Ed Poll has written a number of books on law practice management including his book Collecting Your Fee: Getting Paid from Intake to Invoice which should be on every lawyers reading list in my opinion. Ed shared some of his advice from that book in Is the Check REALLY in the Mail? Only If You Bill the Right Way!  article in the ABA’s Law Practice TODAY electronic newsletter.

Ed believes that there are five specific reasons clients don’t pay their bills:

• They didn't get your bill/statement
• They didn't understand your billing and/or what you did for them and/or the value to them of what you did for them
• They didn't ask you to do what you billed them for
• Their cash flow is temporarily interrupted, despite the best of their intentions to pay you quickly
• Their business has gone "south" and they can't afford to pay you.

While it is hard to condense all of the things you should do, Ed provides some useful suggestions for dealing with clients who are avoiding paying your bill under one of his 5 scenarios. One of his suggestions that I really appreciate is:

Sending out invoices on or about the 25th of the month is a good example. It shortens the receivables stream because clients receive statements on or before the first day of the following month. Since most people pay their bills on or about the first of the month, a bill that comes after that is frequently kept for payment until the following month. Another idea is to bill one-fourth of the alphabet each week. That way the firm receives money from one-fourth of all clients weekly, which evens out cash flow over the month, rather than once per month.

In addition to the five scenarios that Ed poses, I think that a sixth reason should be added – the client is planning on “beating you up” on your fee i.e. they think everything can be re-negotiated after they’ve previously agreed to your fee structure. In these instances, you need to follow Ed’s advice and also be ready to stand firm. Depending on the situation, you may need to be prepared to sue for your fees.

While many malpractice carriers and State Bar’s recommend that you never sue a client over fees, I believe that this only encourages folks who know this and seek to use this fact to their benefit. If you have properly documented the file, performed the agreed upon legal services and your fees are reasonable for the type of case in your community, then you need to stand firm. It has been my experience that if you have a reputation of being prepared to take all steps necessary to collect a fee that has been properly earned, you are less likely to attract these types of clients or to have them try this ploy with you.

The ABA Journal reports in this story that an ex-Quarles & Brady partner has been suspended for nine months for failure to turn over fees he earned as a trustee to his former firm. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has more detail in this story on April 8, 2008.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation referee had recommended a public reprimand, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court opted for the stricter penalty. The moral of this story is 1) that you need to read the fine print of your partnership agreement and 2) never get between a firm and its money.

For many lawyers (myself included) Intellectual Property (IP) law is similar to trying to understand a foreign language; some of the word might seem familiar, but you know that you really don’t have a clue. Usually, threats of patent and trademark infringement don’t make the evening news and it’s an area of the law best left to the “experts” However, occasionally an IP case comes along that captures the attention of the common practitioner. SCO v. IBM and Novell is one such case and the travails of the various parties are well documented on Groklaw. These are also usually cases of “David vs. Goliath” with Goliath taking the first swing being a “cease and desist” letter which are pretty dry reading even for those of us used to spending hours reading cases, contracts and statutes. However, thanks to [H]Enthusiast and Audioholics Online A/V Magazine , we have an IP case that is making the news and it's one we are able to see a witty and (at least to this IP “layman”) rather well thought out and detailed response to one such cease and desist letter.

It seems that Monster Cable recently sent a cease and desist letter to a small electronics cable manufacturing company called Blue Jeans Cable . Nothing special so far, except for the fact that the owner of Blue Jean Cable is a former litigator with a federal practice. Kurt Denke providing background to Monster Cables lawyers states:

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues.  My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle.  In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table.  I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word.  If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.  As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I think Monster Cable has stirred up a hornets’ nest with this one, and it may be an instance where further pursuit will, as we used to say “leave them sorry and sore”.

Denke lays out, in well reasoned and detailed fashion, his issues with the claims made by Monster Cable as well as why he thinks their efforts will fail. What’s different is that he is obviously having some fun at the larger company’s expense and has crafted his letter with a bit of sarcasm and humor that is subtle, but readily apparent even to the average legal reader. A provision that I found to be very amusing and I think clearly shows that if you get into a fight with Denke it’s going to be a knife fight in the gutter is this paragraph:

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements.  I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

This letter is worth reading as an example of how legal writing doesn’t have to be entirely without wit and humor to make its point.

For those of you who live in a mixed household – some Windows XP computers and some Windows Vista computers – getting the Vista systems to share files with their XP brethren can be challenging, if not downright frustrating. In most instances, the problem arises because the Vista systems can’t “see” the XP systems on the network. According to Microsoft “

This problem occurs if the Link-Layer Topology Discovery (LLTD) Responder component is not installed on the Windows XP-based computer.

Network Map in Windows Vista makes network diagrams of the connections between network devices that can be used to troubleshoot connectivity problems. Network Map uses a discovery protocol called Link-Layer Topology Discovery (LLTD) that queries other devices on the network to determine how the network is organized.

A less complex explanation would be that Vista can’t “hear” XP system on the network without the addition of a new louder door bell on the XP systems.

You can find the Microsoft fix to this problem here.

Many law firms are looking for ways to retain good people without having to “break the bank” to do so.  One option that is being used more regularly is giving employees the opportunity to telecommute.  No longer is telecommuting a rarity; organizations now exist to provide information and assistance such as the American Telecommuting Association, the International Telework Association & Council and the Society for Human Resource Management.  In addition to these private organizations, the United States government is also providing information for telecommuting under the guise of Worklife management 

The United States Department of Justice has several resources available online including a Telecommuting fact sheet, a Telework guide and a sample Telecommuting Agreement Form. You can also find telecommuting policies from the University of Washington Department of Computer Science & Engineering here and from the US Department of Health and Human Services here. The American Bar Association Law Practice Management section publishes its "Telecommuting for Lawyers" book by Nicole Belson Goluboff which can be found at the ABA Web store here.

A number of local and national publications are taking notice that the use of telecommuting as part of creating a more flexible work environment is on the rise.  In a recent article in InformationWeek, CDW Corp. announced the results of a national survey showing “…private sector telecommuting adoption is on the rise (14%) and catching up to the adoption rates of federal employees (17%).” John Halamka in his March 17, 2008 article on CIO.com entitled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Telecommuting” talks about many of the benefits but also addresses many of the issues including equity, technology and security to name a few that need to be overcome to make telecommuting a success. This article is well thought out and also provides a look at sample worksheets and other resources that may be valuable as you evaluate whether or not to incorporate telecommuting into your current work environment.