This is one of those things that catches everyone by surprise right before the annual AALL conference. W.S. Hein and Fastcase announced this morning that they are forming a partnership to integrate content on each platform and create a more extensive legal research database. This is the sort of thing that everyone expected from Aspen/CCH/Loislaw a few years ago, but never really happened. Having worked over the years with both Fastcase and Hein Online, I have to personally say that this partnership has great potential. I’m looking forward to seeing how it all works out and what the final products look like.

Here’s the press release from this morning.

Hein and Fastcase Announce Publishing Partnership
Hein to Include Hyperlinks to Caselaw and Bad Law Bot;Fastcase to Offer Law Reviews and Historical State Statutes and Session Laws


BUFFALO, NY and WASHINGTON, DC (PRWEB) July 09, 2013

Independent legal publishers William S. Hein & Co. and Fastcase today announced a new partnership in which the companies will share complementary strengths for the benefit of their members.
Under the agreement, Hein will provide federal and state case law to HeinOnline subscribers via inline hyperlinks powered by Fastcase. In addition, Fastcase will completely integrate HeinOnline’s extensive law review and historical state statute collection in search results, with full access available to Fastcase subscribers who additionally subscribe to Hein’s law review database.
The partnership combines Hein’s expertise in publishing law journals and historical statutory materials and Fastcase’s experience in publishing American primary law. It offers users of both services a complete, integrated legal research experience.
“Fastcase and HeinOnline are two of the largest independent legal publishers in America,” said Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase. “Integrating these two libraries is a home run for our members. Both services create unique values based on citation analysis and the information architecture of the law. Beyond the fantastic new libraries our users can access, we’re also making our tools smarter as they learn from these new citation relationships.”
As a result of the agreement, Hein’s federal case coverage includes the judicial opinions of the Supreme Court (1754-present), Federal Circuits (1924-present), Board of Tax Appeals (vols. 1-47), Tax Court Memorandum Decisions (vols. 1-59), U.S. Customs Court (vols. 1-70), Board of Immigration Appeals (1996-present), Federal District Courts (1924-present), and Federal Bankruptcy Courts (1 B.R. 1-present). The state case law covers all fifty states with nearly half of the states dating back to the 1800’s. Coverage for the remaining states dates back to approximately 1950.
HeinOnline subscribers also will be able to take advantage of Authority Check, an integrated citation analysis tool developed by Fastcase. When cases are called by HeinOnline, Fastcase’s Authority Check tool will include one of Fastcase’s newest features, “Bad Law Bot”, which uses algorithms to identify negative citation history. These services will be integrated into all HeinOnline subscriptions, which will add tremendous value at no additional cost.
Concurrently, Hein will provide HeinOnline materials to Fastcase, allowing Fastcase users to search across content available in the Law Journal Library, Session Laws Library, State Attorney General Reports and Opinions, and State Statutes: A Historical Archive. The new libraries will be fully integrated into Fastcase’s search system, and Fastcase users will see Hein results and abstracts for free, with subscription options for the full articles. The Hein collection will include more than 1,800 law reviews back to their first volumes, and represents the first secondary material to be integrated into the Fastcase legal research service.
The integrated libraries will be available on both services at the end of the summer.
About HeinOnline: Produced by William S. Hein & Co., Inc., HeinOnline includes nearly 100 million pages of legal history available in an online, fully-searchable, image-based format. HeinOnline bridges the gap in legal history by providing comprehensive coverage from inception of more than 1,800 law and law-related periodicals. In addition to its vast collection of law journals, HeinOnline also contains the Congressional Record Bound volumes in their entirety, complete coverage of the U.S. Reports back to 1754, famous world trials dating back to the early 1700′s, legal classics from the 16th to the 20th centuries, the United Nations and League of Nations Treaty Series, all United States Treaties, the Federal Register from inception in 1936, the CFR from inception in 1938, and much more. For more information about HeinOnline, please visit http://home.heinonline.org.
About Fastcase: As the smarter alternative for legal research, Fastcase democratizes the law, making it more accessible to more people. Using patented software that combines the best of legal research with the best of Web search, Fastcase helps busy users sift through the clutter, ranking the best cases first and enabling the re-sorting of results to find answers fast. Founded in 1999, Fastcase has more than 500,000 subscribers from around the world. Fastcase is an American company based in Washington, D.C. For more information, follow Fastcase on Twitter at @Fastcase, or visit http://www.fastcase.com.
###

