Suppose next week begins with one of your top paralegals or legal secretaries giving you two weeks’ notice. Maybe they are moving to another location or another local law firm. But now you have an opening to fill.

The first response is not about filling the position. First, you must determine if there are any matters the employee is working on that they no longer should. You must also determine whether some network access rights should be changed.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

If you have been informed the employee is going to work for another law firm, then it is prudent to check and see what matters you have in which that firm is opposing counsel. Hopefully there are not any – or there are only a few old, closed cases. If a departing employee is going to a firm with which you have several contested matters currently underway, it is prudent to have your IT professional restrict that employee’s access to those files and to reassign someone else to do that work, even if it is the lawyer. Some firms take two weeks’ notice as an event which it is simpler to let the employee go immediately and just pay the two weeks’ severance. I am not suggesting that approach. I just know it happens. If you want to retain the employee and your staff rotates who performs receptionist duties, it may make sense to have the employee do more receptionist tasks, which typically involve less sensitive information.

To avoid adding to or causing any negativity, share with the departing staff person that this is the process the firm has adopted, and it is not intended to reflect poorly on them. Rather, it is intended to protect both law firms.

REPLACING DEPARTING EMPLOYEES

You have, no doubt, heard the business maxim, “Fire fast. Hire slow.” No one likes losing a good and trusted employee, but shortcutting the replacement process may ultimately result in having to do it far too often.

That means you must do your homework. Even if you may find it more challenging to hire a replacement in these times, you still must invest the time to hopefully find a great fit for the firm who will stay there for a long time.

So I still support the traditional practice of requiring a cover letter and resume. If they do not have a resume, you may allow them to submit an employment history. Then look for any mistakes.

It might seem harsh to disqualify a recent law school graduate applicant for a typo on their resume or cover letter, but we are discussing staff hiring. Typos, poorly written sentences and other mistakes are significant for those whose job duties would include proofreading and preparing documents and correspondence.

CHECK THE REFERENCES

It is easy to be cynical about references, assuming someone will only provide the names of people who view them positively. But they must list their employment history. If none of their references are from their most recent employment, you will want to make a note to ask about that omission if you schedule an in-person interview. Asking which lawyers they primarily worked with at that firm and what they did for them is a good start.

It is very important to check references, even in this tighter job market. Imagine the worst possible disaster scenario someone new could create. Maybe it is a social media mess, stolen client information, stolen money or maybe an event that makes the local or national news.

Document the date and time you checked their references or previous employer, even if the specifics should not be shared (except perhaps with law enforcement when criminal activity is suspected).

One challenge in checking references or prior employment is that many employers, including law firms, no longer provide much information because of liability concerns. Sometimes all you will receive is employment verification with the start date and end date. Others have suggested you might obtain more information by asking if that former employee would be eligible to be rehired at the firm. A simple “No” response gives you valuable information.

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Today it is prudent to run a criminal background check for every new hire. There will be some exceptions, but the background check is relatively inexpensive and can be done online.

You can also exercise your own judgement with the results and explain to the potential employee that not every mistake is disqualifying. For example, a DUI arrest reduced to reckless driving 10 years ago may not be a problem. But if the person is still on probation for their third DUI and the job involves driving to courthouses to file documents, the past at least merits further discussion, if not moving on to another candidate. Prior theft or embezzlement charges are most likely disqualifying.

Historically, some law firms do not contact law enforcement when they discover embezzlement, whether it is from embarrassment at being a victim, the time involved in dealing with law enforcement or preconceptions about whether charges would be filed. This is another reason why it is important to check references and pay attention to significant employment gaps in their resume.

State background checks can be done at CHIRP, the Criminal History Information Request Portal.

The website states:

In addition to a subject’s first and last name, requests for criminal history record information must include a date of birth. CHIRP will search three (3) years before and after the date of birth for possible matches. Additional identifiers such as aliases (maiden names, previous married names, nicknames) and social security numbers, if known, can be provided for a more thorough search of the OSBI Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Database.

