Virtual Paralegals in Litigation Part 2: You Do Have the Technology!

As noted in Part 1, many virtual paralegals encounter resistance among litigation attorneys to utilizing our services. Even though their offices might be perfectly suited to using a virtual paralegal, many litigators are most comfortable with a contractor whom they can see and hear, no matter how small their office might be.

In my last post, I discussed ways in which confusion about the title Virtual Paralegal can give rise to resistance about hiring us. Today I discuss the next roadblock:

Technology. Some attorneys believe they do not have the requisite technology for utilizing a paralegal working from a remote location. However, this is not the case. Tools employed by every office – telephone, mail, email, fax, scanning and internet access – can be used to share documents, information and projects back and forth with a remote working paralegal. In fact, these are the tools routinely used for sharing documents and data within the office, and outside it to clients, experts and the courts.

In addition, virtual paralegals are already set up to work remotely. They typically have additional tools at their disposal to work effectively and efficiently with a law firm client in any location.

There are a number of software programs available for securely sharing files back and forth between remote locations. The oldest tool is an FTP client (File Transfer Protocol), which enables both lawyer and paralegal to upload and download large files over the internet.

Other software programs provide secure on-line repositories for documents. While designed for safe on-line computer back-up, they also provide a secure means of file sharing. Using one of these programs, a remote working paralegal can create a series of folders and sub-folders for storing case documents. These files are accessible via link or password to both the lawyer and the paralegal from any computer or location. In this way, both lawyer and paralegal can store, access or revise any case related materials whenever they need to. Dropbox and SugarSync are two examples. (Note: Dropbox gets a lot of great reviews in the legal community, and for good reason - it's an excellent product. I prefer SugarSync myself. I’ll tell you why in a future post.)

Finally, there are software programs that actually create a secure collaborative project management system of sorts on line. They enable the lawyer and paralegal not only store case files and edit documents, but also to design a project, assign tasks to different team members, and track everyone's progress. Box.net and Basecamp are a couple of examples.

So you see, every lawyer has all the technology he or she really needs to work effectively with a remote working paralegal. It's much easier than you think!

However, this leads us to another roadblock to hiring virtual or remote working paralegals: Security and Confidentiality! Tune in next time for Part 3.

Virtual Paralegals in Litigation Part 1: Think of us as Telecommuters!

In the legal industry, virtual paralegals are gaining ground in a number of practice areas, such as bankruptcy, corporate matters, and estate planning. However the reality encountered by many of us working virtually is that in the area of litigation many attorneys and law firms are reluctant to contemplate hiring virtual paralegals. To be sure, there are bold exceptions. For example, I work with some solo practitioners who are delighted to get help without relinquishing precious office space.

But many attorneys in litigation cite roadblocks to working with virtual paralegals. Their practice may be perfect for it. They may be superb candidates because they have frequent work overloads which tax their existing staff, they have no budget for adding to their payroll, and their physical space and equipment resources are limited.

Yet many resist.

Thus begins my five part series looking at the reasons behind this resistance, and what we as virtual paralegals can do to allay these fears and convince litigators of the benefits of hiring us.

So what is the first roadblock?

Misunderstanding the term. First and foremost is a misunderstanding of what the term “virtual paralegal” means. True, lawyers active in social media or keeping abreast of technological trends may understand it well enough. But I have encountered many a blank stare when I’ve used the term in gatherings of legal professionals as I seek to explain to them what I do. If an attorney doesn’t understand what a virtual paralegal is, he or she won’t understand the benefits of hiring one. In fact, some in the field are abandoning the term altogether for this very reason.

In the case of a virtual paralegal, “virtual” does not mean “almost,” as in “virtually unknown.” Nor does it mean “simulated,” as in the “virtual reality” of a video game.

It simply means working remotely - virtual as in “occurring mostly online.” Think of it as telecommuting!

