One Small (but Important) Step to Attain Client Satisfaction
One of the biggest factors in client satisfaction is a small thing that many of us don't even think about: whether or not the client feels like he has our attention. One of the most common complaints consumers make about attorneys is, "he never lets me know what's going on" or "I haven't heard from him in weeks." Most of us are more focused on getting the job done than on client hand-holding, and to some degree that's how it should be. But it's important that clients are confident that we're getting the job done, too.
Fortunately, there's an easy way to keep your clients up to date and make them feel attended to and confident that their cases are well in hand without a significant time investment on your part. Simply create a set of letter templates to go out to clients at certain pre-set points in the case.
Of course, we're all accustomed to sending out reminder letters for hearings and deadlines-and know how easily that process can be automated and how little direct work is involved. But that same process can be used simply to keep the client up to date and feeling like he has a handle on the progress of his case.
For instance, one letter might let a client know that his bankruptcy case has been filed. You've undoubtedly already told the client approximately when his petition would be filed, but receiving a letter confirming the filing date gives your client a sense of confidence in many small ways: it lets him know that you've done just what you told him you were going to do; it gives him concrete confirmation that his case is moving forward; and it tells him that you cared enough to take a moment to drop him a line and let him know what was happening.
The triggers will, of course, be different for each case type. The key is to identify points at which you'll have something concrete to tell the client at intervals that don't leave him wondering what's happening with the case for too long. Sending out a templated letter when paperwork is filed, when a hearing is scheduled, when documents are received from opposing counsel and at any of a host of other landmarks in the case is an easy and inexpensive way to build client satisfaction and increase word-of-mouth referrals from existing and former clients.
And, keeping your clients up to date at key points in the case alleviates anxiety and helps to decrease the number of phone calls you get from clients just wanting to "check in" and "see what's going on." That means more time to focus on getting the job done while providing your clients with the same level of security and information.
Bush Advisors Recommend Veto of 2008 Foreclosure Prevention Act
The White House is threatening to veto the 2008 Foreclosure Prevention Act, citing the provision that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgage terms as a primary concern.
Although U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he has no expectation of reaching an agreement with the White House, he reportedly sent a letter to President Bush on Wednesday, February 27th, urging the President to reject the recommendation of his advisors and work with Democrats to "enact legislation that will address the housing crisis facing millions of American families."
The bankruptcy provision in the bill, widely referred to in mainstream news outlets as "controversial," would allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgage terms in a manner similar to the modifications that have long been available with regard to other types of secured debt.
Reid also indicated that the bankruptcy provision would not be dropped from the bill, which could reach the Senate floor as early as February 28th. However, Reid appeared uncertain about obtaining the 67 votes necessary to override a Presidential veto.
In his February 27th statement in support of the bill on the U.S. Senate floor, Reid pointed out the foreclosure crisis isn't hurting just the families who are losing their homes or the investors who took big gambles. In particular, Reid pointed to the impact on homeowners who are seeing property values decline as a result of local foreclosures, though they've paid their mortgages on time and kept up their property. He also mentioned local governments impacted by the shrinking tax base being forced to cut services.
States May Give Broader Effect to U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Danforth v. Minnesota (06-8273) that the Teague standard for determining retroactivity does not prevent states from giving broader effect to U.S. Supreme Court rulings than is required by the rulings themselves.
Danforth argued that his Constitutional rights had been violated by the introduction of a video-taped witness statement at his 1996 criminal trial. However, Danforth's argument relied upon Crawford v. Washington, a 2004 case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that out-of-court and pre-trial testimony could not be admitted if that testimony had not been subjected to cross-examination and the witness could not be called at trial.
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Whorton v. Bockting, which stated that Crawford was not retroactive under the Teague standard, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied Danforth's petition. The Minnesota high court also ruled that the state did not have the authority to give the ruling broader application than that determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Stevens, writing for 7 members of the Court, said, "A decision by this Court that a new rule does not apply retroactively under Teague does not imply that there was no right and thus no violation of that right at the time of trial - only that no remedy will be provided in federal habeas courts." The opinion went on to say that "The states that give broader retroactive effect to this Court's new rules of criminal procedure do not do so by misconstruing the federal Teague standard. Rather, they have developed state law to govern retroactivity in state post-conviction proceedings."