It might be advisable to create a form for potential employees to sign providing all that information, including prior names. I would also encourage you to observe the candidate when you tell them a criminal background check will be required. One grimace may be worth a thousand words. If they say, “I know what you will find. Let me explain,” then let them do so, and give them some credit for their candor. They might confess something in another state that might not be picked up by the Oklahoma background check. But it is also likely they have a reasonable, non-disqualifying explanation.

EMBEZZLEMENT RISK

Depending on the type of law practice, temptations can be presented to employees. Suppose an employee who normally doesn’t handle money is the only staffer remaining at the end of a long day. A client shows up just before closing with a $300 cash payment. The staffer takes the payment and, because it is the end of the day, does not write the client a cash receipt. The bank deposit has gone for the day, so the employee puts the cash in an envelope and puts it in their desk drawer to be turned over the next day. But they do not know how to enter the payment into the client’s ledger. Then maybe absences or the weekend remove it from the top of the employee’s mind. Three weeks later the employee notices a crumpled envelope in the back of the desk drawer. Even the honest employee will recognize that if someone was going to say something they would have done so by now. They may also note that when they turn the cash in, they may be criticized for not writing a receipt or hanging onto the money too long. Add in other complicating factors like the utility cutoff notice they just received.

This is how many of the six-figure law firm embezzlement by employee cases begin. Once it is seen how an embezzlement could work, they could begin looking for other avenues that are open. An Oklahoma lawyer/CPA told me a story where five employees of a firm had American Express business accounts. The bookkeeper soon figured out that she could pay her personal American Express bill with a law firm check and no one would be the wiser. Soon her AmEx account had a large positive balance, and the bookkeeper began traveling for pleasure more.

Good processes can limit the opportunities for financial mischief. Someone other than the bookkeeper doing the books should review the bank statement or online bank records monthly. All cash payments received must result in a receipt given to the client with carbonless copies made.

For an example of a worst-case scenario, we have the case of Blanca P. Greenstein. The West Palm Beach lawyer did not bother with a background check because her then-husband, who was also the law firm’s CFO, recommended the employee, having worked with her at another firm. Had a background check been run, the firm would have discovered this person was a felon, having been previously convicted of theft. As the headlines later noted, “A Swindle Cost a South Florida Attorney Her Law License, Marriage and $155,000.”

Even though the lawyer borrowed money to replenish all missing funds within 48 hours and no one accused her of a wrong, intentional act, she ended up with an agreed three-year suspension from the practice of law, along with paying $8,261 in costs.

That she was an innocent victim was likely a mitigating factor. But the fact that the bookkeeper wrote personal checks to herself totaling $155,000 over an 18-month period was likely an aggravating factor, as even a cursory examination of trust accounting records would have revealed the scheme.

The law practice management advice is the trust account contains funds from clients and others. The lawyer with the trust account has complete responsibility. A lawyer can delegate certain duties, but you cannot abandon oversight of your trust accounting responsibilities. Many large law firms have their employees who handle money bonded, a process that would also catch felony convictions.

CONCLUSION

One of Greenstein’s friends said Greenstein’s story should serve as a lesson to all attorneys that the bar has an “acute sensitivity” when it comes to trust accounting. Given that the lawyer receives the money in trust to keep it safe, that “sensitivity” is understandable.

But this is not the only lawyer discipline story that started with an inadequate hiring process, which is why I want to stress that good processes are essential for law firm staff hiring.

Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal — May, 2023 — Vol. 94, No. 5

As we enter the Artificial Intelligence Age, there is a lot to think about in many aspects of law and society. I encourage you to read Brian X. Chen’s piece in the New York Times Don’t Use A.I. to Cheat in School. It’s Better for Studying. (Gift article link.) The power of the emerging AI tools cannot be denied.

