9 Ways to Keep Your Corporate Liability Protection Intact

One of the primary advantages of incorporating your business, large or small, is to protect your personal assets from business liabilities.  When you form a corporation, limited liability company, or similar business entity, a “corporate veil” is created between your personal assets and your business. What most people either don’t know or don’t take seriously, however, is that you must do more than simply form the corporate entity and register it with the state. The entity must be properly managed to avoid the risks of personal loss through a legal doctrine called “piercing the corporate veil.” Simply said, if you don’t want your entity disregarded, don’t disregard it yourself.

Let me tell you about my friend Steve. He’s a great guy, a successful real estate broker and no dummy. During his career he invested wisely in his own real estate portfolio and had significant assets to protect. So, when Steve decided to form his own boutique brokerage, he did the smart thing: he incorporated. He was joined by three real estate agents who were enticed to leave their big-name brokerage because Steve offered them partial ownership in the corporation. They each made a capital contribution to fund the business for a few months until some of their deals closed. In addition to receiving commissions, they split corporate profits at an agreed-upon percentage.

Everything was fine during the real estate market boom. In order to capitalize on the market, they developed the habit of taking almost all the profit out of the business to fund their personal investments. If they ran short, they just pooled the money together to put back into the business to pay the bills. They never found time for meetings or kept corporate records. Then the sudden slowdown came. The market tanked and left the brokerage with a massive debt they couldn’t pay because they weren’t selling property.

Together they agreed to file corporate bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the bankruptcy judge wasn’t buying it. Under the doctrine “piercing the corporate veil”, (in bankruptcy it’s known as “substantive consolidation”) the judge determined that Steve and his friends had so blatantly disregarded the separate corporate entity and used the corporation as a tool for personal business that they were not entitled to protection of their personal assets. Need I go on?

In order to preserve protection against personal liability you must show that you have a real business, not just a sham created to dodge personal liability. While Steve’s brokerage was, in fact, real, the courts won’t uphold protection when the corporate privilege is misused to protect fraud, misrepresentation or promote other injustice.  Such misuses include:

  • under-capitalization
  • a failure to observe entity formalities
  • commingling of funds
  • insolvency at the time of a transaction
  • siphoning of funds by those owning or controlling the entity
  • or the absence of corporate records.

Read the full article »

Solo & Small Firm Challenges: Survey Results

It’s no secret that 2009 has been a nightmare for lawyers. The disintegration of “big law” as the mainstay of our profession, lay-offs by law firms of every size, deferred hiring practices,  salary reductions, the rise of sole practitioners and  alternative fee structures have become routine as cash-strapped clients seek other means of resolving issues and demand legal fee reductions.  Just as our lifestyles may never return to their  pre-economic meltdown status, so the practice of law as we know it will never return, as changes made in the midst of necessity will remain as industry-practice standards.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. But change is difficult and never welcome. For lawyers, it also requires the need to forge new paths to a redefined meaning of a successful career. In a recent, albeit completely unscientific, survey asking lawyers about their experiences with what I knew to be current law practice challenges,  I received 62 anonymous responses. Their responses are consistent with generally accepted beliefs of  the effects of industry changes. They also reflect the absolute need to look to the use of new tools and resources to recreate a successful law practice. Here are the results:

  • 68.8% of the responders said they were forced to reduce their staff size as a result of the economic downturn
  • As a result of the reductions, they’ve experienced the following negative consequences:
    • Working longer hours, doing the work of several jobs
    • Had to take on more administrative work
    • Reduced ability to “have a life” outside of law
    • Spending significant time on business development
    • Anxiety resulting from lack of work
  • In the last 6 months, 62.5% of the responders had to work overtime more than 10 times to complete routine legal research and writing projects; 18.8% had to do so 7-10 times; 12.5% had to do so 1-3 times
  • As a result of the need to work overtime, they’ve experienced the following negative consequences:
    • Unable to keep up with routine preventive medical, dental & exercise appointments
    • Health has been neglected
    • Bored by work
    • Tired, lost weight, trouble sleeping, starting smoking, barely eat
    • Occasional exhaustion
    • Anxiety
    • Stay home all weekend to sleep and rest, rather than going out
    • Structure life around work
    • Less leisure time
  • In the last 6 months, 43.8% of responders had to reduce fees for legal research & writing time 1-3 times; 18.8% had to do so more than 10 times; 12.5% had to do so  4-6 times; 12.5% had to do so 7-10 times
  • As a result of reducing their fees, they’ve lost between 10 – 45% of income during that time
  • In the last 6 months, 81.3% of responders were asked by their clients  to reduce their fees
  • Regarding the use of law management software, 53.3% of responders use a combination of desktop and web-based applications; 26.7% use desktop only; 20% use no software at all; 13.3% use web-based only
  • Regarding retaining the services of freelance or contract lawyers, 68.8% said they have considered doing so
  • Following are the reasons why they have not done so:
    • Inability to vet material based on work needs, time sensitivity, research skills
    • Concerned about quality of work
    • Concerned about confidentiality, privacy and client retention
    • Too controlling

Just as our society must find ways of coping with our new economic realities, so too lawyers must look forward and embrace new ways of doing business in order to adapt. Simply cutting costs or making superficial adjustments will not sustain us, and those who do not grab hold of alternatives will not survive the crisis. The ABA Journal’s Legal Rebels project is one significant sign that remaking the legal profession is not just a passing fad.

