I stumbled across this article today:
Lawyer-Turned-Entrepreneur: How the Collision of Diverse Careers can Blend into Success
Here is an extract:
There are certain basic characteristics that are innate in both lawyers and entrepreneurs. For example, both careers require energy, initiative, motivation, creativity, and the ability to juggle multiple tasks, deal with time pressures, and pick up new information quickly. Both careers also require an objective approach to problems, such as focusing on performance and accomplishment rather than personal feelings.
Despite the similarities, lawyers and entrepreneurs can be very different. Three characteristics distinguish lawyers-turned-entrepreneurs from their peers who remained in the legal sector: their risk tolerance, their optimism, and their leadership abilities. Most lawyers are skilled at risk analysis and avoidance. There are exceptions, such as personal injury or product liability lawyers that often take enormous risks in hopes of yielding a huge reward; however, most people choose the legal field because of its predictability. The lawyers that separate themselves from the majority are the ones that have an innate attraction to challenge. It is this need for challenge that makes the lawyer-turned-entrepreneur more risk tolerant. Put differently, it often seems as though entrepreneurs are taking high risks, but in actuality they have assessed the risks thoroughly, and this assessment is a function of entrepreneurship that lawyers are more than equipped to handle.
Many of my former classmates are now either practising as lawyers, or in-house counsel. Being lawyers, we come into contact with entrepreneurs on a daily basis. At times, we hear about what it is like to be a businessman. But lawyer-ing is a business, too. It's just like that slogan that the Ministry of Agriculture spouts: 'Agriculture is Business'. Everything is business. It's just that lawyer-ing has its peculiarities. One of these is that we offer services, principally dispensed in the form of advice. Now, there is some inconvenience involved in a service such as this. First, people expect that advice should be dispensed freely. They think that advice is nothing more than words, and so costs the lawyer nothing. On the other hand, coming to the second point, people insist that advice should be correct. And they expect that this advice is up-to-date. But how is the lawyer going to keep himself up-to-date, and motivate himself to keep this knowledge up-to-date, if it is worthless to him? Hence comes the third point: If advice is valuable, why do people not pay for it? Simply because it takes the form of verbal advice, does not mean that the advice does not benefit the listener. Instead the advice is valuable, is required, and is important. But somehow, many young lawyers end up giving free consultations, exposing themselves to liability (for information incorrectly dispensed) and not getting paid for it.
I have come to the conclusion that lawyers must view themselves as contractors. While lawyer-ing is a noble profession, the fact is that many clients view their lawyers as no more than a temporary tool, to get from point A to point B. That job is a contract, in consideration of payment. Of course, in terms of advice over a cup of tea, or advice over lunch, clients still expect to get from point A to point B, without paying anything. That is the crux of it: getting something for nothing. And that in itself is wrong. But most clients choose to ignore it, and pretend that it isn't so. If a lawyer were to ask his client, "Surely Mr X, you would charge me if *I* asked you for free services?" the answer may sometimes come as "No lah, I appreciate you so I would do it for free! That's why I want your services to be free also!" What is this? This is a situation where the lawyer is shamed into thinking that he is greedy, and forgetting the friendship, in asking for his legal fees. But if Mr Lawyer were to test that claim, and say, "Mr X, in that case, would you mind demonstrating to me that you will in fact do so-and-so for me for free?" -- then, Mr X will try his best to wriggle out of it. "No lah, I said only. I have to cari makan what!" And when we point it out to them, they say: "No lah, I'm just a so-and-so only. You lawyer ma!"
The fact is that lawyers are contractors, contracted to do a job, and contracted in consideration of payment. We are just like contractors who come to the home for a renovation job, who are informed of the job scope ("break down this wall and replace it with a beautiful arch") and are informed of the estimated charges ("about RM3,000 to RM5,000"). What difference is there? The difference is when we do things pro bono -- but then again, how many people are truly deserving of pro bono work? It helps a lawyer to remember that everybody out there, who is working, is a contractor. A doctor is a contractor, contracted by the hospital to tend to its patients. A taxi driver is a contractor, contracted to drive for a fee. Indah Water Konsortium is a contractor, contracted to clean up the sewerage. Teachers, clerks, secretaries, CEO's, CFO's, CIO's, programmers, deejays, race queens, emcees, nutritionists, hoteliers, stevedores, pilots, astronauts, scientists, deep sea divers, tour operators, tattoo artists, pole dancers, political analysts, receptionists, et cetera -- they are all contractors. Contracted, to do a job, for payment.
