Category: News Feeds

For better or worse, Biglaw is more of a business than it ever has been. It’s no longer the case that you join a firm after law school, work hard and make partner, and remain at the firm until you retire or die. Instead, partners regularly part ways with their longtime firms, in search of better platforms — and bigger paychecks.

In this environment, it’s more important than ever for lawyers — and not just partners, but counsel and associates as well — to understand and excel at business development and marketing. If you want a long and successful career at a law firm, you need to be not just an excellent attorney but also a talented marketer.

How can you become a Biglaw business-development whiz? It’s not easy; many major rainmakers will tell you that it took them years to master the art. But you can definitely give yourself a head start through reading and research.

My recommendation: Start with Best Practices in Law Firm Business Development and Marketing by Deborah Farone, published earlier this year by the Practising Law Institute (PLI). Farone, the founder of the Farone Advisors consultancy and former chief marketing officer at two of the nation’s finest firms, Cravath and Debevoise, interviewed numerous Biglaw business generators, as well as other industry experts, to learn the secrets of their success.

I recently spoke with Deborah Farone about her book and about Biglaw business development more generally. Here’s a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation.

What inspired you to write the book?

I felt that there was a real need in the marketplace to study the best practices in business development. I knew there was keen interest in two related subjects: One was in learning what it was that certain law firms were doing to consistently drive profitability and foster a positive culture, and the other was the curiosity about the habits of great rainmakers.

Around this same time, as I was thinking about starting a consulting practice, I was approached by PLI to write a book on legal marketing. Although I knew a lot about the world of large law firms and their operations, I always wanted to learn about best practices and innovation in other sectors of the legal profession, including midsize firms and boutiques. Conducting the research with academics, technologists, and other thought leaders, and writing a book was an ideal opportunity to do this.

As I know from my own experience, writing a book is a challenging and demanding endeavor. What did you think of the process?

I gave myself a year to write it, and I finished within that year. I mapped out a series of deadlines and devoted every morning from 6 to 11 to work on the book, assuming I wasn’t traveling to a client’s office. I interviewed more than 60 people for the book, so it involved a lot of juggling of schedules. I had to attack it in a very organized and disciplined way to complete the project.

Your book isn’t just a primer on business development, it’s also a portrait of Biglaw over time. I love the opening, where you paint a vivid picture of what Debevoise was like back in 1989. What would you identify as the single biggest change in this world over the past three decades?

One big change that reverberates throughout many parts of the profession is that general counsel are in the driver’s seat more than ever before. Compared to their predecessors, today’s GCs are very sophisticated consumers of legal services, command larger departments, and have more tools at their disposal. In the past, if the GC had a new legal problem, they’d immediately look to their outside law firm. Today, they might turn to hiring additional lawyers in-house at a lower cost or using an alternative legal services provider. They’ve also acquired technology to address recurring issues and, as we’ve seen by the rise in influence of CLOC, brainy experts in legal operations are also there to help protect the company and manage legal costs.

What ramifications does this have for legal marketing?

When marketing their services, firms need to ask themselves: Are we doing something that adds value? Are we providing a service that a GC can’t simply do in-house? This thinking requires law firms to be more strategic in their offerings and in their branding. It is why many more firms are developing strategic plans for key practices or for entire firms. They are working to identify the areas where they can provide exceptional value and differentiate themselves from the firm down the street.

Have law firms risen to the challenge? Have they gotten better at business development and marketing?

Some have. In the book, I focus on innovative firms — firms like Orrick and Gunderson Dettmer, to name a few — and what they’re doing to succeed in business development. Marketing has to be involved, of course, but so does management. The focus needs to be all hands on deck, focusing on the client.

Based on your research, can you offer some advice on how Biglaw partners can work most effectively with their Chief Marketing Officers and marketing teams?

Marketing can’t be a back-office department that works somewhere in the Ozarks. Marketing folks need to be involved in the strategic direction of the firm. For example, when a firm hires a lateral partner, the marketing department should have a hand in everything from helping to think about how the lateral will fit into the business, what services they will bring to clients, and what the firm can do to ensure there is support for the lateral to succeed in their practice. The CMOs I’ve met are incredibly talented, but at times they’re underutilized by their firms when it comes to their strategic capability.