While the ruling is on one level unsurprising and a simple extension of the well-settled principle that states may provide greater protections to criminal defendants under their own laws and state constitutions, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Kennedy) strenuously dissented, arguing that the decision was "contrary to the Supreme Clause and the Framers' decision to vest in 'one supreme Court' the responsibility and authority to ensure the uniformity of federal law."
Divorce by Jury - Illinois May Join Texas in Allowing Juries to Determine Custody
When Phill Rian had her parental rights terminated in the wake of her conviction for having sexual relations with a teenage neighbor, it made national news. But the most surprising part of the story for many-even some attorneys-was that her parental rights were terminated not by a judge, but by a jury.
But Texas isn't the only state to allow for jury trials in parental rights termination cases. In Arizona, a pilot program mandated in 2003 gave parents the opportunity to request a trial by jury in termination cases. Perhaps these parents expected more sympathy from a jury of their peers, but in the first year of the Arizona program, 16 of 17 parents who requested and followed through with trials by jury saw their parental rights terminated, a rate comparable to those whose cases were tried by a judge.
The system didn't seem to work out well for the state, either. Various organizations raised concerns about further slowing of the already overburdened child welfare system, the additional strain on court resources and the redirection of scarce resources away from other child welfare cases.
Nonetheless, the issue continues to rise to the surface in states not currently allowing for jury trials. In fact, one Illinois legislator recently introduced legislation that would make Illinois the second state in the nation (after Texas) to allow for jury trials in divorce cases. In fact, the Illinois bill might grant juries greater powers in divorce cases, since the Texas statute specifically reserves allocation of property to judges and the Illinois bill does not.
Although there were only 75 jury requests among the more than 6,800 Texas divorces in 2005, opponents of the Illinois legislation are concerned about the added expense of jury trials, the potential emotional impact on children and, above all, the danger of placing an emotional decision like child custody in the hands of a jury likely lacking in the knowledge and experience necessary to make decisions truly in the best interests of the children.
More Breath Test Results Suppressed - More Assumptions Challenged
On January 30, a Kings County Panel suppressed breath test evidence from the Washington State Toxicology lab, pointing to a pervasive system of errors and ethical violations that rendered those results unreliable. Some of the problems cited include falsified certifications and a software glitch which consistently omitted certain data from calculations.
The Washington State cases come on the heels of other discoveries of large chinks in the breath test armor, including the two-year battle over the Intoxilyzer source code in Florida and the revelation that the source code from another breathalyzer device contained thousands of errors.
We've reported on some of these specific cases before, but the real message in these and other similar cases is that we can't afford to take anything for granted. Prosecutors, courts, and even defense attorneys can grow complacent, accepting evidence that's "always been accepted" at face value, but case after case has recently revealed that it pays to dig deeper.
In addition to the many cases relating to flaws in the breath test processes and equipment used in various jurisdictions, we've recently seen successful challenges to fingerprint evidence, accepted virtually without question for more than a century.
Time and time again in the criminal justice system, something courts have taken for granted for years, decades or even longer has suddenly fallen to a well-prepared challenge, opening new avenues of defense. Recently, DUI prosecutions across the country have been seeing more than their typical share of these challenges, with varying degrees of success. And it's worth noting that even those that have not ultimately prevailed have worked to the benefit of many defendants who saw charges dismissed or were offered very favorable plea agreements while the debate raged. It seems the time is ripe to raise those issues and fight those battles in the DUI arena.
Kevin's Corner
Practice Management Tip of the Month
Interpreting Your Tracking Information to Your Firm's Advantage
"Knowing how to look at the information you gather in combination can make all the difference in what you learn and how profitable that information can be.