I encourage lawyers to read this piece not because of cheating concerns. I have “missing the point” concerns. When I see people post about a new AI tools impacting legal, for example like an AI tool that reviews contracts and creates a memo summarizing the primary provisions, there is always an immediate reaction like “you will lose your law license or get sued if you use that tool.” We had a few well-publicized blunders by lawyers not understanding the limits of ChatGPT. Sadly, we will probably see a few more. But don’t assume it will make errors in document summaries. That is a relatively routine AI function. If you are unsure of the completeness or accuracy of a summary, then you review that section of the document, which is how summaries have always been used.

You may not feel ready for AI. But as a lawyer you are a life-long learner. This article outlines using AI to learn. I was peripherally involved in a few major trial war rooms decades ago. The excitement of the upcoming trial was tempered with terror as last minute items sometimes cropped up. There were boxes of exhibits, depositions and those ever-important deposition summaries. Today depositions come with key word indexes, which save time.  But why would it be wrong or even a negative to have your AI quickly prepare summaries of all depositions? Maybe you instruct it to compare the summaries to your “theory of the case” document and make suggestions for adding deposition snips to it. Back in the day we had interns or new lawyers do many deposition summaries. There were likely inconsequential errors. Experienced lawyers caught them.

Think of using AI to structure and make more accessible your law firm’s information about lots of substantive areas while maintaining client confidentiality. The tool you want may not exist at the moment or it may be hard to locate.  But it is coming—soon.

I must confess that, although the Attorney at Work website is one of my top resources, some posts there by Analog Attorney. Call it “digital bias” if you will. But sometimes the pieces seem to strain to do something the traditional way, even when digital methods are preferable.

That is noted because I want to encourage you to read “Run Your Practice More Mindfully on a Legal Pad” from Attorney at Work. It is informative and even entertaining to those of us who have spent a large part of our lives writing on legal pads. I know when I had to go to the office supply store to buy legal pads, my favorite brands were “Sale” and “Reduced.” 🙂 But the writer’s collection of the six best legal pads for your firm demonstrates an impressive range of styles, including a wide landscape style pad. If you are often cramming handwritten notes into the margins, this may be the tool for you. But I’m not sure how the Analog Attorney will file those extra wide pages in the paper client file without having to turn it sideways to read the pages.

For attorneys using digital client files, remember that it is fine to take notes on legal pads. Just don’t forget to scan them into the digital client file.

Attorneys need to know about ChatGPT and other AI tools because your clients will use them and at some point there will be a legal issue. So it’s important to understand the basics.

Some lawyers tell me they have never heard of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool from OpenAI, released late last year. I read dozens of posts and articles about ChatGPT every day. Lawyers sometimes tell me they fear ChatGPT misinformation and will never, ever use it. But I believe that many will use AI-powered tools in the near future.

Many lawyers only know the story of the New York City lawyer who is facing sanctions because he used ChatGPT to create a brief and didn’t realize many of the cases he cited were fictitious. Even when opposing counsel noted the cases were fictitious in a sanctions motion, he doubled down by having ChatGPT provide quotes from the fictitious cases. He had a Fastcase account that could have easily helped him determine he was citing fictitious opinions. In the sanctions hearing last week, the lawyer said he was “both embarrassed, humiliated and extremely remorseful” and said his reputation had suffered. But the lesson is not “Do not use ChatGPT.” The lesson is actually very traditional. Don’t cite cases in a brief you have not read. It is particularly dangerous when you are relying heavily on those cases. It is probably best not to use ChatGPT for legal research, but if you do, treat any result with great skepticism, even more than you would with a new law student or paralegal you have just hired, because those employees won’t make things up.