Firm leadership needs to be in regular communication with their marketing group to let them know not only the state of the firm and what is transpiring, but to communicate that their work is central to the operations of the firm. At Cravath, both Evan Chesler and Allen Parker met with my department regularly to let us know about new opportunities and their goals for the firm. This conveyed to the marketing department that they were an integral part of the firm and on the same team as the lawyers.

You mentioned integrating lateral partners, a subject of great interest to me these days. Have firms gotten better about this process?

Again, some have, and some haven’t. Today, many have a well-run integration program set up well before the partner even accepts the offer. They are thinking: Which clients will potentially use this partner? To which clients should the new partner be introduced, and by whom? Firms shouldn’t just count on lateral partners spinning gold from their own contacts when they arrive. If firms truly collaborate with new partners, the new partners are much more likely to stick. Close to 50 percent of lateral partners end up leaving the firm after five years. It’s expensive to bring on a lateral, so it behooves the firms to think seriously about how the partner will fit into the firm culture and business.

Speaking of law firm culture, how does it affect marketing and business development?

Firm leaders are so busy that they don’t always have time to stop and think about culture as a vital factor in the firm’s success, but if you think about it, culture is often the reason that firms maintain clients and talent, and grow revenue. If you have a culture where partners genuinely like each other, collaborate on bringing in new matters and serving their clients, you’ll have a much more robust business.

Dr. Heidi Gardner of Harvard has demonstrated this in her research. She found that if a client is served by more than one practice, there’s more of a chance of what she calls “stickiness,” and the firm is much more likely to retain the client. This requires a culture where partners like working with each other and have a compensation system that rewards this type of behavior. If you don’t pay attention to culture and just “let things happen,” you lose an opportunity to develop a stronger firm.

Turning to associates, I personally think it’s good for them to start thinking about and understanding, early in their careers, how the business of Biglaw works (and Above the Law aims to help on this front). Do you have any recommendations for associates on what they can do in terms of BD?

I agree. It’s never too early to start thinking about how you’re going to develop a practice, whether you’re planning to stay at your current firm or head someplace else. And that means building relationships. Associates need to work within the paradigm and rules of their own firms, but there are steps most can take.

Foremost, associates should develop relationships among themselves — their officemate might be a GC someday — and outside of the firm as well. This might involve using LinkedIn to stay in touch with business contacts, getting involved in leadership roles within bar associations, or serving on the board of a nonprofit in which you have an interest. I was on the board of the Girl Scouts of Greater New York for many years and, from that experience, I met a host of people in various areas of business and industries, including banking and pharmaceuticals, who I would not have necessarily met in my marketing role.

And what can firms do to encourage and support their associates in these efforts?

Many firms provide forums for their associates to get to know colleagues at their level at the client, whether through substantive legal work or social activities. Some give associates a budget to take the client to lunch or an event. This helps create a “zippering effect,” where the firm has contact with the client at all different levels, and it also allows the associate to develop their business development skill.

Firms often tell associates, “Your job is to learn to be a great lawyer.” I agree, but I don’t think this is mutually exclusive with teaching them client and business development skills. If you don’t give associates training and exposure in business development and client service, you end up with a class of partners that has never done it before. Then you are in a position of having to train folks to acquire new habits and break old ones. The new partners have also missed out on years of making valuable connections.

I have been to a number of firms to speak with partners and senior associates. They want to learn how to develop business, and they are interested in knowing how others in the profession do this. Lawyers tend to look for precedent, and I think by providing examples of behavior that has worked elsewhere, they are able to think about and incorporate what will work for them,

What about business development and diversity? How do these concerns relate to each other?

Of course, business development isn’t just an issue for diverse lawyers, it’s an issue for everyone. Firms should give everyone they tools they need for business development. We need to be sure that we are reaching everyone and spend extra time with those who need it most, regardless of their background.

Marketers can play a role in the conversation in terms of making sure firms recruit diverse candidates and retain and develop diverse lawyers. Firms are starting to track to see that diverse lawyers are being given the same assignments as everyone else. Firms need to ensure that diverse lawyers have the skills and exposure they need to develop their practices.

Looking to the future, how will technology and innovation affect marketing and business development?

