Don’t Be Embarrassed: Step Up To The Plate And Learn To Do Your IOLTA Trust Accounting

This week, Rodney writes about the importance of learning and understanding trust accounting principles.

. . .

In reading a recent issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, I was struck by the number of public reprimands that resulted from the violation of simple rules related to properly maintaining IOLTA accounts. While I cannot know the reasons why each attorney failed to comply with IOLTA accounting rules, several factors may have contributed to these violations: (1) a general lack of knowledge of the requirements for the administration of IOLTA accounts, as laid out in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct; 2) a lax approach to time management; 3) a failure to administer trust accounts properly based on the fact that the attorney is overburdened, and overwhelmed; and/or, 4) the flowering of a careless attitude, toward following the rules of professional conduct, and with respect to the adoption and implementation of best business practices. However, it is not my intention to preach; neither do I wish to be an apologist. Rather, I want to focus on how other attorneys can make sure that they do not fail in complying with the simple rules required in accounting for other people’s money.

The accounting issues represented in the reprimands I read were truly not noteworthy; rather, they involved trust accounting basics; they were:

-A failure to reconcile the IOLTA account every sixty days, as required by Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 (f)(1)(E);

-A failure to calculate a running balance, to keep a simple, chronological check register of each transaction, with a current account balance, as required by Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 (f)(1)(B);

-A failure to keep individual client ledgers, with a list of every transaction and a running balance for the individual client, as required by Mass. R. Prof C. 1.15 (f)(1)(C); and,

-Comingling of client funds and private funds, or otherwise negligently misusing client funds in an IOLTA account, in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(b).

So, let’s talks about a few simple rules for managing IOLTA accounts that I suggest to all attorneys:

(1) SACRED. You must treat as sacred the money and property given to you in trust, and you must not take such as your own until it is earned.

(2) ACT. If you do not know what an IOLTA account is, or what three-way reconciliation means, or how to conduct a three-way reconciliation, learn now. This is a mission-critical, operational imperative for every attorney who holds any funds or property in trust for a client. If you don’t act now, you place your professional reputation on the line, your business success at risk and you clearly show that you do not care about your business.

(3) HIRE. If you understand the meaning and import of the above two rules, but you still don’t want to do the work, hire an expert to do it for you.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I have some suggestions about where you might educate yourself with respect to compliance with your professional responsibility to render your IOLTA accounts appropriately. First, read Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 on Safekeeping Property. As you’re reading through, you’ll find that you can keep sufficient funds in the trust account to pay bank charges (generally, this seems to mean about $150 or less). You’ll also have access to explanations of the accounting rules, operational requirements and required accounts and records. The question, then, becomes: How do you implement what you have learned by reading the rule? Well, there are some surprisingly good resources out there to help you to figure that out.

But, please, ACT now. Don’t wait until IOLTA training is suggested by bar counsel. Sign up for an IOLTA training course offered by the Office of Bar Counsel (co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association). These free, one-hour programs, held monthly, feature discussion of IOLTA rules, generally, and provide excellent information on keeping written trust account records. Upcoming program dates are available here. To register for a course, call the Office of Bar Counsel at (617) 728-8750 and ask about “trust account program registration”.

Other resources for IOLTA accounting information include the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee website, where you can find a free PDF copy of “Managing Client Funds and Avoiding Ethical Problems”, available here. The Massachusetts IOLTA Committee also provides a PDF copy of an IOLTA account opening form, a list of approved IOLTA depositories and a PDF copy of the IOLTA guidelines.

Obviously, it’s difficult to find resources from more impressive providers than the Board of Bar Overseers/Office of Bar Counsel and the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee; however, LOMAP has collected some resources, as well, to supplement those. If you browse our Lending Library titles, you’ll find a number of books on managing trust accounts and using software for trust accounting. Two episodes of Jared’s podcast, the “Legal Toolkit”, have focused on IOLTA accounting; you may find “IOLTA Accounting: Part I” here, and “IOLTA Accounting: Part II” here. We’ve also offered a general resources post at the blog, here.