Hence, it will help if lawyers start to think of themselves as businessmen. First, have a standard Letter of Engagement, or what may be known as a Warrant to Act. Fill in the job scope in the Warrant to Act, and nail down the estimated charges if possible. Second, don't be shy to ask about money. People go to lawyers for a reason, because they want things done. Obviously, lawyers have real commitments, as a result of staff salary, utility bills, rental, etc. People need to recognise that all these have to be paid for at the end of the month. Clients who repeatedly insist on speedy services, "it's urgent -- can it be done by tomorrow" type of people, are also likely to push off paying any money ("what? RM700? That's too expensive!") until the very last moment. They are also likely to try to drag discussing payment and use urgency as a tool to get services without payment.
In a recent experience, a certain somebody had passed me some work and I explained that it was a complicated matter. His uncle had passed away, and the uncle's wife had obtained the Letter of Administration more than a decade ago. Since then she had done nothing to transfer the property to her own name. Suddenly she wanted to sell the property to a certain buyer. The property was troublesome, being a low cost house in Batang Kali which did not have any individual title. She wanted to sign the sale and purchase agreement and get it over with. Naturally the buyer was wondering when it would be transferred to his name. And to top it off, the Administrator thought that it was not necessary for any deposit. Certain documents, too, were lacking. Plus the need for the Administrator to get the Court's permission to sell the property, coupled with the need for State consent, would drag things. Just a few days back, he called me. He asked, "Is the agreement completed yet?" I told him that I hadn't begun work on the agreement because we hadn't discussed the fees yet. It was two separate jobs (plus several other things regarding his late uncle's estate). "What!" he exclaimed. "I thought you would have done it by now! Why you are like that? Need to talk about money? This is a small thing, very simple to you!" I sighed heavily. As he was a friend, I promised to get it done, on the condition that before the agreement was signed we would talk about the payment. I called his aunt for an appointment. "Wah! Can sign already?!" she exclaimed happily over the telephone. "All the earlier things done already?" I told her in slow measured tones that "the earlier things" hadn't been done, because there was RM0.00 in the account and all the documents including her husband's death certificate hadn't been given to me yet. "What! How come?! I passed everything to my nephew so long ago. Why like that one?" And of course, I was tempted to place the blame on him, for avoiding discussion on my fees and not handing the documents to me. But in the end, I said that he might have been busy. It was understandable. And I knew that this case would be more or less a "charity case", based on the price of the low cost house and its location: RM50,000 in Batang Kali. I find it hard to respect clients who pay RM500 and expect me to incur expenses of RM1,000 on their behalf.
At the end of the day, if a certain profession is not rewarding enough, it represents a waste of resource allocation. The idea of playing to your strengths, of building up your comparative advantage, must also be made viable by financial returns to show for all the efforts. If utilizing your skills can only cause you loss and grief, and embarassment and harassment, and is not even rewarded adequately, where is the utility in that? Then, the lawyer had best pack up his bags and join the rest of the population in harassing other lawyers for free advice, "do ahead of payment" services, pressurizing under time and emotional duress, and often misrepresenting the truth on the understanding that the lawyer would take the blame for any shortcoming. The general population has the perception that lawyers are rich, not always honest, and are rich because of their ability to twist and turn. Whatever happened to the perception of the just and upright lawyer? Whatever happened to the respect for the lawyer who said, "I'm sorry but I cannot help your case, because you are wrong", which evolved into respect for the lawyer who says, "No worries dear sir, I can help you get out of it even if it's 100% your fault." Society has come to respect lawyers who help crooks run away from the law, and yet lament that crooks cause too much crime in society. The proliferation of lawyer jokes simply does not help.
Perhaps it would be easier for everybody in the client-lawyer equation if we all looked at ourselves as contractors. And this means defining the relationship, and the payment. Outside of the contract, there shouldn't be any discussion of the contract. And at that instant, the one contracting, and the one being contracted, will feel at ease with the other party as life takes its natural course.
Posts