AI-powered legal research and other AI tools will be a game changer—if the tools fit within your budget. Thomson Reuters announced generative AI was coming to Westlaw Precision but then, after CaseText released CoCounsel in March 2023, decided to purchase CaseText for $650 million cash. It is also worth noting Thomson Reuters’ investment of $10.9  million in Spellbook, an assistive AI tool that helps lawyers create documents in May 2023. LexisNexis is promoting Lexis+AI™. Given the legal information these companies have, they will likely resolve the fake cases issue.

But many great uses for AI are extremely low risk—from summarizing a long document you have provided it, to planning vacation travel. If you are submitting a document with confidential client information or legal strategy, you will need to understand how the OpenAI privacy tools operate, so you don’t share the submitted information with others.investment in

For a great “nonhysterical” guide to ChatGPT, I direct your attention to New Possibilities With ChatGPT: Two Professors Weigh In On AI And Legal Education from the North Carolina Bar Association. These professors do quite well explaining how ChatGPT works and outlining its inherent positives and negatives. When a client asks you a ChatGPT related question, you will be glad to have read this.

Originally posted in OBA Courts and More. Some content updated.

Prepaid legal fees and refundability of those fees was the subject of American Bar Association Formal Opinion 505. Yesterday I did a blog post about that and noted it tracked the opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court released in Oklahoma Bar Association v Weigel, 2014 OK 4 (2014).

This is probably a good time to note that this post contains only my personal opinions and represents no policy or view of my employer.

I note the writers of Opinion 505 had to struggle with acknowledging the tension between a somewhat archaic advance form of attorney fee payment known as the general retainer or availability retainer and the thrust of the opinion that unearned fees must be held in the trust account.

This is because there is precedent noting that availability retainers, a fee where the trust account deposit requirement is waved because the fee is earned in its entirety just based on the lawyer’s promise to be available to the client for the stated time, usually a month. The opinion notes that these types of fee arrangements have largely disappeared and are quite rare. This is largely because, as the opinion notes, “the fact that very few clients would actually need or benefit from one…” (page 3)

So why are they even discussed when they are rarely used and are objectively a bad arrangement for most clients? As a review of the case law demonstrates, lawyers charged with a legal ethics violation based on not placing client advances in their trust account will, with some quick research, determine these general or availability retainers are an exception to the general rule. So, it is easy for them to argue the retainer fee in their case must be one of the type that is allowed. It is generally not a winning argument. As noted in the opinion, these rare arrangements are often a poor arrangement for individual consumers and significant disclosure would be required to effectuate one. Sliding the word “nonrefundable” before retainer in the attorney-client agreement, as the opinion (and the Oklahoma Supreme Court) states, would not serve to create an availability retainer.

While I hesitate to quibble with legal scholars and some case law, let me also suggest that perhaps the historical use of availability retainers wasn’t really about availability as much as they were about conflicts of interest. Availability was the reasoning that could be used to approve a practice that at the time was much more common. The practice pre-dated many of the modern ethics rules and some aspects of lawyer regulation.

Suppose Big Bank has one law firm in their region that they used, and the bankers were very pleased with the firm’s competency and service level. They would not want this law firm either advising their competition or being on the opposite side of litigation from them. So, the simple solution was to keep the law firm on retainer. Availability was included, but it was perhaps not the primary motivation. No one at the time would have immediately noted any ethics issue because it was a sophisticated banking client making an arrangement with a sophisticated law firm and it was easy to see how the client benefitted, even in the months where they had little or no contact with “their” law firm. To me that seems more logical than paying the client a large retainer monthly just so someone will answer the client’s phone call at 3:00 a.m.

Now let’s move on to another area where arguably the logic of the availability retainer should apply – subscription legal services. Opinion 505 didn’t mention subscription legal services, likely because they are a relatively new innovation that is not in wide usage. But I am aware of law firms with a subscription offering, where clients can log in for resources to download, get answers to basic questions, how to’s and other resources.

