10 Tips for Solo Practitioners

I’d rather be in the woods

This is my fourth year in practice for myself, and I finished a first year as a true solo. I wrote a post back in 2012 about how to start a solo practice. I wrote this post about what it’s like to be a solo practitioner. And I wrote this piece about a day in the life of a young lawyer.

These are 10 practical tips I’ve tried to assimilate into my own practice. If I’ve found one thing it’s this – you are either running your law practice, or it’s running you.

I’ve had good months, bad months, and in between months. Borrowing a line from my former boss, all you can do is keep plugging away.

Here are some musings and reflections…

1. Stop giving clients your cell phone number. I stopped putting mine in my email signature. When you give your clients your cell, expect to get text messages on holidays, weekends, early in the morning, and all hours of the night. Expect your clients to get angry when you don’t respond to a text in two seconds, and court “isn’t a good excuse.” People nowadays expect instant communication, which simply isn’t possible as a lawyer. A conversation with my Uncle Jim, a successful commercial litigation attorney:

Me: “Man, it’s Christmas and I’m getting text messages. I thought technology was supposed to make things great…”
Jim: “I don’t do text messaging. I’m upfront with clients about that. If they send me one, I won’t respond, and I won’t check it. They can call the office, and I’ll call them back when I’m available.”
Me: “Really? Don’t they fire you?”
Jim: “Never. I return all the calls by the end of the day. But text messaging? That’s a recipe for disaster.”

I’m with Jim. Don’t do text messaging. Don’t do Facebook messenger. Don’t do SnapChat and all those other wacky things.

Instead, give clients your office number, and let clients leave voicemails when you’re busy. Schedule phone calls in advance, rather than take them off the cuff. Personally, I have the voicemails transcribed into an audio file and sent to my email via Nextiva. The only clients who have my cell phone are ones who I’m personally friends with, and yes, they still tend to abuse it. “Dude, real quick, I just need to know this one thing…”

Ever since I’ve stopped giving my cell out to clients, life has been much easier. I’ve had time to blog again, return calls, and write briefs.

And if a client doesn’t want to hire you because you’re not always immediately available? They’re not a client you want.

2.  Make time for office hours. As a solo, one of the things you have to do is plan strategically. Make sure you have at least two or three days a week where you’re in the office, and not in court, a deposition, or with a new client. You need to find time to write briefs, return emails, send letters, etc. It’s too easy for a solo to book up their week with court appearances, meetings, and new client interviews.

While I hate doing this, the best time for office hours is early in the morning around 5am. I’ve started getting to the office around 7am, which creates a three hour barrier before the phone starts ringing and emails start piling up. 

Jordan Rushie joins Randazza Legal Group

When I was in law school, I used to read The Legal Satyricon. I remember thinking “This blog is awesome! But I could never do anything like that.” Marco has always been known for his high flyin’, foul mouthed, unique breed of legal representation. Something I always wanted to do but couldn’t. Because I was a nameless, faceless associate at a law firm billing hours and serving corporate clients.

One fateful day in April of 2011, I was checking my email before going to Whole Foods. Little did I know how much my life would change that fateful morning. As I was checking Solosez (a lawyer listserve where stupid people go to ask other stupid people stupid questions to get stupid answers), I learned that I had been named as a defendant in Rakofsky v. The Internet (hysterically and appropriately named by Scott Greenfield). Not sure what to do, I called Brian Tannebaum, a lawyer who used to write a good blog (two, actually), that I read regularly. When Brian got done yelling at me for interrupting his day, he put me in touch with Marc Randazza, who became my lawyer and proceeded to decimate the lawsuit.

Since then, I have started my own firm, wrote an ABA 100 Law Blog, and have had a career that I never could have imagined in my wildest dreams. Much of which involves protecting the First Amendment, intellectual property rights, and zoning. I went from working in a law job to having a practice that I feel excited and energized about every single day. Life is good. [Editor’s Note: Scott Greenfield nominated Philly Law Blog to the ABA 100. I love him forever.]

I blame Marc for most of it. 

