This article was first published in Managing Partner on 27 March 2012 and is reproduced by kind permission.
I am a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell is the author of the best-selling The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers. One of his lesser-known works, What the Dog Saw contains an essay based on his observation of Cesar Millan that may contain lessons for all of us.
Cesar Millan was born in Mexico in 1969 and slipped across the U.S. border in the early 1990’s. After years of struggle, Cesar turned his amazing ability to help dogs with behavioral problems into a career, and eventually a very popular television program, “The Dog Whisperer.”
Gladwell studied Cesar as he worked with one dog after another. Somehow, Cesar was able to accomplish in minutes what others had been unable to do in years, helping dogs return to what he described as a more “balanced” state.
Everyone else who described the seemingly magical way Cesar rehabilitated dogs focused on what Cesar did. Gladwell focused instead on what the dog saw.
On his television program Cesar featured one case in which the owner, a sweet, gentle young woman, tried “acting tough” in disciplining the dog, and it wasn’t working. The dog responded by resisting her, and sometimes even biting her.
What the dog saw, according to Cesar, was someone he didn’t trust – a sweet person one minute and a pseudo-stern person another. Cesar taught the owner to consistently use her sweeter, more genuine voice and attitude and the dog responded immediately. Within minutes, she was grooming the dog - something she had not been able to do in years.
As a leader, whether you are managing a law firm or a candy store, it is important to look beyond actions and try to determine, as best you can, the foundation for those actions. Let us see how you can apply this to the challenges you face at work.
Developing New Leaders
The long-term viability of any firm depends to a large extent on developing new leaders, and managing partners play a key role in setting the proper tone. A friend of mine is working for an ex-military man who became successful by issuing orders and ensuring they were followed. Her leadership style, which works just as well, is more collegial than his, and that has led to difficulties.
What he sees in her is someone who is too weak to order people around, and what she sees in him is a person who is out of touch with today’s younger workers. In this situation the responsibility for breaking the impasse lies, at least initially, with the senior leader. It is important to recognize in developing new leaders that there is no single correct way to lead. You may think you know best because of your seniority, but other leaders do not necessarily see the world through your eyes, so learn to accept whatever works.
Managing Client Relationships
One of the most important responsibilities managing partners have is keeping the firm competitive, which means maintaining a sizable client base. There is usually a lot of pressure to keep clients happy – the logic being that a happy client will come back to you the next time your services are needed. This can result in pressure to say “Yes” to most, or even all, client requests. The person working with the client sees this as a way of creating a supportive relationship.
What the client sees is someone who does not have the judgment to say “No” when it is appropriate. Always agreeing with the client is not the best way to manage the client relationship. Educating the client, exercising due diligence and saying “No” when necessary helps build the trust needed for repeat business.
Delegating Work
I have occasionally heard leaders say they cannot delegate ANY work because the people reporting to them are all incompetent. They complain that they cannot trust their staff to do a good job. These leaders see their staff as a burden instead of an asset.
What the staff sees is a leader who is afraid to take a risk. If you have such a leader on your staff, or, heaven forbid, you are such a leader, your time will be much better spent addressing the fear to take a risk rather than the reluctance to delegate. Creating an environment that allows people to take reasonable risks without the fear of career-ending consequences is not only more humane, it is smart leadership.
Regardless of whether you are developing new leaders, managing client relationships, delegating work, or dealing with your other responsibilities, I encourage you to invest your time learning to identify the foundations for the actions of others. It is difficult and it requires patience, but it is definitely worth your while.
If dogs can do it, so can we.
The longer I live on this Third Rock from the Sun and observe my fellow homo sapiens, the more I come to marvel at the fact that the specie somehow outlasted all of its competitors, in spite of an incredible ability to continually select the path that an observer from on high would immediately recognize as the road to doom.
While I long-ago put my stone ax down and departed from the active practice of my chosen profession, I continue to maintain an abiding interest – non-financial I assure you -- in aspects of the practice, perhaps out of curiosity, perhaps out of a sense of longing for past glories, or perhaps driven by periodic moments of mental deterioration.