So, assuming the subscription is monthly, can the law firm put all their subscription legal services revenue in their operating account on the first of the month or must it be held in the trust account until the end of the month? Assuming the law firm has made the arrangement very clear to the client and the method of unsubscribing is clear and easy, I predict it would be deemed earned on the first. First, unlike the term retainer, which was criticized in Opinion 505 and not all lawyers agree on its meaning, the term subscription is well understood by the general public. If you don’t want to pay for your subscription next month, simply cancel it this month. There is also the aspect that these services are usually targeted to assist people of modest means and have modest subscription fees. I looked at one such service based in Colorado that charged $24.95 per month and had a 30-day money back guarantee (presumably for the first month). That looks much different than the non-refundable retainer scenario where a lawyer who received a retainer that was prepayment for ten or more billable hours could retain the entire retainer even if the lawyer’s services were terminated after only working two hours on a matter.

It is hard to say when or if there will be a formal ethics opinion by any bar association or judicial body relating to subscription services. But these services may be one aspect of improving access to justice for many citizens, so I wanted to discuss them.

See ABA press release on Formal Opinion 505

Prepaid legal fees and refundability of those fees was the subject of American Bar Association Formal Opinion 505. The recently released opinion states that under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a fee paid to a lawyer in advance for services to be rendered in the future must be placed in a client trust account and may be withdrawn only as earned by the performance of the contemplated services. This includes flat and fixed fees.

This opinion should not surprise Oklahoma lawyers as it tracks the opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court released in Oklahoma Bar Association v Weigel, 2014 OK 4 (2014) which provided clear guidance to Oklahoma lawyers. While sometimes bar ethics advisory opinions use conditional or cautious language, the tone of this opinion was quite blunt.

“The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow a lawyer to sidestep the ethical obligation to safeguard client funds with an act of legerdemain: characterizing an advance as ‘nonrefundable’ and/or ‘earned upon receipt.’ This approach does not withstand even superficial scrutiny. A lawyer may not charge an unreasonable fee. (Citations omitted.) Therefore, under the Model Rules, an advance fee paid by a client to a lawyer for legal services to be provided in the future cannot be nonrefundable. Any unearned portion must be returned to the client. Labeling a fee paid in advance for work to be done in the future as ‘earned upon receipt’ or ‘nonrefundable’ does not make it so.”

The opinion indicated that even the term “retainer” might be confusing to consumers and advance or deposit might be preferable.

ABA press release on Formal Opinion 505

This month”s LTRC Roundtable focuses on Tech for the Ideal Home Office. I joined five others to discuss what are the best and sometimes the worst about our home office tools. There are several great home office topics covered in this brief piece. It is striking how Work From Home has so well established itself. Heard a NYC office worker on the radio saying if you wanted to see someone in the office, you’d best check on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday because the offices were mostly abandoned on Monday and Friday..

 

Suppose next week begins with one of your top paralegals or legal secretaries giving you two weeks’ notice. Maybe they are moving to another location or another local law firm. But now you have an opening to fill.

The first response is not about filling the position. First, you must determine if there are any matters the employee is working on that they no longer should. You must also determine whether some network access rights should be changed.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

If you have been informed the employee is going to work for another law firm, then it is prudent to check and see what matters you have in which that firm is opposing counsel. Hopefully there are not any – or there are only a few old, closed cases. If a departing employee is going to a firm with which you have several contested matters currently underway, it is prudent to have your IT professional restrict that employee’s access to those files and to reassign someone else to do that work, even if it is the lawyer. Some firms take two weeks’ notice as an event which it is simpler to let the employee go immediately and just pay the two weeks’ severance. I am not suggesting that approach; I just know it happens. If you want to retain the employee and your staff rotates who performs receptionist duties, it may make sense to have the employee do more receptionist tasks, which typically involve less sensitive information.

To avoid adding to or causing any negativity, share with the departing staff person that this is the process the firm has adopted, and it is not intended to reflect poorly on them. Rather, it is intended to protect both law firms.

