Attorney Journals, San Diego, Volume 222

SAN DIEGO

Volume 222, 2022 $6.95

4 Factors that Bring out the Energies and Talents of Attorneys

Joel A. Rose

Good Lawyers Talk Money with Their Clients

Sally J. Schmidt

Using ROI to Evaluate Project Management Training

Gina Abudi

How to Select Clients for Cross-Selling

Eric Dewey

California Case Summaries

Monty McIntyre Are You Referable?

David V. Lorenzo

Attorney of the Month

Charles Rho, Rho Law Group Serving San Diego No Barriers to Communication or Success

SPECIALIZING IN COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION

BET-THE-COMPANY CASES OVER 65 YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE REFERRALS/SUBSTITUTIONS ACCEPTED AT ALL STAGES OF LITIGATION, INCLUDING TRIAL • Complete defense jury verdict in real estate dispute and more than $400,000 collected for attorneys’ fees and costs in Batter v. McElhinney, et al. (2019)(Jason Kirby).

• $2.1 million jury verdict for firm client in Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, et al. (2018)(Jason Kirby & Michael Kirby).

• $1.1 million arbitration award for firm clients on cross-complaint after zeroing plaintiff on $6 million damage claim in Step Strategy Advisors v. Solid Gold Health Products for Pets, Inc., et al. (2018)(Jason Kirby lead counsel).

• Michael Kirby received the 2021 Best Lawyers in America® distinction for (1) Bet-the-Company Litigation, (2) Commercial Litigation, (3) Litigation – Real Estate, and (4) Litigation – Securities.

501 West Broadway | Suite 1720 | San Diego, CA 92101 | 619-487-1500 | www.kirbyandkirbylaw.com

2022 EDITION—NO.222

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 Four Factors that Bring out the Energies and Talents of Attorneys

by Joel A. Rose

8 Are You Referable?

by David V. Lorenzo

6

EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER Brian Topor EDITOR Wendy Price CREATIVE SERVICES Penn Creative

10 Using ROI to Evaluate Project Management Training

CIRCULATION Angela Watson

ATTORNEY OF THE MONTH

by Gina Abudi

PHOTOGRAPHY Chris Griffiths STAFF WRITERS Dan Baldwin Jennifer Hadley CONTRIBUTING EDITORIALISTS Gina Abudi Eric Dewey David V. Lorenzo Monty McIntyre Joel A. Rose Sally J. Schmidt ADVERTISING INQUIRIES Info@AttorneyJournals.com SUBMIT AN ARTICLE Editorial@AttorneyJournals.com OFFICE 30213 Avenida De Las Banderas Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 www.AttorneyJournals.com ADDRESS CHANGES Address corrections can be made via email or postal mail.

16

16 Charles Rho, Rho Law Group, Santa Ana No Barriers to Communication or Success

by Dan Baldwin

22 Good Lawyers Talk Money with Their Clients

by Sally J. Schmidt

26 California Case Summaries

by Monty McIntyre

28 How to Select Clients for Cross-Selling

by Eric Dewey

28

Editorial material appears in Attorney Journals as an informational service for readers. Article contents are the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of Attorney Journals.

Attorney Journals makes every effort to publish credible, responsible advertisements. Inclusion of product advertisements or announcements does not imply endorsement.

Attorney Journals is a trademark of Sticky Media. Not affiliated with any other trade publication or association. Copyright 2022 by Sticky Media. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without written permission from Sticky Media.

Printed in the USA

OVER $1 BILLION RECOVERED

NEVADA REFERRAL & CO-COUNSEL RELATIONSHIPS NEVADA’S LARGEST & HIGHEST RATED INJURY LAW FIRM “Rick is one of the best lawyers in the country. I call him every time I have any issue in Nevada and would not hesitate to refer him any type of case of any size.” ~ C. Michael Alder, Esq., Alder Law, Los Angeles, California, CAALA Past President and Former Trial Lawyer of the Year

801 SOUTH 4TH STREET | LAS VEGAS, NV 89101

Four Factors that Bring out the Energies and Talents of Attorneys

by Joel A. Rose

T

he difference between success and failure in a law firm can very often be traced to how well four main factors of firm life bring out the energies and talents of its attorneys, namely: leadership, including policy determination and implementation; firm culture; attorney compensation system; and client base.

In recent years, law firms have greatly benefited from thoughtful strategic planning retreats and research.

While the success of many firms stems from the energy, skill and reputation of founding and second generation partners, at some point the firm must identify which transcends these partners and attracts clients because of its special capabilities.

Firms which position themselves through strategic planning are simply operating like any well-run business in an intensely competitive market.

The strategic planning process, if well-conceived and implemented, will foster communication, create a sense of ownership and common direction to bind the firm, help it withstand adversity, and achieve longevity and success; and build emotional equity, in addition to financial equity.

The strategic planning process allows firms to re-focus on teamwork and investment in the long-run, even though this investment may reduce short-run profits.

Firms must recognize that they cannot build a longterm continuous stream of business in one year and that they are not static. Internal and external forces change law firms, i.e., key clients and influential partners may come and go, economic trends and public policies may change. The glue that holds partners together includes their agreement about those collective values and beliefs about client service, an understanding and commitment about the firm’s mission, direction and goals and partner compensation levels that are competitive with those of peer firms.

6

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

Formulating the Plan First, the managing partner, or management committee and other partners, must be committed to strategic planning and its implementation. Without this commitment, the strategic planning process will be unsuccessful. Lawyer management should:

 Set the tone and methodology to encourage

communications and participation from all attorneys;

 Determine what the strategic planning process should be, even if the goal is as simple as getting all partners together for a weekend retreat for fun and interaction to help remind them of why they are practicing law together;

 Have the will and obtain the collective support

of the partners to hold them accountable for their actions or inactions relating to developing and implementing strategic plans for the firm, their practice areas and themselves;

 Decide

whether to take a “top down” (i.e., lawyer management performs strategic planning with input from the lawyers), or a “bottomup” (each practice area develops plans, with the firm’s strategic plan being the cumulative input from all of the various departments and offices) approach for strategic planning.

In the latter situation, department heads and practice group leaders, together with members of their departments/practice groups meet and set realistic and achievable goals, given the expertise, personnel, personalities and level of business in the firm.

There are certain issues to be addressed during the strategic planning retreat or study, such as: • The firm’s culture; • The firm’s governance and management; • The firm’s compensation system, i.e., does it encourage or discourage partners to perform those activities to address the firm’s immediate and longterm needs; • The firm’s competitive position in its marketplace; • Those plans to be implemented by the firm and its practice areas to achieve the goals; and • Reach a consensus about the process of implementing the plans, assessing the results and administering corrective actions.

Many law firms have found that experienced law office consultants can expedite the strategic planning process.

Being familiar with firm dynamics and the economics of law firms, they can analyze and interpret financial and management information and partners’ responses. They can recommend alternative approaches for achieving firm objectives. Further, partners are usually willing to discuss their perceptions about the firm and respond to questions more readily with consultants than with other partners.

Drafting the Plan The next phase includes drafting objectives for presentation to the partners in each of the areas studied. The following is an abbreviated presentation of objectives and strategies prepared for one mid-size law firm: We will be the dominant and preeminent full-service law firm of first choice in the region, with a statewide reputation for competence and professionalism of the highest order.

