Episode 180-Thinking About Starting Your Own Law Firm? Avoid These Ethical Mistakes (With Mike Rossi)

Speaker A: You're listening to Counsel to Counsel, a podcast I launched in 2018. On this show, we explore how lawyers can build satisfying and successful professional lives. There have been enormous changes in the practice of law in the decades since I became a member of the bar. On the show, I bring you conversations with attorneys who have charted interesting career paths as the profession has evolved. I'll speak with consultants who are helping the legal community navigate these changes. We dive into strategies, mindsets, and ideas that, uh, can help you grow your practice and grow in and out of our profession. And now, here's today's episode. Welcome m back, everybody. Just a reminder that if you're listening to Council to Counsel on one of the audio podcast platforms like Spotify or Apple Podcast, you can also find us now on YouTube. If you're watching on YouTube. It's nice to have you here. Many lawyers dream about starting their own law firm. The appeal is easy to understand. More autonomy, more control over your clients, more flexibility, and the opportunity to build something that reflects your own values and vision. But launching a practice is not simply about finding clients, creating a website, and sending out invoices. When you become a law firm owner, you also take on a new set of professional responsibilities. You are responsible for protecting client confidences, managing, managing client funds, avoiding conflicts, supervising others, and making sure that your business development efforts comply with the rules of professional conduct. My guest today is Mike Rossi, uh, a partner at Khan Kavanaugh in Boston, where his practice focuses on professional liability, business litigation, and in advising lawyers and law firms on issues involving professional responsibility and risk management. In this episode, we'll discuss some of the ethical issues lawyers need to consider when launching and growing their own firms, including client intake, conflict engagement, agreements, trust accounting, marketing technology, artificial intelligence, and the responsibilities lawyers have when they leave one firm to start another. Mike, welcome to Counsel to Counsel.

Speaker B: Thanks, Steve. Great to be with you. Appreciate you having me.

Speaker A: Before we dive into ethics, can you tell us just quickly about your own career path and how you developed a practice advising lawyers and law firms on professional responsibility issues?

Speaker B: Sure. And thanks for the very kind introduction. I have been a, an attorney at Khan Kavanaugh, uh, in Boston now for about 14 years. I started at a few other firms before that. I've been practicing for about 20 years. And when I came to Kon Kavanaugh, I quickly learned that the firm has a really a, ah, rich and long tradition of being lawyers. Lawyers, Lawyers for lawyers. And that means defending lawyers in legal malpractice cases, but also providing ethics advice to lawyers in law firms. Representing lawyers in DBO matters, and even handling some business transactions involving lawyers leaving or starting law firms. So it was a big part of the firm's history and tradition and I quickly took a liking to it and got into it. So that's become uh, an important part of my practice over the last 13 or 14 years. And I'm happy to be able to carry on the tradition of the firm. I know a lot of people in the Boston area, lawyers in the Boston area, in Massachusetts look to our firm and think of our firm in that regard, and it's great to be a part of that.

Speaker A: You work with lawyers and firms around the country too, right?

Speaker B: Yes, we do. Right.

Speaker A: What size firms do you typically represent when you're doing these kinds of issues?

Speaker B: We are all over the map. We defend large law firms primarily in legal malpractice cases or advising on some tricky conflict issues. And we advise solos and firms of 2, 3, 4 lawyers that are facing similar issues. The issues are sometimes specific to firm size, but in many cases they're universal. And we're pleased to have clients across the spectrum of firm size. And we enjoy working with different types of lawyers and law firms.

Speaker A: You primarily represent them when they get into trouble. Right. But you also do some preventive work.

Speaker B: That's right. I hope and would like to think that the better work we do or more of the work we do is helping people avoid difficult situations. We see serve as outside general counsel in a way to a lot of solo and small firms. So firms that may not have an in house general counsel or an in house risk management partner would call us or some of my partners to ask questions. When just day to day conflict issues arise or client, uh, fund issues arise, or any sort of ethical issue, we're a phone call for them. They reach out to us. They feel they can, I hope, trust us and rely on us for maybe quick advice that they need to get through their day or work through a difficult situation. So yeah, a, uh, part of what we do is, is defending lawyers and firms in malpractice cases, which of course, you know, can last years and it's, it's just typical litigation. But we also really enjoy and like to focus on the consulting aspect of it, of providing ethics advice. And as I said, being that outside general counsel to smaller firms.