Today’s legal technology is amazing, and there are wonderful tools that streamline processes that used to take lawyers a lot of time. Firms can provide equal if not better service in a more cost-effective way. Marketers can spend less time putting together reports and regression analyses and more time involved in strategic projects.

But the relationship aspect of doing business is still so vital. People want to work with people they like and trust. If the client doesn’t trust you, the innovative George Jetson environment you’ve created doesn’t matter. Skills, reputation, and relationships are really everything in business.

So very true. Congratulations again on the book, Deborah, and thanks for taking the time to share your insights and advice!

---

David Lat, the founding editor of Above the Law, is a writer, speaker, and legal recruiter at Lateral Link, where he is a managing director in the New York office. David’s book, Supreme Ambitions: A Novel (2014), was described by the New York Times as “the most buzzed-about novel of the year” among legal elites. David previously worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com.

 

Sutter Health will pay $575 million to settle allegations that the Sacramento-based health system engaged in anticompetitive practices that led to higher costs for patients.

One of Northern California’s largest health systems, Sutter Health employs roughly 12,000 physicians, and has 24 hospitals and 36 surgery centers in its network.

Though the California Attorney General and Sutter Health previously announced the settlement in October, they did not disclose the terms until Dec. 20. If approved by the court, the sweeping terms of the settlement may set a tone for other large health systems across the state.

“This first-in-the-nation comprehensive settlement should send a clear message to the markets: if you’re looking to consolidate for any reason other than efficiency that delivers better quality for a lower price, think again,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a news release.

Per the terms, Sutter Health must pay $575 million to cover class action compensation and legal costs. The health system must also cease all-or-nothing contracting deals with payers, limit what it charges for out-of-network services, work with a court-approved compliance monitor for at least 10 years, and must allow insurers to provide plan members with information on pricing, quality and cost. The nonprofit must also meet clearly set definitions of clinical integration, meaning “…it must meet strict standards beyond regional similarities or the mere sharing of an electronic health record, and must be integrating care in a manner that takes into consideration the quality of care to the patient population,” according to the settlement.

Flo De Benedetto, Sutter Health’s general counsel, said in a statement that the organization was “committed to keeping our care connected so patients continue to receive affordable, high-quality, personalized and coordinated care. Despite the increasing cost of care and operating in high-wage markets, we remain focused on making healthcare more affordable for our patients.

“We were able to resolve this matter in a way that enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care. Together with the Attorney General, the parties selected an experienced monitor who will oversee the agreement, which specifies parameters for contracting between Sutter Health and insurance companies going forward,” Di Benedetto stated.

In the future, Sutter Health will have to evaluate future capital investments based on the impact of the settlement, she added. According to Sutter Health’s unaudited financial statements, the nonprofit finished the quarter ending Sept. 30 with an operating loss of $613 million, down from a net profit of $49 million during the third quarter last year.

The suit, originally brought against Sutter Health by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Employers Benefit Trust in 2014, alleged that Sutter Health used its market dominance to prevent insurers from carving out narrower networks that would exclude some of its facilities. The case was later consolidated with a separate lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in 2018.

According to the complaint, Sutter Health acquired significant market concentration after its acquisition of Summit Medical Center in 2000.  The California Attorney General’s complaint alleged that shortly after, Sutter Health began bundling together its providers, requiring payers to contract for them on a system-wide basis.

Sutter also allegedly used other measures to prevent the formation of narrow networks that might exclude some of its providers, including high out-of-network costs and provisions that restricted health plans from putting its providers in any tier other than the most favored benefit tier. The health system also used confidentiality provisions that restricted health plans’ ability to provide comparisons about price and quality to plan members, according to the complaint.

The settlement must be approved by the court before it goes into effect, with a hearing set for Feb. 25.

Photo credit:  zimmytws, Getty Images 

HARARE – Last week, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in Zimbabwe completed its last cash distribution of 2019, which supported some 19,000 vulnerable residents in Harare’s suburban district of Epworth.

Those deemed most food insecure have been receiving monthly cash transfers from WFP since June, as part of an urban pilot project funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), and the EU’s branch of European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO).
This year was the first time WFP provided assistance to an urban area in Zimbabwe.

