#mark herrmann

4 Writing Tips For Persuasive Briefs.

4 Edits I’ve Never Made, by Mark Herrmann, Lawyerists Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward!)

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/4-edits-i-have-never-made/

I have revised an awful lot of briefs in my life.

I clerked for a year; worked as a litigation associate at a small firm for five years; worked first as an associate (for three years) and then as a litigation partner (for 17 years) at one of the…

Area-man Mark Herrmann didn’t choose to be a hero. No, no, he was just minding his own business when he noticed that a child’s life was in mortal danger. He acted decisively—ensuring the child’s safety, and guaranteeing a police investigation into the negligent parent’s actions. Thanks to the video of the encounter he filmed and posted to Facebook, the whole world shall know of his bravery.

The child he saved was out of his father's sight for...uh...well, never. But still! The father did leave the child in his truck, in a carseat, with the windows down and engine running, while he got out to drop something off in front of a store. He was gone for two, possibly three minutes, walking to and from the truck.

Gracious, how could any child survive that kind of depraved neglect? Let's hear it for the Kentucky police who have decided to open an investigation into this clear case of abandonment.

As we have been told by public service announcements like this, even a moment unattended in a car is too long! No child is safe for a single, super-scary second.

Neither are parents. For in that micro-moment, hero Herrmann noticed the truck, whipped out his phone and videotaped the child, who was playing with an electronic device and indicated he was fine when Herrmann asked him about his welfare.

Improve Your Brief With The Curse of Knowledge Test.

The Curse Of Knowledge: The Root Of Incomprehensible Writing, by Raymond P. Ward, the [new] legal writer blog

http://tinyurl.com/kjpzl9a

Bryan Garner tells participants in his seminars that good writing makes the reader feel smart, while bad writing makes the reader feel stupid. What is the root of this kind of bad writing? Mark Herrmann has an idea about that, drawn from cognitive scientist Stev…

Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

Expose Your Weakness — Now! by Mark Herrmann, Above the Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/expose-your-weakness-now/

Think you can write? Do these four things.

First, pull out the last brief that you wrote.

Not that one — that’s the final version, edited by guys who could write. We’re looking for your work, untouched by others. Find the unedited draft that you first circulated. (If you don’t…

Yesterday I listed ten of my favorite resources featured on this blog in 2011. Now it’s your turn. Here are the ten posts you read the most last year.

Michael Chang's "Think, and Act, Globally" from the Martindale Connected Lawyer Career Center. Chang is an international lawyer in the true sense of the word: multi-lingual and multi-cultural, he spent much of his career working outside of his "home" country. So when he writes about his experience, about what he's learned, about embracing the new and different, I sit up and listen. You should too. It's a big world out there. Experience it. And follow Chang's advice. (It's a big world. Experience it)

John Hellerman's "5 Marketing Lessons From Howrey’sGraveside" at Law 360. RIP, Howrey. And Brobeck, Thelen, Coudert Brothers, Heller Ehrman. What can we learn from the demise of these almost too successful, too well known, too traditional, too well established to fail law firms? Plenty, if we listen closely enough. Hellerman does, and has written a thoughtful piece on marketing, branding, and products, and how they played a role in Howrey's failure. Can these lessons alone save your firm from collapse? Probably not. But if you're listening, they might just help you make it a little stronger. (Sorry Santayana: it's the ones who don't heed the lessons of the past that are doomed)

Ron Friedmann's "Empirical Overview: The Life Cycle ofthe Client-Law Firm Relationship" from the Integreon blog. Miss this year's Georgetown University Law Center’s Future of Law Conference? No worries. Friedmann didn't, and has recapped several key sessions from the seminar on his blog, including this one presented by Lisa Hart, Chief Executive of Acritas, who talked to more than 2000 general counsels to find out what makes a law firm "top of mind" for their clients. There's clearly a lot more to Hart's study than the statistics included in this post, but when you learn that only 5% of clients cited "low cost" as a driver of selection, do you really need more data? (How many times do you have to hear this?)