Speaker A: Let's jump into the main topic for today. When a lawyer decides to leave a firm and start their own practice, what are some of the first ethical issues they should be thinking about before they open their doors or even before they leave their Firm M. I think that's

Speaker B: a great way to start because I know our topic is focused on opening a firm, but really the most, I think the first ethical issue that a lawyer needs to think about in that situation are his or her ethical obligations to the firm that he or she may be leaving. And that can be a minefield. Fortunately, there is an ABA opinion that is really the bible in this area. I will give you the number. It's 99 414. I keep a copy of it in my Risk management folder on my desk because anytime somebody calls with questions, if they say to us, hey, I'm thinking of leaving my firm, what do I do? Can I tell my clients that's the go to? We go right to that ABA opinion and walk them through the steps generally. In a nutshell, the ethical guidance on this issue strongly encourages lawyers who are leaving firms to do so harmoniously. Ideally, there is a joint communication that's agreed upon that goes out from both the lawyer and the firm that he or she is leaving to all clients for whom that lawyer had supervisory responsibility, indicating that the lawyer is leaving the firm and that the client has three choices. The client can keep the matter with the firm, the client can go with the lawyer to the lawyer's new firm, or the client can go to another firm altogether. And I think the most important thing to keep in mind with that is that sometimes, you know, instinctively, we may think of clients as our clients and we're going to take them or they belong to certain people. Clients have the ultimate autonomy. They will choose who their lawyers are, and there's no dibs. Lawyers can't simply say, I'm taking this client with me. The client needs to be presented with the choice and, and affirmatively indicate what he or she or the company wants to do.

Speaker A: From where I sit, it seems like as a practical matter, a lot of times when lawyers are thinking about leaving their firm and they have clients that they've been working with, the clients think of them as their lawyer. They don't think of the law firm as their law firm. So while you're saying they have a fiduciary responsibility to their partners to let the client decide as a practical matter, often the client's coming to decide to go with the lawyer, right?

Speaker B: I think that's right. There's certainly plenty of instances, and we have this at our own firm where we, you know, we have clients that are so embedded in the firm, they've worked with so many different lawyers in different subject matters that, you know, it may be Something that would at least give the client some thought as to what they want to do. But, uh, I think you're right. Clients hire lawyers, typically not law firms. And most of the time the client is going to go with the relationship that they're comfortable with. But the key is really not jumping the gun. I. Where we see lawyers run into trouble is if they've decided to leave a law firm and before they notify their partners, they notify all their clients to try to get a, uh, heads up or a leg up on maintaining the business. And the guidance on that is that that's absolutely not appropriate. It's not so much an ethical issue as it is a fiduciary one. So it's really important to review the ABA's guidance on this and try to come up with some joint communication or joint approach and notify the clients.

Speaker A: I get to see a lot of lawyers when they're thinking about doing this, but they haven't pulled the trigger or they're just doing some exploration. Who can a lawyer speak to when they are thinking about doing this or they want to gather information? You've just told us a lot about how it should properly be handled vis, um, a vis the clients. But what about their associates? What about other partners? Who can somebody talk to? Other lawyers outside the firm? Who can you talk to when you're doing this exploration?

Speaker B: It sounds, I think in that case your safest bet probably is going to be to consult with lawyers outside of the firm. I mean, if there's. Obviously this is dependent entirely on the dynamics of a particular situation, but I would think in most cases, sharing this information with others in the firm is probably not something that would end well. It's a lot more difficult to contain information. But it would certainly be a really good idea to consult with a lawyer outside of the firm who might be able to provide some, some business advice or some practical advice on, on what it is to leave a firm and start a practice. And it would also be good to check in with somebody like, you know, our firm that helps advise lawyers on the ethical issues of doing that and maybe, you know, helping them avoid some, some traps for the unwary. Certainly, uh, there's a business side of it too. I mean, if I was to start my own firm, I want to have a conversation with somebody who knows a lot about legal technology and could help me understand, we could talk about the ethical implications of that, but who can help me understand what sort of technology I would need. Because you're going to want to have that up and running on day one.