Over the last few years, we’ve done a lot of work together, a lot of which was in the press. Just one of many examples, Me and Marc handled The Bellwether Trial, which was the first bittorrent case ever to see the inside of a courtroom. We are currently working on other interesting cases throughout the country, most of which I can’t blog about just yet. (stay tuned).

It’s been a wild ride.

So, in the interest of keeping things simple, I have decided to join Randazza Legal Group as Of Counsel. This actually happened awhile ago, but I was too busy to write about it.

It’s a great honor to be working with someone who I have idolized for many years, who defended me in my first lawsuit, and helped me get my own career off the ground.

And don’t worry. Fishtown Law won’t be changing one bit. Me and Leo continue to be your neighborhood Fishtown Lawyers, drinking all the craft beers and hanging around town. I will still be working out of 2424 Studios here in Fishtown and harassing Leo on an everyday basis (although I will be in Vegas from time to time, mostly to skirt open container laws).

 

Why Pennsylvania Desperately Needs an Anti-SLAPP Statute To Protect Civic Engagement – The Dragonetti Act Is Not Enough

When most people think of the First Amendment, they think of the right to free speech. However, the First Amendment does not just protect free speech, it protects all civic engagement. The purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that citizens have an active voice in our government. The First Amendment is not just a right to free speech, but a right to public participation. 

That right in Pennsylvania is currently in jeopardy thanks to SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation). 

Ideally, Congress would pass uniform anti-SLAPP legislation so citizens in all 50 states enjoy the right to public participation. But until that happens, Pennsylvania desperately needs an anti-SLAPP statute because what we have on the books currently is not enough. Every citizen should be able to participate in our government, perhaps through blogging or civic activism, without having to worry about being served with a frivolous lawsuit.

Below are my thoughts on why we need it, and what it would look like…

Rakofsky v. The Internet Gets Dismissed, Streisand Effect Remains

“Remember folks, filing defamation lawsuits can have unintended consequences.”

A big round of applause for Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz – the attorneys who defended 33 bloggers accused of defaming Joseph Rakofsky. Yesterday the New York Supreme Court dismissed Rakofsky’s ridiculously stupid lawsuit for a number of reasons. A bunch of other talented attorneys also defended the case, including John H. Teschner and David Brickman. (Teschner is too cool for a lawyer website.) Kudos to them, too.

Of course, another huge round of applause for bloggers Scott Greenfield, Brian Tannebaum, Carolyn Elefant, Canada’s Antonin Pribetic, George Wallace, Jeff Gamso, Mark Bennett, Above the Law, Philadelphia’s own Maxwell Steed Kennerly, Mirriam Seddiq, Eric Mayer, Jamie Koehler, bannination.com, and others who chose to fight this silly lawsuit instead of paying Rakofsky $5000 and saying they’re sorry like, say, Lori Palmeri did. By fighting the case instead of paying a settlement because such a thing would be convenient, the bloggers put their personal lives on the line when push came to shove in defense of the First Amendment.

It’s always nice to see that integrity still matters to some.

So… what happened? The court dismissed the case but did not sanction Rakofsky. In dismissing the case, the court found that:

Rakofsky does not deny Judge Jackson made several comments that he was not competent and too inexperienced to provide a proper defense to Deaner in a murder trial. In fact, during the trial, Judge Jackson had two side-bar discussions with Deaner pointedly inquiring whether he was satisfied with Rakofsky’s competence and lack of trial experience. The gravamen of Rakofsky’s argument is that there was no causal connection between the mistrial.and his competence and inexperience.
…

The clear import of Judge Jackson’s rulings was to excuse Rakofsky due to his lack of competence and inexperience to defend Deaner in a murder trial. It is acknowledged that the Deaner murder trial was Rakofsky’s first trial in a foreign jurisdiction and with which he was totally unfamiliar, and Judge Jackson was vigilant in protecting Deaner’s right to effective assistance of counsel. Significantly, the reported fact that Judge Jackson declared a mistrial in the Deaner case was not defamatory because even Rakofsky initially celebrated the mistrial as a positive development in his career. In other words, defendants’ report that a mistrial occurred does not constitute defamation.

