuts tuition and seeks to close satellite campus [ABA Journal]

Earlier: Yet Another Subpar Law School Sues The ABA In ‘Accreditation-By-Lawsuit’ Strategy
Cooley Law School To ‘Cease Operations’ At One Of Its Campuses
Latest Cooley Law School Rankings Achieve New Heights of Intellectual Dishonesty

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.

I don’t fly American Airlines unless I absolutely have to. And by “absolutely have to,” I mean that my company buys me a ticket on American and is willing to withstand me complaining about my (free) ticket for a week while making veiled threats at filing a hostile work environment claim. American Airlines is not good to black people, says the NAACP. Air travel, in general, is not good to people, but if you can’t distinguish between the experiences of black passengers versus white ones, you’re a racism apologist. And if you can’t distinguish between American and other airlines — which are also crappy — then you are one of those “both parties are the same” idiots.

Yes, things are bad for everybody, everywhere, but American is worse. The latest evidence of that comes from Dana Holcomb. Holcomb is a black man who was trying to fly, first-class, from Vegas back to Austin. The flight had a layover in Phoenix. A woman got on and sat next to him with an “emotional support” lapdog. Holcomb is allergic to dogs. And then American did its thing. From RawStory:

Admitting that he was [allergic to her dog], he said the woman attempted to find another seat but could not be accommodated which led to flight attendants and then a pilot to become involved, telling him to move to another seat in the back of the plane.

According to Holcomb, the flight attendant, “Began to get really irate because he was insisting that I go to that seat.”

Holcomb’s attorney, Reginald McKamie Sr., explained the lawsuit he filed on his client’s behalf against the airline, stating, “At that point (workers) told him you’re going to go to the rear of the plane or get off the plane.”

Holcomb was removed from the flight, which left without even getting his bags off. Those bags included his medications. He had to spend the night in Phoenix. American Airlines claims, in a statement, that Holcomb was removed because he became “confrontational.”

I’m mildly allergic to cats. Not nearly as allergic as Holcomb appears to be to dogs. If a cat were in the seat next to me, it would make my flight bad, but I probably wouldn’t make a whole thing about it. UNTIL THEY TOLD ME TO SIT AT THE BACK OF THE PLANE. That is about when I’d lose my ever-loving mind. I’ve got a first-class ticket and you’re going to tell me, but not the lady with the animal, to move to the BACK of the plane? No. Nah, son. I get “confrontational” AF when I have to remind people to Google Rosa Parks.

Holcomb plans to sue American for racial discrimination. I know some white people are reading this and thinking “that could happen to anybody, why you gotta bring race into it?” First of all, I hate you people, please know that. But the core of the discrimination point is not about American choosing dogs over people, it’s about kicking a black man off a flight because he refused to be treated worse than a dog.

Holcomb stated that woman did eventually find another passenger willing to switch seats with her, but that he was booted from the plane — as well as the airport — by American anyway and was accused of being “confrontational.”

That’s what doesn’t happen to white people. The situation resolved itself. The woman (and while I’m not on board with the proliferation of emotional support animals, the woman in this story seems generally blameless) found another seat. The tempest was quelled. But American STILL kicked Holcomb off the plane and out of the airport. Why? Did he do anything that necessitated the pressing of charges? Evidently not. No, they kicked him off and out because they didn’t like his “attitude.” They decided to humiliate him, because he refused to be moved to the back of the plane like freaking chattel.

The lesson, as always: Do Not Fly American. If it’s cheaper, it’s not worth the cost savings. If it’s quicker, it’s not worth the time savings. They’re the world’s largest airline and, therefore, hard to avoid. It’s nearly impossible to fly into or through Dallas or Charlotte or Miami or Phoenix without them. But it’s always worth it to try. Make American your airline of last resort, and if you are black, make sure you wear a body camera if you take one of their flights. You’ll thank me later.

American Airlines booted allergic black man from plane so dog could fly first class: lawsuit [Raw Story]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Sure, it’s possible to close a firm and wind down operations sans a bankruptcy filing, but that was simply not in the cards for LeClairRyan. And since we already knew the firm was having issues paying monies owed, well, it isn’t particularly surprising they went this route.