Telecommuting is certainly not a new concept in law practice. Both lawyers and staff work from home at many law firms. Technology permitting, they even log into a work server remotely to exchange emails and edit documents from home. Heaven knows when I worked in BigLaw, I spent many happy hours searching databases, drafting privilege logs, and all manner of other fun tasks from my own home computer.

Virtual paralegals are telecommuters! It's just that we are not full time employees, and we use our own equipment instead of the law firm’s resources - two factors which can and should be viewed as cost saving benefits!

However this leads us to the next roadblock: Technology! Tune in for Part 2 of this series coming soon!

And please share your thoughts in the comments!

Why I Hate Name Tags

With apologies to @NameTagScott, who claims he even wears a name tag to bed and whose blog I find inspiring, I hate name tags at networking events and business meetings.

Let me say that I’ve always hated name tags. However my reasons were different when I was young. Back then, I hated them because I thought they weren’t “cool.” And I had a hard enough time trying to appear cool without adding to it the indignity of a name tag. To me it communicated, “Look here. Here is my name on this tag. I'm wearing this because I'm the biggest dork on the planet, and this is so you don’t have to stoop to ask my name. Cuz I know you don’t want to do that.”

And that certainly wasn’t the message I wanted to send. I wanted someone to take one look at me and be fascinated enough to ask my name. Either that or just ignore me altogether. So I hated wearing name tags; I thought not doing so made me cooler.

BTW, here’s a fun little name tag story. Not long out of college, I worked for a while as an admin for a political lobby. One evening the entire staff attended a fundraising event, and numerous local politicians were in attendance. Well, one rather famous local politician must have agreed with me about the name tag thing, because she wasn't wearing one and . . well . . stupid me, I didn’t recognize her. And I asked her name. And there was sort of a gasp around me! So she told me who she was, and I have to admit, it was quite the faux pas; I should have known her. But ever quick on my feet, I yanked my proverbial foot out of my mouth by quipping, “Oh my goodness, the photos in the paper don’t do you justice!” But I digress.

I've matured since then, and I no longer view name tags as a cruel plot to render me the absolute least cool person in the room. I acknowledge why people find them useful, particularly at networking events – which I attend a lot of these days. I think the rationale is that it gives people a role – their name plus their business. It enables people to note other attendees, and their businesses, even if they don’t have time to talk to them all. And I wear them when I must.

However, I still don’t like them, though for a different reason. It’s no longer about being cool. It’s more about my memory – which, ahem, isn’t what it used to be.

I have discovered that if you are wearing a name tag, I probably won’t remember your name!

I think the mechanism is that without a name tag, I ask your name, I repeat it a few times while we chat, I make a big effort to lodge it in my memory. But when I can "cheat" by just reading your name, I don't do those things. And 10 minutes later, I may not remember your name because I relied too much on the name tag and didn’t make the same effort to store it in my memory. And I’m guessing I’m not as memorable to others, either. 

In fact, I'm continually amazed that in a room full of folks wearing name tags, more often than not, people don’t even bother to introduce themselves! I'll approached someone, put my hand out and said, “Hi my name is Daphne,” and get an odd, quizzical look as though to say, “Well yeah, I can see that honey!” But I digress again.

Perhaps I have this advantage over some when it comes to name tags. I’m not shy, haven’t been in years. I have no difficulty mingling around a room, walking up to a stranger, introducing myself and starting a conversation. Perhaps my shyer follow networkers find that name tags ease the way toward meeting people, and I’m sympathetic to that.

But personally, I’d rather not wear them, and it's not about being cool. It's simply so that I have a better chance of remembering who the heck you are the next time we meet!

5 Reasons Law Firms Hire Virtual Paralegals

I read an article today on Software (tweeted by @donnaseyle) called Business | 5 Reasons Law Firms Hire Virtual Legal Receptionists, by Ben Anton, which was a dead-on description of why virtual receptionists are so beneficial. It prompted these thoughts of my own.