Now, even though many attorneys use Quicken or QuickBooks for IOLTA account management, this does not mean that these softwares are the best suited for that purpose. (Although, you can find the guide: “Maintaining Lawyer Trust Accounts with Quicken 2002 Basic” through the Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and a book covering the use of QuickBooks for trust accounting available through our own lending library.) These just happen to be the programs that attorneys most commonly use. There are legal-specific products that can make trust accounting compliance easy, because the products have been developed for that specific purpose (and have not been retrofit for that purpose, as Quicken and QuickBooks need to be, by you). Good examples of software that you can use to make trust accounting easier are: EasySoft’s Easy Trust; Tabs3 Trust Accounting; Amicus Accounting 2010; and, PCLaw. SaaS case management software providers, like Clio and RocketMatter, have also added trust accounting capability.

Now, if you’ve read about all of these resources, and you’ve decided that you really have better things to do with your time than spending your days bookkeeping, HIRE an excellent bookkeeper, or an accountant, to do this all for you. Take that person to the free IOLTA training program with you. Keep in mind, however, that the hiring and utilization of a bookkeeper does not absolve you from responsibility. Errors and omissions related to your trust accounting are still, ultimately, yours. As part of your oversight, then, make sure that account reconciliation is done every thirty (recommended) to sixty (required) days.

And, above all, treat other people’s money as if it is SACRED.

. . .

We owe a sincere thank you, and a debt of gratitude, to our intern, and Suffolk University Law School student, Norman Murray, for his research assistance in the drafting of this post.

Blog Jam: Vote for ABA Blawg 100 Through October 1

It’s that time of year again. No, not the Fall. The Fall suuuucks. There, I said it. And, I hate foliage, too. The only thing I want to see turning colors of red, orange and yellow (perhaps in reverse order, on second (or first) thought) is my skin, when I’m sitting on the beach. But, I digress. But, I digress strongly, in revenge for the end of the summer, as I await for its return.

No, it’s that time of year again when the ABA Journal solicits nominations for its annual ABA Blawg 100 List. This is your chance to do something nice for your favorite legal blogs (sorry, I still don’t use the term “blawg”--yes, it does still make me more than a little nauseous) and bloggers, by bringing them to the attention of the ABA Journal’s editorial staff, who will select the Blawg 100 for 2010.

Now, this isn’t a popularity contest, as the ABA Journal makes abundantly clear in its rules for the contest-that’s-not-really-a-contest; but, if the LOMAP Blog gets, say, 200 nominations, that can’t hurt, right? At least we’ll get noticed. (Sorry, I’m jumping the gun.) So, if you like what we do here, you can nominate us, and provide your pithy and laudatory (don’t forget: laudatory!) comments about us, here. (Well, maybe I wasn’t jumping the gun so bad, after all.)

The Blawg 100 List is a tremendous mechanism, broadcast widely, for the recognition of some of the good work done by legal bloggers. To that end, I wouldn’t ask you to just nominate us. (I mean, if you’re pressed for time, you should only nominate us, of course, but . . .) If you have the time to nominate multiple legal blogs that you like, you should absolutely do so, because your nomination may bring a noteworthy blog to the attention of the editorial board, or may assist a blog’s entry into the coveted Blawg 100 landscape.

In that spirit, I list below a number of blogs that I have nominated for the 2010 ABA Blawg 100 List. Not that I’m pressuring you to vote for these folks any more than I’m pressuring you to vote for us. (This all tended to be far more subliminal when I had it worked out in my head . . .) I just like them, and I think they’re worth a look.

. . .

The “JDC Blawg 21 List”

Alan Crede’s “Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog”

Jay Shepherd’s “Gruntled Employees” and “The Client Revolution”

David Harlow’s “HealthBlawg”

Bob Ambrogi’s “LawSites”

AbacusLaw’s “Practice Smarter”

RocketMatter’s “Legal Productivity Blog”

Jim Calloway’s “Law Practice Tips Blog”

Beverly Michaelis’ “Oregon Law Practice Management Blog”

Dan Pinnington’s “Avoid A Claim Blog”

Allison Shields’ “Legal Ease Blog”

David Bilinsky’s “Thoughtful Legal Management”

Nerino Petro’s “Compujurist”

Leanna Hamill’s “Massachusetts Estate Planning and Elder Law Blog”

Lee Rosen’s “Divorce Discourse”

Erik Mazzone’s “Law Practice Matters”

Stephanie Kimbro’s “Virtual Law Practice Blog”

Stephen Seckler’s “CounseltoCounsel Blog”

Kelsey & Trask’s “Scaling the Summit: A Family Law Blog” and “Don’t Go Alone: A Bankruptcy Law Blog”

Courtney Kennaday’s “SC Small Firm Blog”

. . .