Yesterday, LeClairRyan filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Virginia. According to the filing, the firm has two secured creditors to which they owe almost $15 million — ULXP, which is the joint venture between the firm and alternative legal services provider UnitedLex as part of the attempt to start a “law firm 2.0” and ABL Alliance LLLP, the firm’s primary lender. In addition, LeClairRyan noted its unsecured creditors — more than 200 but fewer than 1,000 — were owed somewhere between $10 million and $50 million.

As reported by Law.com, former LeClairRyan general counsel Lori Thompson is heading up the firm’s wind down activities and is busy reducing overhead:

Thompson’s declaration in support of the bankruptcy petition revealed that since the firm’s members voted to dissolve July 29, a move it confirmed to the public 10 days later, she and securities attorney Christopher Lange were the only two names left on the committee. Former CEO Erik Gustafson and former New Haven, Connecticut, office leader Richard “Deke” Bowerman have since stepped down.

Thompson said that between the dissolution vote and the Chapter 11 filing, LeClairRyan has taken steps to reduce its overhead, closing down operations at all of the 25 offices it once operated around the country, with the exception of fewer than 10 employees who are overseeing the firm’s wind down.

Though the move was not unexpected, it is not necessarily easy. As Leslie Corwin, partner at the boutique firm Eisner, told Law.com, things are bound to get messy:

“I’ve never seen these things go smoothly,” said Corwin, who has handled the bankruptcies of former legal luminaries Heller Ehrman and Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, and also represented now-defunct WolfBlock in its years-long, out-of-court liquidation process. “I think it’s hard on the former partners and staff of LeClairRyan. Their lives are going to be disrupted for a long period of time.”

It’s clear that though LeClairRyan may be gone, their legal (and financial) woes are far from over.

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).

The construction industry is one of the largest and most lucrative in the country. Construction lawyers assist with every aspect of a building project, from the initial land selection and development, to any disputes or insurance issues that may arise after construction is complete. Construction clients run the gamut from contractors and subcontractors, to architects and engineers, to land developers and insurance companies. The broader field of construction law encompasses countless nuanced practice areas, including contract negotiation, regulatory work, insurance law, and litigation, just to name a few. 

As a guide to the complex ecosystem of law firms servicing the industry, our friends at Lake Whillans Litigation Finance present the Go-to Firms of the Construction Industry. Among them, these firms can handle every transactional and litigation need.

Lake Whillans is there to partner with the full spectrum of construction industry players, including financial institutions and major law firms. Engaging these Go-to Firms can help companies avoid or contain problems down the road. Should legal issues arise, Lake Whillans can step in and help resolve them.

When you need an expert in your corner on your next construction project, these are the firms to call.

1. Best Global Powerhouse for Construction Law: Duane Morris LLP

When it comes to depth of talent, it’s difficult to compete with Duane Morris in the construction law arena. With over 800 attorneys practicing across the United States and in offices around the globe, chances are they can handle anything you need, anywhere you need it. Consistently recognized as one of the leaders in the construction industry, Duane Morris has experts in all facets of construction law, from design and funding through to final construction and workplace safety issues. When you need lawyers by your side from start to finish, Duane Morris is your full-service contractor.

2. Best Firm to Handle Complex Litigation Disputes: Pepper Hamilton

With so many phases and moving parts, litigation and disputes are an inevitable reality of any complex construction project. When the future of your project is on the line, you want a firm that knows its way around a courtroom and a construction lawsuit. Pepper Hamilton is that firm. Named the “Construction Law Firm of the Year 2018” by Chambers USA, the firm has handled more than a dozen complex construction litigations worth more than $50 million in the last five years alone. The firm’s lawyers have the skills necessary to get you the favorable outcome you need.

3. Best Firm For When Your Growing Startup Needs More Room to Expand: Perkins Coie LLP

Since it opened its doors in Silicon Valley and San Francisco in 1998, Perkins Coie has been the go-to firm for innovators and emerging tech companies. Their role as a trusted advisor for startups has expanded as the firm has grown. Today, the firm has a nationally recognized construction law practice, bringing a depth of expertise in all facets of construction law to large and small businesses alike. When you’ve invented the next great thing and have outgrown your garage, Perkins Coie will help you take the next step.

