Attorney Journal, Orange County, Volume 105

ORANGE COUNTY

Volume 105, 2014 • $6.95

McIntyre’s Civil Alert

Monty A. McIntyre 10 Safety Tips for Law Firms, Attorneys and Legal Professionals

Johnny Lee

Caution! A Management Buyout May Not Be the Way to Sell Your Company

Roger Neu

Law Firm of the Month

Using ROI to Evaluate Project Management Training

Gina Abudi

Essential 1: Time Management

Bill Jawitz

Wanamaker was Right—Getting the Most Out of Your Firm’s Print Ads

Doug Stern

Greenberg Gross DISRUPTIVE FORCE FOR JUSTICE

Brinig & Company INCORPORATED

FORENSIC ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS VALUATION 1983 – 2014 Serving our valued attorney clients in San Diego, Orange County & Los Angeles Business Litigation • • •

Business valuation Damages analysis Accounting investigations

Civil Litigation • • •

Personal economic loss Wage & hour claims Alter ego analysis

Family Law • • • •

Family Code §4058 income analysis Separate property tracing Professional goodwill Pereira / Van Camp analyses

Estate/Trust/Probate • •

Trust litigation accounting Valuation discounts

Brinig & Company, Inc. (619) 687-2600 • Fax: (619) 544-0304 brinigco.com • info@brinigco.com 401 B Street, Suite 2150, San Diego, CA 92101

Specialization matters.

Having represented more law firms over the last 25 years than any other broker in the region, no one understands their real estate needs better than I do.

— JASON HUGHES President & CEO, Hughes Marino

ORANGE COUNTY CORPORATE REAL ESTATE ADVISORS

At Hughes Marino we only represent tenants and buyers – never landlords – so we never have a conflict of interest.

Our only fiduciary duty is to our client, the tenant, and we are wholly committed to protecting their interests. If you are not happy with your service or results, then we will give you our commission. Guaranteed.

(949) 333-3111 | www.hughesmarino.com

IRVINE CENTURY CITY SAN DIEGO DOWNTOWN LA

2014 EDITION—NO.105

TABLE OF CONTENTS features 6 Essential 1: Time Management

6

by Bill Jawitz

8 McIntyre’s Civil Alert

by Monty A. McIntyre

10 COMMUNITYnews 12 Caution! A Management Buyout May Not Be the Way to Sell Your Company

by Roger Neu

LAW FIRM OF THE MONTH

EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER Brian Topor

16 Greenberg Gross

EDITOR Jennifer Appel

by Jennifer Hadley

22 Using ROI to Evaluate

CREATIVE SERVICES Skidmutro Creative Partners

Project Management Training

by Gina Abudi

CIRCULATION Angela Watson

26 Wanamaker was Right

PHOTOGRAPHY Chris Griffiths

Getting the Most Out of Your Firm’s Print Ads

STAFF WRITERS Jennifer Hadley Bridget Brookman Karen Gorden CONTRIBUTING EDITORIALISTS Gina Abudi Bill Jawitz Johnny Lee Norm LaCroix Roger Neu Monty McIntyre Doug Stern WEBMASTER Mariusz Opalka ADVERTISING INQUIRIES info@AttorneyJournal.us

Disruptive Force for Justice

16 28 10 Safety Tips for Law Firms, Attorneys and Legal Professionals

by Doug Stern

28

by Johnny Lee

30 Analytics

The Ally Law Firm Leaders Need

by Norm LaCroix

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE Editorial@AttorneyJournal.us OFFICE 10601-G Tierrasanta Blvd., Suite 131 San Diego, CA 92124 P 858.505.0314 • F 858.524.5808 www.AttorneyJournal.us ADDRESS CHANGES Address corrections can be made via fax, email or postal mail.

Editorial material appears in Attorney Journal as an informational service for readers. Article contents are the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of Attorney Journal.

Attorney Journal makes every effort to publish credible, responsible advertisements. Inclusion of product advertisements or announcements does not imply endorsement.

Attorney Journal is a trademark of Sticky Media, LLC. Not affiliated with any other trade publication or association. Copyright 2014 by Sticky Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without written permission from Sticky Media, LLC. Printed in the USA

Proudly Congratulates

Rick Kraemer

Mark Robinson

Rick Kraemer For being recognized and honored as an

Honorary Legacy Patriot Fellow of the American Board of Trial Advocates Presented in Philadelphia; October 11, 2014

Innovative Design Interactive Presentation Timelines, Charts & Illustrations Medical Exhibits Animation

Latest Technology Digital Trial Databases Synchronized Depositions Equipment Rental Packages

Owner & CEO

Winning Strategies Presentation Consulting iPad Prep with Case Integration Professional Trial Technicians

ESSENTIAL 1 Time Management

by Bill Jawitz As you and your staff learn how to plan, prioritize, organize, delegate, and minimize interruptions in a way that works for you and them, you’ll have more time for—and be significantly more effective at — your two main income-producing activities: serving current clients and developing new ones.

While it is common to speak about “time management,” the simple truth is that you cannot manage time. No one can. Yet you can quite effectively manage yourself—and your behaviors and your choices—as you move through the day.

Indeed, if “time management” is a misnomer, “time management for lawyers” is a veritable oxymoron. Yet, as the practice of law and the requirements of business grow increasingly complex, it becomes even more important to spend your time most productively.

AREAS OF FOCUS Take Control of Your Schedule Prioritize and Delegate Effectively Design Case Flow Systems Conduct Efficient Meetings Organize Your Physical and Electronic Information Take Control of Your Schedule 6

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

If the contents of your calendar and how you spend your day do not resemble each other, it’s likely that at day’s close, too much is undone and behind schedule. Priorities get lost and important work such as marketing or staff development gets pushed aside by the barrage of the “urgent” (such as staff and client interruptions).

Taking control of your schedule requires a combination of applying the right tools and processes that are congruent with your style, and developing the mindset to use them consistently.

When you take control of your schedule, you’ll plan your time based on your key priorities—no longer responding to what is most urgent, but to what is most important. Whether it’s marketing, firm management, client work, or making more time for your children, for example, you’ll work so that those tasks are front and center.

As you learn to apply a handful of basic tactics—batching staff questions, use of do-not-disturb project time, effective calendaring, daily and weekly planning, etc.—you’ll find that your calendar begins to be something that works for you instead of something you’re fighting against.

Prioritize and Delegate Effectively By not delegating effectively, you are wasting your valuable time on tasks that can and should be handled by someone

“Efficient meetings”? Another oxymoron? Most of the time, yes. lower down the ladder. You’ve built inadequate leverage of your production resources into your firm structure and your ability to increase profitability relies too heavily on your own long hours. This is a stressful and self-defeating approach.

If you are one of the many attorneys who has a love/hate relationship with the notion of delegation—longing for its benefits but stymied by how to realize it for your firm—we will help you master the systems to ensure that you and others in your firm delegate work properly.

If you permit the easy rationale that “I can do it better, quicker, easier” to become a self-fulfilling prophesy, you won’t assign work to your legal or support staff, and instead you’ll hold on to too much of it yourself. The negative impact is multiple—not only are you overextended, but you’re failing to develop your people and also likely to be harming your clients’ ability to communicate directly and quickly with your firm.

Design Case Flow Systems If your firm isn’t using and refining case flow templates, you’re almost certainly tolerating inefficiencies in how routine work is getting done. Staff members may not be able to locate a file or document at critical moments—a phone call from a client, opposing counsel, or clerk, for instance. Case notes, client conversations, document drafts, important evidence—all can be scattered around the desk of the numerous legal and support staff who participate in a client matter. You’ll also tend to fail to adequately track time schedules, deadlines, delegation and supervision tasks, and almost any other aspect of representation.

The impact on your practice includes wasted billable time, client dissatisfaction with your firm’s response time to their case status questions, and increased strain on staff and office life generally. Losing track, even momentarily, of client files can quickly become a nightmare—or at least cause a real headache.

By contrast, when you design and implement case flow templates that are aligned with your firm’s practice management software, you are setting the basis to know where each part of the file resides at any point in the course of representation.

You’ll have prompt access to information on status, deadlines, and benchmarks. And both capacity and speed of production will increase.

Conduct Efficient Meetings “Efficient meetings”? Another oxymoron? Most of the time, yes. And the costs of bad meetings are well known. If you’re spending too much time in meetings and getting too little done—or, alternatively, if you are avoiding meeting regularly with your people because you dread the waste of time and/or energy—you are not alone. But that’s no excuse. Your law firm is, in effect, a series of teams—from you and your administrative assistant, for example, to your law partners or practice group— so, team meetings are inevitable for good work product. How

does your firm rate in meeting conduct? Is there a huge waste of time and energy associated with most of your meetings?