"We've talked in past newsletters about the importance of keeping meticulous records that will let you track the effectiveness of your various advertising and marketing campaigns-not just the number of calls they generate, but the rate of conversion and the average fees associated with each outlet.
"We've also talked about tracking conversion rates for each attorney or staff member who takes initial calls or conducts initial consultations with prospective clients.
"When those pieces of information are combined, though, you may find even more valuable information. The fact is that certain personality types, styles of expression, even appearances and vocal tones, appeal to different demographics. Often, related preferences determine what kind of advertising a person will be most responsive to.
"That may mean there's a particular attorney in your office who appeals to late-night television viewers or a paralegal who does exceptionally well with yellow-page browsers.
"Considering your data about how prospective clients come to you in combination with conversion data and information about who each prospect spoke with, you may learn something that will help you turn more initial consultations into paying clients simply by helping you to schedule each prospect with the representative of your firm who is most likely to speak to him in terms he understands and feels comfortable with.
"That means the same number of initial inquiries routed into the same number of initial appointments may result in more paying clients for your firm."
- Kevin Chern is President of Total Attorneys and a Law Practice Management Consultant to more than 700 law firms throughout the country.
Medical Device Manufacturers Insulated from State Negligence Claims
The high court held 8-1 that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pre-market approval of medical devices barred state court lawsuits by patients injured by such devices.
The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 called for federal oversight of medical devices, and provided that states were not to establish or continue in effect any requirement "different from, or in addition to, any requirement" applicable to the device under federal law and which relates to, among other things, safety and effectiveness of the device.
The Riegel court determined that common law negligence principles, as applied to medical device manufacture and design, constituted impermissible requirements under the statute.
Justice Ginsberg dissented, stating, "Congress, in my view, did not intend §360k(a) to effect a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices." However, the majority explicitly stated that this was precisely what the pre-emption, by its very terms, had done.
We have already seen an increase in the cavalier corporate attitude toward human life and health since punitive damage caps began removing the financial risk associated with faulty manufacture and failure to provide adequate warnings.
This ruling goes one step further, virtually granting medical device manufacturers impunity so long as they have passed through the pre-market approval process-something we all know many faulty drugs and devices have successfully accomplished.
Your Sponsor Advocate Team
Clarifying the Appointment Time
The sponsor advocate team often gets questions from sponsoring attorneys about the appointment time in their Total Attorneys account, so what better time than now to provide some clarification on this important feature?
What is the appointment time?
The appointment time represents when one of our call center agents will attempt to connect you with the contact by telephone.
This scheduled follow-up call occurs after the initial phone call in which one of our agents first attempts to make a connection with and speak to the contact shortly after he or she filled out our evaluation form.
* Remember that our agents will make up to five calls to connect with a contact.
How are you notified of a new appointment time?
You will receive an email notification every time a new contact is added to your account. That email will contain a link for you to log in to your account.
After logging in to your account, you will be taken to the "Leads" page, which will list contacts by appointment time in the "Scheduled Follow-up Calls" section.
The contact will also be made aware of the appointment time via email.
How is the appointment time set?
The appointment time is automatically generated in your account when the contact submits information to us via the evaluation form.
The appointment time is chosen only within the available office hours that you have provided in your TA account.
How can you sort out your appointment times?
While the Total Attorneys system automatically defaults to the current week's appointment times in the "Scheduled Follow-up Calls" section, you have many options to sort out your appointments.
- To view future appointment times, select "Future" in the "This Week" dropdown.
- To see past appointment times, click "Past" in the same dropdown.
- To take a look at all of your appointment times, select "All" in the dropdown.
If you have any more questions about appointment times in your TA account, please do not hesitate to contact Senior Sponsor Advocate Tressa DiGiulio and her sponsor advocate team. Simply give the team a call at 312-753-6911 or send them an email to support@totalattorneys.com.
As always, Tressa and sponsor advocates Beth Bond and Susaan Jamshidi are more than glad to help out in any way possible.