A sample of some strategic goals are: Goal One: Create, implement and promote a streamline governance system which enjoys the confidence of everyone and allows us to anticipate and benefit from changes in the environment through prompt, skilled and coordinated decision making and action.

Goal Two: Systematically recruit, retain and train high caliber attorneys, who will be successors and leaders for our firm.

Goal Three: Systematically recruit, retain and train high quality staff, who will have universal knowledge and skills to serve flexibly in various functions.

Goal Four: Adopt and implement a formal, coordinated staff feedback system, which will be used in a positive way to provide input and increase accountability.

Goal Five: Develop and implement attorney and staff career development systems which emphasize personal and collective responsibility and reflect a shared intensity and dedication.

Goal Six: Implement a client feedback system which will provide input and increase accountability, assisting us in being the best service provider of any type used by our clients.

Goal Seven: Identify and develop plans for new specializations so that we will fully serve our clients.

Goal Eight: Identify, develop and expand strategic relationships with clients, businesses, and professional groups.

Implementing the Plan The final benefit of strategic planning is when the plan is implemented. This is commonly the most difficult part of the strategic planning process. It is recommended that the plan be implemented through the firm’s existing organizational structure, i.e., the managing partner, the strategic planning committee, heads of substantive practice areas and branch offices, etc.

Individual partners should be assigned responsibility and be held accountable for the development and satisfactory implementation of each phase of the plan in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable. Partners responsible for the implementation phase should report to the managing partner, strategic planning committee or other group designated to oversee the planning process. Problems or progress should be reviewed and assessments made to determine the most appropriate strategies to be followed.

Status reports should be provided to the other partners on progress or problems in each phase of the plan in order to keep them apprised.

Conclusion Strategic planning is a dynamic process. If conceived properly and implemented effectively, it will provide information required for determining and achieving immediate and long-term goals. n Joel A. Rose was a certified management consultant and president of Joel A. Rose & Associates Inc., management consultants to law firms based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. He had extensive experience consulting with private law firms, and performs and directs consulting assignments in law firm management and organization, strategic and financial planning, lawyer compensation, the feasibility of mergers and acquisitions, and the marketing of legal services.

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

7

Are You Referable?

by David V. Lorenzo

As I sat in the waiting room of a successful personal injury attorney, I was struck by what was missing. On the walls were tasteful (some might even say classy) paintings. Each one was signed and numbered by the artist. They were a nice touch and a departure from the usual press clippings and brag articles you find adorning the walls of most trial lawyers.

The receptionist was immaculately groomed and conservatively dressed. The furniture was clean and comfortable with a relaxed living room feel.

The location of the office—a class “A” building in the good section of a lower income neighborhood—struck me as an unusual choice. Most of the lawyers in town were near the courthouse. Jim Jenkins selected a high-traffic shopping district for his office location. It was a place everyone could easily find.

When I met Jim, I noticed his clothing and demeanor seemed consistent with everything else in his law firm. Jim was smart but used everyday language. He built his personal injury practice almost exclusively by referral. There were no billboards around town with his photo. His face was not plastered on the side of a bus. He spent no money on television or radio advertising and he didn’t even have a website. Yet everyone in town knew him and respected him as a fantastic trial lawyer.

How did this average lawyer (by his own admission) who graduated from an average law school, develop a law firm that routinely, year-after-year netted over seven figures in personal injury settlements and judgments?

He focused on making himself “referable.” And he used some highly effective, ethical techniques that make him the logical choice for legal advice for the people in his community.

Let’s look at how Jim, and the hundreds of lawyers like him, become magnets for referrals.

How to Become More Referable There are three elements necessary for a client to pass your name along to another person as a potential client. These elements make you referable.

8

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

If you want to receive more referrals people must know you, like you and trust you.

Being Known and Being Remembered The first quality of a referable lawyer is visibility. This means that people know who you are, they know what you do, and they know how to describe what you do.

Obviously your clients and your former clients know who you are, but you want to constantly remind them. They must remember what makes you different from everyone else who does what you do. They must remember the benefits to working with you. And they must be able to describe these things specifically to others.

To make sure people can accurately describe who you are, how you help people, and what makes you different, you have to give them some examples of your work. Give them a story to tell. This not only allows the referring party to understand the type of person you can help, and specifically, what you can do, it also helps them describe how you can potentially help others.

Likability The second quality of a referable lawyer is likability. People are not going to refer others to you if they don’t like you. It is a pretty rare occasion when someone says to a friend: “This guy is a real jerk, but you must hire him immediately.”

Don’t be phony. Be yourself. Be a regular person.

Match your language to your potential client base. Don’t use twenty words when three or four will do. Do not try to impress your client with your expansive vocabulary or your knowledge of legal terms. Speak with them using professional yet easy-to-understand language. Always make sure you balance their understanding with respect for their intelligence. Don’t talk down to people.

Be courteous. Common courtesy is not all that common.

Here’s a refresher in three simple steps:

First, whenever you are meeting someone, whether it’s a formal appointment or an informal appointment, show up on time. Your respect for someone’s time shapes their perception of your integrity. If you show up thirty minutes late for a meeting with me, it shows you have no respect for me. If you don’t respect me, I certainly will not like you.

Second, be positive. Speak positively about life in general.

Nobody wants to be around someone who is full of negative energy. Look for positive qualities in others. People do not send their friends, relatives or clients to meet with negative people.

Finally and most importantly of all, take pride in your appearance. Be clean, well groomed and appropriately dressed.

If you are not proud enough of yourself to be clean and well dressed (not expensively dressed but appropriately dressed) people will not be proud enough of you to recommend you to others. You should always meet your clients wearing professional attire.

Those are the three elements of likability. 1) Show up and be on time, 2) Have a positive attitude and 3) Take pride in your appearance

Establishing Trust The final quality of the referable lawyer is trust. Trust is made up of two components: credibility and believability.

When it comes to your credibility, honesty and integrity are of the utmost importance. Do not cut corners or try to embellish the facts to look good. Review your website and all of your biographical profiles. Make sure all information is accurate and complete. There is no room for even the slightest exaggeration.

Believability begins with how you conduct a conversation with the client. Listen carefully and respond to him realistically. It is your job to discuss alternative approaches to the client’s situation in a non-judgmental way. If you have seen this situation before, say so. If, most of the time, it doesn’t end well, you must be direct with him and give him an honest assessment.

Jim Jenkins has mastered the art of being referable but he didn’t do it overnight. Put these referral-driving habits into practice now and you will reap the rewards throughout your career. If you want to build a law firm that does business “by referral only” you must be worthy of the referrals you would like to receive. While many of these ideas may seem like common sense, it is their consistent application that leads to results. n David V. Lorenzo is the Chairman and Founder of Rainmaker Lawyer Consulting. He and his team help attorneys make a great living and live a great life®. If you’d like a FREE CD from Dave, titled: The Five Secrets to Making a Great Living and Living a Great Life as a Lawyer, visit: www.LawyerSecretsCD.com or call 888.692.5531

FIRM FOCUS ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LAW

Corey F. Schechter PARTNER

Butterfield Schechter LLP is San Diego County’s largest firm focusing its law practice primarily on employee benefit legal services. Our experience in employee benefits law and business law provides creative solutions for the most pressing business concerns. We are also dedicated to employee ownership and know all things ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plans). Learn more at www.bsllp.com.

