Do you feel at a loss or intimidated or repulsed by the thought of using social media? Like it or not, social media sites are a new means of communication, which we cannot ignore any more than we can ignore email. The fact is social media, if used properly, can be an effective, professional, and personal tool. If you are not using these sites currently, take a few minutes to see why you should be using social media and what you can do efficiently and effectively to save time, learn more and even advance your career. 

It is no secret that law firms sometimes encounter clients that are less than enthusiastic about paying their bills. When a client balks at paying, there can be an enormous strain on the relationship, just as there can be "trickle down" stress at the firm for those attorneys who spent valuable time on the case. When a firm is unable to collect full payment in these situations, often the younger lawyers on the case are the first to suffer. They can have their time and billings cut, which can affect  not just their compensation and progress in the firm, but also their confidence and belief that their contributions are being valued.

An issue that has recently flooded the pages of the New York Times is the rapidly increasing cost of attending law school, despite the economic climate this country is currently experiencing.  Law school tuition is rising four times faster than the cost to attend an undergraduate institution, yet the amount of students attending has also increased despite the heavy debt they will incur and the tight job market they will enter after graduating.  Many people in various legal positions have contributed their opinions to the debate of whether it is necessary for law schools to take action to lower costs, and if so, how that should be accomplished.  

The first law school in the United States was established in 1784 and the school viewed its students as apprentices, not as scholars.  However, in 1878 the American Bar Association (“ABA”) was formed and began enacting limitations on law schools.  For instance, in the 1890s the ABA pushed states to limit the number of people admitted to the Bar.  In 1906, the Association of American Law Schools also contributed to the transformation of law schools by adopting a requirement that law school consist of three years of study.

Since the formation of law schools, the organization of these institutions has experienced changes.  It is less common to see militant professors, as portrayed in the 1973 movie The Paper Chase, and more common to witness professors simply asking for volunteers in class and not berating students if they did not read an assignment.  Even the length of time that a person has to go to law school has changed.  Recently, schools such as Northwestern University School of Law have begun to offer an accelerated program in which a student can complete their Juris Doctor (“J.D.”) in two years instead of three.  

Despite all these changes, though, many people in the legal field are frustrated with how much it costs to attend law school as well as the make-up of law schools.  One common complaint, as detailed in The New York Times article, “What They Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering,” is that law students are leaving school with no practical training, leaving firms the task of having to prepare new associates to become lawyers on the firm’s dime, or that of clients.  Many suggestions have been offered as to how to remedy this issue in a way that would train law students to become lawyers and alleviate some of the financial costs law schools and students face.  One suggestion has been to decrease the amount of credits students must take.  Another proposal has been to replace the third year of law school with an apprenticeship, which was the focus of the first law schools, instead of forcing students to engage in more coursework.

A proposition that has generated a lot of discussion is the idea of replacing full-time faculty with adjunct faculty.  Currently, the ABA requires that its accredited schools have a ratio of twenty students or less to one full-time faculty member.  A ratio of thirty students to one full-time faculty member is not in compliance with the ABA standards, but many of these full-time professors do not have practical legal experience because law schools look to hire scholars and not people who have spent years practicing law.  On the other hand, an adjunct professor is an experienced practitioner by definition.  

Besides lacking practical experience, it is more expensive to employ full-time faculty as opposed to adjunct faculty.  About half of a law school’s budget is spent on faculty salary and benefits, and about eighty percent of that budget goes toward full-time faculty.  Alternatively, adjunct faculty make a few thousand dollars a year to teach a course.  

With the current economic climate, it is vital that changes are made among different institutions, including law schools that will keep costs down.  While no method is a guaranteed solution, staffing more adjunct faculty is something that should be considered and this type of change would need to be initiated by the ABA.  Even though modifications to the organization of law schools may make law school administrations and professors uneasy, if adjustments are not made, the make-up of the legal profession may experience unwanted changes.  The New York Times article states that, “the nature of legal work itself is evolving, and the days when corporations buy billable hours, instead of results, are numbered.”  If law students continue on the path of failing to obtain practical experience, their chances of succeeding in this dismal market will remain poor.