If so, it’s time to develop powerful meeting systems. Which meetings to hold, how often, with what objectives? Don’t confuse tactical project meetings with strategic discussions, or everyone will leave frustrated and unclear. The more effective you are in your meetings with staff, colleagues, and clients, the more they will find the time—and thus, YOU—valuable.

Don’t forget, too, that what comes out of the meeting truly provides the value. Do people leave your meetings without explicit agreement about who’s taking what actions, by what date, and how follow-up will occur? Without these agreements, meetings can conclude but the follow-through and desired outcomes are not realized.

Develop substantial meetings skills that you can apply to all your meetings—internally, with clients, with referral sources, or where you serve on community or other boards. You’ll not only enhance outcomes and efficiency, your reputation for effectiveness and delivering strong value will grow as well.

Organize Your Physical and Electronic Information Office disorganization and clutter take a toll on your firm’s ability to be productive, costing you time and money. From ever-present piles of papers or constantly messy desks to email and computer files organized willy-nilly, many attorneys tolerate the inefficiencies that come with disorganization. Time spent looking for things translates directly to lost revenue. It’s stressful, too, and breaks the momentum of production.

Disorganization is often reflected and exacerbated by ineffective case flow systems, haphazard file handling routines, insufficient storage facilities, and most frightening, inadequate backup and disaster recovery/planning systems. Client service and representation, efficiency and profitability, and peace of mind are at stake. In the worst case scenario, the future of your practice can be jeopardized.

Conversely, each step you take toward heightened organization will provide you with immediate benefits. Simply having the right storage within easy reach, for example, can mean the difference between successfully managing a paperheavy workflow and suffering the debilitating effects of lowlevel chaos. You’re buying back your valuable time. We’ll get you on track with solid organizational systems for all your physical and electronic information. It will put your firm on solid ground. You’ll free up time and resources, and earn yourself well-deserved peace of mind. n Bill Jawitz, Practice Advisor with SuccessTrackESQ, has been consulting with lawyers to become more profitable and enjoy a higher quality of life since 2002. Visit us at successtrackesq.com.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6825730 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

7

McIntyre’s Civil Alert Organized Succinct Summaries

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Monty A. McIntyre has over 29 years of experience as a mediator and arbitrator. More than 34 years of experience as a civil trial lawyer representing both plaintiffs and defendants in business and commercial, bad faith, brain injury, construction, land use/CEQA, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases. To schedule a meeting with Monty A. McIntyre contact Kelsey Hannah at ADR Services, Inc. at (619) 233-1323 or kelsey@adrservices.org

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Civil Procedure (Attorney Fees, Discovery) Bui v. Nguyen (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5449782: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The trial court abused its discretion in granting attorney fees under section 1021.5 because plaintiff failed to establish that private enforcement was necessary to protect the public from false advertising by defendant. (C.A. 6th, October 28, 2014.)

Evilsizor v. Sweeney (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5449805: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court and held that a trial court may impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 against a litigant for belatedly withdrawing a motion to quash that, even though legitimately filed, was rendered unnecessary by a subsequent amendment or withdrawal of the subpoena. (C.A. 1st, October 28, 2014.)

Class Action Kight v. CashCall, Inc. (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5573457: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class. On remand after an appeal, the trial court properly granted CashCall’s motion to decertify a class action alleging violations of California Penal Code section 632, which imposes liability on a “person” who intentionally “eavesdrops upon or records [a] confidential communication” and engages in this conduct “without the consent of all parties.” The class was properly decertified based primarily on the argument that the issue of whether any particular class member could satisfy the reasonable expectation of privacy test required an assessment of numerous individual factors, and these individual issues predominated over any remaining common issues, making a continued class action unmanageable. (C.A. 4th, filed October 9, 2014, published November 4, 2014.)

88 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

Employment Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp. (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5439289: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment of $964,557.08 in a wage and hour class action. The Court of Appeal found no merit in defendant’s argument that federal law preempts application of California’s meal and rest break requirements to motor carriers, or the other various arguments. (C.A. 1st, October 28, 2014.)

Legal Malpractice Kasem v. Dion-Kindem (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5464694: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s demurrer without leave to amend regarding the third amended complaint. Plaintiff sued for legal malpractice claiming her attorney negligently failed to designate and call an expert witness at the underlying trial on the issue of whether sewage qualified as a “Hazardous Material” under the lease after the trial court denied the attorney’s request to take judicial notice of statutes which included sewage in the definition of hazardous material. The demurrer was properly sustained because it was the trial court’s error in not taking judicial notice of the statutes, not attorney negligence, that caused the result.

Because plaintiff never appealed that decision, the trial court’s error could not be corrected. (C.A. 2nd, filed October 3, 2014, published October 29, 2014.)

Torts Amerigas Inc. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5408653: The Court of Appeal affirmed the bench trial judgment in favor of cross-defendant Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Landstar). Truck driver Steven K. King sued AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (AmeriGas) for an injury caused by an AmeriGas employee who was unloading empty propane tanks from King’s flatbed trailer at an AmeriGas facility. AmeriGas settled with King and cross-complained against Landstar for equitable indemnity. The trial court properly found that Landstar did not violate Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations regarding experienced drivers, and

even if there had been a violation, it would not have been the proximate cause of the injury because the propane tanks were secure and stable during transit and when they arrived at the AmeriGas yard. (C.A. 4th, October 24, 2014.)

Colombo v. BRP US Inc. (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5472421: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment for plaintiffs arising from serious injuries caused by a jet ski accident. One plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injury to her rectum, and the other plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries to her vagina when, because of operator error, they fell off a jet ski. Once in the water, both plaintiffs were injured when

the powerful jet thrust from the watercraft ripped their flesh. The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for one plaintiff of $3.385 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages, and a judgment for the other plaintiff of $1.063 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

Fiorini v. City Brewing Company, LLC (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5743133: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case where the plaintiff alleged that negligence and strict liability caused the death of his 23-year-old son after he drank two 23.5-ounce cans of Four Loko that each contained as much alcohol as five to six 12-ounce cans of beer and as much caffeine as approximately four cans of Coca-Cola. Because the complaint did not allege that City Brewing (1) exercised

any control over the cans of Four Loko after they were delivered to a regional distributor or (2) took an affirmative step to supply the Four Loko to Fiorini, City Brewing did not “furnish” the beverage to Fiorini, and the civil immunity in California’s dram shop statutes did not extend to City Brewing. (C.A. 5th, November 6, 2014.)

Honeycutt v. Meridian Sports Club, LLC (2014) _ Cal. App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5776200: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s motion for summary judgment for defendant in an action where plaintiff suffered a knee injury during a kickboxing class while being assisted by an instructor at defendant club. The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff had signed a valid waiver of liability, defendant did not act with gross negligence, and the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred relief. (C.A. 2nd, filed October 21, 2014, published November 6, 2014.)

Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. (2014) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2014 WL 5499374: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s rulings granting summary judgment for defendant. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court erred in ruling that (1) defendants had no duty and breached no duty to install a fall prevention device on the window from which the five-year-old plaintiff fell; and (2) the accident was not caused by defendants’ failure to install a fall prevention device on the window. (C.A. 4th, October 31, 2014.)n

CALIFORNIA STATE BAR DEFENSE LAWYERS RECENT AND FIRST-HAND STATE BAR INVESTIGATIVE AND TRIAL EXPERIENCE

WE HANDLE all phases of proceedings including investigations, trials and appeals …

Admissions, moral character, reinstatements and provide ethics consultations

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY RADOGNA

Former State Bar Investigator 2006-2011

OF COUNSEL DAVID SAUBER ESQ.

Former State Bar Trial Counsel 2000-2010

www.StateBarDefenseAttorney.com | 909-622-5049 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

9

COMMUNITY news nMore than 100 attendees of all ages gathered at leading employment, labor and business immigration law firm Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP (CDF) on Oct. 23 to support the firm’s partnership with Wounded MARIE DISANTE Warrior Project (WWP) during its 20th anniversary year. Event co-host Company 77 served stone-cooked pizza out of its unique mobile pizza fire truck—a retired 1983 Pierce Arrow Pumper—and delighted guests with upbeat music, plastic fire hats and a photo booth to capture smiles.

Local support included Irvine Mayor Steven Choi, who presented Firm Managing Partner Marie DiSante with a certificate of recognition congratulating the firm on 20 years of success in Orange County. The Irvine Fire Department also stopped by to support the cause and opened its fire truck for event-goers to explore.