It was curiosity, and a suggestion by a friend, that caused me on one rare rainy morning in Southwest Florida, while I sat in my leather recliner with a cup of very strong black coffee freshly brewed in my Keurig, to turn to pages 14 and 15 of the March 2012 National Court Reporters Association’s publication, the Journal of Court Reporting. I cannot say that the title of the article, “NCRA’s Expanded Focus on Third-Party Contracting” surprised me, because I have grown used to periodically reading in the JCR about the latest rather bizarre actions by a Board of Directors that has of late become the fiefdom of a leadership style that borders on the – well, generously I will say “bizarre.” While it did not totally surprise me, it did cause me to wonder why at a time when the stenographic reporting profession faced so many critical challenges it would respond by digging this one up from the grave. “Good God, I thought, they have allowed the NCRA to fall into the hands of grave-robbers.”
I have since read through the article several times, focusing on various areas, and what I have found glaringly absent in the article is any reference to the fact that there were actual incidents of the sort of abuses that this proposed legislation is designed to prevent.
Reading through the two-page manifesto, I came upon a list of “members of the committee” who I gather participated in producing this odd distraction from reality. Glaringly obvious was a complete lack of reference to NCRA seeking input from or participation by the National Verbatim Reporters Association (NVRA), the International Alliance of Professional Reporters and Transcribers (IAPRT), or the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT), in the process of cleansing the Earth of all third-party contracting, let alone from other non-reporting entities that will be impacted if what is proposed actually is successfully sold to state legislatures and courts. It made me wonder, here is NCRA, representing exclusively the stenographic arm of reporting, lobbying on an issue that will impact all reporters, whatever their methodology or association affiliation, even those specifically denied participation in NCRA.
I take pride in the fact that I always conducted myself, for all of my many years as an active reporting practitioner, in a manner that was consistent with my knowledge of what was right and wrong, as I was taught by those who preceded and mentored me, and what common sense and the NCRA Code of Professional Responsibility required of me.
While I find myself in agreement that certain of the prohibited activities that are addressed by this document are outrageous, if indeed they are practiced, I disagree with certain other prohibitions as put forth that are directed at what are real long-term practices which have never been proven to be illegal or unethical, and question the motivation behind such proposed prohibitions. For example, common sense alone should tell us that no reporter or reporting firm should ever base their compensation on the outcome of a proceeding. That has long been a prohibited practice I would think under the Code of Professional Ethics of NCRA, and is certainly severely frowned upon by NVRA and other reporting organizations.
However, on the other side of the coin, what business is it of NCRA’s to seek legislation or rules that would prohibit law firms from requiring attorneys employed within that firm, when noticing a deposition or other proceeding, to use a reporter or reporting service of the law firm’s choice, whether based on competitive bidding, the requirements of the law firm’s client, or for any other legal or ethical reason? To assume that such a contractual relationship ipso facto must lead to some sort of corrupt practice is an insult to all of the members of the Bar, is destructive of a long-standing relationship of trust within the legal community, and is also a clear case of NCRA seeking to interfere in the employee-employer relationship within a private business.
How does NCRA propose that information on prices, terms, and conditions shall be made available in sufficient time prior to commencement of the proceeding so as to allow all parties an opportunity to effectively negotiate for changes? While on many occasions the reporting firm is aware prior to a deposition of whom all the attorneys participating in that deposition will be, equally as often the reporting firm or reporter is not.
Even more egregious is the sweeping prohibition against the placement of a provider of court reporter services on a list of preferred providers of court reporting services that is maintained by any person, business, entity, or firm that has entered into an oral or written contractual agreement for more than one case, action, or proceeding with an attorney, party to an action, insurance company, third-party administrator, or any other person or entity that has a financial interest in the case, action, or proceeding. Is NCRA assuming that merely because of the existence of such a list of preferred providers the reporters or reporting firms on the list are going to behave in an unethical or unfair manner? I obviously have far more faith in the integrity of court reporters than NCRA or its “Task Force on Contracting” has.
NCRA proposes to prohibit court reporters or businesses, entities, or firms, from providing or arranging for court reporting services to engage in “... providing additional advocacy or litigation support services, including, but not limited to, trial preparation assistance, deposition summaries, and non-published transcript databases.” Whatever the bizarre reasoning is behind this prohibition, it is beyond the comprehension of anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than a newt to fathom. Firms across the nation provide trial preparation assistance and also database management of depositions, whether on their own or through a third-party, for their clients. Is NCRA now advocating that the only role that a freelance reporter should play is as the provider of deposition and other hearing transcripts? Are the drafters of these proposed rules and the NCRA Board of Directors really that far out of touch with the legitimate business practices of reporters and reporting firms?
Without beating this dead horse too much further, I would offer the following observation: This policy is little more than a thinly veiled effort by the Board of Directors of NCRA to destroy competition and control pricing within the freelance reporting industry, while driving the consolidated reporting companies and other multi-office companies, which have for a great many years engaged in the practice of third-party contracting, from the business.