4. Best Law Firm for Land Development Projects: Greenberg Traurig

Much like its competitors, Greenberg Traurig is more than capable of handling the most complex of construction matters, on both the transactional and litigation sides. Where the firm really stands out, though, is in its more nuanced niche specialties, like its Land Development Group. Greenberg Traurig’s experienced attorneys have guided numerous entrepreneurs, landowners, and joint venture partners through the development process, from financing, to permitting, to occupancy. If your next construction project involves a land development component, these are the folks you want on speed dial.

5. Best Firm for Building That New Power Plant: Alston & Bird LLP

Now a recognized powerhouse in construction law, Alston & Bird rose from humble Georgia beginnings in 1893 to become a major international player in the industry. While the firm’s construction lawyers are adept at handling all aspects of major projects, they particularly excel when it comes to the energy sector. Alston & Bird has handled some of the most complex power plant and infrastructure projects around the globe, from China to South America and everywhere in between. When the worlds of construction and energy law collide, you want Alston & Bird in your corner.

6. Best Firm When You Have Lots of Work Coming Down the Pipeline (Literally): Holland & Knight LLP

With over 1,200 lawyers around the world, the sheer size of Holland & Knight allows them the flexibility to develop extremely nuanced specialties within the common practice areas you’ll see at most firms, and their construction law group is certainly no exception. A perfect example is its expertise in pipeline projects. The firm’s construction lawyers have handled countless complex pipeline matters from transactional, compliance, regulatory, and litigation perspectives. If you’re in any way involved in one of the estimated 94,000 pipeline projects currently happening around the world, you’ll want to give Holland & Knight a call.

7. Best Firm to Handle Your Construction Insurance Claims: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Insurance is a critical part of any construction project. While many law firms across the country can boast about their roster of insurance company clients, far fewer have a proven track record for representing policyholders. Pillsbury is one of the notable exceptions to the rule. The firm brings its vast experience in the construction industry to the insurance arena, successfully representing countless owners, contractors, and developers in faulty construction claims and insurance coverage disputes. Pillsbury is the firm to call when you need your important risk management and coverage questions answered.

8. Best Firm to Handle the Construction Project of the Future: K&L Gates

The construction industry has been around for centuries, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t adapted to the changing times. The Construction and Infrastructure Group at K&L Gates draws from vast past experience to focus on ensuring that construction projects are sustainable for the next generation. The firm’s lawyers specialize in niche areas like integrating technology and IP into construction projects and incorporating clean energy and green initiatives. When you’re planning a construction project for a better tomorrow, K&L Gates is thinking ahead.

9. Best Firm for Your Construction Project South of the Mason-Dixon Line: Bradley

Named “Law Firm of the Year” in Construction Law for 2018 by U.S. News & World Report, the construction lawyers at Bradley intimately know the ins and outs of every aspect of a construction project, from beginning to end. Founded in Elyton, Alabama, in 1870, the firm now has eight additional offices scattered throughout the South, and offers expert counsel on regional, national, and international constructions projects. The firm’s Construction Practice Group has worked on nearly every type of construction project imaginable, from embassies and government contracts, to hospitals and power plants, to resorts and casinos. No matter what side of a construction deal you’re on, this is the firm that can get you where you need to be.

10. Best Jack-of-All-Trades Construction Firm: Seyfarth Shaw

When it comes to construction law, Seyfarth Shaw offers a little bit of everything. Their team of construction experts has represented every possible kind of party to a construction project in every possible stage of the project. From negotiating contracts, to installing clean technologies, to engaging in alternative dispute resolution, the firm has you covered around the world. You can’t go wrong with one of the country’s largest and most experienced construction law practices.

I liked her and believed in her. I just knew she was the right person for the court. But I have to say over the past 26 years she has far exceeded my expectations. All of us hope that she will stay on the court forever.

— Former President Bill Clinton, praising Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as he introduced her to a packed house for a speaking engagement that was hosted by the Clinton Foundation and the University of Arkansas’ Clinton School of Public Service. Clinton nominated Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in June 1993, and she was confirmed two months later.

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.

A solo practitioner in a lawyers group asked what is a fair wage to pay a law clerk who is still in school. The responses went all over the place. Some paid little more than minimum wage while others paid slightly more. One paid a lot more. Since there is no recommended minimum as exists with the major law firms, it is anybody’s guess.