CDF presented a check for $3,000 to WWP National Campaign Team member Sonny Seyedi, to support the nonprofit’s work with wounded service members, veterans and their families. nJason Daniel Feld, a partner at Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld LLP, has achieved the rating of AV Preeminent from Martindale Hubble, which is the highest rating given to a lawyer based entirely upon peer-review measuring the lawyer’s experience, ethics, integrity, expertise in the field of practice, and overall JASON DANIEL FELD professional excellence. Mr. Feld was previously named a Rising Star in the Super Lawyers—Southern California Magazine for three straight years and is licensed to practice law in the states of California, Texas and Arizona. Mr. Feld is an industry leader in construction defect litigation, serving as personal counsel for several large homebuilders/developers as well as panel counsel for several prominent insurance carriers.

BRIAN RAMSEY

10

nTredway Lumsdaine & Doyle LLP (TLD) recently added Brian Ramsey to the firm as an associate attorney. Ramsey specializes in personal injury law and will add his experience to TLD’s litigation practice. Ramsey will serve TLD clients, advocating justice for them during times of need.

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

nKay Rackauckas, managing partner of Keller Rackauckas LLP, a nationally prominent law firm in Irvine, is pleased to announce that the firm has been named to the list of “Top Boutique Firms of 2014,” as chosen by the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals. Fewer than 50 firms statewide made the list and only 9 litigation firms; KAY RACKAUCKAS Keller Rackauckas LLP was the only Orange County litigation firm to make the list. Boutique firms are those that specialize in a niche area of law, such as litigation, appellate, corporate transactions, bankruptcy, tax controversy, environmental, immigration, intellectual property, and labor and employment. nFish & Tsang LLP recently added Dr. Minyoung Shin as an associate to support the firm’s intellectual property practice. Dr. Shin received her law degree from University of California, Irvine, and holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Northwestern University. Dr. Shin specializes in domestic and foreign patent prosecution across various DR. MINYOUNG SHIN technology industries, including biological science, medical devices, chemical engineering and computer sciences. nBerger Kahn is celebrating 30 years in Orange County. Opened in 1984 by Craig Simon and Sherman Spitz, today, the O.C. office is the headquarters for the statewide firm, which practices in the areas of Insurance, Subrogation, Employment, Litigation, Business and Personal Injury. Berger Kahn grew as a firm to include four SHERMAN SPITZ additional longtime shareholders and owners: Lance LaBelle, Stephan Cohn, Teresa Ponder, and David Ezra. The administrative staff is headed by Executive Director Beverli Linn (26 years), Controller Frances Perkins (24 years) and O.C. Office Manager Lynn Klinger (24 years).

The firm also pioneered many firsts in Orange County: the first law office to use exclusively Apple-based computers (an allMac office since 1984, where the hard drives held a whopping 1MB of data!) and the first firm to dress casually in jeans or similar clothes every day (not just casual Fridays). In addition to L.A. and O.C., the firm also has offices in Marin County and San Diego.

COMMUNITY news nTraut Firm proudly announces the hiring of Pamela Liosi, a plaintiff’s attorney with 18 years’ experience handling personal injury, wrongful death, assault, sexual assault, dog attacks and slip-and-fall cases, who joined the Traut Firm November 1, 2014.

Liosi has been involved in many trials serving plaintiffs including: McCabe v.

Isom., a two-week jury trial representing the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident resulting PAMELA LIOSI in a $504,000 verdict with a pre-trial offer of less than half; and Patino v. McArthur, an Expedited Jury Trial compensating the client for all of her medical bills, loss of earnings and pain and suffering.

Liosi served two terms as President of the Italian American Bar Association of Orange County—Lex Romana in 2013 and 2014.

Liosi maintains memberships and board positions with the California State Bar Association, Italian Bar Association of Orange County—Lex Romana, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, the Banyard Inn of Court, and many others, and she speaks and writes on scholarly legal topics to these groups and legal publications including Verdict Magazine, Western State University Alumni Association and the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. nArcher Norris welcomes Matthew Eschenburg and William Tran as special counsel. Eschenburg joins the firm’s business, litigation, product liability and real estate practice groups, while Tran focuses on financial services, intellectual property, litigation and real estate.

Eschenburg manages and litigates all aspects of complex litigation with a focus on construction claims, including strong MATTHEW ESCHENBURG experience handling cases in construction defect and premise liability. In addition to his construction defect practice, Eschenburg lends his legal talents to several other areas of the law. He works on vehicular accident cases, and deals with complex product liability cases involving product manufacturers, suppliers and sellers. Eschenburg also handles cases involving premises owners in general liability, wrongful death and catastrophic injury and employment cases, as well as general business WILLIAM TRAN and real estate litigation.

Tran has more than 14 years of civil litigation and trial experience.

He specializes in complex commercial disputes, consumer class actions, intellectual property disputes, partnership disputes and corporate control issues. Tran litigates a wide variety of complex business claims, particularly claims for breach of contract, unfair competition and false advertising, merger and acquisitions disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, lender liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and other business torts.

LAW FIRM & ATTORNEY SPECIALIST

Harvey A. Lenett, RHU General Agent/Broker License #: 0375704 and 0H93377

40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Offering: Life Insurance • Health Insurance Annuities • Long Term Disability Long Term Care Qualified and Experienced Expert Witness Phone (619) 546-5996 | Halenett@cox.net LenettQuote.com

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

11

CAUTION! A Management Buyout May Not Be the Way to Sell Your Company

by Roger Neu

You own your business and have been agonizing over having to go through a marketing and sale process and then not knowing what will happen to your employees. Then, what you believe to be the perfect solution appears right inside of your organization. A key manager or group of managers has approached you with the proposition of buying the business. The discussion then centers on how you can avoid having to take the company to market and how management’s purchase will provide certainty for the ongoing employment of your employees.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. One of the first things management will say is that they can come up with at least 25% of the purchase price. Let’s use a $50M sale price which means they would provide $12.5M. TRANSLATION: 12

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

Roger Neu is both a CPA and an attorney with over thirty (30) years of experience in mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) of privately held companies. Mr. Neu’s extensive experience in the M&A field, combined with his accounting and tax background and experience and training at Price Waterhouse, provide a solid base for planning and structuring mergers and acquisitions. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Roger_Neu .

“Management believes that a bank will lend them $12.5M against the assets of the company.” So what management is really doing is the same thing that any buyer would do, which is using your assets to obtain senior debt from a bank for a portion of the purchase price. They are not putting their own money into the deal as equity.

Since the managers have little or no funds they will now take it upon themselves to go to the market to find private equity funds and mezzanine lenders to fund the balance of the transaction. TRANSLATION: “You are not avoiding taking the company to market, but have, in fact, put the marketing process into the hands of management instead of controlling the process yourself.” Numerous articles have been written over the years that address the inherent conflict that exists when the person that is marketing the company (management) is the same person that is buying the company (management). Two key problems arise. First, management has no incentive to get investor groups to put a high value on the company because it will reduce the percentage that management can retain. A

$50M value may require an equity investment of $20M. If management has $4M to invest and outside investors add equity of $16M, management only gets a 20% interest. If, however, the total price is $40M with only a $10M equity requirement, the investor equity would only need to be $6M and management would retain 40% of the Company. Second, a quasi-fund raising and marketing campaign by the managers will pollute the buyer pool in numerous ways that will be detrimental to a future sale if management is not successful.

The managers will assure you that they will be the ones doing the heavy lifting to get the deal done and it won’t be at all onerous for you. TRANSLATION: “Instead of putting their full attention on running the company, management will now be busy trying to organize their own buyer group and trying to put funding in place. In addition, you and the company will have to do all the same work (and usually more) in providing due diligence information to various private equity groups and lenders.” No investor is going to provide $50,000,000 in funding without putting you through all the paces.

Management will also be in for some surprises. Management told you how they are going to purchase the company and protect the employees. TRANSLATION: “He who has the money rules and if management is not putting up a significant portion of the equity, management will not control the company.” The investors will control the company and will operate it to obtain the highest rate of return without regard to retaining all of the employees.

You, however, could be in for the biggest surprise of all! Even if you do sell to management, what is to prevent them from reselling the company in six months, one year or whenever? So, even if management, by some unusual set of circumstances, actually did acquire control, they could resell in a short period of time to a totally unrelated party and the guarantee for your employees and your continuing legacy that you thought you had will no longer exist. Management could even double escrow the deal. While putting together management’s financial backing at the $50M price management may be negotiating a follow on sale transaction at a higher price.

You were probably told that the management buyout would also avoid the probability of letting the world know that you are for sale. To the contrary, since many people will have to be part of the management buyout process, it is much more likely that your employees and the rest of the world will know that you have put a “for sale” sign on the business. It is much easier to maintain confidentiality in a well-run marketing process.