A 2011 Midlevel Associates Survey conducted by The American Lawyer demonstrates that although the salary gap between minority and majority associates is closing, persistent differences continue to exist.  Hispanic associates reported the highest increase in their salary from 2008 to 2011, while Asian associates reported the highest salary and billing rates as compared to both their minority and majority counterparts, despite a decrease in their average salary.  Nonetheless, minority associates continue to rate job satisfaction categories lower than their majority counterparts. 

The survey also demonstrates that firms are making an effort to retain their minority associates.  Black and Hispanic associates were the most likely to report that they had mentors – 86.5 % and 83.1%, respectively.  Notwithstanding, all minorities thought that they had a lower chance of making partner than white associates.  Only 60% of Blacks, 63.7% of Asians and 68.4% of Hispanics thought that they were headed toward promotion.  How effective are these mentoring relationships when minority associates do not believe that they will reach the upper echelons of their firms?  What is the missing link between mentoring and retention/advancement of minority associates?  Has your firm employed innovative efforts to address the issue of advancement of minority attorneys?

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1322459168295&Survey_of_Minority_Associates_Shows_Persistent_Differences&cmp=tsm-cc-CCDDSurvey              

Jamie Oliver, a chef and a child advocate focused on ensuring kids receive proper nutrition through their school lunch programs as well as at home, has a television show, Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, showing how he changes eating habits in school districts (this season he is in Los Angeles).  In each episode, he creates a visual showing the terrible foods kids are putting in their bodies.  It’s one thing to tell kids (or their parents) that fast food and processed food is bad for them, it is quite another to create a visual showing how bad it is, and creating such a powerful visual that it convinces those kids, their parents and the audience watching the show (including myself) how bad those foods are.  In a recent episode, he filled a family’s house with all the fast food they consume in a year.  Every square inch of furniture and floor was covered.  In another episode, he filled a school bus with sugar to show how much sugar the school board permitted in the kids lunch meals over a year.  It was powerful images like those that made folks change their minds and change their behavior.

When preparing for trial, we can take a page out of Jamie’s book, and think about what visuals (whether a photograph, a diagram, an animation, or some other representation) that encapsulates our theme and does so in such a powerful manner that the image we create carries through the trial, into the deliberation room and turns the jurors’ hearts and minds toward our view-point and toward our position.  Keep a file folder in your office drawer where you include pictures, images and ideas you clip from magazines and newspapers.  These images may later serve you at trial.

Being that it is Monday, my partner Craig Salner has his weekly tip for young lawyers.  This week he discusses the importance of getting involved with social networking.  You can find his post at http://csalner.wordpress.com/.

Assume everything you write or e-mail an expert will be discoverable.  Even if you can somehow keep it from being discovered, you will probably spend your time and the client’s money to keep it confidential.  With that in mind, before you send anything to an expert ask yourself whether you would have a problem with the other side seeing it.  If so, think long and hard before sending it.  Also, folks have become too casual in what they include in e-mails, and I’ve found this true with experts, particularly their staff.  So try to avoid e-mailing experts and their offices whenever possible, sticking to phone calls and faxes when possible.  And ask them not to e-mail you.  Yes, it is less convenient, but it will help ensure that the experts don’t make errant comments that become part of their permanent file (which at some point will likely have to be produced to the other side).

