Many times, these seminars we are required to attend are nothing but a waste of time. I don't say that as someone who dislikes going to them. On the contrary, any time I can be in "student" mode again, I enjoy. Its just that these seminars often tend not to be well structured to the audience, in part because the people who attend, while all lawyers, tend to have such a wide range of practices and experience that such a task would be very difficult. In any event, I often find that one section, or one hour of the agenda for a six to seven hour seminar is actually useful to my situation, to my practice. This is not always the case, but I think that's about average.
Being a "newer" lawyer, I often have high hopes that I can take something valuable from each seminar I attend, sadly, these tend to be unfulfilled hopes. However, this last seminar was very useful, but the contrast between this one and the "Applied Professionalism" course last November is somewhat sad. Every new lawyer in Indiana, within the first three years of their practice, has to take the Applied Professionalism course. Without going into too much detail about the course itself, it basically reviewed all of the professional rules of responsibility that lawyers are supposed to follow, pointing out missteps in client interaction, communications with other counsel and the court, and so on. It sounds good, and if they required you to take it within the first six months, it might actually be helpful. Further, simply providing a regurgitation of those rules, which we take a class on during law school and have a specific exam we have to pass separate from the Bar exam in order to get license, is a bit redundant. I understand what the course is intended to do, help us be "professional" (as if a course can teach that) and help us avoid common pitfalls (which you tend to know in the first year or so, or you start getting into trouble quickly).
The seminar yesterday, How to Manage Work in a Law Practice, was so much more practical and on point for a young lawyer than the Applied Professionalism course. There was a little review of the responsibility rules, but there was so much about how to organize cases from beginning to end, how to plan for a legal day and its unique interruptions as opposed to just planning for school classes or whatever. The course gave so many varying tools and tips that can be used to increase efficiency.
The part for me that was most helpful, and I imagine could be helpful to young lawyers similar to myself, is how, when planning a case, appeal, or project at the beginning and making a list of the tasks that need to be completed, is to ask who the responsible person is. In asking this question, part of it revolves around "does this particular task require my level of expertise, my legal education and training?" On some level, it might seem elitist, if that's the word, to view the assignment of tasks in this light. But in reality, preparing the research and arguments for an Appellant Brief, requires my training and skill, whereas preparing the Table of Contents, and index, and various certificates does not, as it comes off a form. The reason why this question is helpful to me is that it allows me to see where I can delegate work in a project appropriately, thus allowing me to work on other projects, and thus, be more efficient and handle more cases.
Delegating has been one of my biggest challenges since starting this career. Part of it is that I am a bit of a perfectionist and I like things done a certain way, so I should just do it. Part of it is that the most common task delegating in our firm and other law firms is typing, but due to my age/generation, and growing up using computers in school and for school work, I am used to typing as part of my writing process, and frankly, I can type faster than anyone else in my office. Another difficult aspect of delegation for me is just the idea of giving someone else work to do that, on a major level, feels like my work. Maybe its the student still in me, but sometimes it just feels awkward, or wrong, for me to give "my work" to someone else to do, even if it is part of that person's job to assist in that work in whatever fashion I decide is appropriate. Its a situation, learning the art of delegation, how to be responsible for another person's work load and training, the whole "being a boss" thing that is vital to a good business and a good law practice, not to mention a good working environment, that it amazes me that legal education has so little on these issues (I understand we need to know the law, obviously; but let's not get too full of ourselves, law practice is a business, its about helping people at some level yes, but its about making money, being able to pay rent, the utility bills, and employee salaries just like any other business).
In any event, I've already digressed on the topic longer than I intended to . . . suffice to say that I found the seminar yesterday very useful and helpful in how to plan my work day, and some tidbits to help me accomplish some personal goals as well. For that, I am thankful.
Being a "newer" lawyer, I often have high hopes that I can take something valuable from each seminar I attend, sadly, these tend to be unfulfilled hopes. However, this last seminar was very useful, but the contrast between this one and the "Applied Professionalism" course last November is somewhat sad. Every new lawyer in Indiana, within the first three years of their practice, has to take the Applied Professionalism course. Without going into too much detail about the course itself, it basically reviewed all of the professional rules of responsibility that lawyers are supposed to follow, pointing out missteps in client interaction, communications with other counsel and the court, and so on. It sounds good, and if they required you to take it within the first six months, it might actually be helpful. Further, simply providing a regurgitation of those rules, which we take a class on during law school and have a specific exam we have to pass separate from the Bar exam in order to get license, is a bit redundant. I understand what the course is intended to do, help us be "professional" (as if a course can teach that) and help us avoid common pitfalls (which you tend to know in the first year or so, or you start getting into trouble quickly).
The seminar yesterday, How to Manage Work in a Law Practice, was so much more practical and on point for a young lawyer than the Applied Professionalism course. There was a little review of the responsibility rules, but there was so much about how to organize cases from beginning to end, how to plan for a legal day and its unique interruptions as opposed to just planning for school classes or whatever. The course gave so many varying tools and tips that can be used to increase efficiency.
The part for me that was most helpful, and I imagine could be helpful to young lawyers similar to myself, is how, when planning a case, appeal, or project at the beginning and making a list of the tasks that need to be completed, is to ask who the responsible person is. In asking this question, part of it revolves around "does this particular task require my level of expertise, my legal education and training?" On some level, it might seem elitist, if that's the word, to view the assignment of tasks in this light. But in reality, preparing the research and arguments for an Appellant Brief, requires my training and skill, whereas preparing the Table of Contents, and index, and various certificates does not, as it comes off a form. The reason why this question is helpful to me is that it allows me to see where I can delegate work in a project appropriately, thus allowing me to work on other projects, and thus, be more efficient and handle more cases.
Delegating has been one of my biggest challenges since starting this career. Part of it is that I am a bit of a perfectionist and I like things done a certain way, so I should just do it. Part of it is that the most common task delegating in our firm and other law firms is typing, but due to my age/generation, and growing up using computers in school and for school work, I am used to typing as part of my writing process, and frankly, I can type faster than anyone else in my office. Another difficult aspect of delegation for me is just the idea of giving someone else work to do that, on a major level, feels like my work. Maybe its the student still in me, but sometimes it just feels awkward, or wrong, for me to give "my work" to someone else to do, even if it is part of that person's job to assist in that work in whatever fashion I decide is appropriate. Its a situation, learning the art of delegation, how to be responsible for another person's work load and training, the whole "being a boss" thing that is vital to a good business and a good law practice, not to mention a good working environment, that it amazes me that legal education has so little on these issues (I understand we need to know the law, obviously; but let's not get too full of ourselves, law practice is a business, its about helping people at some level yes, but its about making money, being able to pay rent, the utility bills, and employee salaries just like any other business).
In any event, I've already digressed on the topic longer than I intended to . . . suffice to say that I found the seminar yesterday very useful and helpful in how to plan my work day, and some tidbits to help me accomplish some personal goals as well. For that, I am thankful.
No comments:
Post a Comment