Jordan’s commentary:

Earlier this year, Crystal Cox claimed that the WIPO endorsed her practice of the buying domain names of her enemies, Google-bombing them with her rants, and then offering to clean it up for a fee. Crystal gained notoriety when she did this to Marc Randazza, his wife, and their three year old daughter.

At the time, Crystal may have been right, as she beat Proskauer in a WIPO dispute for proskauerlawfirm.com. However, today the WIPO found that “Basically, for a price, [Crystal Cox] would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place.” Accordingly, Crystal Cox’s “egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.”

BOOM.

The Legal Satyricon

Those of you who recall this post about Crystal Cox will find the following document of interest.

Randazza v. Cox – Decision D2012-1525

Naturally, I would find the opinion to be a good one, as the Panel found in my favor. However, the Panelist seems to have really gotten the whole point of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme — something that prior panels dealing with her failed to do. See Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0679 and Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0678. In those cases, either the Complainant didn’t communicate the facts adequately to the Panels, or the Panels were just lazy in their analysis.

In this case, the Panelist got right to the heart of the matter.

Highlights from the opinion:

In this passage, the Panel lays out in pretty clean terms, Cox’s extortion scam.

Respondent’s actions in registering and using the disputed…

View original post 356 more words

Opposing Severance Is Now In Vogue – Using the Battlefield to Your Advantage in Bittorrent Litigation

Use the battlefield to your advantage. Do not simply charge the English heavy cavalry head on.

Back 100 years ago this July, Marc Randazza gained some attention for defending a bittorrent case a little differently. What was different? Randazza opposed severing all of the defendants. It was the first time anyone had opposed severance, as common knowledge dictated that one should always try and sever defendants in a mass bittorrent action.

The “anti-severance strategy” caused Randazza to get flack from Fightcopyrighttrolls and Ray Beckerman. Beckerman stated:

Said attorney has sued hundreds of BitTorrent users in the last year on behalf of copyright holder plaintiffs which raises the question of how and why he came to be making a motion, purportedly on behalf of a Doe defendant in that case, that clearly goes against the interests of the defendants in that case.

I mean, the ONLY way to defend one of these cases is to file a motion to sever, and a motion to quash, right? Right? That’s what the EFF said!!

Errrr… not so much. It looks like a few people owe Randazza an apology, because it’s becoming more and more apparent that severance may not be in the best interests of the Doe defendants in the current climate. In my opinion, it’s probably not in a Doe defendant’s best interest to sever a case in today’s climate.

Here is why.

Ranaan Katz and Alan Kluger: “Sue Everybody! Punitive Damages!”

With so many Censorious Asshats to follow this month (Brett Kimberlin, Joseph Rakofsky), the Ranaan Katz thing kind of slipped under my radar.

In short, Raanan Katz is a part owner of the Miami Heat. He sued Irina Chevaldina in state court due to stuff she posted on a blog called RK Associates USA. With that lawsuit moving slowly, Katz filed another lawsuit against her and Google, this time in federal for copyright infringement, due to an unflattering picture of Katz on the blog.

I don’t know what Katz alleges Chevldina did that is defamatory or whether or not the lawsuit has merit. I haven’t looked into it. I don’t really care all that much. All I know is that a rich guy who owns part of the Miami Heat is suing a blogger. Chevldina is represented by Marc Randazza. Randazza sums the suit up like this:

I am representing a SLAPP defendant. The case has gone viral, since the plaintiff is a part-owner of the Miami Heat. The short version is that the Defendant writes about a rich guy. Rich guy sues, and not too many people pick up the story. Rich guy tries to get an injunction against speech. We opposed the case vigorously, including this opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction.  Plaintiff’s side then filed a copyright infringement suit against my client and Google. (Freakin’ Google!) Rich guy happens to be part owner of the Miami Heat. On the day the Heat celebrated their World Championship, the whole world points at Plaintiff and starts laughing.

Katz’s lawyer has even threatened to sue people who report the story:

In the meantime, Levine has strong words for anyone who would consider writing about Katz’s lawsuit. “I’d ask you not to publish anything about this,” he says. “Even pointing people toward that blog could constitute further defamation.”