Time is Money
Image [cc] Tax Credits

Back in January, Tom Wolfe wrote a Newsweek article called Eunuchs of the Universe where he articulated the new style of Wall Street versus the Wall Street that most of us knew. Instead of a raucous gathering of traders in a pit, scrawling information on sheets of paper and signaling wildly to buy or sell the next trade, today’s traders work on computer networks designed to take advantage of milliseconds and use it as a strategic advantage over competitors or to find flaws within the system to nearly guarantee a profit. High-speed networks were optimized and placed along specific geographical corridors in order to have bids, orders and sales conducted ahead of other traders. These days, speed, technology, and out-geeking the next trader is where it’s at. A few milliseconds meant the difference between a good deal and a great deal. It was no longer about being Gordon Gekko and the sexy, ruthless player in a pinstriped suit… now the hero of Wall Street would be to find Doctor Who and travel milliseconds back in time to make trades.

Imagine how powerful you could be if you could beat the competition by two-seconds? Wolfe would have had a field day in his article had he known that a mere $6,000 a month could buy you that information a full two-seconds earlier than your competition. I’m sure he would have written an entire chapter on that story and how the geeks could upload financial outlook reports into massive supercomputers and have trades ready to buy or sell a full one-second before the competition even had the report in hand. What a story that would be.

The only problem is… it isn’t really fiction at all. Turns out that Thomson Reuters has been doing this very thing with the University of Michigan’s Consumer Confidence Index. It pays Michigan an amount North of $1 million each year to release the information five-minutes before UM launches it on its website. The money management companies pay a premium to Thomson Reuters for the information. That practice is well known. It is the secondary practice that goes on that has caught the eye of New York Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman. Apparently, a five minute head start over the public is not good enough. A five-minute and two-second advantage has been given to an elite group of about a dozen clients from Thomson Reuters. Schneiderman seems to think that this little group may be receiving an unfair advantage and investigating whether this preferential treatment is a fair and appropriate business practice.

Thomson Reuters claims that the tiered pricing is not illegal and that as a private company it can disseminate the information any way it pleases, so long as it disclosed to those purchasing the information. Schneiderman seems to be channeling his inner Eliot Spitzer on this one and is bringing out the Martin Act to challenge practices that are deemed unfair, even if technically legal. Regardless, it would be naive to think that this type of tiered access is limited to this one report.

Luckily for us in the legal field, we aren’t tied to milliseconds like our counterparts in the financial industry. However, what if we could pay a premium to Thomson Reuters to let us know of law suits filed against certain companies a few minutes before they let our peer firms know? Would law firms pay to be on the top-tier of that knowledge? It makes me wonder if anyone on the financial side of Thomson Reuters is brainstorming of ways to bring this practice over to the legal side of the house as a way of enhancing revenues? What could law firms do with a few two-second head start over our competitors? Most of us believe that law firms are far to slow to react to this type of advantage, however, the idea is a fascinating one to contemplate.

A truly gifted and uniquely skilled artisan
crafting an iron nail by hand. 


Image [CC] – Calvin Lee 

Jane:  Legal Process Outsourcing is a brilliant idea whose time has come, Dan. I think we will see a number of high profile firms begin to partner with LPOs in the next few years. Whereas it was once unthinkable for a firm to take on low margin, high-volume work, now they can provide those kinds of services to their clients without making a large investment in specialized technology or increasing headcount.  An LPO partnership is that rarest of business opportunities, the win-win-win for the client, the firm, and the third party LPO.

Dan:  More like a draw-lose-win, if you ask me.  The client’s going to get their high-volume busy work done by some lesser entity whether the firm gets involved or not. Meanwhile, the firm takes on the administrative headaches and expenses for commodity work that, if word got around, would only serve to diminish their reputation as a purveyor of fine legal services. Even worse, the firm loses the margin on work that, if they had done on their own, would have been profitable.  In fact, by my reckoning, the only real winner in an LPO/BigLaw partnership is the LPO, who would no longer need to invest in marketing or sales people.