If I missed anybody I like (making it very cryptic for you to guess who you are), please feel free to add yourself in the comments section.

. . .

Liner Notes

I’m feeling a liner notes section, because . . .

These are the eight songs I bought on iTunes last night:

“Drivin’ My Life Away” by Eddie Rabbitt

“In One Ear” by Cage the Elephant

“Ridin’ Solo” by Jason DeRulo

“That Which I Have Lost” by George Harrison

“Country Comfort” by Elton John with Earl Scruggs

“The Devil Went Down to Georgia (Live)” by Zac Brown Band

“To Be Young (Is To Be Sad, Is To Be High)” by Dave Rawlings Machine

“Waiting for a Star to Fall” by Boy Meets Girl

(Yes, that last one is highly questionable. I liked that song in 1988, and, apparently, still do. Some phases stick a little bit, I guess. Classified as “synth pop” in Wikipedia. Ugh. I’m shunning myself right now.)

Guest Post: The Solo and Small Firm Advantage: Assertive Communication Gets Marketing Results for Lawyers

We are fortunate to welcome back Stephen E. Seckler, principal of Seckler Legal Coaching, for the fourth edition of his “The Solo and Small Firm Advantage” guest blog post series. Stephen is an attorney coach with twenty years of experience in consulting with lawyers. (Stephen’s full profile is available at his website.) Stephen’s own Counsel to Counsel blog has twice been named to the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 List. In this edition of “The Solo and Small Firm Advantage” Stephen advises assertive communication in law firm marketing. Notice the image of the very assertive angry dog, as it passes by.

. . .



Building a successful law practice requires a mastery of your subject matter. Nothing can substitute for professional competence if you want people to hire you. Beyond that, an effective marketing strategy and good relationship building skills both rank high in importance for anyone who wants to generate legal work.

Marketing (developing a reputation in a niche practice area and publicizing it to prospective clients and referral sources) is a good place to start. In particular, you should find a niche that truly distinguishes you from the “herd”. In the most recent installment (September 20) of the LOMAP Marketing Group webinar series, Alan Klevan spoke to this point, when he addressed how attorneys might market by ”Becoming a Purple Cow”.

But, marketing is no substitute for having a strong network of clients, prospective clients and referral sources. It merely supports your sales efforts.

There are many ways to build productive business relationships that lead to referrals. I’ve written about this subject several times and offered a long list of inexpensive ways to do this. Lately, though, I’ve come to the conclusion that many lawyers miss opportunities to “sell” because they aren’t being assertive enough. In an effort to avoid coming across as a “salesman”, lawyers often fail to follow through on good opportunities to connect.

I’m not suggesting that being a fast-talking salesman is an effective way to sell legal services. It’s actually good listening skills that will get you the furthest. On the other hand, though, being a very passive listener is probably insufficient, as well. There has to be some balance in your communication.

To understand what I mean, it is useful to divide the world of communication into four categories: aggressive, assertive, passive-aggressive and passive. When we are aggressive, we assert our own needs and interests and ignore the concerns of the other individual (think “pit bull litigator”). Most buyers of legal services will find this approach to be a turnoff (unless of course they want to hire a lawyer who will take a “scorched earth” approach to their case). When we are passive, we listen without asking follow-up questions. We fail to dig deeper to find out more about the needs of the other individual.

If we are passive-aggressive, we try to do things behind the back of another individual, in hopes that we’ll get what we want (e.g.--we disparage an individual to their clients and coworkers, in hopes that we’ll get the work instead).

Being assertive, which is where we want to be, means looking out for the concerns of the other individual while communicating our own needs.

For example, if you meet someone at a networking function, and you want to follow up with them, do you:

a. Tell them you'll be at their office at 9 am the next day for coffee, and wait for their reaction;
b. Say it would be nice to get together some time to speak further and leave it at that;
c. Wait a few days and then complain to the friend who introduced you that the individual never contacted you; or,
d. Tell the individual that you would be very interested in learning more about her business, and ask if it would be okay to call her for coffee sometime in the next week.

Obviously, “d.” is the answer that I’m looking for: raise interest in getting together some time in the near future, but ask for “permission” to follow up with the individual.

Assertive communication has a number of benefits. For starters, if you are assertive about connecting with potential clients and referral sources, those networking meetings are much more likely to happen.

The other benefit of being assertive is that you are communicating a sense of confidence in yourself.