If the issues noted above are not already sufficiently concerning, this should get your attention. “You will be negotiating against your management in the buyer/seller process.” Negotiations can get intense and generally the management side will be trying to satisfy numerous parties including lenders, private equity groups and each of the individual interests of each manager. Some hard feelings in the context of a completed management buyout may be OK, but “some hard feelings” can turn into blatant animosity if you should decide that management’s final package is not adequate and their deal falls through. Now when you get ready to go to market you will be doing so without one of your most valuable assets, which is a motivated manager or management team. Management will also have expended a great deal of energy in trying to pull their deal together and will have a very limited appetite (and even less enthusiasm) for wanting to go back through another sale process.

Proceed with a great deal of caution (if you want to proceed at all) if your manager or management team wants to try to buy your company. It is something that sounds good and you want it to be true, but it generally isn’t true. If, however, the owner is intent on pursuing a management buyout, the advice of an M&A Law Firm will be your best ally in maneuvering through all of the minefields and giving you the best possibility of closing a transaction on satisfactory terms and conditions. n Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

13

IS YOUR LAW FIRM MAKING THE BEST IMPRESSION? It might be time to freshen things up if…

• You can’t remember the last time you updated your website • Your website is hard to use on mobile devices • Your business cards and brochures are outdated • You don’t have a real logo or brand established • You’re not doing any email marketing • Facebook and Twitter? Oh, I should be on there?

Don’t worry … just ask Jenny how Skidmutro can help you!

Jenny Strauss 215-460-0835, jenny@skidmutro.com

IDEAS DESIGN MARKETING POWERFUL RESULTS! Websites • Ads • Proposal Design Logos • Business Cards • Marketing Strategy • And much more!

Find out more at skidmutro.com

SAN DIEGO AND ORANGE COUNTY’S LEADERS IN…

• ESI Processing & Hosting • Data Acquisition & Forensics

• Managed Document Review • Paper-based Discovery Services

501 W. Broadway Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Office: (619) 234-0660

FREE MCLE SEMINARS!

Call us for information to schedule a complimentary in-person or webinar MCLE seminar on a variety of electronic discovery topics.

DTIGlobal.com Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

15

DISRUPTIVE FORCE for JUSTICE

by Jennifer Hadley

A

force that is disruptive does not create incremental change; it transforms those it impacts in such a manner that there can be no return. Since opening its doors in early 2013, Greenberg Gross LLP has created a disruption in the Orange County legal community and beyond. As Alan Greenberg, the firm’s managing partner, explained: “We opened our doors at a time in our careers when we knew how to create a firm that could not only perform at the highest level, but also do so with a sense of mission.” And it was that sense of mission that enabled Greenberg and co-founding partner Wayne Gross to quickly build a law firm that, despite being less than two years old, already ranks among the elite law firms in the region. Indeed, the firm, with an impressive list of clients and a string of victories, has been listed in both the 2014 and 2015 editions of “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News Media Group for the practice areas of commercial litigation and white-collar defense. How did Greenberg and Gross create what legal bloggers have affectionately called a “rocket child?” It turns out that the seeds of this particular disruption were planted long ago on opposite sides of the country.

HUMBLE BEGINNINGS Greenberg, 50, was born in Brooklyn. His parents were the children of immigrant shopkeepers, who instilled in their children the value of education as the ticket to the American dream. They encouraged Greenberg from childhood to be a voracious reader and he graduated high school near the top of his class, thereafter attending Cornell University, where he double-majored in Economics and Government. With a passion for business and finance, Greenberg temporarily had difficulty deciding between business or law school. After achieving a perfect score on the LSAT, however, he chose the law, ultimately graduating with honors from Boston University School of Law. After law school, he returned to New York, where he worked on Wall Street financial transactions at a top law firm in the World Trade Center. Greenberg met his beautiful wife, Gina, a Los Angeles native, at BU Law. In 1990, faced with a decision of whether to live in New York or Los Angeles, they chose Orange County. In making the move west, Greenberg made another extremely important decision; he decided to switch from being a deal lawyer to becoming a trial lawyer. Greenberg explains: “I had an offer from a major firm to continue my corporate finance practice, but I decided that 16 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

my true calling was to argue cases in the courtroom, and I have never looked back.” From 1990 through 2007, he worked at high-end litigation boutiques in Orange County before joining the international firm of Greenberg Traurig, where he would soon meet Gross.

Gross, 51, was born in San Francisco to a nineteen-year-old unwed theatre student who believed that she was too young and too poor to care for a baby; she chose adoption as an alternative.

A high school teacher and his wife adopted Gross and raised him in a working-class neighborhood south of San Francisco.

From an early age, Gross demonstrated an affinity for books and words, owning multiple dictionaries that he constantly annotated and, as a teenager, often carrying a pocket vocabulary book that he retains to this day. As you might surmise, his word proclivity did not score popularity points in a tough neighborhood and he ended up on the wrong side of many boyhood fights. “Impressive word usage did not save me from the only rule that mattered in my neighborhood: might equals right,” Gross laughed. As a young adult, Gross attended the same college as his father had, the University of San Francisco, where he took a business law class taught by a practicing lawyer.

Gross explained: “The professor wove war stories from his practice into class lectures; he made practicing law appear to be

ATTORNEY

OF THE MONTH

christopher TODD studios

2014

christopher TODD studios

the most heroic profession imaginable.” After graduating with GREENBERG AND GROSS honors and achieving a near perfect score on the LSAT, Gross JOIN FORCES attended UC Hastings College of the Law, where he graduated Working in the same Irvine office, Greenberg and Gross, near the top of his class. Upon graduation, Gross commenced a though growing up on opposite sides of the country, felt an prestigious clerkship with a district judge in Los Angeles. As a immediate kinship. “We came from similar backgrounds and law clerk, Gross observed federal prosecutors trying cases against had very similar views on how complex business cases should talented defense lawyers and was more than intrigued. He be tried,” explained Greenberg. “We also both equally despise successfully applied to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central injustice and relish the opportunity to remedy it.” Shortly District of California and, at the age of 27, commenced his long thereafter, they came upon the opportunity to jointly try a and successful tenure as a federal prosecutor. case that would change their destiny. A Newport Beach real And it was as a prosecutor that Gross learned the art of trial estate developer, Newport Capital Advisors (“NCA”), had the advocacy. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office provided me with a vision of restoring an aging fantastic laboratory in which I Hollywood architectural learned what is likely to sway landscape to its previous a judge and jury; I discovered glory. NCA brought that how to create trial narratives vision to Commonfund, designed to intrigue jurors an East Coast investment and join me in fact-finding,” fund, as a prospective capital explained Gross. “Federal partner. The two agreed prosecutors are taught that it to form a joint venture to is not enough to win; we had acquire four Hollywood to win fairly and with style.” properties, with NCA taking Indeed, he established himself the lead on identifying and as a go-to prosecutor on highdeveloping the opportunities profile cases, including the and Commonfund providing Katarina Witt stalker case, the the financial backing. In UCI fertility case, and one of 2007, after the properties the first criminal trademark gained $35 million in infringement cases to go to market value, Commonfund trial in Southern California. sought to disavow the joint His primary emphasis became venture and shed itself of financial fraud, for which he NCA, relying on the lack was presented with awards by of any final written contract two U.S. Attorneys General between them. Indeed, and the Director of the FBI. Commonfund went so far In 2004, Gross was promoted as to sue NCA for a judicial to Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s declaration that there was no Office in Orange County, joint venture between the serving as head of the most parties. productive prosecutorial office WAYNE GROSS In response to Commonwithin the Central District for fund’s ploy, NCA unleashed Greenberg and Gross. Instead the next several years. of simply defending the lawsuit, Greenberg and Gross filed In 2007, Gross left government service to become a partner at a countersuit alleging that Commonfund, as a joint venture a large regional law firm. Gross explained: “As much as I enjoyed partner, had violated its fiduciary duties to NCA. Moreover, serving as a federal prosecutor, I knew that new challenges the countersuit alleged that the breach was done in a malicious, awaited me in the private sector and that I would be able to oppressive and fraudulent way, entitling NCA to punitive put to use what I had learned working for the Department of damages. But to NCA, the case was about more than money. It Justice.” Gross immediately did put his formidable trial skills was also about principle and a desire to expose Commonfund’s to use, trying several high-stakes business cases and repeatedly business practices for all to see. demonstrating that he is a bet-the-business litigator. In 2009, With significant money and its reputation on the line, Gross joined the global law firm of Greenberg Traurig as a Commonfund relied on its own big firm lawyers, who sought shareholder in its Irvine office. “I decided that the larger platform to aggressively defend its conduct at trial. They not only would enable me to take on even larger cases,” Gross explained.

