Perfect Storm of Opportunity for Solo and Small Firm Lawyers.

Is Litigation in America Heading Toward A Perfect Storm?

This is the tile of Gabe Acevedo’s recent article in Above The Law.  Acevedo writes on legal technology and discovery issues for Above The Law.

Gabe concludes:  “Today, litigation matters are striking like lightning bolts all over the place. The amount of data we will be processing in the near future is unfathomable, and the amount of attorneys, lit support, and paralegals that will be needed to get through all that information should be something like we have never seen.”

Normally, very few solos and small firms (SSFs) even take part in perfect storms of litigation. Some do as Plaintiffs attorneys, but almost none did as defense counsel. Let’s assume Gabe’s facts are accurate, and his conclusion is at least 50% accurate. That alone is the perfect storm of opportunity for small and solos to build scale with virtual enterprise networks (VENs) and compete with larger firms.

If you read the comments below Gabe’s blog, you will find political and moral arguments against his conclusion. I’ll leave the judgments to those who feel empowered to judge, I choose to focus on the opportunity. And this is a unique opportunity for many SSFs to formally structure temporary alliances (VENs) that can scale up to provide the services only big firms were capable of before. A group of committed SSFs can temporarily join their efforts, expertise and share their resources in ways that surpass the resources of many Big Firms.

Until the last few years, it was not convenient to build these types of VENs between lawyers. The primary difference was that our mindset has changed. Lawyers are more willing than ever before to invest in building the requisite relationship foundation for building a VEN. Technology has also made it possible to manage teams, share resources and expertise in real time without the need for investment in capital intensive technology.

Anyone interested in learning more about VENs for lawyers contact me at jorge.colon@theonlinebar.com.

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

Five Guidelines for Effective Group Operational Meetings

I’m summarizing and excerpting from Ken Thompson’s The Networked Enterprise. Ken is a leading expert on teaching small to medium sized businesses come together to form Virtual Enterprise Networks (VENs) to enable them to achieve scale through collective projects.

Ken’s Guidelines for Effective Group Operational Meetings:

1. Sterile Cockpit: In meetings this means focus exclusively on the agenda. Ken borrows from the aviation term for restricting all discussion in the cockpit during take-off and landing to those tasks and nothing else. Even if an interesting topic comes up, don’t allow the meeting to be distracted.

2. No Telling Stories: “Give the absolute minimum facts to allow the meeting to determine the correct action”.  Any stories inevitably lead to defending or justifying.

3. Reveal Don’t Conceal: Put everything on the table without being asked. Don’t force others to deduce or uncover information.

4. The Four Task States: Task may only be: Done, On Plan, At Risk, or Missed.

• For Done or On Plan tasks: congratulate and end discussion, unless there is a challenge.
• For At Risk or Missed: Team must find a new commitment that they really rely on.

5.  The 5 meeting roles: to be allocated to participants before the meeting.

• Customer: The participant with predominant need for a successful outcome.  This role decides the success of the meeting.
• Facilitator: Leads the meeting to make sure the customer gets what they need.
• Timekeeper: Self explanatory!
• Scribe: The designated notes recorder and after meeting report with action tiems and minutes.
• Sensor: Senses how the meeting is going and spots unhelpful moods or agendas.

Last year I helped manage an online community (Greenlight Community on ning) of about 8000 members.  Ialso organized Greenlight Community city groups in 12 cities.  From my experience leading conference calls every week for 13 months, I have not seen more effective and concise guidelines for operational meetings. We learned this mostly by trial and error.

Please submit your own guidelines that have worked for virtual or distributed groups.  Thanks.

Read Full Post »

How 1000 bees can take down an elephant

One obviously bright and experienced participant wrote the following on a LI conversation about VLOs:

“I really hate to be the one who throws cold water on the VLO model. There is simply too much risk in managing litigation under the VLO plan. A lot of plaintiffs and certainly most solos will not have the litigation budget to adequately preserve electronic evidence under the current federal rules. FRCP Rule 34.

There are too many expensive chain of custody, metadata, spoilage, and other problems that accompany the discovery process..The other side is going to wipe out the entire budget with motions to compel production of evidence that everyone knows is spoiled by improper handling..That’s why they alway file the motion to compel; because so few people can actually produce an unadulterated electronic document. It won’t surprise anyone that this happens when home based solos try to litigate document intensive claims against well funded opposition with very high technological acumen.

Check out the powerpoint show on the right hand side of the evidox.com webpage..This is possibly the most compelling evidence against home based solo litigation practice; at least in Federal Court…. http://www.evidox.com”

Not only am I grateful for his contribution, but I totally agree with his comment regarding litigation practice.  There is risk and going alone in complex cases will be terrifying!  Strangely, the same participant previously wrote: “It would take quite a collective agreement to make the practice operate smoothly..”   He’s obviously found the solution, but he does not yet believe in the solution.   As those of you that know me, I don’t present a problem without a solution. It’s simply uncivilized! 😉

Nonetheless, these referenced collective agreements already exist (law firms), and increasingly as groups of aligned solos and small firms (SSFs).  I remember one such group about 8 years ago. They were plaintiff’s lawyers in credit reporting. About 30-40 plaintiff’s lawyers worked against some of the largest firms and most intelligent lawyers defending the Credit Reporting Agencies. Whilst not unprecedented, and remaining detached from the context of their motivation, I was impressed. They shared resources, and covered each others’ depositions, appearances, etc. almost seamlessly. Each by him/herself would have suffered a swift end to their practice and health from the highly effective tactics of a big defense law firm.

“1000 bees” taking down an elephant is not a new paradigm. It has simply never been so easy to form without capital and a long process of building trust. It doesn’t mean the elephant is extinct, nor that this evolution will not be without challenges.

Whether I like it or not, whatever my personal emotional biases, I cannot stop this occurring on a global scale. Who wants to play with me and share their resources (in Virtual Enterprise Networks) will be increasingly more important to my professional success than most of my individual achievements.

Read Full Post »