NCRA states, “There is nothing wrong with entrepreneurial free enterprise, but NCRA believes the role of the court reporter in the judicial system is not a commodity. It is a sacred duty that protects people's life and liberties and cannot be sold to one side or another.” What is missing is the fact that the selection of which court reporter to use has always been based on a variety of factors as determined by the hiring law firm or attorney, one of which may very well be price. What protects people’s life and liberties is the rule of law and the professional traditions and ethics which govern the conduct of all of the non-litigant participants in a deposition or other proceeding. The duty of the court reporter has always been to be the fair and honest maker of the verbatim record.
From a different perspective, by undertaking this campaign to prohibit third-party contracting and interfering with the business of companies that engage in third-party contracting, NCRA is driving a wedge down the middle of the stenographic reporting profession. Where once the consolidated companies were significant contributors and supporters of NCRA, it is hard to believe that they shall continue to remain such. Reporters working for those consolidated or larger companies, who number in the thousands, shall begin to question the logic of belonging to an organization that has launched an attack upon their economic interests. NCRA, which already has cut itself off from AAERT, IAPRT, and NVRA, and their members, and all others who practice reporting using non-stenographic means, shall have succeeded in splitting NCRA’s freelance membership, further weakening an already fragile segment of the reporting profession.
These are tumultuous times for the practitioners of stenographic reporting. In a great many instances the courts have turned away from shorthand reporters as the means of preserving the record. NCRA has taken a very strong stand that stenographic reporting is the sole effective methodology for that purpose, but they have failed to convince a great many court systems of that. Facing budgetary constraints, court systems have implemented digitized audio and video systems. In addition to the budgetary reasons, court systems correctly recognize that the supply of skilled stenographic reporters has shrunk dramatically, and based on the ever-diminishing number of training programs, students, and graduates, the number of stenographic reporters shall continue to shrink, and NCRA’s current leadership lacks the focus and capacity to reverse that tide.
NCRA’s Board of Directors is currently faced with the challenge of replacing its experienced and very capable Executive Director of many years. It will not be easy to attract someone comparable to Mark J. Golden to take over an association whose divided membership is diminished from over 30,000 members to 16,000. Putting it bluntly, NCRA is not a growing entity.
The shrinkage in membership has to have had an impact on NCRA’s financial position. If not yet, one would think it shall have an eventual impact. This model legislation may be viewed by some as violating Federal Law, and as seeking to constrain competition and fix prices, one result of which shall be that lawyers, their clients, and the public, would have to pay a higher cost for reporting services. NCRA may seek to hide behind the fact that it is being lobbied for by its affiliated organizations at a state level, but that may not protect them from conspiracy allegations. When it can least afford to risk it, NCRA is quite possibly positioning itself for a Federal lawsuit that will bankrupt the Association, win, lose, or draw. Should that occur, NCRA and this Board of Directors will have done far more damage to the reporting profession and shorthand reporters than any damage they are alleging is caused by third-party contracting.
The real challenge facing NCRA is not third-party contracting or consolidation of reporting firms. The real problem NCRA now faces is its current leadership’s failure to understand the importance of controlling its environment and uniting its base. The myopic philosophies that this Board of Directors has adopted shall continue to drag shorthand reporting down and further erode the position of influence that NCRA once held in the legal community.
There is an Arabian Proverb, "Four things come not back: The spoken word, the sped arrow, the past life, the neglected opportunity."
About the Author
Dr. Martin H. Block in his professional career practiced court reporting for over 40 years, as an official reporter, freelance reporter, realtime captioner, and CART provider. He holds the distinction of being one of the first three official reporters to incorporate the use of Computer- Aided Transcription (CAT) and reported the first criminal court jury trial utilizing CAT. In 1981- 1982, Martin Block was a member of the team that developed realtime closed-captioning while working for the National Captioning Institute, and became the first realtime captioner. Together with his spouse, he owned and operated Block Court Reporting, a successful freelance reporting company in Washington, DC, and was a founder and owner of VITAC Corporation, the nation’s largest closed-captioning provider. Dr. Block served as a CART and captioning provider in the Washington, DC area, and among his many achievements he provided CART for the United States ACCESS Board when initially implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, and also pro bono CART services to numerous deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations. He was honored by TDI, at Gallaudet University, as being one of the thirteen most significant contributors to deaf and hard of hearing communications. He is a Past President of the Pennsylvania Court Reporters Association and the National Court Reporters Association. On May 23, 2003, Martin H. Block was awarded the honor of “Doctor of Laws” by Northwood University, in recognition of his life’s work and contributions. Dr. Block currently is retired and lives in Punta Gorda, Florida, with his spouse.