Speaker A: What if you're thinking about leaving the firm with another partner or another associate in that situation?

Speaker B: Obviously there's going to be communications with that partner. Um, the obligations that you would have to your remaining partners are the same. It's no different if you are, you know, if you're operating as a group, you still have fiduciary relations, and you, you'd want to make sure that you're not colluding or, or conspiring in some way to, you know, breach those obligations to your partners. But it happens all the time as we see that partners join together to lead firms. And, and that's, that's okay so long as all of the other requirements are satisfied.

Speaker A: Okay. I don't want to overdo it here and push you too hard, but. So what can you do? Can you start a conversation with the, uh, litigation partner that, you know is practicing right next to you, and you're a trust in the States partner, and you're, you know, are you allowed to say, hey, Jim, you know, I'm thinking of branching out? Have you ever thought about doing that? Would you be interested in coming with me?

Speaker B: Yes, I'm aware of no restrictions on any, any communication of that kind at all. It happens all the time. Again, the importance is, is carrying out the departure in the right way and not doing things that would impair the business of your, you know, existing partners once you leave, in terms of taking clients or things like that. But I think, you, uh, know, we see partners or groups of partners leave law firms all the time. So having that type of conversation about, you know, potentially branching off, I see no reason that that would be prohibited in any way.

Speaker A: You start talking about what should be in place on day one. So could you say a little bit more about that, like engagement agreements and other things?

Speaker B: Yeah, there's a lot. I think what spurred my thinking on that is the technology. And I think that's one of at least the three most important pieces. Not to get too technical on the rules here, but we do, as lawyers have a duty of competence, and that is spelled out in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and it's in almost every state version of that rule. And part of that concept of competence is technological competence. And there's a comment. Actually, it's Rule 1.1 under the ABA Model Rules, and in most states, and there's a comment specifically to that rule that says that lawyers have an obligation to understand evolving technology and to stay on top of the technology that we need for our Practice, it's not, we can't, we can't close our eyes to it. So when starting a firm we have to, uh, lawyers would have to give some thought to what is the basic technology that we need to do that. Billing software, maybe AI tools, uh, these days, Calendaring software, conflict check software, billing software. Um, we have an obligation. Not only is that desirable from a business standpoint, but we have an ethical obligation to be competent in our use of technology. So it's twofold. I mean, there's the ethical piece, but also I think just from a practical standpoint, having that technology in place from the get go is critical. The reason for that is because I think the types of claims or ethical issues or, uh, BBO matters that we see most frequently for small solo and small firm practitioners are a mismanagement of client funds, which is oftentimes not intentional or nefarious at all. It's just that the lawyer does not have a good system in place to do it. And the second one would be missed deadlines, which again is something that can be addressed and should be addressed through practice management software. So there's plenty of really compelling reasons to have your software in place on the day you open your doors.

Speaker A: Anything to add about IOLTA accounts?

Speaker B: That's a minefield. Uh, there's just so much to consider on this. I would say state rules obviously vary, so it would be important for everybody to look at their state rules. But it is really, I would say, the single highest stakes area for new solos and worth a lot of attention. You would. One thing, of course, is you'd want to set up a compliant IOLTA account before ever taking a client retainer or ever taking any client funds at all. You'd want to understand your state's particular prohibitions on commingling and what that means. You want to understand the reconciliation practices that are required, the recordkeeping requirements. This can be outsourced, and I know a lot of firms do do that. But, you know, in the early days of starting a firm, you may not be ready for that yet. And it's really important to drill down on those requirements. Many barred disciplinary cases that we see against solos stem, as I said, not from intentional theft, but really just sloppy bookkeeping, failure to reconcile, uh, using trust funds to cover operating shortfalls, even temporarily. This is a real area of attention, at least in Massachusetts, for our disciplinary

Speaker A: process, not our core strength. I don't think I've. I can't remember the last time I balanced my checkbook. It's probably been decades, but fortunately I don't practice law.

Speaker B: Yeah. You know, and this is really an uh, area if just for that reason, Steve, we're hiring, even a part time bookkeeper can help. And it's money well spent.

Speaker A: It's a difficult balance. You don't want to overspend when you're starting a new venture because you need to have cash to keep you going until you're profitable. On the other hand, don't be pennywise and pound foolish on some things like this when it comes to money. For sure, right?