18 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

christopher TODD studios

asserted that there was no meeting of the minds on a joint Following the four-week trial, a 12-member jury unanimously venture, but also that there were no damages for the alleged ruled that Commonfund had breached its fiduciary duties, breach. Specifically, Commonfund claimed at trial that while awarding approximately $16 million in compensatory damages the four Hollywood properties held great promise in 2007, the and $34 million in punitive damages—everything the duo had financial crash decimated their value, even sending some into sought for their client. Commonfund appealed, but ultimately foreclosure. According to Commonfund, it lost $60 million on entered into a confidential settlement and dismissed the appeal. the investments, such that NCA was not harmed by its exclusion While both Greenberg and Gross have had a long history of from the joint venture. successful trial outcomes for their big-firm clients, the NCA Greenberg and Gross were prepared for this defense. Before verdict served as an invaluable and instructive lesson on their trial, the team had mined through hundreds of thousands role in the justice system. Gross explained, ”Due to conflicts, of Commonfund’s documents, establishing through internal big firm lawyers are often limited to defending large clients who records not only that the investor had breached its fiduciary duties have been sued and thus can only play defense, not offense. to NCA, but pinpointing the But the NCA case was a rare date in March 2008 when instance in which big firm Commonfund decided to lawyers were able to play oust NCA. At trial, Greenberg offense by pursuing a large and Gross successfully argued entity, ultimately obtaining that the value of NCA’s one of the largest trial verdicts interest in the joint venture in California that year.” And at the time of breach—$16 it was that experience that million—constituted the led the duo to leave the big appropriate compensatory firm and form their own award, rather than its reduced litigation firm, focused on value after the financial crash. high-stakes commercial cases To bring the point home to for plaintiffs and defendants. the jury, the duo framed the fight as a battle between good THE MISSION OF and evil, using the metaphor THE FIRM of a thief who steals a car and In opening their own firm, claims that because it crashed the duo drew upon their and burned after the theft, the collective experience to victim is entitled to nothing. incorporate into the firm But the duo did far more the best of what each had than rely on metaphors learned. For example, they during the four-week trial. decided that the firm, from They played six hours of Day One, would focus on deposition video that helped pursuing justice rather than pull back the curtain to profits, and would only expose that Commonfund’s accept cases from those executives, who stood to ALAN GREENBERG clients whose cases were gain seven-figure bonuses worthy of such absolute dedication. Gross explained: “This in connection with the appreciation of the joint venture firm is not for everyone. We don’t consider ourselves a place properties, were bent on undoing the partnership. They knew that sells legal work like widgets. It is our philosophy that that the depositions, if wielded properly, would prove to be a every pleading, every letter, and indeed everything we do must powerful weapon. During closing arguments, they re-played a represent the finest legal work that we can bring to bear— clip of one of the executives who reflexively sipped from his and we’d argue that it is the finest legal work that you’ll find coffee cup after particularly tough questions. They played the anywhere in this country. I know it sounds idealistic, but when clip with no sound, focusing the jury on the executive’s shaking we impart that message to clients through our work, and they hand as he raised the cup before answering the question. “The see the results, it resonates throughout the business community jury watched this ‘tell’ in silence and was visibly moved by it,” and gets the attention of people who want and need serious Gross said. “We knew, at that moment, that the other side was business litigators. I guess you could say that we’ve found that in deep trouble. Sometimes the most subtle evidence, if used when you are mission-driven instead of profit-driven, you are correctly, can be the most damning.”

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

19

actually more profitable.” The firm adopted a logo—a pair of interlocking Gs—that sought to capture the firm’s clientfocused approach. Greenberg explained: “Our firm’s logo is displayed throughout the office—etched in the windows, on our letterhead, obviously—even on our cufflinks! We want to reinforce that we work hand in hand with our clients. We are an extremely client-centered firm, which means that when we take your case, you essentially become part of the firm. Lawyers who don’t really listen to clients and put the clients’ needs first aren’t as successful as those who do. It’s that simple. That’s what the logo means.” In addition to the logo, the firm’s lobby, just like the lobby of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, features an American flag, serving as a constant reminder to all who walk through the doors that the mission of the firm is to pursue justice.

As for the location of the firm, Greenberg and Gross determined that it should be located in the Center Tower in Costa Mesa, which is at the heart of Orange County’s business and arts community. Gross explained, “We wanted the look and feel of the office to invoke the dignity and majesty of the law but at the same time be inviting to clients and friends of the firm. So how do you do both? We started with a very strong base—we put our headquarters on the 17th floor of the Center

Tower at South Coast Plaza. It’s one of the tallest buildings in Orange County and it’s one of the county’s traditional hubs of law and commerce, not to mention philanthropy and the arts.”

But an impressive office space and a compelling logo are not enough to create an elite law firm. The most important ingredient, according to Greenberg, is its team: Greenberg Gross has hired a team of star lawyers from highly respected firms, such as Irell & Manella and Morgan Lewis. To hire such coveted associates, the firm decided, from the beginning, that it would pay at or above the associate compensation scale established by Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. While it is highly unusual for a new firm to do so, Greenberg explained the reasoning as follows: “We have no problem paying top-of-the market compensation to obtain the best and brightest lawyers in the country to ensure that we may continue to provide world-class service in every case.” And all of such lawyers are required to dress in courtroom attire five days a week. Gross added: “We are not fans of casual Fridays. Every business day our lawyers dress in a manner that reflects the firm’s sense of purpose. This is not about fashion or trends; it’s about lawyers accurately conveying to the world in the way that they speak, act and dress that they are striving for excellence in their pursuit of justice.”

Another great Friday event where the county’s leaders in business, politics and the arts come together for champagne and hors d’oeuvres.

christopher TODD studios

Adam Sechooler, Frank Mickadeit, Leanna Costantini, Joshua Franklin, Alan Greenberg, Wayne Gross, Daniel Gutenplan, Jennifer Bagosy, Jesse Bolling and Bret Hembd.

GIVING BACK While serving its clients at the highest level is extremely gratifying to Greenberg and Gross, they both are committed to making sure that the firm also contributes to the enhancement of Orange County and beyond. Gross explained: “We want the firm not only to be an appropriate venue for legal meetings and depositions but also a place for the county’s leaders in business, politics and the arts to come together. So almost every Friday afternoon at 4:30, we have a handful of VIP guests in for champagne and hors d’oeuvres. Business leaders, politicians, heads of non-profits, educators, journalists, lawyers in other practice areas, clients—a nice mix. Great conversation, spectacular views, and great champagne! We want to be part of the civic conversation both figuratively and literally.”

The firm also gives back, sponsoring many worthy nonprofits. At a recent Friday event, for example, Greenberg and Gross invited a non-profit organization called Boys Hope Girls Hope to join the firm. The organization is dedicated to supporting homeless children of Orange County who possess academic potential by providing them with a home, financial support, and academic guidance. Gross learned of the organization when a client introduced him to a teenager who had endured homelessness after losing both of his parents but, thanks to the organization, had successfully completed high school and had started college. Gross explained: “I could have been that kid. In my case, great parents adopted me. In his case, a great organization effectively did. Greenberg and I concluded that both the organization and this kid deserved the firm’s support.” They honored both the organization and the teenager at a special Friday event filled with clients and other

prospective supporters. Boys Hope Girls Hope is just one of many nonprofit organizations supported by the firm, each of which received special recognition at a Friday event. Greenberg explained why he and Gross do this: “So much of what we do in our high-stakes business litigation practice is, by its nature, adversarial; it is nice to take a break from that world and to simply extend a helping hand to those in need.”

THE FUTURE Since its founding in April 2013, the firm has grown to ten lawyers and represents public companies, prominent law firms, nonprofit organizations, and high-level executives in their most important legal matters. Alan Greenberg explained the firm’s plans for future growth as follows: “We have no desire to be the largest law firm measured by number of offices or lawyers.

We simply desire to be the firm of choice for plaintiffs and defendants in their most significant and challenging business cases.” Gross added: “We expected that the firm would be successful, but didn’t expect that it would happen this quickly. It demonstrates the power of having a sacred mission in life. Once you decide to take on such a mission, you can never go back.” n

Greenberg Gross LLP 650 Town Center Drive Suite 1750 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Main: (949) 383-2800 ggtriallaw.com Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

21

Using ROI to Evaluate Project Management Training

by Gina Abudi Gina Abudi has over 15 years’ consulting experience in a variety of areas, including project management, process management, leadership development, succession planning, high potential programs, talent optimization and development of strategic learning and development programs. She is the president at Abudi Consulting Group, LLC (abudiconsulting.com) in Amherst, NH. Gina blogs at GinaAbudi.com.