REPLACING DEPARTING EMPLOYEES

You have, no doubt, heard the business maxim, “Fire fast. Hire slow.” No one likes losing a good and trusted employee, but shortcutting the replacement process may ultimately result in having to do it far too often.

That means you must do your homework. Even if you may find it more challenging to hire a replacement in these times, you still must invest the time to hopefully find a great fit for the firm who will stay there for a long time.

So I still support the traditional practice of requiring a cover letter and resume. If they do not have a resume, you may allow them to submit an employment history. Then look for any mistakes.

It might seem harsh to disqualify a recent law school graduate applicant for a typo on their resume or cover letter, but we are discussing staff hiring. Typos, poorly written sentences and other mistakes are significant for those whose job duties would include proofreading and preparing documents and correspondence.

CHECK THE REFERENCES

It is easy to be cynical about references, assuming someone will only provide the names of people who view them positively. But they must list their employment history. If none of their references are from their most recent employment, you will want to make a note to ask about that omission if you schedule an in-person interview. Asking which lawyers they primarily worked with at that firm and what they did for them is a good start.

It is very important to check references, even in this tighter job market. Imagine the worst possible disaster scenario someone new could create. Maybe it is a social media mess, stolen client information, stolen money or maybe an event that makes the local or national news.

Document the date and time you checked their references or previous employer, even if the specifics should not be shared (except perhaps with law enforcement when criminal activity is suspected).

One challenge in checking references or prior employment is that many employers, including law firms, no longer provide much information because of liability concerns. Sometimes all you will receive is employment verification with the start date and end date. Others have suggested you might obtain more information by asking if that former employee would be eligible to be rehired at the firm. A simple “No” response gives you valuable information.

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Today it is prudent to run a criminal background check for every new hire. There will be some exceptions, but the background check is relatively inexpensive and can be done online.

You can also exercise your own judgement with the results and explain to the potential employee that not every mistake is disqualifying. For example, a DUI arrest reduced to reckless driving 10 years ago may not be a problem. But if the person is still on probation for their third DUI and the job involves driving to courthouses to file documents, the past at least merits further discussion, if not moving on to another candidate. Prior theft or embezzlement charges are most likely disqualifying.

Historically, some law firms do not contact law enforcement when they discover embezzlement, whether it is from embarrassment at being a victim, the time involved in dealing with law enforcement or preconceptions about whether charges would be filed. This is another reason why it is important to check references and pay attention to significant employment gaps in their resume.

State background checks can be done at CHIRP, the Criminal History Information Request Portal.

The website states:

In addition to a subject’s first and last name, requests for criminal history record information must include a date of birth. CHIRP will search three (3) years before and after the date of birth for possible matches. Additional identifiers such as aliases (maiden names, previous married names, nicknames) and social security numbers, if known, can be provided for a more thorough search of the OSBI Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Database.

It might be advisable to create a form for potential employees to sign providing all that information, including prior names. I would also encourage you to observe the candidate when you tell them a criminal background check will be required. One grimace may be worth a thousand words. If they say, “I know what you will find. Let me explain,” then let them do so, and give them some credit for their candor. They might confess something in another state that might not be picked up by the Oklahoma background check. But it is also likely they have a reasonable, non-disqualifying explanation.

EMBEZZLEMENT RISK

Depending on the type of law practice, temptations can be presented to employees. Suppose an employee who normally doesn’t handle money is the only staffer remaining at the end of a long day. A client shows up just before closing with a $300 cash payment. The staffer takes the payment and, because it is the end of the day, does not write the client a cash receipt. The bank deposit has gone for the day, so the employee puts the cash in an envelope and puts it in their desk drawer to be turned over the next day. But they do not know how to enter the payment into the client’s ledger. Then maybe absences or the weekend remove it from the top of the employee’s mind. Three weeks later the employee notices a crumpled envelope in the back of the desk drawer. Even the honest employee will recognize that if someone was going to say something they would have done so by now. They may also note that when they turn the cash in, they may be criticized for not writing a receipt or hanging onto the money too long. Add in other complicating factors like the utility cutoff notice they just received.

