Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am a partner in a 16 attorney firm located in Baltimore, Maryland. Our clients are primarily business firms. I am the chair of our three member marketing committee which was formed three years ago. Our firm is increasing our commitment to marketing and have increased our budget over the past three years. However, we are not sure what we should be spending our money on. Your suggestions would be appreciated.

A. Hopefully, you have developed a marketing plan and a marketing budget tied to the specific objectives outlined in the plan. Here are a few general guidelines, tips, and best practices:

1. Money spent on good clients is money well spent.
2. Allocate more money to specific practice areas or niches and individual lawyers than to the firm as a whole.
3. Tie passive initiatives to active participation.
4. Stand out as a major contributor to a single or a few campaigns rather than making many small contributors.
5. Constantly measure and monitor your return on marketing investment. (ROMI)

Click here for our blog on marketing

Click here for articles on other topics

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed the Hon. Lisa Holder White, Resident Circuit Judge of Macon County, Sixth Judicial Circuit, to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth Judicial District. White has been assigned to duty with the Fourth District Appellate Court since 2013. This vacancy was created by the death of the Hon. John McCullough. It is effective July 1, 2014, and terminates on Dec. 1, 2014,

Please join the ISBA Board of Governors and the IBF Board of Directors at a reception honoring ISBA Immediate Past President Paula H. Holderman. The reception will be held on Thursday, July 17, from 5-7 p.m. at the ISBA Chicago Office. Tickets are $50.

Register online or by calling the IBF at 312.726.6072.

Sponsorship opportunities are also available.

The Illinois Bar Foundation is the charitable arm of the Illinois State Bar Association and is dedicated to improving access to justice to those most vulnerable, helping attorneys and their families in need, and to providing year-long legal Fellowships to new attorneys working in legal aid clinics.

When the Illinois Supreme Court in March struck down the state's eavesdropping law as overly broad and thus unconstitutional, lawmakers were under pressure to quickly draft a new law to protect the privacy interests of citizens whose conversations may now be recorded without their consent.

Just before the General Assembly recessed in May, the Senate passed a new eavesdropping law (HB 4283), but the House adjourned before taking action on a Senate amendment.

The definition of private conversation under the Senate's amendment of HB 4283 is any communication between two or more persons intended to be of a private nature under circumstances "reasonably justifying that expectation."

The Senate amendment, however, contains exemptions that allow police officers, with permission from prosecutors, to record conversations as part of felony criminal investigations without a judicial warrant. Baker and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union object to those exemptions, and they are likely to be the subject of continued debate when the General Assembly reconvenes. Find out more on the July Illinois Bar Journal. The implications of not having an eavesdropping law in place are nicely summarized by John Roska of the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation in the Champaign News-Gazette.
 

Law Technology News has launched a new Vendor Satisfaction Survey broken down by industry.  In the legal research survey, respondents ranked Fastcase No. 1 in customer satisfaction in 7 out of 10 categories, and a very close second in two out of the remaining three. Fastcase was the clear winner in “Price for Value,” with 87.5% rating Fastcase as Excellent (LexisNexis was a distant second at 14.3% and Westlaw at 12.7%). Remember, ISBA members receive Fastcase for free as part of their member benefits package.

“In the Likelihood to Recommend” category, 50% of respondents gave Fastcase the highest rating of “Very” (compared to 26.5% for LexisNexis and 20.4% for Westlaw).  

Fastcase also had the highest “Excellent” ratings for Products/services information in vendor literature, Ease of Installation, Customer service responsiveness, Ease of Integration into firm workflow, and Features and functions.

Westlaw ranked highest in one category, with 37.6% rating its availability of training as “Excellent” (narrowly edging Fastcase at 37.5%).  LexisNexis finished first in one category, Ease of integration with other technology, with 25.9% of respondents rating its products as “Excellent” (and narrowly edging Fastcase at 25.0%).

Q. Do I need to get my client’s informed consent to have another lawyer (not in my firm) attend a routine status conference because I’ve got a scheduling conflict?

A. RPC 1.2(e) provides that a lawyer can’t delegate to another lawyer not in that lawyer’s firm the responsibility for performing work for the client without the client’s informed consent. Comment [14] to that Rule clarifies that it is designed to prevent a lawyer from transferring “complete or substantial responsibility” of a matter to another lawyer.  The Comment goes on to say it is not intended to “prevent lawyers from engaging lawyers outside of their firm to stand in for discrete events in situations such as personal emergencies, illness, or schedule conflicts.” For further insight on the increasing use of “coverage attorneys” see this month’s Illinois Bar Journal.     

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews legislation in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. In this episode he covers Township government (Public Act 98-653), Workers’ Compensation Act (Public Act 98-633), UM/UIM insurance (House Bill 5575), Independent examination in mental health proceedings (Senate Bill 3532), Local Records Act (House Bill 5623) and Condominiums and common-interest communities (House Bill 5322). More information on each bill is available below the video.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2071 proposes revisions of Circuit Rules 3, 10, 11, 22, 26.1, 28, 34, 45 and 46. Written comments on the proposed rule changes should be sent by August 1, 2014, to:

• Advisory Committee
• c/o Clerk of Court
• United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• 219 South Dearborn Street
• Chicago, Il 60604

Comments can also be made via e-mail at: USCA7_Clerk@ca7.uscourts.gov