Here is my assessment of why law firms – and solo practitioners – benefit from hiring virtual paralegals.

Time is at a premium in any business, but this seems particularly true in the small or solo law office. While there may be the same amount of work as in a larger office, there are fewer hands to do it. Moreover, particularly in this economy very small offices are not in a position to add to their payroll by hiring a full time paralegal to help them bear the load.

So using Anton’s article as a springboard, here are five benefits lawyers and small firms can receive from hiring a virtual paralegal:

1. “Increased happiness and job satisfaction.” Successful law practice involves a wide spectrum of tasks – from very substantive legal research and analysis, to drafting legal documents, to managing and organizing client and production materials and communicating with clients. Hiring a paralegal to assist with document management and simple drafting tasks, for example, can free a busy attorney up to perform the substantive research, briefing, and client communications most suited to his or her training and expertise. This makes everyone happier.

2. “Increased efficiency.” Virtual paralegal services can make a lawyer more efficient. The ability to delegate tasks to his or her paralegal, be it suitable procedural research, drafting of simple pleadings, or assisting with discovery or trial preparation, enables a lawyer to handle a larger client case load and still assure competent representation of each client.

3. “Lower labor costs.” Hiring a virtual paralegal can be much more cost efficient than hiring a full-time, in-house paralegal. A virtual paralegal is only paid for time actually worked. No more paying for down time or overtime. In addition, the small office saves the benefit costs associated with employees. And finally, there are no costs for work space, supplies or equipment.

4. “A better office environment.” When lawyers, and any staff they do have, are freed to perform those tasks they are best at, while a virtual paralegal takes care of all suitable paralegal tasks, the work load is eased for everyone. Moreover, we all know that deadlines loom at times and create mountains of work that must be gotten through, regardless of the limited number of hands on deck or hours in the day. A virtual paralegal can help shoulder the extra work load during those crunch times.

5. With a virtual paralegal, lawyers have an added tool at their disposal for assuring that each task in each of their cases is being handled, and nothing is falling through the cracks. This enables lawyers to assure that each of their clients receives the attention and excellent legal services he or she deserves. It enables lawyers to be as responsive as possible to all their clients, which provides a competitive advantage in today’s competitive market.

Many benefits are to be gained by solo practitioners and small law firms by employing a virtual paralegal to assist with the work load, including improving case management, creating more efficiency, and of course, saving costs. This does indeed make for happier lawyers and ultimately, happier clients!

The Great Twitter Controversy

Ever read something that you can't quit thinking about, writing as it were your own thoughts on the subject in your head? Well, this happened for me yesterday when one of my Twitter friends forwarded a link and in particular, pointed out the fascinating conversation going on in the comments. I was drawn in; I couldn't stop reading the really voluminous comments, and then I couldn't stop thinking about it . . So . . here are my thoughts on the subject.

The original springboard for this controversy was Mitch Joel's 10/24 blog post which he entitled, Being a Twitter Snob is a Good Thing. I read this post last week and honestly didn't think a lot about it except to perhaps feel affirmed in my decision not to automatically follow everyone following me on Twitter. (I read the post in my RSS feed, and thus didn't read the comments until today, but they are interesting as well.) However, the post my friend tweeted was Mark Schaefer's Bringing down the Twitter snobs, in which he took issue with Mitch's analysis. A passionate discussion ensued in the comments! Check it out!

Mitch Joel advocated limiting the number of people he follows on Twitter and not automatically following back everyone who follows him, acknowledging the possible hypocrisy (he doesn't use this word in his post) of appearing to be generous by following everyone when in reality you're filtering people out. 

I don't agree with all of Mitch's reasons for limiting follows - I rarely use who someone follows as a criterion for following them myself, and I'm not interested in gaining credibility as a result of whom I choose to follow (be careful not to misunderstand Mitch here; I believe he's talking about being helpful to potential followers, not about judging followees). However, he says that being selective in following actually indicates an interest in true connection; it's a much better signal than following more people than you could ever hope to connect with, and I agree with this wholeheartedly. 