In Alan Klevan's presentation on Monday, he spoke about the importance of making clients feel like you will be able to give them good guidance. Clients want to be led by their attorneys.

Being assertive and proactive (e.g. --by calling your clients periodically, even when you are not actively working on a matter for them) projects a sense of confidence that builds trust, and that can ultimately lead to additional legal business.

Being assertive about building business relationships is not easy for many lawyers. We all want to believe that, somehow, just doing good work will get us noticed and bring us the success we deserve.

Unfortunately, that is a paradigm for the “good old days” when there were far fewer lawyers and there was far more legal work. So, go forth and assert yourself. But, don’t forget to pay attention to the needs of your contacts. Everyone will be happier, and your practice will grow.

SaaSafras Roots: Attorneys Moving to Web-Based Software Solutions

When you’re a blogger in demand, you can’t just post to your own blog anymore. The people demand more . . . always more. The damn people.

Time was that I was, once again, asked to guest at another blog.

Now, I’m not writing about PMAs again, so you can read on. No, this time I’m talking about SaaS; and, you can read my post, titled the same as this blog post here, here. I do hope you enjoy reading this one, and I’d like to thank the folks at muchbeta (especially Daniel Nunes), makers of the SaaS law practice management software solution, LawRD: Reports on Demand, for providing me the opportunity to blog for them, at their blog.

As you can divine from my last name, I’m Italian. Psyche. I’m actually Portuguese. But, everybody thinks I’m Italian. Surprise. So, you can imagine how happy my family was when they saw that my post also appears in Portuguese. It was like they were all hopped up on cuckoo juice, all cheek-pinching and unwanted kissing and whatnot.

. . .

Bonus points if you caught the Green Day reference.

LOMAP Re-Launches Website

Of course, we've had a website for quite some time now; it was just that that website was sort of static, difficult to update, kind of plain, didn't have a lot of ease of use and, worst of all, featured that picture of me that made me look like a done-up corpse, because it was so deeply airbrushed. Plus, it was sort of stretched out; now, I know I have a long face--this horse walks into a bar, bartender says, "Why the long face?"--but, this was ridiculous. Perhaps a feed bag should have been photoshopped in, rather than my cheeks brushed up, and forehead deoiled.

But, I'm getting off-track. The thrust of this post is that we have an awesome new website, which you should check out. The url is the same: www.masslomap.org; everything else is different . . . especially our great NEW pictures. Access our intake forms. Grab information about our start-up meetings and marketing group. Run down our upcoming events, internal and external. Learn where you can follow LOMAP via social and other media. And, etc., etc.

You'll also note that new blog posts will now appear at the front page of our website, as well; and, you'll be able to access archived blog posts through the website, too. We'll stop posting here at some point in the near future, and the LOMAP Blog's permanent home will move to the website . . . When? Well, I'll announce it right here, in a teary farewell post to the old Blogger site.

As I subtly hinted at earlier, the new website will be more dynamic (for one, more easily changeable) than the old. So, watch for new information adds and content improvements as we move forward.

I must admit, for I cannot tell a lie, that my hand in creating this website was, entirely, as follows: I agreed that Rachel should create this website. But, I'm not that obnoxious . . . I'm this obnoxious: Because, not only have I had a hand in forcing Rachel to create this website, I am now also forcing Rachel to draft a blog post on the whole harrowing experience, which post you'll be able to review right here . . . or there, and which post may be useful to you, if you're trying to revamp your own website.

Net Benefit: NetDocuments Offers Robust Document Management System for Lawyers

We’ve previously written in this space on the importance of the adoption of a records management policy for your law firm (as well as the requirement, per the Massachusetts data privacy law, of a written WISP, as a subset of that policy); and, it is important, unless you want to be calling me thirty years from now, being like, ‘Hey, man, I have, like, a ton of old client paperwork in my spaceship: What do I do?’ I don’t know, though, maybe you do want to be calling me about that. But, you probably shouldn’t. Freak. That’s obviously just an excuse to talk to me.

But, somewhen you decide to embark upon creating a records management policy, draft one, revise it, make it known, and begin to implement it, you’ll have to think about platforms. How, in actual practice, will you manage your electronic records? There are, certainly, numbers of programs to choose from: formal and informal document managers, single applications and combinations of services. But, one robust option, that works for the law firm environment, is the impressive NetDocuments. (Clever, right? -Net -Documents. Your documents on the ‘net, and stuff. Nyet? Okay.)