Marc S. Schechter FOUNDING PARTNER

Paul D. Woodard

mschechter@bsllp.com

PARTNER

Helping You See ERISA and Employee Benefits Law Clearly Practice areas include: ESOPs - Pension, Profit Sharing, 401(k) Plans - ERISA Litigation - ERISA Compliance - IRS and DOL Audits - Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans - Stock Options Plans - Business Transaction & Succession Planning - Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs)

10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92131 Telephone: (858) 444-2300 Facsimile: (858) 444-2345 www.bsllp.com

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

9

Using ROI to Evaluate Project Management Training

by Gina Abudi

R

eturn on Investment (ROI) is a monetary measurement that is used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of an investment made by an organization. Investments take many forms—financial, human capital, equipment, and training programs, to name just a few. This paper will focus on the use of ROI and the Phillips ROI Methodology™ to measure the effectiveness of a project management training program completed within XYZ Law Firm. The 5 levels of evaluation which will be reviewed within the case study include: • Level 1: Reactions (the “smiley” sheet): Did participants like the training they received?

• Level 2: Learning: Are participants confident that they have learned something from the training program?

• Level 3: Behavior/Application: Are participants able to apply what they learned in the training program back on the job?

• Level 4: Results/Business Impact: Did the training show improvement in efficiencies, productivity, profits, costs, reduced turnover?

• Level 5: ROI: Did the training program show a positive ROI?

Why the Interest in ROI for Project Management Training Programs?

The challenges surrounding training and its effectiveness within the organization have become more complex over the years.

Today, the challenge is even more significant for learning and development professionals. Return on Investment (ROI) as a tool for evaluating project management training is becoming an expectation of senior executives within organizations. In today’s tight economy with reduced resources and tighter budgets, learning and development professionals are finding it increasingly necessary to show the monetary value of the project management programs they are bringing to the organization.

Today, the success of project management training programs is measured by the financial contribution of the program to the organization. It is not surprising then that ROI measurements for project management training programs are often requested.

With such a large focus on project management in all kinds of organizations, there is an increasing desire to show the monetary benefit of investing in project management training programs which often reach a wide variety of employees and represent a significant investment for organizations.

10

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

The case study example below will follow the Phillips ROI Methodology™ and encompass the four major phases of the methodology, which are evaluation planning, data collection, data analysis and reporting.

Case Study Background: XYZ Law Firm XYZ Law Firm was interested in developing a project management mindset within the firm. There was support from the managing partners and funding was expected to be approved. The goal of the training was to ensure that completing projects at the law firm was not a severe drain on resources. There was much anxiety behind any project which needed to be completed and the champions of the training program—which included a few of the partners, attorneys and the paralegals—were confident that with some basic project management training, this anxiety could be controlled and projects done within the firm would be more easily managed within the law firm. The whole concept of “project management” scared individuals.

The managing partners of the law firm specifically wanted to be updated on project status and they often felt that they were unsure what projects were being worked on and how they were progressing.

A significant goal was to ensure implementation of best practices and standard processes and increase knowledge sharing.

Overall the goals of the training program included: • Increased likelihood of successful projects • Ability to implement strategic plans into action • Improved monitoring and controlling of projects • Proactive risk management • Improved time management and teamwork • Efficient utilization and tracking of resources • Standards around status reporting • Implementation of best practices and standard processes Some of the projects that the law firm worked on included: • IT/infrastructure projects • A variety of projects for their corporate clients, such as mergers and acquisitions and major contract negotiations • Annual recruiting projects (which included recruiting from law schools worldwide) • Long-range capital strategic projects

Many such projects always took longer than originally planned for, went out of scope and went over budget and resource commitment. This was certainly a problem for the client projects the law firm worked on, as such projects were under fixed price agreements with the client. If the project went off track, it would impact the profitability for the law firm for that particular engagement.

Phase 1: Evaluation Planning Based on the goals of the law firm, a three-day customized basics of project management training program was developed.

Prior to the start of the program, data was collected on past project initiatives, specifically around budget, time, scope, resource utilization and quality.

Much of this data was tracked, although it was not in one central location and required conversations with many members of the law firm—from managing partners through to paralegals and administrative assistants.

In the first phase of the project, we developed a plan around the data we would be collecting. The plan included the following components for Level 1–4:

attorneys, paralegals and administrative assistants who would work on projects also but would not initially attend the threeday program.

The following data was collected from the program: • Level 1: 95% of the participants were satisfied overall with the three-day customized program.

• Level 2: 100% pass rate on the exam (85% or higher was considered passing). It should be noted that the exam was not an overly difficult exam and as long as the attendees participated and paid attention in the three-day class they would be able to pass the exam. Frankly, the real measurement was in the Action Plans that were produced.

• Level 3: 100% of the participants submitted Action Plans and completed follow-up questionnaires. Action plans were completed after the class and followed up on within 6 months. The action plan included information on: 

Participant’s goals (individual improvement efforts)



How participants intended to meet those goals Action steps to be taken Support and/or resources needed

• Level 1: Satisfaction survey to participants • Level 2: A test administered to participants to measure the learning from the three-day program.

• Level 3: Action Plan follow-up and questionnaires including information on how the participants were applying the skills they learned. Level 3 questionnaires also went to managing partners and senior attorneys to get their feedback and perception of the skills being applied.

• Level 4: Collection of all data for business impact We also developed an ROI Analysis Plan to include the items we intended to measure against to show improvement based on the three-day training program. The data items to be collected at Level 4, which are the impact measures targeted for improvement, included: • Improved performance on projects—including improved quality of end result • Efficient utilization and tracking of resources • Increased percentage of successful projects (on time, within budget, within scope) • Implementation of best practices and standard processes We set the ROI (hurdle) rate at 20%.

Timeline for completion 



How participants will know if they are successful in meeting those goals How participants will evaluate that success

After the six-month time period, participants were asked to complete a Continuous Improvement Plan for moving forward. This follow-up to the Action Plan included results/ accomplishments to date, next steps to accomplish, and a timeline for doing so and the support needed.

• Level 4: Data collected from participants and managing partners and senior attorneys on the impact to the business.

The data collected from Level 4 showed a 40% increase in the number of successful projects. Successful projects went up from 70 successful out of every 100 (smaller projects included in the 100 along with more strategic projects) to 98 successful out of 100. 

40% increase in the number of successful projects On time and within budget and scope Projects met set quality standards Resources tracked and effectively allocated Standard processes implemented for all projects

Phase 2: Data Collection

Lessons learned captured and best practices shared

A pilot group of 20 junior attorneys, paralegals and administrative assistants was selected to go through the program first and measure the benefits of the training. In this way, an isolation factor—an important component of doing an ROI study—was available to compare against a similar group of

Phase 3: Data Analysis In converting the data collected to a monetary value, we found that cost savings (program benefits) were as follows: • More efficient use of resources: $285,000

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

11

• Projects on time and within budget and scope: $250,000 • Increase in better tracking of client projects: $450,000 Program benefits are measured in Level 4: Business Impact. To convert to a monetary value, a dollar amount was put to every resource based on salary/time/fringe, etc. If projects did not go out of scope, no additional resources were needed, which was a cost savings. More efficient use of resources also meant that projects had fewer people assigned to them. The $450,000 in increase from better tracking of client projects was the amount that would have been lost from the bottom line had those projects that were measured not been completed successfully.