Next year, WFP will expand its urban assistance programme across eight districts, nationwide. It will continue providing cash-based transfers on a monthly basis, to those who need it most.

s a result of this year’s severe drought, economic downturn and Cyclone Idai, around 8 million people were pushed into severe hunger. Of this total, 2.2 million people live in urban areas. WFP’s revised emergency response plan hopes to provide mobile cash transfers to 200,000 of them. Currently, funding for 100,000 has been secured. WFP is seeking funds to assist an additional 100,000 people.

Post published in: Featured

When I was growing up, I figured out a helpful thought exercise to put things in perspective. First, think of the worst possible outcome from any situation. The worst possible outcome usually, by definition, involves nuclear war or a pandemic. As a kid, these worst-case scenarios usually involved the Cold War turning hot, finally using all those nuclear drills we learned in school, and later Saddam Hussein.

Second, think on that worst outcome for a little while until you come to terms with it. Obviously a world-ending catastrophe would be very bad, but the whole thing is really out of your control and, once it happens, either it’s going to be all over quickly or you’re just going to have to adjust to your radically new circumstances. If you are one of the survivors, dwelling over the fragility of our lost civilization is just going to make things worse. Instead, you’re just going to need to accept things and get on with it.

Third, use this newfound viewpoint to give new perspective to whatever current situation you’re dealing with. Usually the absolute worst realistic bad outcome from whatever you’re facing — be it a test as a student or some brief as a lawyer — is that you end up spending the rest of your life homeless and disgraced and living in a cardboard box under a bridge. Compared against dying slowly of radiation poisoning after being responsible for the downfall of civilization, that’s not too bad. And the more realistic worse-case scenario, as a student or a lawyer, usually is that someone yells at you.

Lawyers too often worry in a way that either paralyzes them or caused them to act rashly and make bad decisions. Don’t let it happen to you.

Don’t Worry In A Nonproductive Way

Of course, you need to carefully calibrate any worries to maximize your performance and edge. The goal is always to convince yourself that failure has disastrous consequences — a single typo in a brief should haunt you for years — but you must carefully balance such thoughts so that they only positively affect your performance. Any fears that negatively affect your performance must be banished.

Since law tends to attract the pathologically risk averse, many lawyers allow nonproductive fears to influence their actions. But that is bad.

Keep Things In Perspective

Instead, you should use the three-part thought exercise to keep fears in perspective and act accordingly. No matter what you’re facing, unproductive anxiety will only make it worse. Even when the stakes are high, a blind panic never makes it better.

Indeed, no matter how high the stakes, usually small errors can be corrected by subsequent acts. Even when they can’t, the worst-case scenario is usually the rest of your life living in a cardboard box — or sometimes prison, depending on the circumstances — and a blind panic will only bring you closer to that result.

Keep Calm And Carry On

So whatever you do or face, don’t panic. Instead, keep a calm, balanced demeanor as you pursue whatever task you are pursuing. No matter what, it will result in a better outcome than blindly worrying about what will happen. Buckle down, stop freaking out, and get on with it.

---

Matthew W. Schmidt has represented and counseled clients at all stages of litigation and in numerous matters including insider trading, fiduciary duty, antitrust law, and civil RICO. He is a partner at the trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at matthew.w.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com.

We’ve talked about military spouses and the struggles of maintaining a legal career when moving states (or countries) every few years. While we’ve highlighted some of the innovative solutions out there for spouse attorneys — like robust, tech-assisted freelancing — the simplest solution would be for states to just lighten up on the licensing bureaucracy to help those stationed domestically port their careers.

The latest National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision calling on the Department of Defense to take steps to convince the states to harmonize a bit for the good of military spouses.

The NDAA provision calls for the DoD to enter an agreement with the nonprofit Council on State Governments to come up with a series of proposed interstate compacts to ease licensing restrictions. The goal is to “alleviate the burden associated with relicensing in such an occupation by a spouse of a member of the armed forces in connection with a permanent change of duty station,” according to the legislation.

That unfortunately feels like throwing another committee at the problem, but what are you going do? The government’s throwing up to $4 million toward the project.

New Law Will Make It Easier for Military Spouses to Keep Licenses During a PCS [Military.com]

Earlier: Making The Profession Work For Military Spouses

---

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.

Another stupid, pointless effort to turn protectors and servants into professional victims is being mounted in Alabama. Cops can barely be bothered to educate themselves on the laws they’re enforcing, but they’re usually all over the ones that allow them to turn things they don’t like into criminal activity.