Michael Chang's "Luck - It Depends on How You Look atIt" at In-house ACCess. This isn't the first time we've recommended a post from Michael Chang. And it likely will not be the last. Chang exemplifies the true nature of globalization: not money moving around the globe or products being made ever more cheaply or the exotic reduced to kitsch and stereotype, but discovery and enrichment and empowerment. He's a road warrior working out of a suitcase and a hotel lobby, an immigrant learning the language by watching TV, and a California surfer dude all rolled up into one. And he's a potential client. So when he writes about being multilingual and multicultural, you need to read it. And then get out there and expand your own world. Prepare your own future. Make your own luck. (See the world. Learn a new language. Make your own luck)

Mark Herrmann's "Inside Straight: Hiring Law Firms orLawyers?" at Above The Law. Yes, it would be nice to put this question to rest, as Herrmann longingly suggests. But that's probably not going to happen, at least not until law firms realize that their brand isn't their firm, but their people (right Mr Hellerman?). But this post is more than an exploration -- albeit an exhaustive one -- of why clients hire lawyers and not law firms. It's also a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of every firm that seeks to provide comprehensive service across multiple jurisdictions. It's an indictment of the "bigger is better" theory. It's a call for law firms to step up and apply stringent standards of quality across the board (and maybe even the globe). How are you going to respond? (Too big to succeed? A client's take on hiring law firms)

Dan Hull's "In Praise of Structure" from his blog "What About Clients?" This post nailed it so well -- the working style of this culture, of the BigLaw environment where I learned how to work -- that it reached out of my computer screen and slapped me in the face. There's no guarantee it will do the same for you, but chances are pretty good that it will cause you to think about your work habits, about your project management skills, about the importance of setting deadlines and sticking to them. On every single project you touch. And it will also serve to remind you that no matter what you might read elsewhere, you can count on Hull to tell it like it really is, to tell you what's really important, to articulate why perfect is the new good enough. (Structure and deadlines. They're not just for clients)

Rees Morrison's "How to help your law firms understandyour business better" on his blog Law Department Management. We've featured Morrison's posts before. They provide valuable insight into what clients are thinking, what they are looking for, what they consider to be problems with the delivery of legal services. Apparently, the ignorance of outside counsel with respect to the business of their clients is one of those problems. But I wouldn't say that resolving this one is the responsibility of the client (though I certainly understand Morrison suggesting client-based solutions). On the contrary. Knowing their client's business -- what they do, where they do it, who they're competing with, etc. --  is some of the best "business development" a lawyer can do. Read the post. Then read up on your client. They'll be glad you did. (Think you know your clients' business? Your clients may not agree)

Leo Babauta's "Your Emails Are Too Long" on the zenhabits blog. It all starts with communication, doesn't it? And it all ends with communication, too. So the next time you're writing an email, focus less on enumerating everything you have to say and more on what the recipient has to read. Be concise. Have a point. Get to it quickly. Use no more than five sentences. Ask no more than one question. Don't make your recipient work too hard, because she probably won't. It's your email, after all: isn't it only fair that you do the work? Read this post, then start cutting. Your clients and colleagues and friends and family will appreciate it. "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte"- Blaise Pascal, Lettres provincials(Sending an email? It's probably too long already)

Scott Preston's "Technology is not your friend – yourclient is" on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog. To honor this week's release of Google+, today's post is about using technology, the cutting edge kind, to interact with clients. But it's not a post about shiny, happy people using shiny, happy tools to foster shinier, happier relationships. It's more like a giant level-set for everyone who thinks that Twitter and Facebook and Google+ and all of the private and semi-private law practice networks they have joined will automatically give them something they never had before. They don't. Technology is a tool. And while tools may facilitate communication, they don't build relationships. People do. Start using technology the right way. It's a lot more work than sending a few tweets, but in the end, it might actually pay off. Preston's post will point you in the right direction. (Sorry Google+: a lawyer's best friends are her clients, not her tech tools)

Mark Herrmann’s “Inside Straight: Building A Practice — A Case Study” at Above the Law. In the nearly six months that has passed since my last post, I’ve read a lot of blog posts, articles, and other resources, many of which will show up on these pages in the days and weeks to come. But when I read Herrmann’s post in mid-December, I knew right away I would use to kick off the new blogging season. Why? There are several reasons, actually, but here are just three:

Because it describes specific steps Herrmann and his former colleagues took in their quest to build a drug and device product liability practice. It’s not vague advice of the tell-people-what-you-do-and-wait-for-them-to-hire-you variety, but rather “I wrote or co-authored three articles in 1998, seven in 1999, four in 2000, one in 2001, two in 2002, and five in 2003.” Big difference.

Because building a practice – any practice – in a saturated, highly competitive legal market is hard to do. Really. Hard. To. Do. And Herrmann did it, building with his team an eight-figure practice over the course of ten years (with meaningful client work only coming in the last three of those years).

Because the most important theme that you’ll take away from the post is easy to understand: building a practice is work. Hard work. Tiring Work. And a lot of it. But it’s the only thing that gets you from Point A to Point B.