Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

One year ago, as a partner of a newborn law office, I was confronted (relunctly and along with scarce financial resources) with the need to invest in the development of a website to the office.

At that time, our only target was to keep up along with our direct competitors, avoiding to “stay behind”, as we were resting assured that the website wasn’t going to provide us with measurable profits.

The first surprise was the budget presented to the website development and maintenance, which was quite reasonable. In fact, the competition between many of the Portuguese PME (Small and Medium Enterprises) in the computer sciences business was robust enough to assure that the prices kept reasonable and negotiable. The secret to get a good deal in computer sciences was to avoid making business with the highly acclaimed “monsters” (it only took the estimate budget of the project to get discouraged).

The second surprise was, once again contradicting our assumptions, that in our first year of existence some clients came to us stating they’d known our office through the website after performing some google searches.

At the end of the day, comparing the costs of the website and the profits coming from this specific clients, showed us that the balance was positive right in the first year, reason that led us to conclude that our investment was, in fact, profitable.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

I was asked to write a personal review on LawRD, from a user point of view, a little bit over one year’s use.

Without being a fully comprehensive one, given the limited use within my firm features such as those related to billing (except for the use of timesheets which, once reviewed are the basis for issuing invoices via outsource accounting), LawRD stands as an important part within our management.

The features we use the most - contacts, matters, tasks and expenses - are all gathered in a single tool, both inexpensive and easy to use as well as particularly reliable, wherein the our data base is hosted, for consultation and billing purposes (as I mentioned above the latter is not our case,though).

I am adamant in saying that LawRD is a sure asset for our management efficacy and key in our practice’s success.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

The billing method is an issue that, mishandled, will cause nasty glitches in the relationships between lawyers and clients.

There are several ways of billing lawyer services, just like in any other area of business, bearing in mind the uniqueness and proper rules that apply in each country as to the legal practice.

One of the most common, and losing preference, is the hourly rate method, for billing lawyers fees. Such method has the quality of its flexibility thus enabling a balance between the service rendered by lawyers and its due compensation, overlooking the fluctuation that will occur unavoidably throughout the diligences.
On the downside, in this instance it is troublesome for clients to preview the cost of  the lawyer’s fee when a given period of time is agreed upon.

However, by demanding a specification for each of the billing invoices (as it is supposed) as to the description and time spent in each item clients can have some control. Without being utterly rigorous this will prevent costs from soaring.

A more classic method is a fixed rate that will settled upon for a matter (flat rate) or for a determined cycle of billing (retainer). This, being a quite clear method, has the advantage of eliminating almost any grounds for litigation on fee agreements (service quality and issues alike are not thus prevented, though). Its lack of flexibility regarding fluctuation of the amount of work through the procedures, come as a negative point.

One other billing method consists on agreeing to a percentage of the results that will come from the lawyer’s services on one or more legal matters. Many countries do permit this form of fee agreement in its pure sate, invoking that this will give way for the leayer to being too much as a directly interested part on the matter at appreciation in court for it will depend on the court’s decision, thus compromising the lawyer’s objectivity, impartiality and independence. A mixed form of this agreement with others is allowed, though.

These methods in their pure forms and an arrangement of different ones will give way for more ecletic and balanced billing methods.

The underlying question to choosing a billing method is the fare quantification of lawyers’ services, considering amount, quality and results they bring to clients.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

The development of non legal skills, i.e. management, strategy and leadership, has been subject of an ever growing interest in law firms, regarding their senior partners.

Such a trend implies investments on professional training in those areas and others alike.

The matter of leadership, particularly, raises important and complex issues, unlike those concerning management, for it has a life of its own, manifesting itself and coming into being, many times in a spontaneous manner, whenever the company structure or some of its elements make way for any voids of power and initiative.

All organizations have some sort of “official structural grid” which defines functions, competences and hierarchy within them.

However, when the officially designated leaders do not act effectively, more often than not, when initiative and procedure leadership are concerned, these are taken by elements less empowered, hierarchy wise, but naturally more keen to take such decisions.

This gap between “official and real” structures striving within companies, in medium or long term,  will  result in counter-productivity.

From all the issues that will breed from that situation, the difficulty in legitimizing merit within the organization, stands out. Adding to it, is the increase awkwardness in coping with the different agendas, objectives and priorities (even preferences) of these two co-existing leaderships.

All the mentioned factors and circumstances are hurdles and setbacks in any company’s performance and productivity.

That is why all companies, namely law firms, ought to ensure that their leaders have all the necessary conditions to in fact exercise their competences, under the penalty of, not doing so, squandering their resources (i.e. time) trying to solve and sort inside conflicts, otherwise avoidable.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

Recently a lot has been said on legal practice marketing i.e. the best strategies and procedures for lawyers to make their activities and services widely known.

The deontological rules that govern such practice, though they may vary from country to country, are usually prohibitive or restrictive, to say the least, publicity wise, though.

In fact, given its social responsibility and special trust issues, that any legal service contract implies, be it contentious or not,  this is not a mere commercial activity  for it obeys to specific regulations meant to ensure much tighter ethical standards than those applied to most common commercial practices.

On the other hand, the market itself, namely companies, demands for law practice to be modernized, more “commercial” as to take procedures as companies do, thus prompting standards that bring companies and lawyers closer.

As marketing and publicity are concerned, many who are unaware of the deontological regulations of the legal practice, find it strange that they’re not approached by lawyers as they constantly are by other service providers, what doesn’t bother them at all.

Publicity boundaries, or certain publicity restrictions, are quite justifiable for the legal practice considering the afore reasons. Some countries have total restriction to such publicity, thus being in need of some flexibility, though.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

The use of social networks for marketing and promoting a vast array of economical activities is definitely in and there are some several examples of its good results.

The opposite is also true, though. Many economy players have real doubts on the return of their companies investments in that area (namely the non physical resources, such as time allocated to that task by employees, among others) which, given its nature, are hard to quantify.

Therefore, there is room enough for debating on the efficacy of this sort of marketing, and which are the best procedures to go about it through all different products and economy branches.

There are sectors, like the legal practice, that are bound to restrictions concerning its publicity, either by deontological or professional culture when displaying their image towards the market and society at large, thus making them more reticent and cautious when using these social tools  of promotion.

However, that trend has been slowly changing and, still far from being a universal attitude, a growing number of lawyers and law firms are taken an open and noticeable stance in that area.

Actually, in a business area where personal trust between lawyer and client is paramount, even more so than in any other business activity, there is a natural and reasonable mistrust as to the efficacy of social networks as tools for promoting and marketing services provided by the legal practice.

But there is no turning back on the increasing numbers of law professionals adopting social networks for promoting their businesses, and in the end time will tell who was right, after all.

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

Managing time, the time each of us spend on any given task, to be more precise, is key when managing a company for it stands as an indicator of how much is demanded from that company to meet its tasks (namely what concerns human resources, which is usually seen as fixed or a general cost, rather than a specific one related to a client or project).

By managing time, it is possible to spot waste, logistics inefficiency and other obstacles that may stand in the way of productivity, slowing down its pace thus affecting the company’s results.

Paramount as it is for any company management, it is more so for law firms and lawyers at large, since they often run on a hourly cost/pricing model that is directly dependent on the enhancement of individual performance of the employees for being a successful one, when it comes to results.

Three practical tips on this subject:

• Try to limit interruptions to a minimum, there are always to many (i.e. that email that just came in, is it that urgent to the point of interfering in your present task, or any others that have been on hold for quite some time and so became urgent just because they are overdue?)

• Do not keep up for too long on tasks which have a doubtful return (is it worthy to attend every conference, when you know that the benefit you get from them is barely none? Shouldn’t you go only when that amount of time won’t hurt all the work waiting you at the office?)

• Do not tag everything as ‘URGENT’ (if all is urgent then nothing is, which leads to loss regarding work quality and organization, as well as sorting priorities. Attempt to figure when does the client actually need the work done and then ‘negotiate’ with them the deadline. Most of them realize that they will benefit from a better and more careful work, as long as the established deadline is observed).

Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user. He is also the new LawRD Blog contributor:

The use of any technology always goes through distinct stages that can be longer or shorter, depending on the technology in question and the specific geographical features (cultural, technological, etc) it is deployed into.

Several countries are living exciting times, typical of the recent findings (Portugal included) in IT, or to be more precise, its use in certain areas of the Legal and Public Administration fields.

Actually, political powers have been passing legislation in order to be in some cases mandatory and artificially advantageous in others (i.e. benefits of a doubtful justification when it comes to judicial costs), the use of electronic means for submitting legal suite elements, namely via the Internet and the “Citius” platform managed by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice.

Investing in IT and updating IT in Courts and the Justice system at large is not wrong at all. Using artificial incentives through legislation in order to constraint the judiciary actors to the immediate and exclusive use of a tool not yet fully reliable when it comes to ensure integrity,management and preservation of lawsuits, doesn’t make much sense tough!

In deed, problems are frequent concerning the certification of digital signatures, transferring data among complex and autonomous IT systems, and so on, not to mention the constitutional issues raised up by some magistrates (unfortunately in vain) as to the fact that they are being coerced to using an IT system that is managed and run by the executive power and not by the judicial magistrature itself.

Jurists are known for being conservative by nature, not so much into the newer tech trends, more of  “sheet of paper” fans…

That’s true, and for good reasons too, you know, paper does not “crash”.