The total cost of the program was $320,000. This included planning for the ROI study, food and beverage for participants in the program, facilitator costs, development of the customized program, time out of the office for training, salary/fringe of participants, etc. Any cost associated with the program or planning for the program was included in the total costs. The biggest component of the cost was salary/fringe of participants— especially since the attorneys and paralegals are billable resources.

Intangible benefits, those benefits that did not have a dollar value associated with them, were also considered. They included: • Reduced anxiety over involvement in and managing projects.

• Improved teamwork and reduced conflicts • Satisfaction of managing partners and senior attorneys over status reporting on projects These intangible benefits were able to be tied back to the program and certainly contributed to the success of the projects.

During phase 3, we calculate the ROI of the project management training program, using the ROI formula:

ROI = Net Program Benefits / Program Costs x 100 ROI = $665,000 / $320,000 x 100 ROI = 2.08 x 100 ROI = 208% For every $1.00 invested, $2.08 is returned after the costs are recovered. This was significantly over the 20% ROI set at the beginning of the project during the planning of the study.

Phase 4: Reporting A report of the results of the study was presented to the managing partners of the law firm. Components of the study were presented to the participants and others in the law firm.

The project was considered a success and it was decided that the three-day customized project management training program would be rolled out firm-wide. Additionally, a halfday program was created for the managing partners of the firm to provide them training around how to support project initiatives. A future focus was to develop a portal to house all project information. That was a “to do” for the IT/Application Development department and would be a key strategic project for them.

12

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

Summary For training and learning departments, the PMO, or lines of business, showing the ROI of the project management training programs conducted within the organization, whether in-house developed programs or vendor-provided programs, enables you to show the value the programs have on the business in monetary terms that executives can understand, respect, and champion.

The six types of data collected during the Phillips ROI Methodology™ process (see list below) enable for consistency in the measurement of project management training programs, thereby bringing credibility to the process.

• Reaction and value of program • Learning and confidence • Application and implementation • Business impact • ROI • Intangible benefits To begin measuring your project management training programs, you might start with a brand new program or review the current programs that are in place—following the criteria for measuring project management training programs discussed earlier in this paper. If you review a current program, gather data on the initial purpose of the program when it was first developed and implemented. Does it still meet that purpose? What value do you perceive the individuals taking the project management training program are achieving? How much has been invested in the program since the beginning? Should this program remain in place “as is,” or should it be updated, or possibly be eliminated from your offerings in its entirety or in part to accommodate new needs among your project managers? An ROI study will enable you to look at the value of your current programs and enable you to better plan new programs.

References Phillips, J. and Phillips, P. Show Me the Money: How to Determine ROI in People, Projects and Programs, San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc. Phillips, J., Phillips, P., Stone, R., and Burkett, H. The ROI Field Book: Strategies for Implementing ROI in HR and Training, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier n Gina Abudi has over 15 years’ consulting experience in a variety of areas, including project management, process management, leadership development, succession planning, high potential programs, talent optimization and development of strategic learning and development programs. She is the president at Abudi Consulting Group, LLC (abudiconsulting.com) in Amherst, NH. Gina blogs at GinaAbudi. com. She has been honored by PMI as one of the Power 50 and has served as Chair of PMI’s Global Corporate Council Leadership Team. Gina is currently President-Elect of PMI Massachusetts Bay Chapter Board of Directors. Article Source: http://EzineArticles. com/?expert=Gina_ Abudi

Peterson Reporting.

Providing nationwide service since 1986.

From day one of your

Reporting

deposition to the last day

Videography

of your trial, Peterson Reporting

Trial Presentation

is an indispensable member of your trial team. Proven professionalism and proficiency

Free Conference Rooms Live Streaming Services Video Conferencing Services

for more than 25 years.

Locally owned, globally known.

Global Reach Complex Cases Accurate, Fast

530 B Street, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92101

619 260 1069

Since 1986 petersonreporting.com Call to request green delivery of your transcripts and receive a discount.

14

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

Peterson AttJrnl HPV.indd 1

7/12/13 5:04 PM

Yan Li, Esq., Kaaveh Zargar, Esq., Chris Guldjian, Esq., Frank Fasel, Esq. and Chad E. Irvin, Esq.

We’ve Recovered Millions Fighting Against The World’s Largest Corporations Chris & Frank Accident Attorneys is a dedicated team of California personal injury attorneys and support staff focused on helping clients recover from serious injury accidents.

Referral fees paid.

600 Anton Blvd, Suite 1700 | Costa Mesa, California 92626 2667 Camino del Rio, Suite 301-18 | San Diego, CA 92108 714-882-5800 | www.ChrisAndFrank.com

NO BARRIERS TO

COMMUNICATION NO BARRIERS TO

SUCCESS

by Dan Baldwin

When a person does not speak English, they often do not know what resources are available to them or cannot effectively access the means to get justice when they have been subject to unjust treatment.

There is no barrier to communication in my office as I am trilingual, and I am the one they will be communicating with to handle their case. My clients can more accurately convey their wishes and more actively participate in obtaining justice. Since I am speaking the same language as my clients, they have a greater sense of trust for the advice that I give,” says Charles Rho, founder of Rho Law Group.

Rho speaks English, Spanish and Korean. The firm’s practice areas are personal injury and worker’s compensation. His experience living in foreign countries such as South Korea, South America, and Australia has provided him additional insight into how other people speaking other languages and coming from vastly diverse cultures see the world.

That experience gives him an edge on how people from cultures are presented in their thinking and beliefs in dealing with often complex legal issues.

16

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

“You Get the Kind of Justice You Can Pay For” Rho says, “I wanted to make a difference in the expression, ‘you get the kind of justice you can pay for.’ I realize that there are many people who take advantage of clients because they do not speak the English language or do not understand it very well. I wanted to offer a fair and honest alternative.”

He was heavily influenced by the experiences of his parents’ struggle as they moved from country to country without the benefit of speaking the particular language. He always had a fascination with justice and the law and as he grew, he wanted to put his skills, knowledge, and experience to serve the legal needs of people challenged not only by a lack of knowledge of the law, but also a lack of understanding the language used to apply that law.

“I believed then and I know now that I can make a difference in the lives of many people seeking justice just by being able to communicate with them,” he says.

© christopher TODD studios

JOURNALS

ATTORNEY

OF THE MONTH

2022

Regardless of the language, clients agree. “I am very proud to say that this law office of Charles Rho Law, have my business for life not only are they effective communicators and help you with paperwork and with the logistics with finding out doctors and scheduling appointments and being on top on your case, I must say it had to be the greatest experience I’ve ever experience with the law office, And the weight over my shoulders about What I have to do next they’re very good and get you what you need and always have your best interest in mind, not only is Charles a really great help at the front desk with Elsa and the girls are always on top of things. I love this office and I highly recommended five out of five in my book, I can honestly say I will be coming back if I ever need of an attorney or someone to give me advice on what to do in a position where I found myself not too long ago, thank you Charles for your time and help and your patience and dedication to get things done the right way and fair, thank you.” –Abraham Yanez

Removing Barriers to Receiving Justice Rho says, “I started my own firm because I wanted to have more personal contact with my clients and to have the opportunity to communicate with them directly. I wanted to break down the barriers between attorney and client.

Also, as a sole practitioner, I have more control over the direction of my services, and I can decide which cases to accept. Every decision that I make is the direct result of my performance, of my skill and knowledge in the legal field.”