She has been honored by PMI® as one of the Power 50 and has served as Chair of PMI®s Global Corporate Council Leadership Team. Gina is currently President-Elect of PMI® Massachusetts Bay Chapter Board of Directors. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gina_Abudi

Introduction Return on Investment (ROI) is a monetary measurement that is used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of an investment made by an organization. Investments take many forms—financial, human capital, equipment, and training programs—to name just a few. This paper will focus on the use of ROI and the Phillips ROI Methodology(TM) to measure the effectiveness of a project management training program completed within XYZ Law Firm. The 5 levels of evaluation which will be reviewed within the case study include: Level 1: Reactions (the “smiley” sheet): Did participants like the training they received? l Level 2: Learning: Are participants confident that they have learned something from the training program? l Level 3: Behavior/Application: Are participants able to apply what they learned in the training program back on the job? l Level 4: Results/Business Impact: Did the training show improvement in efficiencies, productivity, profits, costs, reduced turnover? l Level 5: ROI: Did the training program show a positive ROI? l

Why the Interest in ROI for Project Management Training Programs?

The challenges surrounding training and its effectiveness within the organization have become more complex over the years.

Today, the challenge is even more significant for learning and development professionals. Return on Investment (ROI) as a tool for evaluating project management training is becoming an expectation of senior executives within organizations. In today’s tight economy with reduced resources and tighter budgets, learning and development professionals are finding it increasingly necessary to show the monetary value of the project management programs they are bringing to the organization.

Today, the success of project management training programs is

22

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

measured by the financial contribution of the program to the organization. It is not surprising then that ROI measurements for project management training programs are often requested.

With such a large focus on project management in all kinds of organizations, there is an increasing desire to show the monetary benefit of investing in project management training programs which often reach a wide variety of employees and represent a significant investment for organizations.

The case study example below will follow the Phillips ROI Methodology(TM) and encompass the four major phases of the methodology: Evaluation Planning l Data Collection l Data Analysis l Reporting l

Case Study Background: XYZ Law Firm XYZ Law Firm was interested in developing a project management mindset within the firm. There was support from the managing partners and funding was expected to be approved.

The goal of the training was to ensure that completing projects at the law firm was not a severe drain on resources. There was much anxiety behind any project which needed to be completed and the champions of the training program—which included a few of the partners, attorneys and the paralegals—were confident that with some basic project management training, this anxiety could be controlled and projects done within the firm would be more easily managed within the law firm. The whole concept of “project management” scared individuals.

The managing partners of the law firm specifically wanted to be updated on project status and they often felt that they were unsure what projects were being worked on and how they were progressing.

A significant goal was to ensure implementation of best practices and standard processes and increase knowledge sharing.

Overall the goals of the training program included:

Increased likelihood of successful projects l Ability to implement strategic plans into action l Improved monitoring and controlling of projects l Proactive risk management l Improved time management and teamwork l Efficient utilization and tracking of resources l Standards around status reporting l Implementation of best practices and standard processes Some of the projects that the law firm worked on included: l

l l

l

l

IT/infrastructure projects A variety of projects for their corporate clients, such as mergers and acquisitions and major contract negotiations Annual recruiting projects (which included recruiting from law schools worldwide) Long-range capital strategic projects

Many such projects always took longer than originally planned for, went out of scope and went over budget and resource commitment. This was certainly a problem for the client projects the law firm worked on as such projects were under fixed price agreements with the client. If the project went off track, it would impact the profitability for the law firm for that particular engagement.

Phase 1: Evaluation Planning Based on the goals of the law firm, a three-day customized basics of project management training program was developed. Prior to the start of the program, data was collected on past project initiatives, specifically around: l l l l l

Budget Time Scope Resource utilization Quality

Much of this data was tracked, although it was not in one central location and required conversations with many members of the law firm—from managing partners through to paralegals and administrative assistants.

In the first phase of the project, we developed a plan around the data we would be collecting. The plan included the following components for Level 1–4: l l

l

l

Level 1: Satisfaction survey to participants Level 2: A test administered to participants to measure the learning from the three-day program.

Level 3: Action Plan follow-up and questionnaires including information on how the participants were applying the skills they learned. Level 3 questionnaires also went to managing partners and senior attorneys to get their feedback and perception of the skills being applied.

Level 4: Collection of all data for business impact

We also developed an ROI Analysis Plan to include the items

we intended to measure against to show improvement based on the three-day training program. The data items to be collected at Level 4, which are the impact measures targeted for improvement, included: Improved performance on projects—including improved quality of end result l Efficient utilization and tracking of resources l Increased percentage of successful projects (on time, within budget, within scope) l Implementation of best practices and standard processes We set the ROI (hurdle) rate at 20%. l

Phase 2: Data Collection A pilot group of 20 junior attorneys, paralegals and administrative assistants were selected to go through the program first and measure the benefits of the training. In this way, an isolation factor—an important component of doing an ROI study— was available to compare against a similar group of attorneys, paralegals and administrative assistants who would work on projects also but would not initially attend the three-day program.

The following data was collected from the program: Level 1: 95% of the participants were satisfied overall with the three-day customized program. l Level 2: 100% pass rate on the exam (85% or higher was considered passing). It should be noted that the exam was not an overly difficult exam and as long as the attendees participated and paid attention in the three-day class they would be able to pass the exam. Frankly, the real measurement was in the Action Plans that were produced. l Level 3: 100% of the participants submitted Action Plans and completed follow-up questionnaires. Action plans were completed after the class and followed up on within 6 months.

The action plan included information on: m Participant’s goals (individual improvement efforts) m How participants intended to meet those goals o Action steps to be taken o Support and/or resources needed o Timeline for completion m How participants will know if they are successful in meeting those goals m How participants will evaluate that success l

After the six-month time period, participants were asked to complete a Continuous Improvement Plan for moving forward.

This follow-up to the Action Plan included: m m m l

Results/accomplishments to date Next steps to accomplish Timeline for doing so and support needed

Level 4: Data collected from participants and managing partners and senior attorneys on the impact to the business. The data collected from Level 4 showed a 40% increase in the number Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

23

of successful projects. Successful projects went up from 70 successful out of every 100 (smaller projects included in the 100 along with more strategic projects) to 98 successful out of 100. m

40% increase in the number of successful projects On time and within budget and scope

o

Projects met set quality standards

o

Resources tracked and effectively allocated

o

Standard processes implemented for all projects

o

Lessons learned captured and best practices shared

o

Phase 3: Data Analysis In converting the data collected to a monetary value, we found that cost savings (program benefits) were as follows: l

More efficient use of resources: $285,000.

l

Projects on time and within budget and scope: $250,000

l

Increase in better tracking of client projects: $450,000

Program benefits are measured in Level 4: Business Impact. To convert to a monetary value, a dollar amount was put to every resource based on salary/time/fringe, etc. If projects did not go out of scope, no additional resources were needed, which was a cost savings. More efficient use of resources also meant that projects had fewer people assigned to them. The $450,000 in increase from better tracking of client projects was the amount that would have been lost from the bottom line had those projects that were measured not been completed successfully.

The total cost of the program was $320,000. This included planning for the ROI study, food and beverage for participants in the program, facilitator costs, development of the customized program, time out of the office for training, salary/fringe of participants, etc. Any cost associated with the program or planning for the program was included in the total costs. The biggest component of the cost was salary/fringe of participants— especially since the attorneys and paralegals are billable resources.

Intangible benefits, those benefits that did not have a dollar value associated with them, were also considered. They included: l l l

Reduced anxiety over involvement in and managing projects.

Improved teamwork and reduced conflicts Satisfaction of managing partners and senior attorneys over status reporting on projects

These intangible benefits were able to be tied back to the program and certainly contributed to the success of the projects.

During phase 3, we calculate the ROI of the project management training program, using the ROI formula:

Phase 4: Reporting A report of the results of the study was presented to the managing partners of the law firm. Components of the study were presented to the participants and others in the law firm.

The project was considered a success and it was decided that the three-day customized project management training program would be rolled out firm-wide. Additionally, a halfday program was created for the managing partners of the firm to provide them training around how to support project initiatives. A future focus was to develop a portal to house all project information. That was a “to do” for the IT/Application Development department and would b e a key strategic project for them.

Summary For training and learning departments, the PMO, or lines of business, showing the ROI of the project management training programs conducted within the organization, whether in-house developed programs or vendor-provided programs, enables you to show the value the programs have on the business in monetary terms that executives can understand, respect, and champion.

The six types of data collected during the Phillips ROI Methodology (TM) process (see list below) enable for consistency in the measurement of project management training programs, thereby bringing credibility to the process. l l l l l l

Reaction and value of program Learning and confidence Application and implementation Business impact ROI Intangible benefits

To begin measuring your project management training programs, you might start with a brand new program or review the current programs that are in place—following the criteria for measuring project management training programs discussed earlier in this paper. If you review a current program, gather data on the initial purpose of the program when it was first developed and implemented. Does it still meet that purpose?