What is it? What does it do? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. I’m getting to it. Thank you for having indulged my introduction.

. . .

NetDocuments is a twelve-year old company (you know what that means, there is a Bar Mitzvah in the offing!--no, I won’t be there, I only attend Bar Mitzvahs with Ralph Malph from Happy Days), whose founders offer much experience in online document management and technology applications in the legal vertical (that’s my business buzzword of the week--no, I have no idea what it means, either; but, it was certainly making me sound smart until I just admitted that). (You can find out more about the origins of NetDocuments, and of the team behind NetDocuments, here.) NetDocuments has adopted the following slogan: “Content Elevated”. (I just like to include slogans in these product reviews. Don’t ask me why.) But, how is it that this said elevation of content is achieved?

Glad you asked: NetDocuments is a web-hosted, SaaS document, email and records management service. At the most basic level, NetDocuments is a place to archive and search your stuff. Beyond that, NetDocuments provides you with workspaces for organizing your documents; these workspaces can be used to establish matter-centricity (so, how everything becomes related and tagged to your client files within your derivative version of NetDocuments). With respect to documents, and in addition to the ability to tag to matters, NetDocuments allows its users to create document profiles, to manage versions, to track document history, to send email notifications related to document edits, etc., to clients and collaborators and to set document security options. And, that’s not just for documents, because NetDocuments is also NetOtherThings, including for maintenance and search of other files, like emails and webpages; in this way, NetDocuments can become your singular file repository, a veritable Fort Knox for all your most important stuff--that last part because they utilize redundant backup at secure server locations, and apply other security measures as well (more on this later), in order to safeguard all of your Net documents. You’ll also be able to do some deep dives respecting document search for everything within your NetDocuments baby universe, utilizing a method that is as familiar, and similarly capable and reliable, as Google’s. You can also continue to use your prevailing applications, like for document creation and emailing, in much the same way that you do now, only with NetDocument’s features being grafted upon your existing tools. NetDocuments is even syncable with accounting systems. Being an SaaS program, NetDocuments shares the virtue that all of those sorts of programs do: if you have an internet connection (preferably a secure one), you have your NetDocuments; and, further, you’ll have that access from any internet-ready device, including mobile devices. If you’re offline, NetDocuments offers access via offline “echo folders”--work when you need to, and the documents from your “echo folders” will be updated to NetDocuments, when you’re again reconnected.

If you stopped reading somewhere in the middle of that last paragraph because your eyes were glazing over, well, that’s cool. NetDocuments also has a quick two minute video describing the basic features of their platform in the legal vertical (tee-hee); you can view that video here. And, that’s not all they’ve got. NetDocuments appears to be gunning for some kind of unofficial Guinness World Record related to gross weight of web support. If you have any questions about NetDocuments, they’ve got you covered, with: a general “Support” page, including a great “Getting Started” guide, with lots of visuals and screenshots, and an FAQ; a robust “Community” homepage, with links for Forums, a Marketplace, an Idea Bank, a list of Channel Partners and the NetDocuments blog; a “Follow NetDocs” tab at the homepage, featuring connections to all of NetDocuments various social media portals; and, a series of video demos. Never let it be said that you could not find out everything you ever wanted to know about NetDocuments on the web. (And, we’ve, at least tangentially, previously, addressed the importance of product support, especially of the free variety, of this sort of "self-help on the internet" strain. In the realm of PDF, for example, Nuance and Adobe Acrobat aren’t all that different; however, you can find tons of forums and free advice on the use of Adobe online, and that throws them even further over the top, in my calculus. Remeber: robust online community discussion = free and easy product support, for the savvy gent, and lady.)