Speaker B: Absolutely, absolutely. I think IOLTA compliance would be, as I said, money well spent. And it'll give you more time to do what you want to do, which is practice law and go out and get clients and not worry so much about administrative things.

Speaker A: Speaking of going out and getting clients, there are lots of ethical issues that come up in setting up a website, social media, testimonials, advertising. What can you say about that? What should lawyers be thinking about in those regards?

Speaker B: Uh, great question. So this is also addressed straight from the rules. And I don't want to be too technical, but if anyone is interested, I would take a look at Rule 7.1 to 7.3. Again, they tend to vary by state, but that is the starting point. Always those rules address lawyer marketing. And I think what lawyers understand about marketing and what their impressions are about, what's allowed and not allowed has changed so much over the last two or three decades because we've seen such a proliferation of lawyer marketing. We can't drive down the highway in Massachusetts now without seeing lawyer billboards, some of which seem sometimes to be, uh, I guess I would say sort of cutting edge or maybe a little bit edgy. But the, uh, A couple of key points to keep in mind. The rule says that we cannot, we cannot advertise with statements that are false or misleading, which sounds really vague. But that term misleading is usually interpreted as being broader than what may be appear. So any communication that creates some expectation on the part of a client or, or omits material information or leads a reasonable person to come to an inaccurate conclusion could be considered misleading. Where we would see that for example, is saying I am the best or I am the top lawyer or something like that, any sort of results based advertising also tends to draw a lot of scrutiny. So for example, highlighting large settlements or verdicts that create unjustified expectations. You have to provide proper context. You have to provide disclaimers. It's important where those disclaimers are placed. There's a lot to it and it's worth Just taking a step back. And we all want to put our best foot forward, but we have to make sure we don't step over the line to the point where we are creating a false impression about our accomplishments, our qualifications, and our abilities.

Speaker A: Now, uh, you and I are both in Massachusetts, and so I don't think that much in terms of ethical rules outside of Massachusetts, but there are jurisdictions where specialization is regulated. Right. Like, you have to be certified as a specialist in some jurisdictions.

Speaker B: Absolutely. And if. And that's in the ABA's model rules, that if you're going to say in any of your advertising or even in your testimonials that you're a specialist or an expert in some area of the law, that has to be backed by an actual certification and that we see less of that in Massachusetts. But what I always say to people, and I've seen this come up in many malpractice cases, that's the first place that an adversary is going to look. If you hold yourself out as an expert or a specialist in some area and it splashed all over your website and you happen to make a mistake, you're going to have a plaintiff's lawyer that's going to make the argument that you should be held to an even higher standard of care because you've held yourself out as a specialist or an expert in that area. And that's really not a burden that we need to undertake.

Speaker A: Do you have any good stories, obviously, preserving client confidences of the way an ethics issue might have snuck up on a lawyer who thought they were doing the right thing?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think where I maybe see this come up most frequently, and I've had a number of cases in this area are where lawyers who are starting out are excited and also a little bit nervous about paying their bills, and so they take whatever case walks in the door. Um, especially in the early years, and that I've had a number of instances where that can lead to problems, especially where I've seen it in the area of probate law or trust law, where a lawyer might set up, you know, an estate planning vehicle or a trust for some clients. And it turns out that because these are a little bit more intricate than we all may think, the protections that the clients thought they were getting didn't exist in the document. The beneficiaries didn't have the protection that they needed, and the trustee didn't have the authority that he or she needed. So that is, I think, where I tend to see this come up most. The rules require us to have the Legal knowledge and skill and preparation that are reasonably necessary to take on a matter doesn't mean we have to be an expert. And there are plenty of lawyers that have varied practices. And it doesn't even mean never taking on unfamiliar matters. But we all have to be mindful of when the learning curve is just too steep for the client's stakes. And that's, I think, where I have seen this come up most frequently. Where lawyers have, in hindsight, they have said to me, I should not have taken that on. One easy solution there is if you want to keep the client is associating with co counsel. There's a lot of other lawyers in your jurisdiction, I can guarantee you, that would be happy to pair up with you and provide maybe the legal background while you deal with the client relationships and you can work together to serve the client's needs. I found in my own practice that associating with co counsel is a great way to build up referrals. If you refer out, uh, if you bring somebody else into one of your cases, oftentimes they're going to want to repay the favor.