In the movie, Super 8, JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg do a great job in showing us, not simply telling us.  The opening scene is a mill worker removing the numbers 784 from a sign which reads “784 days since our last accident” and replacing it with the number “1.”  The audience knows an accident has occurred, likely a tragic one (since it is hard to believe that no one has suffered any scrapes or bruises or pulled muscles throughout the entire plant for over 2 years). ”Something happened,” you’re thinking to yourself, “and it was bad.”  The movie then cuts to a scene in a boy dressed in his Sunday’s best, sitting in the swing in his yard, ankle-deep in snow.  And then you’re like, “poor kid.  He lost someone.”  The makers of the film could have started with a narrative – “hey audience, there’s been a bad accident at the mill and it affects this boy.”   Yawn.  Instead, they show us, they don’t tell us.  And by showing us, their message is so much more effective.

When trying to persuade others, whether in a motion, at a hearing or at trial, try to paint pictures with your words.  Create images to show your audience your point. Don’t be satisfied by simply telling them.  Show them.  You could tell the jury that a witness was not at a good vantage point to see the accident.  Or you can create an image of how little he could see what was going on, showing the jury that he couldn’t have possibly seen what happened.  Think about how and when you can show more, versus simply telling, to make your advocacy more compelling, more dynamic and make yourself more of a storyteller.  

For all of you attending Annual Meeting this week – you might want to take a fire extinguisher to the cocktail mixer. Lawyerist.com has an interesting story regarding a lawsuit against the manufacturers of Bacardi 151. It seems that Bacardi’s popularity as a novelty in certain cocktails is contributing to its potential liability. Should the manufacturer be held liable for the tricks of a bartender? Have you had a close call or witnessed a trick like this at a bar? Let us know. In the interim, wear a fire retardant jacket if you are standing to close to the bar.

In Those Guys Have All the Fun – Inside the World of ESPN, we learn that George Bodenheimer, who would become President of ESPN, started as a driver for the company.  George applied for a job as a driver in 1980, where he was asked if he would mind shoveling snow.  His response – “Not if you tell me where you keep the shovel.”   At the time, George was a college graduate with an economics degree. While he was waiting to hear back from ESPN, he had dinner with his dad who told him, “If you think the sports-television business would be a good career, then if they call you, you should accept the job.  It doesn’t matter what the pay is or what the job is.  You should make a career decision, not a money decision.”

Young lawyers need to make decisions that are career-driven, not-money driven. Look for firms that are headed by experienced, ethical attorneys where you will get real world experience sooner than later.  Firms where you have opportunities to attend hearings, take depositions, interview witnesses and interact with clients. These jobs generally are at smaller firms, and these jobs generally pay less than the big firms.  But if you want to grow as an attorney and acquire the experience you crave, take George’s dad’s advice and “make a career decision, not a money decision.”

Read more by Frank Ramos on his blog, Tips for Young Lawyers.

In the new movie, Super 8, JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg do a great job in showing us, not simply telling us.  The opening scene is a mill worker removing the numbers 784 from a sign which reads “784 days since our last accident” and replacing it with the number “1.”  The audience knows an accident has occurred, likely a tragic one (since it’s hard to believe that no one has suffered any scrapes or bruises or pulled muscles throughout the entire plant for over 2 years). ”Something happened,” you’re thinking to yourself, “and it was bad.”  The movie then cuts to a scene in a boy dressed in his Sunday’s best, sitting in the swing in his yard, ankle-deep in snow.  And then you’re like, “Poor kid.  He lost someone.”  The makers of the film could have started with a narrative – “Hey audience, there’s been a bad accident at the mill and it affects this boy.”   Yawn.  Instead, they show us, they don’t tell us.  And by showing us, their message is so much more effective.

When trying to persuade others, whether in a motion, at a hearing or at trial, try to paint pictures with your words.  Create images to show your audience your point. Don’t be satisfied by simply telling them.  Show them.  You could tell the jury that a witness was not at a good vantage point to see the accident.  Or you can create an image of how little he could see what was going on, showing the jury that he couldn’t have possibly seen what happened.  Think about how and when you can show more, versus simply telling, to make your advocacy more compelling, more dynamic and make yourself more of a storyteller. 

Read more by Frank Ramos on his blog, Tips for Young Lawyers.