What value do you perceive the individuals taking the project management training program are achieving? How much has been invested in the program since the beginning? Should this program remain in place “as is,” or should it be updated, or possibly be eliminated from your offerings in its entirety or in part to accommodate new needs among your project managers?

An ROI study will enable you to look at the value of your current programs and enable you to better plan new programs.

ROI = Net Program Benefits / Program Costs x 100

References

ROI = $665,000 / $320,000 x 100 ROI = 2.08 x 100 ROI = 208%

Phillips, J. and Phillips, P. Show Me the Money: How to Determine ROI in People, Projects and Programs, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

For every $1.00 invested, $2.08 is returned after the costs are recovered. This was significantly over the 20% ROI set at the beginning of the project during the planning of the study.

Phillips, J., Phillips, P., Stone, R., and Burkett, H. The ROI Field Book: Strategies for Implementing ROI in HR and Training, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier n

24

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

Wanamaker Was Right— Getting the Most Out of Your Firm’s Print Ads

Doug Stern is a freelance business writer and strategist (dougstern.com) based in Louisville, Ky. He has marketed major law firms throughout the United States, including managing their ad campaigns. Doug can be reached at doug@doug-stern. com or 502-599-6624. Article Source: http://EzineArticles. com/2295523.

by Doug Stern

John Wanamaker

practically invented retailing. It was the late 19th Century, and he was bringing thousands of shoppers to his downtown Philadelphia department store with all sorts of gimmicks and innovations.

Advertising was one of these innovations. And, Wanamaker was spending fortunes on the city’s papers.

Despite his success, Wanamaker used to complain. He’d say that he was confident that half of what he was spending on advertising worked... but that he couldn’t tell which half.

NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED Most big law firm managing partners understand how Wanamaker felt. You’re probably planning your first campaign, looking for ways to do a better job with what’s out there now, wondering if you’re on the right track or idling somewhere in between.

Whatever your status, the following offers a few corrections or confirmations. It begins with a word about having the right expectations, the issue that usually stays on top for most managing partners.

26

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

SETTING THE BAR Lots of studies show that print advertising is the best way known to “get found.” It’s efficient and, if well-produced and well-distributed, faster than anything else at getting your name and message out there.

On its own, however, it is not likely to get the phone ringing with new business. That’s because ads largely are a cognitive tool— one that lets its viewers know you exist. Ads impart information.

Rainmakers know, however, that information alone won’t get you hired. That takes connecting emotionally with clients, something that recognizes that people buy from people.

Print ads generally lack the capacity to convey the emotional charge it takes to “get picked.” Good ads will get you on the short-list. They’ll soften the sale. But the rest is largely up to you and your rainmaking skills.

WHAT’S A “GOOD” AD? First, it has to get noticed. That takes using an image that will arrest the viewer’s eye. That’s tough, considering the relentless

bombardment of images and messages each of us endures or ignores every day.

Robes and globes probably won’t get the job done. Neither will pictures of gavels, scales of justice, law libraries, briefcases, huddles of lawyers, or any other hackneyed, hidebound image.

Look instead for an image that conveys wit. Or sophistication.

Or intelligence. Look for an image that illustrates your firm’s values and personality. An image that sets you apart and relates to your clients’ self-interest.

Second, your ad has to be readable. Think of it as you would a billboard. Remember that your clients are blasting through whatever magazine, newspaper, or airport in which you’ve placed your ad.

Can you read and process more than seven words when you drive by them at 70 MPH? When you’re also checking your PDA and carrying on one or more conversations?

Too many words in an ad will lose a viewer’s attention, no matter how firmly the image grabs them. That’s true of both the headline and your ad’s text.

In fact, a few of the wrong words will lose them. Keep the focus on suggesting value to them and away from stating your credentials for the sake of impressing anyone with them.

WE CAN DO THAT! Resist the urge to produce a print ad by yourselves if you have no background or experience in advertising. Especially the written part. Ad copy is tough to write. It suspends rules. It’s conceptual. Writing it is an art.

Lawyers can write. Many can write well. But it’s extremely rare to find one—let alone a group of lawyers—who can compose an ad. Much less a series of ads.

It’s rare to find an attorney who can write like an artist.

IS THIS WORKING? It’s a matter of when, not if, your partners will ask about ROI. They live in a quid pro quo world. And, after all, it’s their money.

Tell them the following. “We don’t know if it’s working and have no way of finding out. The mathematical model has not been invented to reliably measure the impact of advertising.”

Tell them about John Wanamaker.

CUTTING THROUGH THE CLUTTER People are a little like radio receivers. They have different abilities to pull in weaker signals and to keep the stronger ones separate.

Your job is to send a signal with enough strength and clarity to get picked up easily...regardless of any inconsistencies at the other end.

This is where it pays to be consistent. Have you just relaunched your Web site or re-designed your letterhead? Plan to?

Then tie your ads to the color palette, the message and anything else that represents your image and what’s already—or, about to be—out there.

Remember, too, that once is not enough. In fact, once is a waste. I swear by the studies which suggest making seven

impressions to get and to stay top-of-mind.

So, figure on at least seven insertions each year for your ads.

That’s on the low end. It assumes that you’re mailing, calling, socializing with, and otherwise making impressions on anyone who matters to you and your business.

HOW ASYMMETRY HELPS There’s another key to getting your ad noticed and remembered when it’s just one of an avalanche of competing messages and images from others. This is the part of your campaign that recognizes that most consumers bore easily.

Boredom will kick in if your ad’s targets see the same image and message from you week after week, month after month.

So, vary. Create two or three complementary print ads, budget permitting, and alternate their placement. Make them all part of a consistent theme and look, but with enough variety that your public notices each ad each time with a little surprise (even when they’ve seen the ads before) while still associating them with you and your campaign.

REACHING THE RIGHT PEOPLE Even the best ads won’t do you much good if they’re in the wrong place. Here’s where being strategic figures in.

Assuming you have a limited budget, what’s your top objective?

Getting merger candidates to take you seriously?

l

Attracting outstanding law students or laterals?

l

Making your existing clients feel proud that you represent them?

l

Making your internal audiences more aware that marketing and selling matter at your firm?

l

Letting a business or industry sector know that you exist?

l

Each of these objectives indicates a different, targeted media.

Sometimes that’s a local B2B periodical. Other times, it’s a national trade publication read by managing partners.

KEEPING THIS IN PERSPECTIVE Most of you have probably studied the available placement options. You’ve noticed that they’re on to you.

Most B2B periodicals have ads from law firms. Some (e.g., the ones read by corporate counsel) are chock-full of law firm ads.

Publishers and their sales departments have, therefore, made it harder for a firm to get noticed because of the success they’ve had with law firms. Their attractiveness has made them less attractive.

So, keep advertising in its proper perspective. Print advertising for law firms has an important but limited purpose.

Difficulties aside (e.g., competition, weak ads, etc.), print ads work. But they work best when they’re deployed in combination with other, coordinated get-found and get-picked activities.

Doing nothing is the only option with virtually certain results. Wanamaker knew that. n Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

27

10

SAFETY TIPS

for Law Firms, Attorneys and Legal Professionals

Violence committed by clients against attorneys and legal professionals is real. It happens in small towns and big cities, and in small and large legal practices. Some practice areas are more volatile than others, such as divorce and family law, dispute resolution, employment law and real estate litigation.

Particularly in a bad economy with high unemployment, tempers are short and more people reach levels of desperation.

While dramatic cases like shootings at law firms make headlines, the majority of security incidents among attorneys and staff are unreported because they involve harassment and lowerlevel threats. In the privacy of attorney-client meetings, emotional and sometimes irrational individuals lash out at their lawyers.

Money is often at the heart of disputes and many attorneys are confronted with disagreements about their billable hours. Clients become upset and irate about how their case is proceeding or the outcome of a case. Meetings that involve elevated voices and foul language can be the precursor to a physical altercation.

Receptionists and other staff in law firms also encounter angry, hostile clients. Although experienced receptionists have a thick skin and are sometimes trained in how to manage harassment by clients and opposing parties, there are situations when they are truly threatened and in danger.

Law practice management should include systems and procedures that ensure workplace safety and violence prevention for attorneys and staff. All law office employees should acquire the skills to recognize and manage threatening, potentially dangerous individuals. Client-facing legal professionals need tools to protect themselves and prevent early-stage situations from escalating into major, dangerous events.

Here are 10 safety tips for attorneys and legal staff.