Jane:  So, say a client comes to you with a serious problem that involves high-volume work – you would turn them away saying that such work was beneath you?

Dan:  You may not have noticed Jane, but the P in LPO stands for “process”; clients just don’t bring “process” work to elite law firms like mine. But for the sake of argument, if they did, we would politely explain that, while we are certainly capable of such work, having us perform such menial tasks would be the artistic and financial equivalent of having Van Gogh and Vermeer paint your bathroom walls. 

Jane:  Well, maybe if your attorneys all wear White Shoes, you can afford to turn away higher volume, lower value work, but….

Dan:  The petty little firms you work with, Jane, may benefit from partnering with LPOs. But our BigLaw attorneys are legal artisans.  Process, who cares about process?  We recruit only the top tier of law school grads from the tippy-top tier of law schools. The legal counsel we provide our clients is the product of the finest, most creative, and talented legal minds on the planet. That kind of craftsmanship is simply incompatible with the industrial processing of an LPO.  Do you think any of the law schools we recruit from even have a clue what process is, much less teach it?

Some guy working through a process
to build a high performance truck engine. 

Image [CC] – Scania Group

Jane:  As usual, genius, your ego has been partying with your ignorance leaving you a little too impaired to see the opportunity right in front of you.  If you hadn’t cut me off, I was going to say that despite your BigLaw and Top 10 Law School snobbery, you are actually making very good arguments for an LPO partnership.  OK, so process work is beneath you, fine; all the more reason to pass it on to someone who specializes in the process. All clients, no matter how elite, have commodity type legal work that needs to be done.  Rather than sending your client away to look for another provider, why not partner with an LPO that can do that work for you?  The client gets one stop legal shopping, the LPO gets an endorsement from your firm, and your firm gets all the benefits of more staff, specialized technology, and process expertise, without actually investing in any of it. Plus, you get additional billable hours for supervising the LPO!  With a formal partnership, you will never have to scramble to do high-volume work when you suddenly wake up one day and realize it’s in your interest!    

Dan:   Like I said, we are artisans, not engineers or short order cooks.  

Jane:  Forget about what kind of work you do or don’t do! With an LPO partnership you’ll get a better price for LPO services and you might even make a little profit on the outsourced work.  You’ll get to offer your clients a better value than they could get on their own and keep more of their business – maybe even more of that high end work you covet.  And, if you’re lucky, some of those industrial processes might just rub off on your firm. Tracking a few metrics, better information governance, productivity monitoring and reporting; these could all improve the efficient delivery of your uber-artisanal legal product.

Dan:  In the history of the world, Jane, no high quality custom craftwork has ever been improved through systematized process improvement. 

Jane:  Have you heard of the Industrial Revolution? 

Dan:  Were they a hair band in the 80s?  

Jane:  Um… sure.

Dan:  What did they sing again?

Jane:  You’re too stupid to live.  

Dan:  Oh yeah!  I loved that song! 


[Ed. Thanks to Ron Friedmann for suggesting this D&J topic and for providing the bulk of their arguments this week.  Dan and Jane and the rest of us Geeks thank you Ron!  If you have a suggestion for a future D&J post, shoot Dan and Jane an email at dandj3geeks (at) gmail (dot) com.]

I knew that July 1st would be its final day, but I hoped that someone at the “Don’t Be Evil” Empire of Google would call upon the leaders of the company and give it a last minute reprieve. No call was made, and no last minute stay of execution was issued. Sometime last night my good friend and companion, Google Reader, ceased to be. A switch somewhere in Mountain View, California was flipped and the sparkling lights that flickered on some piece of hardware went dim and was replaced by a cold, stern message that pointed me to alternative friends and companions that could be just as good. But, we all know that it is not true.