Speaker A: I don't know if this is an ethical issue or just a business issue, but when you do do that, does that have to be in writing with, you know, between the lawyer and the person that's helping you or with the client? I guess the client has to know, right?

Speaker B: Uh, the client does have to know. And there's a couple of ways of going about it. I find the easiest way to do it is to just have the client have an attorney client relationship with both lawyers. So it's not as though you are hiring the lawyer, the client is hiring the lawyer just as the client hired you. And there'd be separate engagement agreements and both of you would advise the lawyer. I've seen some instances where lawyers essentially hire other lawyers as a consultant maybe to advise on a specific area of the law that is unique. But I find that that is a little trickier, mainly for the lawyer who's being hired, because I like to know clearly and without question when I have an attorney client relationship with somebody. And that arrangement to me blurs the lines a little bit. Is the expert consultant lawyer working for the lawyer? Is he, Is she working for the client? I'd prefer that, that the line be clearer. And so I think it's best to have an attorney client relationship with the client. A related issue there I just want to, uh, touch on briefly is referral fees, which I think you may have been alluding to in that instance, where if A lawyer refers a case to you, at least in Massachusetts, and you're going to take a referral fee on that case that does need to be disclosed to the client in the engagement letter, even if you're not doing any work on the case. We see this come up typically here in Massachusetts, where referrals on contingency fee cases are allowed. So if somebody just, for example, was to come to me and ask me to represent them in a personal injury case, I don't practice in that area. I refer that case out to a colleague at another firm. In exchange for that, he agreed to give me a percentage of the recovery. I won't have to do much work that has to be disclosed to the client in the engagement letter.

Speaker A: I was actually almost thinking about the opposite because, uh, recently I was talking to a client who is feeling a little bit uncomfortable about some of the. I don't want to say the practice area even, but feeling they wanted some reinforcement about whether they were drafting things in the correct way or whatnot. And I was saying, well, we have a very collegial bar, or you're in a jurisdiction where you have a very collegial bar. Find somebody who's willing to be a little bit of a mentor. So how would that work without violating. Is it just a matter of keeping the actual specifics, the facts confidential, and then just asking for more general advice? Can you do that?

Speaker B: Absolutely. But you raise a good point, which is that if you're going to. We all have an obligation to maintain the attorney client privilege and to maintain our client's confidential information. So we certainly cannot go to a colleague and say, hey, can I just run this by you? Uh, and then share with them all of the client's confidential information. If that lawyer doesn't have an attorney client relationship, and that consultation is not for the purpose of that other lawyer advising the client, that could be problematic. But an easy way around that is to just generalize the questions and not disclose confidential information, but maybe describe a situation generally and ask for input there also. You know, I would say a lot of what we do is public. I mean, if we're filing a motion and we want to have somebody review it or help work through a legal issue, I don't think there's any issue there. I do that all the time with colleagues at my own firm and even colleagues outside the firm. If I know there's an issue in an area where they have a lot of experience, I always pick up the phone. I think that is one of the more rewarding parts of getting older as a lawyer is that you develop a network and resources to be able to call on once in a while when you need it.

Speaker A: I just felt my blood pressure drop because I was thinking, wow, I was telling this client, I'm not giving them legal advice. Obviously, even though I'm a lawyer that, you know, why don't you kind of find some people to mentor you a little bit more? And, you know, he seemed to be open to that. But as long as it's kept anonymous is what I'm hearing from you, I

Speaker B: think anything we do, anytime we, we talk to people as lawyers, we have to be mindful of our obligations to maintain client confidences. And so we have to, uh, be just abundantly careful that we're not sharing information that's protected. And as long as we don't do that in our interactions with anybody, then I think general discussions or anonymized discussions for the purpose of developing our knowledge or just picking somebody's brain are not only okay, but a really good idea.

Speaker A: A lot of times people start out practices where they're by themselves or they're just with a partner or two, and they're not really that leveraged. But at some point they'll start hiring assistants, virtual assistants, associates, eventually contract lawyers. What are some of the ethical questions that you should be thinking about if you're getting to the stage where now you're starting to grow a little bit?