Not that you couldn’t find out about all of this yourself online, or at the above-mapped spaces; but, I want to take a little more time, here, in nearing the end, to cover some of the less obvious (unmain) features, of the NetDocuments system, that I like particularly: The ability to share documents and to collaborate on documents in a secure environment, is impressive, and easy of achievement. Internally, you can create an essential extranet, using NetDocuments as your engine, sharing documents via “workspaces”; externally, you can collaborate with clients and colleagues, easily, effectively and securely, through “net binders”, featuring security settings and access controls. NetDocuments allows you, as well, to create file retention policy definitions. Although lawyers have always tended to throw nothing out, ever, this is a good step in the right direction for those law firms starting to realize the cost of unnecessary storage, and for those who should be (i.e.--everybody else). You can also utilize NetDocuments for the archiving of emails; and, for an additional fee, you can purchase a program add-on that will allow you to drag and drop, within Outlook, direct to your NetDocuments folders. With respect to the security of your uploaded information, NetDocuments offers a number of important features. Access to documents is by unique username and password, with administrators having the ability to establish further security protocols. Connection to NetDocuments is via https://; each document remains encrypted until is opened, and is encrypted again once closed, or saved. As mentioned above, all content is stored in redundant and secure data centers. But, perhaps the most impressive of NetDocuments features is its searching capability. Its advanced search fields are active across your entire database. Searches sweep wide, but can be focused to granular matter. Learning and utilizing the search functions is a quick pick-up. Maybe the best way to view the search capabilities of NetDocuments in action, without actually owning the product, is to schedule a live demo of the system, which you can so schedule via NetDocuments’ demos homepage.

If, after reading the above, you have an interest in NetDocuments, you should, as with any product that you are vetting, schedule that live demo, and then try it before you buy it: take the month-long free trial, to see exactly how it would work in your environment.

If you do decide to purchase NetDocuments, you’re looking at the most basic package running you $20/month. From there, you can upgrade with professional editions and add-ons, which will all increase that monthly price. NetDocuments outlines its pricing structure, and attendant features, here.

But, you, o! faithful reader of the LOMAP Blog, didn’t think you were going to be paying freight, did you? Hell, naw. (That is, “Hell, naw . . . if you happen to be reading this by December 31, 2010”. There is always fine print.)

Through the end of 2010, LOMAP Blog Readers will receive a 10% discount on NetDocuments. When you buy, just mention the LOMAP Blog, or LOMAP, or Jared Correia, or Rodney Dowell. Or, the KFC Double Down. Actually, that last one is the fake one. In fact, you shouldn’t even eat the Double Down; you’ll probably suffer a massive heart attack somewhere in the midpoint of your orgiastic celebration of transfat.

. . .

Liner Notes

In continuing a fine tradition (well, this is only the second time; so, perhaps we’re still only in the starting a fine tradition stage), I have asked my vendor contact on a product review to provide me with some selections and reflections for the Liner Notes section of the blog. (No one has yet picked a bluegrass song, and that kind of disappoints me. But, I’m over it, because . . .)

Danny Johnson of NetDocuments has put together a fine selection of songs and attendant commentary, as follows:

I’ll give you five songs that I jam out to while reading the LOMAP Blog, and any other time I get the chance:

“Walking on a Dream” by Empire of the Sun

-I dare you not to dance while listening to this.

“Ready to Start” by Arcade Fire

-Awesome band, awesome song.

“The Gambler” by fun

-I tried, but could not long resist the effervescent charm of this song.

“Nineteen” by Tegan and Sara

-I really don’t know why I love this song?

“Cosmic Love” by Florence + the Machine

-It’s poetry, it’s narrative and it’s love.

Guest Post: Survey Says . . . Law Firm Timekeeping is the Pits

We’re pleased this week to have received the guest blog post that will follow from Brett Owens, CEO and co-founder of Chrometa, a time-tracking solution used, in the main, by attorneys. (If Chrometa sounds familiar to you, it’s because I reviewed the product for the ABA’s GP|Solo magazine; you may find my review linked from here.) Brett, a Cornell man, much like our own Rodney Dowell, set to creating Chrometa following his tiring of hearing time tracking complaints emanating from an attorney friend. Brett below covers two surveys related to the difficulties attendant upon attorney time tracking, and features two products capable of easing the burden. (I’ll let you guess what one of those products is.)

. . .

Hate tracking your billable time? You’re not alone.

Legal consulting firm Adam Smith, Esq., recently conducted an extensive survey of the timekeeping habits of attorneys, including querying them as to their general sentiments toward the infamous billable hour.

Results showed that there is, apparently, no love lost for the billable hour method of timekeeping. Such disenchantment with the system, and frustrations in seeking, and not finding, effective ways to capture time, however, mean that money slips away from firms, through the inefficiencies brought about by ad hoc time capture measures executed by their, largely unsuccessful, would-be time captors.

The Adam Smith survey responses returned as follows:

-Surprisingly (or, rather, not suprisingly), lawyers hate timekeeping: “The bane of my existence” and “The worst part of law firm life” being representative comments.