Like many of you that I know, Google Reader wasn’t just a place to pull all of your blogs and websites together for easy navigation. It was a launching point for passing that information along to others, or building upon the results in ways that made the sum of the whole greater than all of the little RSS feed parts. It was sent to things like Flipboard, or on to Twitter feeds. It was linked to portal pages and into databases. It was more than a simple RSS feed, it was a conduit to passing and pursuing more information. It was a touchstone that pulled so many different pieces of information together and made it all make sense, at least in my head.

As with most disaster relief plans, you hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. We’ve all pulled our data out of Google Reader and went on to the next best thing, but it still doesn’t replace the old companion we’ve known for so long. I understand Google’s reasoning for killing off a great product (they are, after all, about revenues and profits), but I don’t agree with their rationale. The push for their Google+ product could have brought Reader into that fold, and brought many of us along with it. However, that logic never played out.

Reader was great. Reader was reliable. Reader was a constant that was swallowed up by the constant change that faces us these days. I’ll survive. I’ll move on. I’ll find another. Eventually the habit of checking my various Reader outlets will be replaced by other habits. But, just like my old Mustang I had as a teenager, I will remember Reader with a fondness.

Goodbye.



Five
Image [cc] Aftab Uzzaman

Interesting post from Julie Neidlinger entitled, “Who You Follow on Social Media Is Changing You.” I read it over the weekend and really didn’t think too much about what she was saying at the time, but I sent out at Tweet to let others know the article was worth a read. Caren Silverman sent a follow up to my tweet where she asked “Have you experienced this?” It was that response that made me go back to the original article and begin asking how much am I affected by those that I follow on social media??

The juxt of the article says that the five people you spend the most time change your Mind, Attitude, and your Interests, and that you should select those people carefully… both in your physical world, and your online world.

I have a pretty small circle of people I hang out with in the ‘real world’, but a very large circle of people I hang out with in social media. In both worlds, there is such a diversity in the relationships that I feel that I really shouldn’t introduce them to each other as they have such different opinions that they wouldn’t get along. I especially noticed this during the 2012 presidential election, and right now I see serious divides along the whole Paula Deen situation. I really like this diversity because it gives me different perspectives, even though I’m pretty set in my opinions. Hearing multiple opinions of the same topic really helps me solidify my own ideas, while remaining empathetic to those on the other side of an issue.

The diversity also helps expose me to things that I might otherwise miss. If I only had Law Librarian friends, I might miss out on issues related to pricing or marketing. If I only had friends that listened to girl-punk-bands from Los Angeles, I might miss out on a great Jazz musician that died thirty years ago. If I only listened to my current friends, I might miss out on some events that are happening with my friends in the Army or in High School, or even from Grade School.

Speaking from my own experience, I’d have to say that who you follow does affect you because it expands your experiences. How you let it change you is really up to you. Neidlinger says that it is okay to be selective in your networks, that it is okay to say no when you don’t like how you react to certain people, and that you can be exclusive in who you include in your networks. The results of how you let others impact your own personality, beliefs, and practices are really up to you. So, choose wisely, add and weed occasionally, and always remember who were yesterday, who you are today, and who you want to be tomorrow.

Richard and Maya Hsu of The One Page Blog

“Today, with the help of my thirteen year old daughter…”

This is how my former colleague, Richard Hsu, now a partner at Shearman & Sterling starts his “HsuTube” videos on complex transactional legal concepts. We’ve covered Richard before when he and I both worked at the same law firm. We’ve since moved on to new firms, but keep in contact a lot via Twitter. He has a way of presenting information through video that is quite interesting, informative, and unique. Of course, as great as Richard is, his 13 year old daughter, Maya, is really the star of these videos.

Richard recently pointed me to some of the remastered videos that he and Maya recorded. He rented a studio for the videos that came with a lighted backdrop and a translucent board so that Maya could sit down and draw. Even so, he said that it took 8 hours to complete all the drawings and that Maya is probably retiring after this session. Let’s hope not because the finished videos are amazing.

I wondered what he does to get Maya to help him. After all, I’m still trying to get my 13 year old daughter to sing punk rock songs with me… (maybe I can have her draw for me instead!) Richard commented to me that:

The main reason I did these videos was not necessarily to do something that looks corporate or professional, but because it gave me a chance to do something creative with my daughter.