What are those alternatives? Innovative use of technology and manpower is emerging as the primary path to future success.  The use of virtual law management systems, open source research sites, freelance and contract attorneys and virtual assistants offer opportunities to maintain and grow your practice while cutting costs and maintaining your health. Visit the ABA’s Economic Recovery Resources to gain more information on making your way through the revolution.

The past is gone. The future is now. Be here.

Lawyers: do you have time and resource management dilemmas that require creative solutions? Freelance attorneys and advanced technology are here to help. Take advantage of  new and exciting ways to have both a successful law practice and a great lifestyle! Click here to contact me for a free consultation.

Twitter for Lawyers: A Primer on How and Why

As anyone paying attention to social media knows, there is a whirling vortex of on-going debate on the usefulness/uselessness of Twitter. I’m not real clear why the conversations can be so polarizing, but they are.  There is a wonderful 2-month-old debate among a few high-profile social media lawyers where comments range from: “I love Twitter for the amazing information that gets passed around.  There are so many thought leaders linked in to Twitter, that it really is the best place to aggregate that information” by Adrian Dayton, to “[Twitter is] worse than a toy — it’s a waste of time” by Larry Bodine. (If you’re a member of Martindale Connect, the conversation is located on the forum tab of the Social Media for Lawyers group, entitled “Online Lawyer Networks”.)

The debate centers around the concept that each of the social media/networking sites needs to provide “measurable” marketing results to be useful, otherwise it wastes your time. My belief is that the argument makes two incorrect assumptions: first, that you can apply old marketing principals to new techniques; and second, that unless you’re selling what you already have, you’re wasting your time. As an avid Twitter participant and advocate, I’ve been asked how the use of Twitter has added to the “bottom line” of my practice. My standard answer is: “Without Twitter, I wouldn’t even have a practice.”

Why? Because when I started using Twitter, I was totally bored with law, but didn’t know what else to do. Twitter is where I found the people, the resources, and the concepts to formulate ideas of new opportunities and directions I could take my practice.  And Twitter is where I go to continue to grow and expand my thinking, leading me to even more creative and exciting opportunities for the future. We’re talking about value far beyond anyone’s bottom line. (For the record, I do get work referrals from people I’ve met on Twitter.)

In Twitter Doesn’t Create Influence, it Reveals It, Tac Anderson observes that:

Some may ask how Twitter made so many people influential. It didn’t. I’d agree that it has made some people *more* influential if only because it gave people greater reach, but they had to posses some level of influence potential. (hmm, Influence Potential, a new buzz phrase?)

Twitter didn’t make anyone influential. Twitter only exposes and amplifies influence.

So if these kinds of interaction and opportunities sound exciting to you, but you don’t know where to begin, here are my recommendations:

1. Target Your Goals. In Twitter, you “follow” people. Before you decide who to follow, you need to decide what you want to accomplish. Remember that simply creating a presence on Twitter is a marketing function, so let’s put that aside. Who do you want to connect with? Your potential client base? Other lawyers in your practice areas, or areas you might be interested in pursuing? How to manage your law office?

2. Find People to Follow. If there is someone you know or have heard of that you would like to follow, simply type his/her name in the Twitter search box. When their profile comes up, just click the follow button. If not, there are several 3rd-party applications that enable you to find people to follow: Twellow and  WeFollow are among the most popular.  Now, Twitter has introduced “lists”.  Go to http://listorious.com and do a category search. Once you have found a few people you enjoy following, check out who they follow. Those are usually good leads to follow as well. By the way, this list does not have to be long. Follow 10 people at first. Take it slow. Your list will grow soon enough.

3. Listen. Watch and listen for a while. See what people are talking about. Many of the tweets will have hyperlinks to information. Read it. Does this information have value for you? Are you moving in the direction you wanted to go? You will also see that people “retweet” others’ tweets, because not everybody follows the same people, and nobody is on Twitter 24/7. Check out the people they are retweeting. Are these potential new people to follow? As you add more people to your stream, you will begin to pick up on conversation threads. Follow them.

4. Follow-backs. Everyone has a different follow-back policy. Some of the people you follow may follow you back automatically. Some may wait until you start tweeting. Some may never follow you back. It doesn’t matter. Just keep reading and growing your list. And by the way, don’t be intimidated by the number of followers others may have.  Do what works for you.