It’s (yet another) “blue lives matter” law being foisted upon citizens by legislators who are altogether too certain they’re in the right. Here’s the backer of the proposed law that would turn cops into a protected group making a claim that’s proven false before the end of the article at PoliceOne.

“Everyone agrees that it should be a hate crime to shoot a police officer,” said state Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee where the hate crime legislation is reviewed. “I don’t know anyone who opposes that. The question is, ‘What gets tacked on?’ Yes, you can find a bipartisan solution.”

Everyone?

[Sen. Vivian] Figures said she favors “of doing everything we can to protect our law enforcement officials.” But she said she’s unsure if a hate crime law is the right vehicle.

The bill, written by Senator Chris Elliott, is his second attempt to push a cop-friendly hate crime bill through the legislature. Elliott possibly figures he’ll have a better chance this year because more cops have been killed in Alabama than usual. There have been six law enforcement officers killed by residents this year, which puts the state towards the top of the killed in the line of duty list.

The senator who spoke for everyone (while being wrong about what “everyone” agreed with) doesn’t want this bill tainted with riders that would provide similar hate crime protections for others more deserving of these protections. Sen. Figures (who does not agree with Ward’s assertion that “everyone agrees”) may have been responsible for the death of Elliott’s previous effort when she added an LGBTQ amendment to his 2018 “blue lives matter” bill. That’s the sort of “tacking on” Ward is hoping to prevent here, in order to give cops more protections while leaving more vulnerable residents less protected.

Adding to the stupidity is the fact that police already benefit from a law that provides an extra deterrent to killing cops.

In Alabama, killing a law enforcement while they are on the line of duty is an aggravating factor that is punishable by the death penalty.

These proposals have made periodic appearances in the years following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting was a flash point in police-community relationships. With the current federal administration strongly pro-law enforcement, state-level legislators perhaps feel emboldened to pursue legislation that does little to protect cops, but everything to put more distance between law enforcement and the people they serve.

These proposals are reactionary in the worst sense of the word. They’re legislative affirmations that might makes right and the people with most might will continue to consolidate power. There’s little evidence that suggests these laws are justified at any level. Most killings of cops are impromptu, not planned assaults inspired by an insatiable hate for law enforcement.

The general public receives zero benefit from these laws. All that happens is a very well-protected group of government employees gets even more protections. The laws become vehicles for abuse and there’s only so much courts can do to protect citizens if their “representatives” decide to serve fellow government employees rather than their constituents.

The upside here is these proposals — at least here in Alabama — can be neutralized by adding amendments that would extend protections to people who don’t wear the blue — especially members of the public that far too many legislators don’t feel are worthy of any protection.

Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A ‘Hate Crime’

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words
Austrian Hotel Drops Libel Lawsuit Against Guest Who Complained About Pictures Of Nazis In The Lobby
Dear Americans: Be Very, Very Afraid Of The EU’s New Copyright Rules

The hedge fund he founded, named for himself and led for 24 years—including through a damaging bribery scandal—isn’t doing so well, thanks to said bribery scandal (and is also no longer named for him and possibly no longer returning his calls). Dan Och, though? Yea, Dan Och is doing fine.

Mr. Och paid roughly $95 million for the penthouse unit as well as a smaller unit on a lower floor of the building, located at 220 Central Park South…. Mr. Och’s new four-bedroom apartment spans about 9,800 square feet, according to marketing materials for the property.

* Brush of your resumes everyone, a longtime general counsel of Boeing is going to retire by the end of the year. [Wall Street Journal]

* A UK lawyer is under fire for claiming he killed a fox with a baseball bat. Lawyers need to learn to stop being cruel to animals. [New York Post]

* A rapper currently serving time in prison has donated a significant amount of cheddar to his lawyer’s synagogue. Such a mitzvah. [Jewish Telegraphic Agency]

* Chief Justice Roberts is going to have a pivotal role in any upcoming impeachment trial. [AP]

* The Washington Supreme Court has held that drivers need to use the turn signal every time they move their car into a different lane of traffic. This kind of makes sense, but try telling this to New Jersey drivers… [Seattle Times]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey 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.

Businessman Frank Buyanga. Photo: Supplied