After looking at them, I knew I should share them with our readers for a couple of reasons. First, it is just good information and explains a complex topic in a way that even a law school grad like me can understand (it never really sunk in during law school.) Second, I’m a big fan of people that find creative ways of displaying information. Richard and Maya do that in spades. So, was it all Richard’s idea and concepts on how to display it? Turns out that Maya actually brings a lot to the [drawing] table according to Richard:

A lot of the drawing ideas were her suggestions and it was fun to bounce ideas off her and come up with the final pictures

So, go take a look at the videos below. It might make you want to become a transactional attorney… or, it may inspire you to find unique and creative ways to present your own expertise on a subject. Being able to visualize along with teaching is a great way to make teaching a difficult subject a little easier. Great job Maya… oh, and you did a good job, too, Richard!

IP Assets in an M&A Transaction: http://hsutube.com/ip-assets-m-a/

Assignment in a Change of Control: http://hsutube.com/assign-coc/ (inspired by Mike Kennedy)

Collaborative Development Financing: http://hsutube.com/collab-dev-fin/ (inspired by Mark Kessel)

IP Ownership in a Joint Development: http://hsutube.com/ip-ownership/

Reseller vs. License: http://hsutube.com/reseller-vs-license/

What is the Licensed Property? http://hsutube.com/licensed-prop/

In this day and age of constant communications and observation, I guess the announcement from TLO shouldn’t surprise me as much as it did. It seems that TLO is launching a new service tomorrow that will use License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology and will return to you the places, times and dates that those license plates (and presumably the car it is attached) were spotted by the LPR and give you “the historical whereabouts of both individuals and vehicles.”

I haven’t seen the reports yet, but I’m not sure whether I’m impressed that TLO has this ability now, or scared that this type of information is out there for public consumption. I’m also going to guess that this type of survellance to public record searching technology is only going to get bigger as time goes on.

So… in just reading this press release, are you:

  • impressed
  • scared
  • meh
  • moving to Europe

Important Admin Information: TLO Unveils Vehicle Sightings
Tomorrow
TLO®
Unveils Vehicle Sightings
Starting Thursday,
June 27, 2013
Important
Administrator information – Please Read
Groundbreaking
Vehicle Sightings to be Released Tomorrow To TLOxp Users
 
Using
state-of-the-art License
Plate Recognition (LPR) technology, Vehicle Sightings
searches and reports provide valuable information for both locating
subjects and investigating the historical whereabouts of both individuals
and vehicles.
 
TLOxp’s Vehicle
Sightings Search
Instantly
returns a free preview of nationwide sightings available for the subject
license plate.
 
TLOxp’s In-Depth
Vehicle Sightings Report
Your
account receives 5 free reports! This
powerful report provides detailed information including actual
photographs of the vehicle and plate with time and geographic stamps for
each individual sighting. Integrated with online mapping tools, visual
pinpoint location information is available with a single click.
 
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ADMINISTRATORS:
  • If you utilize User
    Groups
    for managing your users, you will need to activate Vehicle Sightings
    for your users. This can be done easily by clicking “My Account” and
    then selecting the “User Groups” tab.  Vehicle Sightings will
    be available for selection upon product release.
  • If you do not utilize
    User Groups    ,
    Vehicle Sightings will be automatically available to your users upon
    release. You may customize your users’ access by setting up User
    Groups. Additionally, you may restrict access to this report upon
    release by clicking “My Account” and then selecting the “Users” tab.
 
PLEASE NOTE that this report is not included in any flat
rate or per seat pricing plans and is available only on a transactional
basis. After your account’s 5 free reports have been run, you will be
billed per report.
 
Vehicle Sightings
Report Pricing*
5
FREE Vehicle Sightings Reports, (Per
TLOxp account. Expires August 1, 2013)
$
10
per category Choose from current, recent, or historical.
$
25
Receive all three categories for one great price.
*Vehicle
Sightings Reports are free during a TLOxp trial period.
 
Have
questions or need assistance?
Please
contact your sales representative or Customer Support at 888-493-2209
or CustomerSupport@TLO.com

Dan: You may not know this Jane, but I’ve been moving into more of a Pricing role at my firm.