Some based their answers on what they got paid when they were a 3L. Others based the pay on the number of applicants they received. Or they base it on what they thought was the going rate by asking around or searching online.

The short answer is you can pay whatever you can get away with.

But just because you can pay a small wage to a law student, does it mean that you should? I have heard the typical reasons for not paying a lot to law students. They come with little-to-no experience, are likely to make mistakes, and the employer (and the client) should not have to pay for that. Also, since most law student jobs are likely to be temporary, the law student might not notice the higher wage. The on-the-job experience they receive is more valuable than the money. And some firms just cannot afford to pay more than the bare minimum.

Some have said that the pay is comparable to similar positions in government. While government jobs generally pay less than the private sector, the training is usually better, the work is less stressful, and employers generally prefer people with government experience. Most small firms cannot offer similar intangible benefits like these.

I may sound crazy or financially wasteful, but I think it would be beneficial in the long run for small firms to pay higher than market rate for law students. Why?

For starters, you will generally attract better employees. I know this sounds obvious but most lawyers aren’t famous for their business acumen. Let’s face it, money talks. Especially when law students today have $300,000+ of student loan debt chasing them. The best firms tend to pay the best salaries. A higher salary means that you will get candidates who actually want to work for you instead of seeing you as a last resort résumé gap filler. They will be motivated to stay and go the extra mile since they know they are paid better than their classmates.

Also, you should see this as an investment. You see, these 3Ls will one day become your colleagues, potential referral sources, or co-counsel. The sad truth is that some of them may end up being paid less as new attorneys. And others may not find jobs at all. A few years ago, I wrote about why small firm junior associates are paid relatively little. I think the struggle for new attorneys will continue, especially if Siri is one day allowed to give legal advice. You may be the one bright spot in their lives and they will remember you when they need to refer potential clients.

Of course, there are some steps you should take to make sure you don’t end up paying more than necessary. Start new law student hires on a part-time basis and with tasks that are appropriate for their skill level. If the new hire is not performing well, it is best to let him go as soon as possible.

This post was not meant to be a definitive “how to” on hiring clerks or staff in general. I only hope that it will make employers think twice before deciding to pay law clerks the least amount as possible. Most of us probably remember what it was like to work as a law clerk during law school. We did our best, no matter how much we were paid. Employers who pay the bare minimum usually end up with employees who do the bare minimum. Attorneys only have their reputation. This not only applies to future clients but also to future employees. If you want to attract the best talent, you will have to be known for paying for the best.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

We are deeply concerned with the continued resurgence of xenophobia in South Africa and note that acts of xenophobia defeat the spirit and letter of Article 3 (a) and (f) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which encourages greater unity and solidarity between African States and African people, as well as the promotion of peace, security, and stability on the continent.

It is our view that these attacks go against the grain of humanity and severely compromise the people-to-people solidarity that has existed between South Africa and her fellow African countries for many years.

We are of the view that instability in many African countries, a direct consequence of weak democratic culture, is at the heart of the forced migration many Africans have to take in order to escape persecution, poverty and lack of opportunity. Hence, we continue to plead with African governments to be more democratic and responsive so that citizens can meaningfully contribute to their own development, in their own countries.

Aspirations of regional and continental integration can only be met if we are all moving together in one direction.

We urge South African authorities to shun issuing xenophobic sentiments. We urge them to urgently deploy adequate resources and put in place measures aimed at protecting human life, regardless of nationality.

The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition will continue to work with various stakeholders, including the South African government and civil society establishments in finding a lasting solution to threats of xenophobia.

Meanwhile we implore the South African government to remain true to the African Charter and recommit itself to deeds and the spirit underlying Articles 3, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 28 of the African Charter and noting, in particular Article 4 which provides that:

“Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”

We urge the government of South Africa to instill a sense of security for black Africans and other nationals living in South Africa and uphold domestic, regional and international obligations and call upon the Government of the Republic of South Africa to:

1. a)Immediately put in place measures to stop the attacks on foreign nationals in the country and to ensure that this does not recur in future;
2. b)Fully investigate the circumstances leading to the xenophobic attacks and other acts of violence perpetrated against foreign nationals;
3. c)Ensure that all the perpetrators of the attacks are brought to justice and held accountable for their actions in accordance with the law;
4. d)Take appropriate measures to ensure that the rights of all immigrants are protected in accordance with the applicable international and regional human rights instruments;
5. e)Comply with its obligations under the African Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other international and regional human rights obligations; and
6. f)Take immediate steps to sign, ratify and domesticate the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa.

