Erin Durant of Durant Barristers recently posted the following on LinkedIn:
“A pain point for women who create firms is the narrative that they have quit rather than have built something. I did not quit my practice. I took my practice and built something better for my clients. I agree with a mentor who says that male founders do not face that assumption.”
“The sharp employ the sharp; verily, a man may be known by his attorney.”
Douglas William Jerrold
Criminal lawyers are often required to represent those among us who are morally and ethically challenged. Their role as guardians of the rights of all of us is crucial to our democracy and their choice of clients does not usually reflect negatively on their character.
It is a poorly kept secret in the legal profession that some lawyers are much better than other lawyers. Marketing would have you believe that the lawyers at large firms are better than lawyers at smaller firms, which is sometimes true and sometimes not true, and belies the fact that incompetence can hide in a crowd. Pity the poor clients who have to try to figure out how to choose the best lawyer to represent them based on who has the biggest marketing budget and the best marketing consultant.
When I started practicing business law immediately after being called to the Bar, I had just been rejected for hire-back with the firm where I had done my articles. I was told that the reason that I was not hired back was that I had not shown sufficient self-confidence. Compounding my insecurity was the fact that I was younger than most first year lawyers, having entered law school after just one year of university. Worse still, I had no prior business experience.
In my first four years of practicing law, I learned how to be a lawyer through the “sink or swim” approach. I did this by working 12 hours a day and 6 ½ days a week, without supervision, mentoring or training. I was also worrying 24 days a day, 7 days a week, and waking up screaming at night. I do not recommend this approach to learning the practice of law.
In my first year of practice, a client asked me to advise him concerning his plan to build a sign for his restaurant. The sign was to sit at sidewalk level and would be 6 feet high and 20 feet long with flashing neon lights. It did not take long for me to determine that the sign would contravene the city’s by-laws and to tell him not to do it.
The client was furious with me. He angrily explained to me that it was not my job to give him business advice. In his mind, my role as the lawyer was simply to tell him what the law said and what the penalties were for breaking the law. It was his job to make the determination whether it was a good business decision to break the law.
That was my introduction to business ethics and how the practice of law fits in.
In law firms, partners are represented by two separate yet equally significant groups. The innovative partners who drive the firms forward, and the old guard who advocate for the status quo to protect their incomes. These are their stories.
Lawyers are not generally known for their accounting expertise.
It is not that accounting concepts are too difficult for lawyers to learn. In fact, a lawyer can be a very quick study when working with accounting concepts which are relevant to their files.
The problem arises when it comes to matters which affect their own income. In these cases, lawyers tend to apply their creative talents and their persuasive skills to cloud the issues in their favour.
Warning: The article below contains 30 seconds of material about accounting. Please power through and do not tune out.
There is an old saying that a jury consists of twelve people who are selected to determine who has the better lawyer. Whatever the truth of that saying, there is no doubt that the people who prevail in legal disputes are not necessarily the people who are legally “right”.
How can you possibly explain why a lawyer at a substantial firm took on a file that was outside of his expertise and made a costly mistake, when that very same lawyer had three partners and two law clerks in his department, all of whom would have easily spotted the error if consulted? To make matters worse, had the lawyer involved one of the law clerks on the file to keep costs down, as would normally be done, the clerk would have immediately spotted the error. However, this lawyer chose to do all the work himself at a billing rate higher than the billing rate of the law clerks.