1. Create a safe work environment for receptionists. Ensure receptionists have a clear view of the office entry way with little opportunity for people to sneak in or hide, particularly doors, elevators, and all traffic flow. Design the front desk to provide a barrier between receptionists and clients but also allow easy escape. Delineate a clear understanding of where clients are allowed to be in the lobby and front desk area.

Remove office objects from the front desk that are potential weapons and keep them stored in drawers or cabinets— staplers, scissors and letter openers. Keep computer screens and family photos away from public view.

2. Establish safe meeting areas for clients and attorneys. Safe areas can include windows to allow co-workers to see what is occurring inside but still maintain confidentiality.

28 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

by Johnny Lee Meeting areas should have two entrances so attorneys and staff can avoid being cornered. Before entering meeting rooms with potentially threatening clients, remove potential weapons from them.

3. Install security technology. Technology helps protect employees, reduces the severity of incidents and provides ways to quickly respond to situations. Consider installing buzzer doors that allow entry only after verification of the visitor. Provide panic buttons for attorneys, receptionists and other staff to discreetly notify others of a potentially dangerous situation before it escalates. Cameras and adequate lighting also help deter assailants.

4. Train all attorneys and staff how to handle angry clients.

Defusing skills and knowing how to de-escalate hostile behavior are essential for attorneys and client-facing employees. Listening skills, redirecting negative behavior, setting boundaries and assault awareness are all acquired skills that should be continually honed with training and practice. There are many free online resources and security consultants who provide these services.

5. Establish a workplace violence policy and procedures. These should include clear instructions on how employees can report any concerns. Just as important as the method of reporting is an environment where all employees feel safe and supported. A danger that occurs in all workplaces, including law offices, is domestic violence spillover. When employees face domestic violence threats they must feel comfortable enough to inform their manager about embarrassing, private matters.

6. Provide employee assistance programs. Employee issues also arise from within a law practice. Human resources should provide support programs to employees with disciplinary issues or personal problems. This type of support helps prevent acts of violence and helps create a stronger, healthier workplace.

7. Develop risk and threat assessments. When a threat by a client emerges or is identified, a law office needs a process to determine the likelihood and severity of the threat. A process that gathers information, collects and reviews evidence and weighs warning signs is part of a good threat management system. Connections and relationships with local law enforcement and security professionals are paramount to risk analysis. Front desk personnel should be given descriptions

of the threat with safety instructions should identified individuals arrive at the law firm.

8. Utilize legal resources to increase employee protection.

Workplace restraining orders and trespass orders can always be obtained. Misdemeanor charges such as telephone harassment, stalking or property damage can be levied to create a paper trail for a threat, and the charges warn the individual not to harass legal professionals pending the trial. Many states also have a victim notification system that automatically calls any phone number once a person is released from jail.

9. Establish emergency response procedures. Should a threat ever become a reality, emergency response procedures help prevent a bad situation from becoming a complete catastrophe. A system that notifies all employees, has escape and lockdown procedures and support mechanisms for emergency response personnel are all components of crisis management.

10. Coordinate and communicate with neighboring businesses. It is important neighboring businesses are aware of potentially threatening, dangerous individuals. When a man bent on killing an attorney opens fire, anyone in the vicinity can be a target. Not only can emergency management be coordinated, but the surveillance of individuals and potential risks is increased through such community partnerships.

Law firms committed to workplace security ensure safe workplaces through the design of their facilities and the implementation

of accessible, sophisticated technology. They train attorneys and employees in basic security skills to help mitigate hostile encounters. Conscientious law firms provide support for employees in need and establish an environment where their concerns can be disclosed. Safe law firms establish and practice threat and emergency management procedures that are vital in maintaining a safe workplace. While shootings in law firms are rare, the much more common hostile encounters with clients are sometimes warning signs that should be taken seriously.

These safety tips provide a general framework for establishing a safer law office, but the key requirement is to recognize threats against attorneys and legal professionals are real and can happen anywhere. n Johnny Lee is president of ePanic Button and director of Peace at Work. ePanic Button is a PC-based panic button and incident notification system that helps protect front line employees and prevent early-stage situations from escalating into major, dangerous events. He was previously the Workplace Violence Specialist for the Office of State Personnel in Raleigh, North Carolina, Training Director for the UNC-Chapel Hill Injury Prevention Research Center’s PREVENT program, and Victim Services Coordinator for the Asheville, North Carolina Police Department. For more information on Attorneys, Law Firms and ePanic Button visit: http://epanicbutton.com/lawfirms-attorneys-and-legal-professionals. Article Source: http:// EzineArticles.com/7290693

Areas of Expertise Business/Commercial • Class Action Complex Litigation • Construction Employment/Wage and Hour Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith • Intellectual Property Legal Malpractice • Medical Malpractice Personal Injury • Probate Real Property/CEQA/Land Use • Wrongful Death

Past President: San Diego County Bar Association 2014 President of the San Diego Chapter of the American Board of Trial Avocates (ABOTA) Listed in The Best Lawyers In America, Super Lawyers and Top Attorneys 26 Years of Experience as a Mediator and Arbitrator 34 Years of Extensive Civil Litigation Experience Representing Plaintiffs and Defendants

M A. MI, E.

Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee ADR Services, Inc.

Relentless Optimist® | Rapid, Reasonable Resolution™

To schedule contact Genevieve Kenizwald: phone (619) 233-1323, email gen@adrservices.org 225 Broadway, Suite 1400, San Diego, CA 92101 | Offices in San Diego, Irvine, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley and San Francisco www.adrservices.org | www.montymcintyre.com

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014 29

ANALYTICS The Ally Law Firm Leaders Need

by Norm LaCroix

DO YOU KNOW what (and who) drives the profitability of your firm? Can you distinguish among the clients that truly make a difference to the bottom line and those that merely add “noise” to the top line? While you may know who the biggest revenue producers in your firm are, do you know which among them make the most meaningful contributions to the bottom line? Can you measure the impact of changes to multiple key performance indicators, your drivers of success? Can you provide real and timely insight for decision making based on those performance indicators? Are you able to access a full range of data and information when you want it, totally independent of an already burdened IT organization?

Can you or your team respond in minutes to the myriad of ad hoc requests for information from all sides of the organization?

If you can’t answer yes to these questions, there is almost certainly a serious information gap that exists between actual business performance and timely actionable measures needed to drive strategic solutions, which needs to be bridged.

The professional services industry, and legal in particular, has undergone dramatic change, and market dynamics everywhere have been altered in a lasting way. Competitive pressures, more cost-sensitive and better informed clients, rising expenses and static fees have challenged law firms as never before. These changes have driven the need for integration of analytics and business intelligence management tools into the business process of professional service firms in order to be able to access truly relevant data, discover real knowledge, make informed decisions and take the actions necessary to provide a meaningful competitive advantage, improve service to clients and potentially enhance profitability.

The embrace of business intelligence and analytics as an embedded management tool, however, requires a mindset that not all law firm leaders, practitioners or managers embrace, or even understand. It requires a re-set at all levels of the organization and needs to be an investment priority in much the same way it has become in the corporate world. Given the proliferation of user-focused BI tools in the marketplace today, that investment is modest, however, compared with the historical “IT-centric BI platforms for large-scale systems” according to the Gartner Group, which “have tended to be highly governed and centralized, where IT production reports were pushed out to managers and knowledge workers.” While ad-hoc querying and other analytic tools have been available, “they were never really fully embraced by the business analyst masses, primarily because they are perceived by most as being too difficult to use,” the Gartner report adds.

30

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 105, 2014

In recent years, as a result, demand for user-friendly BI tools has shifted the focus of platform emphasis from “IT-authored production reporting, to governed, business-user-driven data discovery and analysis,” the report adds. So today, there is little reason for law firm management not to join their corporate client colleagues in the use of the most sophisticated business analytical tools to better manage the business of law. n Norm LaCroix has more than 20 years of experience in the legal industry. As a senior executive of one of the world’s leading law firms, Norm was responsible for the management, development and profitable growth of the firm. He increased profitability by integrating business intelligence and analytical tools into the management of the broad-based business activities of the firm.

For more information, visit decisionanalyticsgroup.com. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8347503

UNRIVALED JURY VERDICTS SETTLEMEN T S PERSONAL SERVICE REFERRAL FEES

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE is happy to discuss how

we may assist you in your case. Please contact

the Honorable Judge Peter Polos (Ret.) for more information at polos@psblaw.com.

WWW.PSBLAW.COM

310.477.1700

1.877.800.1700

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Post Falls, ID PERMIT NO. 32

Brian Chase President CAOC - 2015 Product Liability Trial Lawyer of the Year OCTLA - 2014 Trial Lawyer of the Year CAOC - 2012 Trial Lawyer of the Year Nominee CAALA - 2012 Product Liability Trial Lawyer of the Year OCTLA - 2004