He has been in solo practice for four years and currently has six employees. In workers’ compensation he has one hearing representative and one case manager. He has three case managers in personal injury. He also has an accounting assistant.

Rho’s typical client is Latino who does not speak English who seeks legal services because they were injured through the tortious civil conduct of others or through unsafe working conditions in their employment. They want to know their rights and what redress they may receive for their injuries. “I believe that many Latino immigrants and those who do not speak sufficient English nor understand the justice system are taken advantage of by unscrupulous legal providers who do not have their best interest at heart. That’s a barrier to justice and one I am removing brick by brick, case by case, person by person, so to speak,” he says.

Rho Law Group provides personal service in the form of attorney/employee interaction with each client in their native language. They translate all essential documents and assist with explanations, so each client is assured of the legal process at every step of the way. All essential documents are accurately translated. Each client is provided with a written set of instructions as to their proper handling of

18

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

any communication initiated by an opposing party, and what activities or statements can harm their case. As the case progresses, they check in at prescheduled times by telephone to inform clients of the progress in their matter and to solicit any new developments or answer any questions they may have.

Members of the Rho team also explain the next step in the process of handling their case and encourage them to check in with the office.

Rho’s firm office substituted into a case that occurred in Sacramento where an offer was made of $39,000 for settlement.

The client was not satisfied with the offer and had not recovered from his injuries. He still had numerous physical complaints.

After reviewing the client’s medical records, Rho noticed that additional treatment was recommended for the client due to his injuries. He followed up and assured that he received the necessary treatment and we ended up settling the case for policy limits of $250,000.

“Handling this case taught me that it is essential to always communicate with your clients and to listen to what they have to say. Listening to them is key because it will disclose information that will assist you and help in the processing and settlement of their case,” Rho says.

A Little Guy Winning Big for the Little Guy “I’m not a big guy. I’m a start-up. I used to work with the big guys, but I didn’t see the hands-on work that clients really want and really need. They’re more than just a case; they’re people.

There are a lot of attorneys and firms focusing on the so-called big cases. I want to focus on the little things that can be a big deal with people, especially newcomers to the country,” Rho says.

Non-English-speaking clients want someone who speaks

© christopher TODD studios

their language and once an attorney achieves that, the experience creates a real bond between attorney and client.

Clients in that position don’t want to talk to a translator, they want to speak directly to their attorney. Attorney-client bonding is at best extremely challenging when working through a third party.

It’s also helpful to know the culture of those clients.

Rho believes effective communication requires more than mastery of language. That’s a real advantage for this firm.

Words can be precise, but still misconstrued because of the differences in culture.

“If an attorney knows a second or third language, you negate the need for continuing interpretation which can be discouraging to those who are seeking legal assistance. You are also able to use your language skills to check translation of documents which gives first-hand assistance to clients,” Rho says.

For example, one of his first cases was a slip and fall case in a fast-food restaurant. The client fell inside a restroom without any witnesses present. This case had been rejected by several other attorneys. The client was told it was not a good case to take because of the lack of witnesses. This was a soft tissue case, and after Rho investigated, he found that employees in the restaurant knew there was always water on the floor of the restroom because they allowed a homeless individual to wash up there in the early morning. After he presented the results of his investigation and evidence of his client’s medical treatment, they were able to settle the case for $95,000, which represented a significant sum to the client and enabled her to improve her living situation.

“Imagine the unfortunate outcome if her attorney had not been able to speak directly and effectively to a client in that kind of situation,” he says.

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

19

© christopher TODD studios

Such effective communication brings a lot of referrals.

Large firms often lack the time, resources, or inclination to handle small cases. Rho’s legal skills combined with his linguistic skills earn about 30 percent of his business from referrals, including referrals from the large law firms.

“I also want to let the big guys know that personal communication is still important in the practice of law, no matter how big or small the client,” Rho says.

Other attorneys should feel highly confident about referring clients to this office because of his language ability and cultural knowledge, which assures that a non-English-speaking client will be able to communicate directly and effectively. Therefore, any client referred to this office will be able to convey his questions, and wishes, and participate more actively in obtaining justice in the matter before us.

Rho says, “My reputation for honesty and my high work-ethic assures that any client referred to this office will be treated with the utmost respect, their case thoroughly analyzed, their rights explained, and protected, and their cases handled in the same manner I would handle my own case or that of a family member. They can be assured that I have each client’s best interest at heart.”

“I had an excellent experience working with the Rho Law group. Charles the attorney exceeded my expectations, he made sure I received the best value for my case. I appreciate all the help and time that this Law group spent on me.”

“Meeting a client in person, listening to them and even in small cases giving them some attention and getting them some recovery, not just the bigger cases. I wanted to just give them a hand. Even small cases, like rental recovery issues, may only be a case involving only a few hundred dollars, but I want to send a letter and get some recovery. A few hundred dollars recovered means a lot to these people. It gets really personal to me when the little guy suffers because of a big guy. Regardless of their language challenges, I am here to stand at their side.” n Contact Charles Rho Rho Law Group, P.C. 2107 N. Broadway, Suite 205 Santa Ana, CA 92706 213-357-1000 www.rholawgroup.com

EXP ER I ENCE

The Language of Referrals

» EDUCATION • University of California, at Berkeley (B.A. Economics) • Arizona Summit Law School (Juris Doctor)

» ADMISSIONS • The State Bar of California

» CURRENT REVIEW STATUS (2/15/2022) • • • •

Yelp—5 Stars Google—5 Stars Facebook—5 Stars Avvo—5 Stars

» ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS • Member of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles • Member of Consumer Attorneys of California • Member of California Employment Lawyers Association • Member of California Applicants’ Attorneys Association • Member of Korean American Bar Association of Los Angeles

» LANGUAGES 20

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

• Spanish • Korean • English

Good Lawyers Talk Money with Their Clients & Billing Is Marketing

by Sally J. Schmidt

If

you were to believe everything being written about legal services today, you might think lawyer-client relationships have boiled down to one thing: pricing.

Yet in my conversations with clients, fees rarely are the first thing mentioned or the most important factor used to evaluate relationships with outside counsel. Now don’t get me wrong. All clients are cost-conscious, particularly these days. In interviews, clients consistently say things like: “We are always keeping an eye on costs.”

“I tell them, ‘You’ve got to be cost-conscious.’”

“Do I wish the cost was lower? Yeah, that would be great.”

But even those sentiments don’t mean you have to engage in cost-cutting or discounting. What clients usually want is better communication about, sensitivity to and management of costs.

Opening the Lines of Communication Here are some actions relating to pricing and fees that will improve your relationships with clients (and your ability to get paid).

1. Have good conversations up front about the expected costs of services. Clients appreciate lawyers who take a businesslike approach to the discussion of fees. For every new client or new project, put the issue on the table by saying, “You’re probably wondering what this will cost.”

Then give a detailed explanation of the potential fees and expenses.

2. Be clear about what is or is not included in your estimate, and what factors will contribute to higher costs. If you provide a range of $25,000 to $35,000, for example, what will lead to the higher end of the range? If there are things outside your control or not included in the fee, provide a detailed list and, if possible, estimate those items as well.

22

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

3. Hold the line on expenses. If you are engaging outside services—from specialized counsel to expert witnesses—do your best to manage their costs, just as you would do with your own. Rightly or wrongly, if those expenses spiral out of control, you will be tainted by association.