-The average leakage (that is, the failure of lawyers and other timekeepers to report all billable time), ranges from $20,000 to nearly $40,000 annually, per individual.

-The overhead costs of keeping time are very heavy, represented by a mean 3.1 hours/individual/month devoted to filling out timesheets. The mean billing rate of respondents was $438 per hour, indicating an imputed cost of $16,294/person/year.

If you want more, you can review the entirety of the survey results here.

But, we’re not done with surveys quite yet. Last year, Chrometa conducted its own survey, querying over 500 solo and small firm attorneys on their timekeeping habits. Similar to their large firm counterparts, as represented by the Adam Smith study, the solo attorneys and small firm managers responding to Chrometa’s survey indicated that they, too, dreaded the time capture process, and that they, too, were losing out on money, in attempting to capture the service time that they had rendered to clients.

The highlights of our survey were as follows:

-Respondents estimated that, on average, they only accounted for 67% of their legitimate billable time.

-Respondents indicated that, each week, they spent over 2 hours simply reconciling their time.

-The most common timekeeping methods ascribed were simple, handwritten notes and/or spreadsheets.

You may review the complete results of our survey here, at my “Maximize Your Billable Time” blog.

If I may summarize the combined results of these surveys, I think that they indicate that: traditional timekeeping sucks. This, of course, begs the question: What can be done to improve the process?

There are electronic timekeeping methods available to the modern practitioner. Obviously, Chrometa is one; and, you may visit our website for further details on our product offering, as well as taking a look at Jared’s review of our product. Smart Time, sponsor of the Adam Smith survey, offers an excellent time capture system for medium- to large-sized law firms. If you can relate to some of the survey responses reviewed above, then perhaps it’s time for you to check out an electronic/web time capture system, so that you may escape from the timekeeping nightmare otherwise faced by so many of your peers.

Tarheel, Boy: North Carolina Bar Association Proposed Ethics Opinion Helpful for Compliance with Massachusetts Data Privacy Law

Before we get started, I’d like to direct your attention to a really great cause (keep reading, this will cost you no money) that my friend Jamie alerted me to:

The Cystic Fybrosis Foundation is seeking $250,000 through the Pepsi Refresh Project to purchase and distribute breathing devices for infants with cystic fibrosis. If you want to help, please vote for the project here. Voting ends September 30.

What’s good about the Pepsi Refresh Project: (1) It’s not your money, it’s Pepsi’s. (2) All you have to do is register and vote. (3) It makes it easy to do something good today.

. . .

We’ve written here numerous times in relation to the new (becoming less new by the day) Massachusetts data privacy law and regulations (you may find all of our said musings linked out from this root post, on email encryption). (Yes, there’s still more to say. C’mon, I have to stay busy. Don’t make me write about being offline again, because I will.) One of the most vexing requirements of the revised regulations is that Massachusetts businesses, including (one more time, now:) solo and small firm attorneys (and any attorneys, or law offices, for that matter), maintaining statutorily-protected resident information must first vet, and then contract with (so that they will faithfully uphold the Massachusetts data privacy laws, too), third party vendors/service providers who will have access to their confidential information. We’ve discussed the potential difficulties with these requirements previously, here, specifically. For those of you unable, or unwilling, to click back, the essential difficulty is, as follows: How are you supposed to vet service providers without any guidance on how to do so? What if the service provider won’t sign off on a contract provision/you can’t get them to even address the issue of a contract provision (for the latter development, think of massive conglomerates, like Google and Microsoft)?

Stepping, anthropomorphically, forward, to fill the breach, just a little bit, is a proposed ethics opinion of the North Carolina Bar Association. The opinion, formally--perhaps that’s a redundant adverb in this case--known as (proposed) 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 7, ostensibly addresses whether and how an attorney/law firm may select an SaaS (software as a service) provider. In addition to providing some good background information on what SaaS is, and how it functions in the legal environment, the opinion addresses two broad matters: First, North Carolina says, or, proposes, as of now, that its attorneys may use SaaS in their practice of law so long as steps are taken to avoid the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. (Sound familiar?) Second, North Carolina, via this proposed opinion, offers a list (with the appropriate caveats) of 14 question sets meant to vet potential SaaS vendor companies’ risk factors for inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. (And, despite North Carolina’s lack of a data privacy statute similar to that adopted by Massachusetts, note that the third question set contains queries respecting contracting between vendors in relation to a lawyer’s professional duties and with respect to a potential agency relationship between the lawyer and vendor company; this suggests that contracting with vendors for risk minimization, with respect to data privacy, may be moving into the sphere of best practice, where it is not a legal requirement.)