Jane: I’m impressed.  And a little frightened for the well being of your firm.

Dan:  Every firm needs to have at least one person focused on determining the right price and fee structure for every matter.

Jane: I completely agree.

Dan: … But…?

Jane: No but. For once I think you’re right, Dan.

Dan: …really? I’m may need to reconsider my position.

Jane:  No, I think this is may be one issue where the reality of the situation is so clear that we can’t help but agree.

Dan: Wow! That’s kind of strange.  I guess it had to happen some time.  And this is so obvious.  Someone has to calculate revenue and expenses to determine profitability and most attorneys aren’t capable or interested in economics. Without someone in that role, how would you ever determine the lowest possible bid to get more work?

Jane:  I’m sorry?

Dan:  I mean, with so many clients issuing RFPs for new matters now, someone has to have an idea of how  low they can go?  Otherwise, attorneys will just make up a number. And you don’t want them to do th…

Jane: That’s how you’re doing pricing?

Dan: That IS pricing.

Jane: That’s dumb. Pricing isn’t about determining the lowest price you can possibly charge.  That’s a shortcut to bankruptcy.  Pricing is about building a relationship with the client and understanding their needs. Often clients aren’t looking for the lowest price, they’re looking for a firm that is flexible enough to build fee arrangements around their needs.

Dan: I don’t follow. If you bid the lowest, then you get more work.  More work is more revenue.  Which means everyone makes more money!

Jane: And they’re paying you for this brilliant financial insight?  Pricing Legal services is not like selling used cars. You can’t just put out an ad that says, “Will not be under bid! Lowest Price Lawyers in Town!”

Dan: How did you…?  Do you have….?  That ad doesn’t go out until next week.

Jane: You’re an idiot and apparently you have one in marketing too.  Pricing is an offensive strategic business development tool.  The way you do it is entirely defensive and reactionary.  Suppose I was a client and I came to you with an RFP, what is your first move?

Dan: Offer 10 percent off our standard rates.

Jane: And if the client balks?

Dan: 20 percent. We don’t tell them, but 35 is absolutely our lowest offer.  Although, for big clients, we might go to 40.

Jane: And you’re doing this with all of your clients?

Dan: No, of course not.  Just the ones we think might be considering hiring other firms. The rest we just bill at our standard hourly rates.

Jane: What’s the written equivalent of a face palm?  Has it occurred to you to be proactive with your pricing?  Take the time to get to know and understand the client.  Ask them about their concerns.  Where are they getting pressure to reduce legal spending? What headaches are their outside counsel causing them?  Take that information and offer the client an alternative fee structure tailored to meet THEIR needs BEFORE they even ask you for a discount!  Pricing legal matters is not strictly about getting more business, it’s about making clients happier, which WILL ultimately get you more business!  You are an incompetent imbecile, a danger to your firm, and should be fired immediately!  Why are you smiling?

Dan: We’re disagreeing again.

Jane:  Feel better?

Dan:  Much.

Jane:  Me too.

I wasn’t a part of the not quite 3 Beer lunch that Greg and Toby had last week that spawned their last two posts. (They never invite me to anything.) But you know me, ignorance has never kept me from espousing an opinion.

There is a clear connection between Greg’s recognition that certain people have different personalities online and off, while some seem to have no personality in either place, and Toby’s revelation that attorneys only embraced email because it allowed them to avoid speaking with clients or anyone else.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that many attorneys fall into Greg’s 3rd Band Member category.  Generally, they don’t like people. They like to practice law, or play music in a band, and they don’t really care for the social aspect of their job whether online or in real life. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s just the way some people are. I didn’t see the band’s performance (again, not invited) but I would bet no one put more effort or energy into that performance than #3. He probably wasn’t the most exciting to watch on stage, but he put in the most hours of practice and he was the most focused on the job at hand during the performance. He probably didn’t smile, or even look up from the instrument. He was in the zone while the more social hooligans were jumping around the stage and crowd surfing.  Think Slash to Axel, Eddie to David Lee, or Keith to Mick.

While it can be difficult to engage these people about anything other than their one obsession, they serve an important purpose. They’re the ones that keep playing when everyone else is too busy preening to notice that they’ve lost the beat.