4. Be a good steward of the client’s money. For instance, if you need to travel on the client’s behalf, ask for hotel recommendations or whether there are any special travel discounts of which you can take advantage. If a company’s executives stay at Hampton Inns, they won’t appreciate a bill for a Ritz-Carlton.

5. Look for ways to cut costs. Can the client do some of the work in-house? Or is there a lower-priced alternative for a portion of the assignment?

6. Keep the client posted. Probably most importantly, you must have regular communication with the client about where the fees stand against the original estimate. Whether this is done by holding a periodic budget meeting, generating a monthly chart showing actual versus estimated costs, or providing the client with access to bills through an extranet, nothing will show that you are serious about cost management like monitoring where things stand. And, if you do have a glitch, that is the time to pick up the phone and have a conversation.

If you are able to manage expectations about the cost of your services, you are much less likely to have to discount or write off your fees—and managing expectations necessitates good communications.

Remember, you don’t need clients to feel you are inexpensive; you need clients to feel they received value.

Ultimately, the happiest clients say things like this: “He’s not the cheapest, but he’s worth it.”

“They provide us with good value for our legal dollars.”

“The firm is a good value for the work.”

Once you have the engagement, your invoices become a critical communication method. In fact, I would argue that bills, properly done, can be great marketing tools. Conversely, poor billing techniques create tension with clients.

Clients use any tangible work product to judge the quality of your firm’s services. Said one: “If you can’t get your billing straight, I don’t have confidence in you to get the file straight.” Clients also use invoices to evaluate the progress of matters. With scant information, they are left in the cold. Technology is a wonderful thing. But too many times, lawyers allow computers to drive the form and substance of the invoice.

Paying a little more attention to your bills will not only enhance your client relationships, it will increase your likelihood of getting paid.

Use active descriptions. For instance, instead of “Consideration of” say “Analyzed.”

Cover Letters

Bill on a timely basis. This helps clients see where they stand on a matter and, studies show, vastly increases your likelihood of getting paid.

Everyone talks about providing value. But when was the last time a client said, “Great brief!” or complimented you on the research you did? A cover letter allows you to explain the value you have brought to the engagement.

If you are pleased with a result, say so. If you wrote off time, tell the client what it was and why they don’t have to pay for it. You can also use the cover letter to update where the fees stand on the project. And, most important, you can thank the client. It may not be necessary to put a cover letter on every invoice, but at a minimum, you should include one at the end of a major matter.

Time Entries In my experience, clients’ unhappiness with bills can have as much to do with the way the information is described as the time itself. Here are tips that can help avoid that problem: Be careful how you describe your time. Whether it is when you enter time or when you look at your pro formas, augment the terse computer language. Let’s use “office conference” as an example. First, clients don’t like paying for you to talk to other lawyers in your firm. Second, it provides zero insight into the value provided by the meeting. Instead, focus on what you did, for example, “Reviewed requirements for shareholders’ agreement,” “Analyzed tax issues in proposed trust” or “Met with Attorney A to discuss outstanding issues in settlement agreement.” And name names.

Avoid red-flag terms. In addition to “office conference,” other phrases that set clients off include “review of file” (paying you to get up to speed), “research” (don’t you know this already?), “attempted to call,” “left voicemail for” and other things that don’t contribute to the progress of the file.

Show progress. When you write down time for the same matter, be conscious of showing progress on the file.

Be consistent. If you referred to the matter as a “stock purchase agreement,” don’t just call it an “agreement” in future bills.

Demonstrate value before billing. If possible, don’t bill for projects until clients have seen the related work product.

If you have taken a deposition, send clients the summary before they have to pay for it. Show time that you are writing off. If you did something for which you did not get paid, such as attend a client board meeting, enter it at “no charge.”

Pay attention. Be sure to apply time to the right file!

Concentrate your time. Clients would rather see blocks of time than six-minute intervals.

Don’t nickel-and-dime. How do you feel when your $300-a-night hotel charges $12 for Wi-Fi when the Super8 provides it for free? Disbursements, even if they represent a small percentage of the bill, can be a landmine because clients know what most things cost. In addition, charging .25 for administrative tasks—reading emails, reviewing bills—will cause clients to review future invoices in more detail for billing abuses.

Would You Mind?

Perhaps the best thing to do is put yourself in the client’s shoes and ask, “Would I mind paying for this?”

Remember, good billing practices result in no surprises for the client. If things are getting out of hand on a matter, pick up the phone. If your bill is higher than anticipated, deliver the invoice in person. When there’s a problem, it’s crucial that you contact clients before they have to contact you. n Sally J. Schmidt is President of Schmidt Marketing, Inc. in Edina, MN. The company’s clients have included over 400 law firms throughout the United States and internationally, ranging in size from two to over three thousand attorneys. Sally received her MBA and BS from the University of Minnesota, and was the first President of the Legal Marketing Association (LMA). She was inducted into the College of Law Practice Management in 1994 and into LMA’s Hall of Fame in 2007. Sally has made presentations at more than 200 national and international seminars and conferences, including many for ALA, and her articles have been published in every major legal trade publication. Reprinted with the permission of the author.

First published at www.attorneyatwork.com.

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

23

REFERRAL FEES PAID

Steadfast Integrity, Proven Results

RECENT RESULTS: SPECIALISTS IN CASES DEALING WITH: • Personal Injury • Brain Injury • Car Accidents

• Wrongful Death • Spine Injury • Rehab Abuse

• Birth Injury • Trucking

$1,000,000 Single Vehicle Auto Accident $1,000,000 Rehab Facility Death $1,500,000 Neck Injury $1,696,500 Spinal Injury $1,880,000 Medical Negligence $2,000,000 Brain Injury

Referral Fees Paid LOWE LAZAR LAW, LLP 4 02 W. BRO A DWAY, SUI T E 1720, S A N DIEGO, C A 92101 619-878-2725 | OF F ICE@L OWEL A Z A RL AW.COM | W W W. L OWEL A Z A RL AW.COM

$2,726,574 Back Injury $3,100,000 Spine Injury $7,400,000 Rehab Facility Death

California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com) which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available, as well as annual Practice Area subscriptions in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. He currently works as a fulltime mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. conducting Zoom hearings throughout California (to use Monty contact his case manager Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323). Monty also helps lawyers improve their skills and practices with his Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services (for info visit Monty’s website at https://montymcintyre-law.com).

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure Olson v. Doe (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 121309: The California Supreme Court granted review to decide under what circumstances the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47(b) applies to contract claims, and whether an agreement following mediation between the parties in an action for a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure, section 527.6, in which they agree not to disparage one another, can lead to liability for statements made in a later unlimited civil lawsuit arising from the same alleged misconduct.

The California Supreme Court held that the mediation agreement as a whole and the specific context in which it was reached—a section 527.6 proceeding—precluded defendant/ cross-complainant’s broad reading of the nondisparagement clause. As a result, in opposing plaintiff/cross-defendant’s antiSLAPP motion to strike his cross-complaint, defendant/crosscomplainant could not show the requisite “minimal merit” on a critical element of his breach of contract claim—plaintiff/crossdefendant’s obligation under the agreement to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation — and therefore he could not defeat plaintiff/cross-defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. (January 13, 2022.)