5. Jump into the conversation. When you feel comfortable, say hello. You can comment on something you read that was tweeted. You can retweet someone else’s tweet if you think it has value. Or you can contribute to the conversation with your own information. At some point, you need to start connecting to the people you have been listening to. You have to “get” known to “be” known. That’s where the real fun begins. Because the people you meet here are open and responsive, and the interaction occurs on many levels. It goes beyond an exchange of information to social/professional connections that can grow and embellish your life.

6. Take the conversation offline. Once you have established online connections with people, don’t be afraid to pick up the phone to discuss things you have in common. You’ll be amazed what can come from it!

Legal Dilemmas of Social Networking, Part 3: Deceptive Practices & Ethical Concerns

As I stated in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, these posts are based on the day-long conference entitled Social Networking: Friends or Foes? (now on MP3) hosted by the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice and the UC Berkeley School of Law. The discussion addressed the legal and ethical issues facing lawyers and investigators using social networking contents in legal matters. In Part 1, I discussed the public’s expectation of privacy of the information posted on social network sites. In Part 2, I focused on the underlying law that relates to obtaining social network information for use in investigations and prosecutions of criminal and civil cases. Today, I will address ethical considerations regarding current practices to obtain or obstruct use of this information.

Being a real estate and business lawyer, I must admit to a degree of naivete regarding criminal investigative practices, and I don’t much watch TV. So my big “Aha” moment of the conference was when FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jack Bennett stated without equivocation that the FBI creates false Facebook and other social networking identities and “friends” or “pokes” suspects or potential witnesses as a matter of course to gain access to their accounts.

In their defense, the FBI investigates a whole slew of cybercrimes: identity theft, organized cybercrime, sexual predators, hackers and terrorists just to name a few. And the FBI does not have a whole set of rules called Legal Ethics to abide by. The same cannot be said for lawyers investigating their cases.

So the question is, how far can a lawyer go in these investigative tactics? Is employing someone to “friend” a potential witness that different from  hiring a private investigator to videotape a worker’s compensation claimant? Does an attorney who advises a client to shut down his Facebook account obstruct justice? Is that different  from advising a client not to talk to anyone about the case? What do you do when a client tells you there is evidence on a social networking site that could corroborate his story? Or impeach a witness? Do you get it any way you can?  Would you be committing malpractice if you didn’t?

Just as we’ve seen that there are no clear legal boundaries with respect to privacy, so a lawyer’s ethical conduct in these circumstances is undefined. However, opinions are beginning to appear. The first is the opinion of the Philadelphia Bar Associations’ Professional Guidance Committee, stating that a lawyer who hired a third party to “friend” a witness on Facebook and MySpace to gain access to personal files would violate Rules 8.4, which prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and 4.1 regarding truthfulness in statements to others, of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.

However, in his very insightful and well-researched article, Evidence on Social Networking Sites, Ken Strutin cites the following exception to Pennsylvania’s analysis in Opinion 737 of the New York County lawyers’ Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics:

Non-government attorneys may … ethically supervise non-attorney investigators employing a limited amount of dissemblance in some strictly limited circumstances where: (i) either (a) the investigation is of a violation of civil rights or intellectual property rights and the lawyer believes in good faith that such violation is taking place or will take place imminently or (b) the dissemblance is expressly authorized by law; and (ii) the evidence sought is not reasonably available through other lawful means; and (iii) the lawyer’s conduct and the investigators’ conduct that the lawyer is supervising do not otherwise violate the Code (including, but not limited to, DR 7-104, the ‘no-contact’ rule) or applicable law; and (iv) the dissemblance does not unlawfully or unethically violate the rights of third parties.

Mr. Strutin also refers to Office of lawyer Regulation v. Hurley, No. 2007AP478-D (Wis.Sup.Ct. Feb. 11, 2009), where the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed a referee’s finding that an attorney, who hired a private investigator to deceptively acquire a victim’s laptop to conduct a forensic analysis, did not violate ethics rules. His reasoning was that the same deference accorded law enforcement in utilizing deception in criminal investigations should be afforded the attorney. (If you would like a more thorough discussion of these issues, I encourage you to click on the link to the article I’ve cited here, which also includes footnotes to further resources.)

As the regulation of conduct in these arenas evolves, lawyers need to tread cautiously into these waters and carefully balance the right to effective assistance of counsel against a lawyer’s obligations to be truthful. There are many creative ways to use technology to obtain information, and the enticement to cross some unknown ethical line has never been greater.

Other areas of ethical concern include such things as posting or blogging about clients, judges and cases, friending judges or opposing counsel, and other conduct that has been found to occur online (the list is long and humiliating). This kind of conduct moves beyond the duty of confidentiality to simple common sense, and can lead to circumstances that may prejudice your client, require recusal or other consequences nobody wants. What you put out there will be read or seen out there. By everyone. And people talk. Particularly online.

Lawyers: do you have time and resource management dilemmas that require creative solutions? Freelance attorneys and advanced technology are here to help. Take advantage of  new and exciting ways to have both a successful law practice and a great lifestyle! Click here to find out how!

© 2009  Freelance Law Firm  All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright