pm blog

“I want to do lawyer type work on a daily basis.”  I thought this was a solid response to an interview question lobbed at me during a brief encounter with a Cook County firm.  On the drive home however, I reflected on my answer.  Did the firm know that I would take initiative, seek out additional responsibility, embrace criticism, and organize my time productively?  No, becaue I had not told them that during the interview.  My interviewee mind-set required that I wait for a question before responding with a list of my positive attributes.  That interview was a wake up call: my interview skills were outdated. That’s when I decided to uncover a new interview attitude.

Inspired to take action before my next meeting, I visited the Sushan Consultants website, which offered a solid refresher on how to respond to questions using the behavioral interview  or ‘STAR’ technique (Situation Task Action Results) — an approach popular with new attorneys to distinguish themselves in interviews.

I’ve decided that my STAR approach will involve adopting a branding technique.  According to the team at WhyBrandU, managing your personal brand is the key to achieving career objectives. Whether you call it self-promotion, self-marketing, creating buzz, or personal branding, the idea is to highlight select information about your qualities and life experience to achieve a desired perception by the interviewer.  Though traditionally applied to products or businesses, I believe this technique will be just as effective to help me distinguish myself from other applicants during interviews.  Stay posted to find out if my new interview attitude was effective.  Thanks for sharing – Sherri

As a follow up to my post e-filers deserve their “unfair advantage” I offer this thought on another way to encourage adoption of e-filing.  The clerk’s office must give e-filed cases priority in terms of being heard – just as in traffic court represented parties are heard first.  If the judge has access to those documents on a monitor as is the case in Federal Court then he or she will be able to zip through cases and calls in no time at all.  To see this theory in action go see the Bankruptcy Court in action, particularly Chief Judge Eugene Wedoff.

Jon Dudas, Director - US Patent and Trademark Office, speaking in Beijing for a global IPR forum, “No one will want to bring their technology to a nation that doesn’t protect it”. Really? If 81% of the counterfeit products seized originate in China, does that not signal the technology is already there?

Short sightedness coupled with greed (or desire for share-holder profits) propels manufacturing companies to live in the NOW, when seeking lower cost. The concept China would or could do anything to protect the “Rights” of foriegn companies is absurd. China would be more incline to develop it’s own IPR/Copyright legislation in protecting what they have now stolen, or should we say learned how to develop on their own.

In my industry Philips waited till the market developed an successfully enforced its rights on CD manufacturing, except in China. The same can be said of the DVD Forum which aims to follow the same path. However, because of deep rooted hatred toward Japanese, coupled with their exculsion, China went ahead an developed its own DVD format.

Recently we have noticed the mega Law firms establishing themselves in China with satillite offices focused on these practices. We have yet too hear of any successful meaningful advancements with regards to “Rights”. No less than 10 years ago it was professed this country will evolve into a consumer/service orientated state. Recent headlines point to the fact we no longer are a leading technology source. If we fall short of manufacturing, let alone protect the creative rights of new technology, with no outlet too enforce why make or invent anything.

read more | digg story

As reported in the Washington Post - “Eccentric Washington telecommunications mogul Walter C. Anderson was sentenced yesterday to nine years in prison for failing to pay $200 million in taxes. Anderson, the biggest convicted tax cheat in U.S. history, received the longest punishment ever given in a tax crime case for his admitted effort to hide $365 million in personal income.”

read more | digg story

You can get an online criminal justice degree without too much fuss.

I am a member of the standing e-filing committee of the 18th Judicial Circuit, and former member of the ad hoc e-filing committee. The standing committee is responsible for administration and promotion of e-filing in DuPage County, while the ad hoc commitee commented on the draft rules and had a hand in selecting service providers. The e-filing initiative was spearheaded by Chief Justice Robert Thomas of the Illinois Supreme Court, himself a former DuPage Judge.

E-filing in the State Court, unlike it’s Federal Court counterpart, is permissive … which brings me to why we must offer an unfair advantage to those who choose to e-file, and why a disadvantage should be imposed on those that choose not to. Of course the Supreme Court could always make e-filing mandatory and not worry about inducing people to use the system, but that is their call. Until that decision is made, here are my top 3 reasons the Supreme Court (or at least the 18th Circuit) should institute unfair advantages for e-filers and equally unfair disadvantages for those who do not:

1. What’s Good for the Goose: The Court and Clerk have been careful to preserve the rights of non-lawyers while e-filing gets underway, but in their zeal they have made some odd choices. Case in point - why can’t e-filers take full advantage of the technology and file up through midnight on the day their pleading is due? As indicated in this post on the Appellate Law Blog of fellow DuPage County Attorney Stever Merican, e-filers still cannot take true advantage of e-filing in the State Court despite the fact that they do so regularly in Federal Court. The question is the subject of City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Commission, et al., No. 104361. I for one would like to see how it turns out.

2. A Chain is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Links: If premissive e-filing is to work everyone must get on board, but that is just not the case. We must acknowledge 3 classes of lawyers — those who can upgrade, those who can’t upgrade, and those who won’t upgrade. I’m not saying anyone should be barred from filing just because they can’t do it electronically (even though that is the rule in the Federal Courts), but I must point out 2 of those 3 classes of lawyers are keeping the system form working as intended and should be gently encouraged to get with the times or lose out to the competition. You remember competition don’t you; the invisible hand of the marketplace that’s kept real estate lawyers charging $350 at closings while real estate agents walk away with 20 times that much per transaction.

3. Lawyers Aren’t the Only Ones Not on Board: You knew this one was coming. Let’s talk about Judicial discretion: aside from the fact that most Judges think MySpace represents the online world, and that neurologists have proven that people simply stop learning after a certain age, the truth is that Judges do not want to change. And why should they when they are catered to at every turn? Why … that’s where the unfair disadvantage comes in. Let Judges who don’t want to go digital go it alone instead. Files will take longer for the Clerk to review, will not be delivered or processed as quickly, and ultimately will get handled last because the Clerk’s Office has to respect the mandate of the Supreme Court to promote e-filing. But for those Judges who believe e-filing is a fad, a flash in the pan, and a mere annoyance, such inconveiences are a small price to pay to stem the tide of change. It is their time, and they are welcome to spend it as they like.

Note:  M. Hedayat & Associates,  is looking forward to the day the firm can incorporate E-Filing in all the areas practiced.

In the California case of SONY BMG v. Merchant the defendant’s lawyer wrote the RIAA a rather stern letter recounting how weak their evidence was, referring to the deposition of the RIAA’s expert witness, and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit. That same day the RIAA put its tail between its legs and dropped the case.

So is the question when was the last time you got an industry power house to back down from your threats? or is the real question how did this lawyer get the RIAA to back down?

read more | digg story

You could take some online paralegal courses at a very reputable
online paralegal school and receive your very own online
paralegal certificate with as much clout as one you would earn in person.

The #1 trend in the legal sector today is law firm M&A: taking smaller firms and rolling them into bigger ones in order to take advantage of economies of scope and scale.  Case in point — right here in DuPage County Fewkes Wentz & Strayer has joined  Huck Bouma PC. The resulting firm will consist of 34 Attorneys practicing in the areas of corporate law, estate & tax planning, real estate, and litigation.

Editor’s Note:  let us know of other firms going through this same process (large, small, local, or anywhere else).  Consolidation within a sector is the first line of defense against the erosion of market share and profit margin that comes with commoditization. In short, you are now a replaceable vendor of fungible services. Deal with it.