As CiZC, we implore the Zimbabwe community in South Africa, and other Africans at large to observe peace and assist in promoting law and order. We further encourage them to condemn and report criminal activity by anyone, regardless of citizenship.

Africa, Let’s Unite

Post published in: Featured

Generally speaking, newspaper advice columns do a good job of providing some solace to people facing difficult situations and looking for some genuine guidance to help guide them to the right decision.

Or maybe that’s the Horoscope?

Regardless, advice columnist Carolyn Hax recently got a question from a nervous law student and managed to respond with the sort of answer that may calm the nerves but manages to miss the wide-ranging crisis of legal education in this country. First, the question:

Dear Carolyn: I’m in my first week of law school, and I’m soooo nervous.
I honestly believed everyone when they warned me how difficult law school is and how much hard work it is, but somehow the severity of it didn’t really come alive for me until now, when I’m already in it. I’m FREAKING OUT. Any advice??

Is law school difficult? Sure. But the difficulty stems from the unfamiliar material and the struggle to keep everything straight at the end of the semester. If the workload seems hard in the first week then one of three things is true. One, if the problem is just the sheer amount of work, then your college did not prepare you adequately and this might not be a good match. Two, the work isn’t the problem and it’s that the answers aren’t immediately coming easily to you, in which case your college did not challenge you adequately and you need to learn to get some perspective on what real learning is or this might not be a good match. Three, you’re neurotic and need to chill out fast or this whole profession might not be a good match.

Everyone who warned you was right, now you know, and presumably most if not all of everyone-who-warned-you got through it. Right?

Putting aside the “look to your right, look to your left” phenomenon, what are those people who got through it doing these days? If they’re buried under debt and barely scraping by, did they really get through it?

So, barring the unforeseen, you will get through it, too.
Remind yourself this is not your unique terror for which you are ill-equipped, but instead your turn through a tough obstacle course through which others have passed and through which you were deemed qualified to pass. Widen your view.

No, remind yourself that it’s your turn through a tough obstacle course which you were deemed to have enough access to tuition dollars to prop up some dean’s salary. Even with the selection of good law schools, your selection likely had more to do with your LSAT score which is, in fact, an indicator of legal aptitude, but has nothing to do with one’s capacity to handle the workload. It’s the equivalent of getting an NBA tryout based solely on being 7 feet tall.

And, remember the strategy for getting through anything difficult: Break it down into small pieces and work at it steadily.

Breaking things down into small pieces is a key analytical skill, though drawing connections from a wide body of data is also pretty important and more in line with what the school is looking for. The 75 page reading assignment for today comprises a number of cases that the professor wants to see students bring together to draw comparisons and distinctions from a line of cases involving similar themes. Reading it in chunks misses the point.

Thankfully, what makes Hax better than most advice columnists is her willingness to bring in people with expertise to help out. A former law student chimes in to say that the unfamiliarity with the whole “thinking like a lawyer” thing will fade over time, which is true.

As a law librarian, I would like to add: Seek help from the reference librarians when you need research assistance. Law school involves a lot of research, much of which can be overwhelming to newbies. We know which resources are going to be useful for your topic, and we love providing assistance.

The term “law librarian” probably needs to be tossed in the dumpster, because these days they really aren’t about keeping a library as much as they are tech gurus who can navigate the limitless knowledge of the digital world. “Librarians” kept knowledge in ordered locations so users could find it. The people with that title today don’t keep or order anything, they craft the searches that help people find the information out there where it lives. But, yes, law librarians will be helpful with those later in school chores. Probably not week one readings though.

Finally, a lawyer offers that this student should study 40 hours a week which is probably excessive and only feeding the neuroses of any student obsessing over how the answers aren’t coming easily enough, but counters that a bit by offering this great advice:

And don’t let the competition and peer pressure make you work harder or longer than you need to. You’ll pick up how you learn pretty quickly if you don’t know already.