With two lawsuits against Chevldina, one against Google, and threat of suit directed at anyone who links to Chevldina’s blog, guess what? Katzs wants to sue MORE people!

Katz’s attorney, Alan Kluger of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L., is now threatening to sue Marc Randazza and his local counsel Robert Kain for defending Chevldina.

Sue everybody! PUNITIVE DAMAGES!

As you might imagine, this type of tactic isn’t permitted in litigation. Accordingly, Randazza has moved for a protective order.

This scorched earth tactic is a pretty dumb idea, in my opinion. An attorney in Philadelphia was disbarred for, among other things, filing frivolous lawsuits against opposing counsel.

But hey, when you’ve got a lot of money to spend, just sue everybody until they shut up!

Fun Friday Reading: Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz’s Latest Papers Absolutely Decimate Joseph Rakofsky

Margarita Monday anyone…?

Finally got around to reading the new papers filed in the Joseph Rakofsky v. the Internet case. Here they are:

• Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Amend
• Eric Turkewitz’s Affidavit in Opposition to Amend Complaint
• Defendants’ Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss
• Eric Turkewitz Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss

A couple of weeks ago I did my best to try and breakdown Rakofsky’s set of papers. This week Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz did a much better job.

The opposition to Rakofsky’s Motion to Amend discusses Rakofsky’s endless amount of paper he has made everyone sift through, including opposing a pro hac motion, requesting a stay and then violating it by trying to file motions that were deemed “incomprehensible”, and then appealing the denial of those motions. Rakofsky also sought $5000 settlements from many of the defendants, which some actually paid. As the Defendants point out:

Once the Court granted Marc Randazza’s pro hac vice admission on September 15, 2011, Rakofsky requested and received a stay of proceedings so that he could retain new counsel. On October 24, 2011, however, Rakofsky attempted to file documents with the court in violation of this very stay that he had just requested.
…

Rakofsky again tried to receive ex parte relief from the Court on December 23, 2011, bringing an order to show cause that sought a wide range of relief ranging from a second amendment of the complaint, to court orders that involved at least one non-party, Google, Inc. On the face of these papers, it was hard to understand what, exactly, Rakofsky wanted the court to do. The filing was so awful that Justice Goodman, who handled this matter prior to her retirement, denied it on January 3, 2012 as “incomprehensible.”

Very Few Things Leave Me Speechless… this did.

Я выиграл для меня! ДЛЯ МЕНЯ!

Most of you remember Crystal Cox from the “extortionists who pretend to be bloggers are not journalists” case, Obsidian Finance v. Cox. Yes, shockingly, if you Google-bomb someone’s reputation and then offer to clean it up for a fee, apparently that is not “journalism.”

Crystal Cox rose to a particular level of notariety after going after Marc Randazza‘s three year old daughter. As you might imagine, bringing a three year old child into the mix didn’t play well.

This week, Crystal Cox filed objections and a declaration in support of her objections to Obsidian’s request to place her domain names in receivership.

Very few things leave me speechless. This takes the cake. Or keylime pie or whatever.

Crystal Cox: Is Philly Law Blog Part of a Big Awesome Media Conspiracy, Along With AbovetheLaw and Nickelback fans? I Sure Hope So!

Chickity China the Chinese chicken, you have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin', watchin' X-Files with no lights on, we're dans la maison, I hope the Smoking Man's in this one.

Growing up, my favorite show was the X-Files. You could never tell if Fox Mulder was off his rocker, or whether the whole thing was part of a big alien conspiracy. And the Smoking Man was pretty cool.

I still like shows on the History Channel about Nostradamus, the Mayan Calendar, and the Illuminati and that sort of thing. Hell, I’ve even read the DaVinci Code. The conspiracy theory stuff is always fun and interesting.

Today, as an unabashed Nickelback fan, I’m hoping to become part of the vast conspiracy.

Now, I know you’re saying “There’s no such thing as a Nickelback fan!”

But shouldn’t the question be asked?

Are Nickelback fans trying to silence Crystal Cox on behalf of big media?