Speaker B: Uh, a couple, I think. First of all, we have to be sure that we are not certainly non lawyers can't participate in the ownership of a firm. That would be one thing. So we can't deal somebody in, into the enterprise who's not a lawyer. The other piece of that I would think about are our duties of supervision. We have an obligation under the ethical rules to supervise paralegals or even associates who are working for us. The buck stops with us if we're a partner or supervising lawyer on a case. Uh, certainly, you know, associates have their own ethical obligations, but there are duties of supervision. And so that would be something that I'd be mindful of as well. It's a lot easier when you're, when your enterprise is sprawling and there's people doing all sorts of things to lose focus on what others may be doing. But you, uh, know, if a piece of work product goes out the door, it's on the lawyer to make sure that it's, it's correct and done well and serving the client's interests. Same goes with maintaining calendars, deadlines and things like that. There was a case not too long ago. I forget where it was, but a lawyer essentially blamed a paralegal for a missed deadline, uh, and got an earful from either a state bar organization or a judge or something, saying, you know, that's. That's. Just because you hired the paralegal to maintain your calendar does not mean you get to outsource your responsibility to meet deadlines.

Speaker A: It drove me crazy when ChatGPT was really first coming on the scene. And, you know, you'd hear a lot, you know, some reports of lawyers citing cases that were basically hallucinations. And, you know, I don't know, I figured out pretty quickly that's like a duh, like, you're supposed to supervise AI just like you would supervise anything that's helping you in your practice. So can you say something about. Without going in great depth, because it's a huge topic about AI and how to safely use that.

Speaker B: Yeah. This is a Pandora's box. We have spent a ton of time thinking about this at our firm. I've written some articles on it. Um, I've read a lot of commentary on it, a couple of quick takeaways. I think, number one, now the bigger risk is not hallucinated cases, meaning not completely fabricated cases, but it's citing the cases that don't say what we think they say or what we say they say. So you might throw something into M. Chatgpt or something like that, and it might give you a case, and it might say, this case stands for this proposition. You go onto Westlaw, you look it up, you find the case, you say, great, the case exists. It's not hallucinated. You put it in your memo. But if you actually read the case, you would realize it doesn't say anything close to what you said it said. And that, to me, we're seeing more of that. It's becoming more of a problem, and I think people really need to be mindful of that. It's not simply that the case exists. The hallucination days, you know, I don't want to say they're behind us, uh, but that the bigger issue is, does the case say what you think it says? A related point, I've also been really interested on this, and this came up in Massachusetts recently, where an attorney filed a motion for pro hoc viche admission here, and the application was denied because that lawyer had been found to have submitted a brief in another court in another state that included hallucinated cases. And part of the decision in that case talked about a lawyer's supervisory Responsibilities. And this is what's interesting to me. In the past, if I had an associate give me a memo, a legal, you know, memo of law or a motion, I don't know that it would have occurred to me to look up every case and read every case. If it's a routine motion to compel on a discovery issue that we see frequently and there's cases cited to support things for better or worse, in the past, I think I would have taken it at face value that found those cases, read them, and they stand for what we say they do. Now, there seems to be to be a, I think an opinion that we can't do that. As supervising lawyers, we need to read every single case that is cited in any pleading that we file. Because if there's something wrong there, it is not an excuse that it was prepared by somebody else.

Speaker A: It's hard for me to believe that it isn't a matter of training and trust that develops over time. You have an associate that's a first year associate. You're going to need to do that. In fact, I have this terrible memory when I was in law school of submitting a memo to. I was doing a co op and I can even remember what the question was. This is like 40 years ago. Like, who bears the burden of proof in the state of the art defense involving asbestos products liability litigation. And so I did my research, gave the memo to the partner that was supervising me, and he walks over to the Case Digest. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, in the old days you had to get case information from books. And he said, well, what about this case, Steve? And so anyway, I decided not to practice law. I'm not sure how much of it had to do with that particular example. Uh, but I was a law student, so of course the lawyer was going to look behind the memo that I wrote and see if I'd gotten everything. But you know, what if I was like five years out, would that be necessary?