Torts Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 6111380: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s denial 26

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

of a writ petition challenging the trial court’s denial of defendant/ petitioner’s demurrer to a complaint filed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seeking to recover from defendant over $12 million spent suppressing a wildfire, investigating the fire’s cause, and pursuing reimbursement for the expenses it incurred in doing so. Petitioner argued that it could not be held vicariously liable, under Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, for a fire negligently started by one of its employees. The California Supreme Court held that sections 13009 and 13009.1 incorporate the common law theory of respondeat superior, and a corporation like petitioner can be held vicariously liable for the cost of suppressing fires that its agents or employees negligently or unlawfully set or allowed to escape. (December 27, 2021.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 6144075: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against defendant, alleging it routinely enrolled online consumers like them in automatic renewal membership programs without providing “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and obtaining their “affirmative consent” as mandated by the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL; Business & Professions Code, section 17600 et seq.). Defendant filed a petition to compel individual arbitration claiming that plaintiffs agreed to the “Terms of Service,” which included a

class action waiver and a binding arbitration clause, when they entered their payment information on the website and clicked a button that read, “Start my trial.” The following textual notice appeared in very small print further down the page below the “Start my trial” button: “By clicking ‘Start my trial’ you indicate that you agree to the terms of service and are 13+ years old.” The underlined “terms of service” was a hyperlink to a separate webpage that displayed the 26-page-long terms of service. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal observed that the full context of any transaction is critical to determining whether any particular notice is sufficient to put a consumer on inquiry notice of contractual terms contained on a separate, hyperlinked page. Here, the transaction involved a $5 “trial” that automatically enrolled allegedly unwitting consumers in a more expensive recurring monthly membership. This was precisely the type of transaction from which the Legislature intended to protect consumers when it enacted the ARL. The Court of Appeal concluded that the notices on the “Start my trial” screens of defendant’s website were not sufficiently conspicuous to bind plaintiffs, because they were less conspicuous than the ARL’s statutory notice requirements and they were not sufficiently conspicuous under other criteria courts have considered in determining whether a hyperlinked notice to terms of services is sufficient to put a user on inquiry notice of an arbitration agreement. (C.A. 4th, December 30, 2021.)

Attorney Fees Duff v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2022) _ Cal. App.5th _ , 2022 WL 246853: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff attorney fees of $684,250 after he prevailed on one claim for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song Beverly; Civil Code, section 1790, et seq.), but was only awarded $1 in nominal damages because he failed to prove damages. The Court of Appeal held that in determining who the prevailing party was, it would take a more “pragmatic” and less restrictive approach to assess whether a buyer had prevailed. (See Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar (2012) 207 Cal. App.4th 1252, 1264; MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047 (MacQuiddy); Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 149151.) Under this approach, it would not be enough for a buyer to show that they obtained a net monetary recovery. Instead, the trial court should ask: To what extent did the buyer achieve her litigation objectives? By and large, litigation objectives are measured by what the party sought to obtain by filing suit.

The Court of Appeal remanded the matter back to the trial court to reconsider the attorney fees issue using the pragmatic, litigation-objective analysis set forth in MacQuiddy. (C.A. 4th, January 27, 2022.)

Attorneys Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP (2022) _ Cal. App.5th _ , 2022 WL 246851: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order granting cross-defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16) two causes of action in the cross-complaint. The cross-complaint alleged extortion and intentional interference with contract against attorney Amy Mousavi and her law firm, Mousavi & Lee, LLP (collectively Mousavi). Cross-complainant argued Mousavi’s e-mail settlement demands made in an underlying employment action that Mousavi brought against cross-complainant, were not entitled to protection under the anti-SLAPP law because they constituted illegal attempts to force Falcon into settling the underlying matter. The trial court rejected this argument and granted Mousavi’s anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal disagreed as to the first cause of action for extortion because it concluded that Mousavi’s e-mail settlement demands, when considered in context, were not protected speech in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Flatley v.

Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. Mousavi’s escalating series of threats ultimately transformed what had started as legitimate demands into extortion, and therefore the first cause of action was not protected by the anti-SLAPP law as a result of the well-established “Flatley rule.” The Court of Appeal affirmed as to the second cause of action. That cause of action arose out of Mousavi’s actual revelation of damaging information about cross-complainant to its merger partner. Because the revelations were made in furtherance of Mousavi’s contemplated litigation, the trial court correctly concluded they were protected by the litigation privilege. (C.A. 4th, January 27, 2022.)

Civil Procedure Chaganti v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 6112575: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for a writ of error coram vobis directing the trial court to vacate its order granting summary adjudication of two causes of action against plaintiff. The writ was granted because the judge who decided the summary adjudication motion was automatically disqualified under Code of Civil Procedure sections 170.1 and 170.5 because he owned stock in excess of $1,500 in AT&T, the parent company of wholly owned subsidiaries Cricket Communications Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC who were defendants in the action. The judge’s ownership of stock in the parent corporation with a value in excess of $1,500 was a financial interest within the meaning of section 170.1 in the parent’s wholly owned subsidiaries and required disqualification of the judge where the wholly owned subsidiaries were parties to the action.(C.A. 6th, December 27, 2021.) n

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

27

How to Select Clients for Cross-Selling

by Eric Dewey

C

ross-selling is the holy grail for law firms. Clients who like you and recognize the value you provide are more likely to expand their use of you.

More to the point, they are more likely to trust your recommendation of other partners in the firm.

But most cross-selling initiatives fail because lawyers are not adequately prepared.

They may have done their research on the company, but they haven’t tried to understand the operational culture of the organization, the stuff not found in a 10K. They don’t understand the company’s priorities or its internal buying decision dynamics. As such, the pitches can feel random and untethered to any real needs of the business.

These questions will help you identify prospective clients who are both in need of the services but also in a position to solve the issues and, as such, will be more receptive to your overtures.

Keep in mind that this process is not required for all practice areas or all clients. Typically, it works best as a pre-sale exercise for clients who have a degree of discretion on which legal challenges they solve. Some practice areas leave little room for discretion, such as litigation defense. Clients facing a class action must defend themselves. Similarly, some clients are better understood by their outside counsel which may also reduce the need for this questioning process. But if you can’t answer these questions on your own or are pitching a new practice area that is optional for the client, this process will help you get the knowledge you need to pitch with confidence.

Here’s what to do.

Start the process by first identifying the practice areas with synergy to your practice area—that is, identify the practice areas commonly used by companies in the industry that you are targeting. Often the practices can be identified in your billing data by looking at the

28

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

practice type of newly opened matters of a group of clients within a particular industry segment. You may also have an intuitive sense of the practice areas commonly used by your clients. But it’s nice to have research to confirm your suspicions.

From this list of potential cross-selling practices, select a partner that you like, trust, and respect. Meet with them to discuss this process and identify a group of 5 to 6 clients that you will focus on for this first phase of the process. Identify the specific legal solution that would form the basis for your proposal. Be as specific as possible. For instance, 'employment law services' is too broad. Updating the company’s employee manual is specific. Do the research necessary to validate, as best you can, the need for that service.

For each target client, discuss what you know about the client’s need for the cross-sold practice/legal service using the criteria below. Keep in mind that proposals for legal services are essentially proposals for the company to change some aspect of how they operate or do business.

Therefore, when we talk about ‘decisions’, we mean the broader concept of legal solutions that may require a change initiative within the organization.

This bears repeating. Some decisions to hire outside counsel can be made quickly, typically because the company has little discretion in whether it will address the problem. In such cases, such as in litigation, there are fewer decision-makers, and the decision typically must be made quickly. But most legal proposals are ‘optional’ in the sense that the company has discretion whether to or in how quickly it will solve the issue.