MyLegal.com is proud to introduce Legal Circles to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. Legal Circles is a consulting firm that helps lawyers create more successful practices and fulfilling careers.
The legal profession is becoming ever more competitive. There is price pressure from cost-conscious clients. Many fields of practice are increasingly regarded as commodities. Clients are less loyal, and they shop around more. You’re doing your best to serve your clients and don’t have endless time to have coffee, network and entertain people at corporate events.
There is a better way. “Thought Leadership” can differentiate your firm from its competitors so you achieve competitive advantage. It positions you as an expert in your chosen practice area and makes you the “go-to” person for people seeking a lawyer. There’s a big difference between being an expert and being perceived as one!
Right now, Legal Circles is offering all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers 25% off "Thought Leadership." Click the button below to take advantage of this deal today!
MyLegal.com is proud to re-introduce Pincus Professional Education to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. Pincus Professional Education specializes in continuing legal education audio tapes, DVDs, and live in-person seminars for legal professionals.
Pincus is pleased to announce its newest seminar titled "Persuasive Appellate Brief Writing." Held every year due to the outstanding evaluations, this seminar will show you how to draft a clear, persuasive appellate brief in both federal and state appellate courts.
This seminar will provide concrete and practical tips for writing a persuasive appellate brief from the cover page to the conclusion.
The seminar includes writing exercises to let you try out the skills you will learn and get immediate feedback.
Many judges no longer hear oral argument for appellate cases; written advocacy has never been more important.
Aimed at the attorney new to appellate litigation, even experienced appellate practitioners gain valuable insight into effective legal writing from the perspective of long-term appellate court attorneys.
What You Will Learn if You Attend This Seminar:
• How to minimize the time you spend drafting an appellate brief
• How to please the three audiences for every brief
• How to present the facts to tell your client’s story
• Why the standard of review is important
• How to improve your argument headings
• Why you should give the court a clear road map of your argument
• How to structure and develop winning arguments
• How to avoid some common pitfalls in using legal authority
• Why the format and mechanics of an appellate brief matter
• How to use the conclusion to get what you want
• Tips for more effective writing
• How to edit your own writing and the writing of others
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, Pincus Professional Education is offering all MyLegal.com subscribers and visitors a 30% discount on its "Persuasive Appellate Brief Writing" seminar, to be held on May 18, 2012, in Los Angeles, California. Simply click the button below to get this deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to introduce Sousa Court Reporters to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. Sousa provides prompt, professional court reporters and a responsive customer service team for every deposition setting.
Sousa strives to make your life easier by offering innovative solutions for all of your deposition requirements and a flexible calendar department to accommodate those hectic last-minute changes.
Only Sousa will bring the dynamic combination of personnel, speed, technology and exceptional quality of service to every project. Sousa does more than just provide a court reporting service; they deliver real solutions with a personal touch. It's that simple. Sousa gives you the entire package with just one phone call, from setting up interpreters, videographers, conference rooms, and out-of-state depositions to any other requests you may have.
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, Sousa Court Reporters is pleased to offer all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers a choice of two videoconference deals: Get a complimentary 1st hour videoconference or get 50% off all videoconferences using Sousa Court Reporters. Simply click the button below to get this deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to introduce eTERA Consulting to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. eTERA Consulting specializes in helping Fortune 1000 and Am Law 100 clients overcome the challenges of managing large volumes of data and electronic discovery.
As a technology-independent consultancy, eTERA offers three key services encompassing Early Information Assessment®, Intell1gent One℠ and Opt1mum One℠. These solutions help clients to proactively identify and interpret key data early in the life cycle, allowing for significant data reduction, enhanced decision-making abilities and lower risk, resulting in significant downstream savings on processing and document review costs. Headquartered in Washington, DC, eTERA Consulting has served the legal industry since 2004.
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, eTERA Consulting is offering all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers a 50% discount on their first eDiscovery Project (up to $5,000 in total savings). Simply click the button below to get this deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to re-introduce Pincus Professional Education to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. Pincus Professional Education provides legal professionals with continuing legal education audio tapes, DVDs, and live in-person seminars.
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, Pincus is pleased to offer all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers a 30% discount on "Immigration 101: An Intro to Immigration Practice," taking place March 16 at the Los Angeles Athletic Club.