But, What (more) does this mean for you, Massachusetts lawyer? Well, although there has been no similar ethical pronouncement respecting the use of SaaS by Massachusetts attorneys, the North Carolina Bar Association, through its proposed ethics opinion, provides, likely unwittingly, Massachusetts businesspersons with some guidance with respect to the two main issues related to the third party vendor vetting and contracting provisions of the Massachusetts data privacy regulations:

How are you supposed to vet service providers without any guidance on how to do so?

Well, now you’ve got 14 question sets to start with.

What if the service provider won’t sign off on a contract provision/you can’t get them to even address the issue of a contract provision (for the latter development, think of massive conglomerates, like Google and Microsoft)?

As we’ve said here at the blog before, if you can’t get the contract provision, you’re not strictly in compliance with the regulations. The semi-official answer, if you can’t get the contract provision, is that you should then look for similar service providers, until you find one who can do something for you close to what your original (preferred?) service provider would have done, but while signing off on a contract provision to uphold the Massachusetts regulations on data privacy in relation to their accessing of your data. But, What if you really liked your original service provider? What if they were an industry leader, perhaps the industry leader? Maybe the large, industry-leading company is just ignoring your efforts to contract with them, because they can. And, What if the similar service providers down on your list don’t vet well? Well, then, you’ve got two aspects of the statute butting against each other. Then this becomes a matter of risk management. Will appropriate vetting coupled with aggressive efforts to contract mean substantial compliance? Perhaps. But, no one knows for sure. If you believe that substantial compliance will become compliance, and you’re willing to take the risk of bypassing strict compliance, then your substantial compliance will look far better the deeper your vetting process is. Using the North Carolina question sets to begin vetting your service providers is a step in the appropriate direction, and will serve to buttress your general vetting procedure, a record of which, in addition to efforts to contract, will represent your stab at substantial compliance.

Some further notes:

-If this was not laid out clearly enough previously, it is an essential point, warranting reiteration: When you are vetting service providers and inquiring about contracts and contract provisions, keep records of everything you do. This is the building of your case for substantial compliance.

-The North Carolina Bar Association Ethics Committee has decided to send the proposed ethics opinion to a subcommittee for further study. So, if an official version of this ethics opinion is released, it may look a little different from the version we are seeing today, and which has been linked out from this post.

-To learn more about SaaS in the legal field, check out this episode of my podcast.

-No, not every vendor is SaaS; but, the majority of those that access your electronic data will be.

. . .

Liner Notes

The fact that summer is ending is making me crazy. I want to reverse the rotation of the Earth, like a certain super man; but, alas, I cannot: Rodney keeps kryptonite in a jar in the office that I can’t touch.

I mean, it’s just unfair. This summer was bomb. I mean, the weather was dope, like all summer. I went to Branson. Played a ton of mini-golf. (Yes, I play miniature golf, and I’m awesome at it.) Found my favorite summer song in a long time: Brad Paisley’s “Water”. So, you can understandably blame my agitated state of mind for what I am about to do . . .

Here are some of the SaaSiest songs (haha!, I know) I know:

“I’m Too Sexy” by Right Said Fred

“Tubthumping” by Chumbawamba

“Groove Is In the Heart” by Deee-Lite

“Buffalo Stance” by Neneh Cherry (Gigolo. Suckah.)

“Push It” by Salt ‘n’ Pepa

“You’re the One That I Want” by John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John (from “Grease”)

“Steal My Sunshine” by Len

“Fly” by Sugar Ray

“I Want It That Way” by Backstreet Boys

“Dressed for Success” by Roxette (Roxette is one of my favorite bands ever. Yes. No, seriously.)

“MMMBop” by Hanson

“Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)” by C + C Music Factory

“Unbelievable” by EMF

Wow. Is it 1990 in here, or is just me?

(Really, there’s nothing like some truly godawful 90’s pop music to lead you hurtling into your weekend. And, yes, I knew when “Unbelievable” came out without even looking it up.)

Yes, I’m ashamed. Thanks for asking.

(See, Rachel, you’re not the only one with absolutely horrific taste in music.)