The questions below are best used in this context. Use them to understand the buying journey and buyer’s motivations for deciding to solve legal issues and hire outside counsel.

Good cross-selling targets are clients with whom there has been a long, mutually beneficial relationship.

The clients should be very familiar with the firm and

preferably have had very good experiences with you or the firm. The practice area being proposed should have a reputation for excellence and be well established in the field. As obvious as this is, it bears repeating: approaching clients with additional services that are not well-established, don’t have an active client base or that doesn’t have a good reputation in the marketplace is counterproductive. Be sure you’re competitive with what you propose.

Buying Motivation Analysis Buyers must be motivated to buy. They must recognize a legal need, have made that need a priority, and they must have a consensus inside the company about what the best solution should be. Until they have those elements in place, cross-selling won’t cause buying. The key to successful cross-selling, therefore, is in getting a read on the internal buying decision process and the relative priorities of the organization. Only then can you craft an approach that aligns with the company’s needs. This process will help you do that.

These questions are intended to guide the dialogue with prospective clients which can take place over several meetings, if necessary. The objective is to discover as much as you can about how the company operates, how it prioritizes projects, and who participates in the decision process. The information gleaned through these discussions will help you determine whether the prospective client is in a position to engage you. It can also give you insights into a pitch strategy and can clarify ahead of time the objections that may lie in wait once you’ve delivered your proposal. Conduct this analysis on each practice area and for each prospective client to prepare for cross-selling conversations.

Importance: What is the relative strategic importance of the issue to the company considering the business model and operational priorities of the business?

Explanation: Not every legal solution is critical to the success of a business. Understanding the degree of importance to the successful operation of the business is critical to get a sense of the resources and timing that a company will put toward solving the issue. An issue that is strategically important to the company will get the budget and resources needed to solve it. An issue that is not strategically important to a company can be put off or not done at all. Look at the strategic importance of the issue from the client’s perspective only—keep your perceptions of your work’s importance out of your analysis. For instance, you may feel strongly that having

an up-to-date employee manual is critical, but in the greater scheme of the company’s other priorities, it may hold little importance.

Urgency: How quickly must a company decide as to whether and how it will solve this particular legal issue?

Explanation: Issues with a deadline, must be resolved in a certain time frame or which must be resolved before other more important projects can be done have urgency. Knowing the inherent timelines and deadlines can help the company prioritize resources and allocate personnel. You should know what is driving the urgency of a solution so you can use it to your advantage.

Priority: Thinking about what you know about the company’s strategy and business model, what is the relative priority for resolving the issue compared to other priorities of the company?

Explanation: Issues can be strategically important and urgent to a company, but even solutions that meet these important criteria can be subjugated to other, more important priorities in the company. Understanding the priority of the issue for the company, specifically where it fits in their strategy, can provide lawyers with important insights into how the company will receive your proposal.

Ask yourself, would this proposal be timely considering all that the company has going on?

Decision Authority: Who are the people who will have input into the decision?

Explanation: Rarely is a decision in a company made by just one person. As decisions on new initiatives are contemplated, numerous insiders weigh in on how the decision will affect their areas of responsibility, how the decision should be made, and what criteria should be set for choosing a provider. What we think of as the final decision authority or the single decision-maker, is the person who builds internal consensus for decisions.

They lead the development of the decision criteria that, once fully formulated, guide the decision process. As such, lesser-known players may have an oversized influence on decisions, so it's important to understand all those who will have input into the decision process.

Stakeholders: Who has a stake in what happens after the decision is made to solve a legal issue?

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

29

Explanation: Stakeholders are the people who must live with or work to execute the changes brought about by legal solutions. These people have control of operational domains which require their input into the decisions as well as how to execute once the decision has been made.

Knowing who will help deliver the solution, monitor its implementation, and assure its success is important for the success of any project. So, getting to know their concerns, interests, and objectives for the change is critical to successfully managing a change initiative in the organization.

Influencers: Who influences the decision?

Explanation: Influencers are different from stakeholders in that they have influence over decisions but are typically not directly involved in making the decision or implementing it. Influencers can provide resources and information to help in making decisions, sometimes to the point of withholding assistance if the decision is viewed negatively. Influencers can come from accounting, finance, HR, operations, marketing, from among suppliers or key clients or other places in the organization.

Operational Implications: What changes or implications will likely occur in the company’s operations or service delivery if the proposal is pursued?

Explanation: Some legal solutions force changes to the operational status of a company. Companies have a strong bias toward not upsetting the status quo of a smoothly operating system. Understanding how the company may be affected and what changes in its operations will need to be made will help sellers ask better questions and better discuss how the solution will affect the company.

Risks and Rewards: What risks and rewards can be anticipated if the issue is or is not resolved?

Explanation: Along with the operational implications of a legal solution, there are risks and rewards associated with that solution. Exploring the consequences of the solution (both intended and unintended) can help company representatives prepare for implementing the solution. It also will help demonstrate your understanding of their business. It’s helpful to put a monetary value on the risks and rewards inherent in a solution when possible. Doing so will give you more context for the risk or reward which companies need to set priorities.

30

Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022

Incumbent and Alternative Solutions: What other resources, people, or organizations can be mobilized by the company to solve this issue?

Explanation: Companies have many alternatives in how they can solve various problems and issues. You are not their only option. Often there are incumbent providers capable of solving the issue, including in-house resources and other outside counsel. Similarly, they may have available to them non-legal solutions to the issue.

Exploring these helps you to better understand your competitive positioning and will help you define your pitch strategy.

Provider Selection Criteria: Beyond expertise and experience, what additional criteria might the company consider in reviewing provider qualifications?

Explanation: Numerous criteria will drive the provider selection process. Most of these are obvious. However, some will be less obvious and will be unique to the company or its business challenge. Discussing these criteria will further help you understand the company’s operations, explore how well you meet their selection criteria, and provide insights on the value-added services that might appeal to company representatives.

If you can’t definitively answer these questions, set up informational meetings with the prospective client to get better insights into their business and its operations.

Prepare for the conversation by identifying the specific questions to which you need answers. Going through this review process will help you identify prospects who are in a position to be cross sold, will help you customize your pitch, and make more compelling presentations directed at the key concerns and challenges of each prospect. n Eric Dewey authors the Legal Marketing Blog, Lawyer Up! and was recently named the Guest Expert of the ABA’s annual marketing and client development edition of Law Practice Management magazine, due out in November of 2013. Dewey’s expertise includes client development; strategy and planning; marketing ROI and client opportunity analysis; client service training and program development; brand and reputation management; and organizational improvement. He can be reached at www.groupdewey.com, Eric@eLegalTraining.com or visit www.eLegalTraining.com.

We’ll help your firm stand out and get the attention it deserves!

Marketing Strategy | Branding & Identity | Writing | Website Design Interactive Presentations | Print, Digital & Social Advertising 215.550.1435 | penn-creative.com

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Santa Ana, CA PERMIT NO. 777

UNRIVALED JURY VERDICTS SETTLEMEN T S PERSONAL SERVICE REFERRAL FEES

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE is happy to discuss how

we may assist you in your case. Please contact

the Honorable Judge Peter Polos (Ret.) for more information at polos@psblaw.com.

WWW.PSBLAW.COM

310.477.1700

1.877.800.1700