"Immigration 101: An Intro to Immigration Practice" is a CLE seminar comprised of a stellar panel of Immigration Law experts who will help you understand the complex legal issues involved in an immigration practice. Geared toward the new/newer Immigration attorney, this program is packed full of information to help you be a better practitioner.
This panel is comprised of top-notch Immigration experts, including retired Immigration Judge Bruce Einhorn (San Francisco Seminar), well-known immigration attorney Bob Jobe, as well as retired Immigration Judge Gilbert Gembacz (Los Angeles Seminar).
You will learn the terms of art, legal meanings vs. common meanings, including practical examples of standard phrases and terms you must understand to practice competently. You will learn about the four broad bases of legal immigration: a) Family based; b) Employment based; c) Humanitarian and d) Other.
You will understand immigration status, such as temporary, permanent, and quasi-permanent, as well as what it means to your client. You will learn how to obtain a visa and status for your client.
You will also learn about the three broad categories of illegal immigration, as well as detention and removal issues.
Pincus' speakers will discuss the consequences of criminal convictions for the non-citizen client. Other topics to be covered include waivers for grounds of inadmissibility and naturalization.
Simply click the button below to get this deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to re-introduce Clustify to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. Clustify is software that makes e-discovery more efficient by grouping related documents into clusters and labeling each cluster with descriptive keywords. The keyword labels provide a quick overview of the document set and aid in navigating the documents and constructing search queries.
Clustify can cluster millions of documents on a desktop computer in less than an hour, bringing organization to large projects. Clustering allows litigators to quickly assess document sets, identify near-duplicates, and more efficiently and consistently tag documents during review for more effective e-discovery.
If new documents are added to a case after review has begun, Clustify can look for similar documents that have already been reviewed and automatically tag or issue-code the new documents in the same way, a process that is commonly known as predictive coding.
During March 2012, Clustify is offering all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers complimentary document clustering! Simply click the button below to view the details of the deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to introduce iBridge LLC to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. iBridge works with its clients to determine how to efficiently and cost-effectively identify, preserve, collect, process, and produce electronically stored information (ESI).
In an increasingly digital world, more and more evidence lies within mobile phones, PDAs, tablets, laptops, and other digital devices. iBridge provides legally defensible and forensically sound data collection for corporations and law firms. All of their forensic collection is done by a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE) using the latest recovery tools and techniques to ensure that your digital evidence is preserved.
iBridge provides its clients with secure, reliable, and comprehensive collection of electronic data while minimizing legal and regulatory risk and adhering to the highest ethical standards.
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, iBridge is offering all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers 20% off their next forensic collection on up to four devices (including mobile phones, PDAs, tablets, and laptops).
Simply click the button below to view the details of this deal.
MyLegal.com is proud to re-introduce the Organization of Legal Professionals (OLP) to its Legal Vendor Deals Program. The OLP is an innovative, non-profit organization that provides gold-standard continuing legal education and eDiscovery certification exams. With 900 members in 9 countries, the organization is quickly becoming recognized as a strong voice in the legal field.
The OLP is pleased to introduce its newest CLE program called CourseConnection: A Subscription Passport to Online e-Learning. For one flat tuition, get one full year of online, on-demand, gold-standard courses. That's right. For only $995 per person, choose as many online courses as you like for one year. These courses generally cost $495.00 - $895.00 each. Learn in a comfortable environment (your office or home), at your own pace (24/7), and from top experts in the field.
Just a few of the courses:
-
eDiscovery 101A: The Fundamentals
-
eDiscovery Process & Analysis
-
Litigation Support 101A: The Basics
-
International eDiscovery
-
Advanced eDiscovery: The Next Level
-
Legal Project Management
-
eDiscovery & GARP
-
eDiscovery for Techies
-
Brave New Writer: Leadership Through Corporate Storytelling
-
Case Management for Attorneys
-
Case Management for Non-Attorneys
-
Software Training
-
Summation: Advanced Training
-
Concordance: Advanced Training
-
Trial Director
-
Sanction
In conjunction with MyLegal.com's Legal Vendor Deals Program, The Organization of Legal Professionals is pleased to offer all MyLegal.com visitors and subscribers $400 off a one-year subscription to "CourseConnection: A Subscription Passport for online eLearning." The standard cost for a one-year subscription is $1,395 per person, but with OLP's Legal Vendor Deal, you will pay just $995 per person! Simply click the button below to get this deal.