Speaker B: It's a tricky call. I don't have a good answer. I feel like the landscape is changing so frequently.

Speaker A: Okay, if you were advising a lawyer who was six months away from launching your practice, what steps would you tell them to take now to reduce their risk later?

Speaker B: I focus mainly on things that we've touched on. I would say get to know the legal technology as well as you can. Know what is out there, know what you can afford and know what you need. Billing software, calendar software. A lot of these come in suites, you know, legal practice Management suites. But I would start immediately doing tests of those, trying them out, and see what works best for you. So you have that up and running. Uh, number two would be Iolta stuff. I'd absolutely. You'd want to open a bank account under, you know, learn and understand what the requirements are in your estate. So you have that open and ready to go. And then I think one thing we haven't touched on entirely here is, uh, conflicts as well. You're going to want to have a conflict check system from day one where you can make sure when clients come in the door, you're aware of who they are and that you can check them against other clients in the future. And on that point, worth keeping in mind that when we leave a law firm, it's not a clean break in terms of our conflict analysis. If you had represented a client at your prior firm and you developed confidential information about that client, that could prohibit you from representing somebody adverse to that client once you open your new firm. So even though they may not be a client of your new firm because you have had that affiliation and you may have developed some understanding of that client's business, for example, there may be a conflict issue there. So I think those are the three things I'd focus on. A conflict system, legal practice, software management, and Iolta.

Speaker A: Okay, well, we're just about at the end here. So if there's one thing that you wish every lawyer understood before starting their own law firm, what would it be?

Speaker B: It's hard to pick just one. I'm not saying this because I think that the work that we do at our firm is so essential that everyone needs to think about it. But a pound of. Or what's the expression I'm looking for, Steve?

Speaker A: A pound of, uh, prevention. I mean, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Speaker B: Ounce of prevention. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. So, meaning, if you think you may have a problem or you have a question, rather than let it linger on the back of your mind and develop and grow into something that could be a problem, just take the time to deal with it, even if it costs you a few bucks. Because those types of quirky issues or things that are just, uh, a little bit nagging in your mind are exactly what grow into big problems down the line.

Speaker A: I will add, though, also that analysis paralysis will prevent you from launching anything entrepreneurial. True. You got to. Also, that's my whole shtick, like, think like a lawyer, act like an entrepreneur. It's hard for us as lawyers to act like entrepreneurs. But I would summarize what you just said as don't be stupid.

Speaker B: I think that's well put.

Speaker A: All right, last question that I'd like to ask all my guests. What's one movie, streaming television series or podcast that you would recommend for entertainment purposes?

Speaker B: I do not watch much television or podcasts, so I'm not a great person to recommendations from in terms of movies or streaming shows in particular. But one thing I will say is I love music and I love playing music. I love to play the guitar. And I've done this since I was 14 or 15. And I am blown away by the resources that are available through podcasts and YouTube now for people that want to learn an instrument. If I had this when I was 15, I just, I couldn't believe how different the experience would be. So I think that would be my recommendation. Take up an instrument and learn on YouTube. It's a wealth of information.

Speaker A: Okay, I'm going to have some follow up questions for you after we finish this because I now have an electric piano sitting in storage and a Martin guitar that I stopped playing a few years ago and I need to get back to those. But great advice, Mike. This has been a great conversation. Thanks so much for joining me today. If anyone in our audience has follow up questions, how can they reach you?

Speaker B: Uh, please feel free to reach out. You can find me on LinkedIn or go to our firm's website, Concavanaugh in Boston. You can find my email and phone number. Feel free. It would be great to hear from you.

Speaker A: Thanks so much and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you.

Speaker B: Thank you, Steve. It's been a pleasure.

Speaker A: I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you did, please tell others and rate us on itunes or your favorite podcast app and share it with someone who you think might be interested. And if you're watching on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. It will help others find us. If you would like to continue the conversation, I welcome your inquiries and invite you to set up a time to speak with me about your own career or marketing concerns. I've been coaching lawyers for almost 30 years and I'm happy to do a free 30 minute consultation. You could sign up on my website at seclar.com that's s e c k dash l e r dot com on my website. You could also find links to more episodes of Counsel to Counsel and get access to many free career, marketing and leadership resources. In the meantime, thanks for listening.