The law, accounting, traditional professional services, have historically been a safe havens for these non-people people.  A single minded focus on the minutiae of legal precedence, or a balance sheet, works well for people who can’t be bothered with the niceties of social interaction. Unfortunately, many people who entered the legal profession 20 years ago, with a reasonable expectation that they would become wealthy and successful without needing to shake too many hands or smile at too much inane small talk, suddenly find themselves living and working in a hyper-social world, where even small talk isn’t enough. Now you have to be engaged in other peoples lives on a regular basis or they will think something is wrong with you.  Toby hasn’t exactly called it this, and I’m sure he’ll slap me down if I’m off track, but his approach to pricing is all about being sociable. Go to the client first. Talk to them about the problems they are having. Find ways to alleviate their pain. That’s sociability and it’s more important today than ever, but some people, a lot of attorneys, just aren’t made that way.

Over the last decade, I have seen many friendly, approachable, young associates either quickly change into gruff and prickly types, or burn out after a few years and head to greener pastures, or “settle” for a non-partner career track.  It’s a gross generalization, but sociability and friendliness has not historically been a trait that has marked one as firm management material.  With the economic pressure to engage clients in a new way, and the demographic changes in the workplace, that might be about to change. The friendly types who were once pushed into supporting roles, may eventually be recognized and appreciated for their social assets, while the non-people people – who may have once rocketed to the top, promoted by like-minds above them – will be hidden in internal windowless offices, destined to toil away at non-client facing tasks.  That should make everyone happy.

Image [cc] Piecar

In the same conversation that Toby and I had regarding email created a way for lawyers to not talk with their clients, we also discussed how people you’ve ‘met’ via social media sometimes don’t match up to their personalities when you meed them in person. Someone that may be very extroverted on Twitter or Facebook somehow turn into a very introverted person when you meet them in person. I had something like this happen to me when I was in Los Angeles on vacation.

When I was in LA back in January, I caught a concert and loved the local band that opened up the show. The members of the band and I had a great conversation, and said to look them up on Facebook and to let them know if I ever made it back to LA. So, I went home, and had attempted to connect with the three members. I got three very distinct results:

  • Member One (One) instantly followed back and we have had informal chats from time to time since meeting in January.
  • Member Two (Two) connected a few weeks later, but has never really had any substantial interaction since.
  • Member Three (Three) never connected.

As it would turn out, I went to Los Angeles on vacation with one of my daughters and the band just happened to be playing a show. I reached out to One and said I was coming and One gave me all the details on when and where they were playing and that they were happy we were coming out. Other than posting a couple of ‘likes’ on the Facebook event page, and commenting that we were coming, I didn’t have and interaction with Two or Three.

The day of the show, we make our way to the event, an hour or more from our place in LA (which with the way the 101 works, could have simply been ten miles away.) We show up a bit early and notice that the band hasn’t arrived yet. When they do, the reaction of the members didn’t quite match up with what I expected after a long social media interaction.

  • One acted like we were strangers… eventually relenting once I stuck out my hand to re-introduce myself, but remained distant and clearly uncomfortable.
  • Two acted like we were old friends and was happy we’d made the trek out to see the band.
  • Three never connected (at least that was consistant!!)

It wasn’t the first time that I’ve met social media ‘friends’ only to find out that they had an “online personality” and then they had their real personality. I was, however, a little disappointed that someone I thought would be ‘cool’ to hang out with and talk face-to-face turned out to not really be as fun as I anticipated. On the other hand, it was ‘cool’ to interact with someone that turned out to be much more social than their social media personality. Of course, having a third participant who was consistant made this little experiment a wash.

Now that I’m back home, I noticed that things are going back to the online normal pattern. One suddenly has become social again… Two is there, but not all that interactive… and Three still hasn’t connected. It was an interesting experience. I guess I should make more of an effort to get Two to be more engaging online between now and my next LA trip. The next time I’m in LA, I’ll attempt to engage more with One and see if that brings out the online extroverted personality traits. As for Three… we’ll still probably not connect, after all, why break that consistancy?