While it’s probably unfortunate that they chose to enter an environment built entirely around competition from the grading curve to the journal selection to clerkships to jobs, this is still sound advice. Most of the time law students aren’t competing with other law students but their own mythology of what the other students know. Just do what you need to for your own understanding.

No, wait, I remember! The part of the newspaper with genuine guidance that helps guide people to the right decision is the Contract Bridge column. My mistake.

A Freaked Out Law Student’s Plea For Help [Washington Post]

As mentioned in a few prior articles, I took the plunge and opened my own law firm about six months ago.  At the time, I was happy to begin my own shop as a solo practitioner.  I liked the control of operating as a solo, and it was also great to keep all of the profits my firm generated.  However, I recently decided to partner up with one of my brothers, and so far, the experience has been extremely positive.  For a number of reasons, partnering up with another lawyer can be much better than practicing solo.

The main advantage of partnering with another attorney is that having a partner allows each lawyer to share the burdens of running a practice.  Managing a law firm is not easy.  Tasks need to be completed on a daily basis, and you constantly need to fulfill administrative as well as client-related obligations.  When I operated as a solo, I never felt like I could go on a vacation or take a break, since there would be no one left to mind the store.  Now that I have partnered with my brother, someone is always around to complete the tasks that all law firms need to accomplish, and I have more flexibility.

In addition, partnering up with another lawyer improves how an attorney can provide services to a client.  When I was a solo, there were times that I was slammed with work, and other times when I had little to do.  Since I only had a limited amount of bandwidth when I was busy, this could impact the quality of the services I provided.  Now that I have a partner, we can each share some of the work when we are busy, and focus on providing the highest quality of legal services.

Partnering up with another lawyer also increases the breadth of services you can provide to clients, which can make it more efficient for clients to hire your firm.  For instance, I almost exclusively perform litigation work while my brother almost exclusively works on transactional matters.  Now that we’ve partnered up, a client can use our firm for more services, and this can save a client time and money.  Partnering with another lawyer can also make you feel more confident about handling legal matters.  For example, within a month after starting my firm, while I was still getting a lot of my systems off the ground, I began working on a matter involving a large law firm.  Things got ugly, and I ended up in tense negotiations to settle a matter.  I’m not going to lie, it was a little intimidating being a newly-established solo against this large shop.  However, because my brother joined my firm, our clients now have the Roth”men” on their side.  As a result, I never have to feel like I’m alone in handling a legal issue, and this has had a positive impact on my psyche.

In addition, partnering with other lawyers also means that there are more people to split a firm’s overhead.  When I operated a solo practice, I was exclusively responsible for all of my expenses, and as a result, I operated the firm on a shoe-string budget.  I did not feel justified purchasing expensive equipment or subscriptions to helpful services, because I would have to eat the cost myself and the expense was not worth the benefit.  However, after partnering with my brother, we have been sharing expenses.  This has allowed us to increase the amount of support services that we have available, which permits us to focus more on practicing law.  As I have seen firsthand, solo practitioners can get pinched financially, and this may be less likely to happen after partnering up.

Another benefit of partnering with another attorney is that there is always someone to talk to when strategizing on a legal matter.  As many attorneys are probably aware, it often pays to confer with colleagues about legal issues, since they might suggest strategies and arguments that may not be obvious to a solo practitioner with one perspective on a case.  However, when speaking to friends or colleagues at another firm, it might be difficult to convey all of the facts of a matter, and those attorneys might not be as invested in providing the most thorough analysis of an issue. However, having a partner allows attorneys to strategize with another practitioner who is able to hear all of the relevant facts of a matter.

Of course, it is important to select the right partner when deciding to move beyond solo practice.  As the Cellino and Barnes breakup demonstrates, law firm partnerships are not always made to last.  Conflicts invariably arise among partners, and you need to partner with people with whom you can have frank conversations without getting overly frustrated or offended.  Of course, partnership is always a give and take, and you might not have as much control, or be entitled to as much of the profits, as you were if you practiced solo.

However, if you choose the right partner, forming a partnership can be much better than practicing as a solo attorney.  Partnering up usually allows lawyers to share resources and work on matters more efficiently than they could be if they practiced alone.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New Jersey and New York law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.