This is how many of the six-figure law firm embezzlement by employee cases begin. Once it is seen how an embezzlement could work, they could begin looking for other avenues that are open. An Oklahoma lawyer/CPA told me a story where five employees of a firm had American Express business accounts. The bookkeeper soon figured out that she could pay her personal American Express bill with a firm check and no one would be the wiser. Soon her AmEx account had a large positive balance, and the bookkeeper began traveling for pleasure more.

Good processes can limit the opportunities for financial mischief. Someone other than the bookkeeper doing the books should review the bank statement or online bank records monthly. All cash payments received must result in a receipt given to the client with carbonless copies made.

For an example of a worst-case scenario, we have the case of Blanca P. Greenstein. The West Palm Beach lawyer did not bother with a background check because her then-husband, who was also the law firm’s CFO, recommended the employee, having worked with her at another firm. Had a background check been run, the firm would have discovered this person was a felon, having been previously convicted of theft. As the headlines later noted, “A Swindle Cost a South Florida Attorney Her Law License, Marriage and $155,000.”

Even though the lawyer borrowed money to replenish all missing funds within 48 hours and no one accused her of a wrong, intentional act, she ended up with an agreed three-year suspension from the practice of law, along with paying $8,261 in costs.

That she was an innocent victim was likely a mitigating factor. But the fact that the bookkeeper wrote personal checks to herself totaling $155,000 over an 18-month period was likely an aggravating factor, as even a cursory examination of trust accounting records would have revealed the scheme.

The law practice management advice is the trust account contains funds from clients and others. The lawyer with the trust account has complete responsibility. A lawyer can delegate certain duties, but you cannot abandon oversight of your trust accounting responsibilities. Many large law firms have their employees who handle money bonded, a process that would also catch felony convictions.

CONCLUSION

One of Greenstein’s friends and lawyer advisors said Greenstein’s story should serve as a lesson to all attorneys that the bar has an “acute sensitivity” when it comes to trust accounting.[i] Given that the lawyer receives the money in trust to keep it safe, that “sensitivity” is understandable.

But this is far from the only lawyer discipline story that started with an inadequate hiring process, which is why I now believe that these processes are essential for law firm staff hiring.

I’m certain the majority of lawyers would say they don’t print anything on the back of their business cards. That is fine.

A lawyer from southeastern Oklahoma showed me what she prints on the back of her business cards. This is another instance of where people law practice has different approaches than corporate law. People law involves court hearings where the primary tangible result is another court date being scheduled. I often found myself writing the new date on the back of a business card so the client would have written confirmation of the new date (in addition to a notice we’d mail).

But there is something nice about having this “form” to complete. It also greatly increases the chance the client will save the card in purse or wallet, which, as we all appreciate, is good for both lawyer and client. Giving your client several of your business card during the representation isn’t marketing–exactly. But it does make it more likely they will have your business card in the future if legal services are needed again.

Approximately one year ago, it became more challenging to record phone calls on Android phones. In April 2022, Google announced Android apps in the Play Store could no longer use Android’s accessibility APIs for non-accessibility purposes. Since that was how most third-party call recording apps operated, they were effectively killed when the policy went into effect in May 2022.

How to Record a Phone Call on Android by How-To Geek is a comprehensive article on every available way to record a conversation now on your Android phone. Of particular interest is a Google Voice setup where you can push the 4 button to record a call, Google Voice notifies the parties that a recording is underway. But that only works on incoming calls, not ones the caller has placed. Items like that are why this post is so useful. Android users should review this post and set up their preferred method to record calls now, so it will be available if needed. For example, recording a client authorizing you to settle a case might not be the preferred method of documentation, but it works if you preserve the audio file.