Mark Schaefer seems to be advocating following back everyone (barring obvious spammers and porn sites) who follows him. Everyone is amazing, and everyone is worth a follow. He also seems to misinterpret (in my view) Mitch's rationale for not following. He selected a person whom he assumed Mitch would never follow because this person wouldn't be deemed an "A-Lister" - note that Mitch never used this term; Mark interjected this term on his own - and then proceeded to build a hypothetical argument for why Mitch would be wrong not to follow such a fine man, and is in fact missing the point of social media by not following everyone.

(Note: I don't know who it was that coined the term "A-Listers" in connection with Important Bloggers or Important Tweeters or whatever, whom one assumes are better than the rest of us, but I would like to punch that person in the nose!)

So what is my view?

One of the early social media concepts I learned from Mitch Joel (Six Pixels of Separation, pp. 50-51) is to think about why I'm on Twitter at all. Strategy must dictate tactics. My first goal on Twitter is to learn from others, to educate myself. My second goal is to build relationships with people in my network. My third goal is to establish credibility in my field. So it seems obvious to me that these strategies should dictate who I follow on Twitter, which is why I find myself for the most part in Mitch's camp rather than Mark's. There is a limit to how many people I can learn from or build relationships with on line - not because there are a limited number of interesting people out there - far from it - but because there are limits to my available time and attention span.

So for what it's worth, this is what I do on Twitter. 

When I first started, I searched for people to follow, people in the legal industry, people in marketing whose expertise seemed relevant for my small business situation, other bloggers. And I started following them. I don't actively search any more; I follow a few more people each week, but I generally find them through the re-tweets or #FollowFriday recommendations of people already in my Twitter stream.

And I really don't care that much how many followers I have - I suppose my feelings would be hurt if I only had 2 (I have more), but it isn't a goal of mine to reach the 16,700 or the 21,800 followers (at this writing) that Mark and Mitch have, respectively. I do gain followers every week, and I'm pleased about that, but I don't try to strategize about how to gain more.

As for following, I follow somewhere around 350 people now I think. And already I can't possibly read or process more than a small sampling of tweets from all of those people - god help me if I followed 14,600 as Mark does! 

I have lists - mine are public rather than the private lists discussed in the comments to Mitch's post - I don't have anything against private lists, but I don't have any. (People follow several of my lists, too. And I'm on several lists made by others.) My lists enable me (in my beloved TweetDeck) to focus on particular topics, depending on what I'm doing or am interested in at a given moment. Some of my lists relate to my legal work. Others relate to marketing and business. Still others relate to wine, or are location-based. It is sometimes fun to look at my entire Twitter stream as it flows by, but for the most part, if I follow you but you're not in one of my lists, chances are small that I'll see your Tweets.

In light of the difficulty I have paying attention to only 350 people, I can't possibly get my undies in a bunch if I follow you and you don't follow back! (Some of the commenters to both blog posts seemed genuinely insulted about this!) There's only so much information a person can absorb, and we each have to determine what our priorities are, and if I'm not your priority, that is A-OK with me. In fact, I may not even know whether you're following me back or not. I do not check. If I get a notification that you've followed me and I see I'm following you too, I think "Oh that's nice!" but beyond that I don't give it a lot of thought.

And I don't automatically follow back everyone who follows me. How do I decide? It's admittedly a very quick, very subjective snap decision. When I get notice someone is following me, I glance at any followees-followers we might have in common, mainly for clues about how she found me. I'll look at her profile, see what she does, read a sampling of tweets. If she's a legal professional of some kind, I'll probably follow. If she's not, but there's a variety of stuff in her tweets (RTs, links, @replies), I'll probably follow. If all I see are what appear to be sales tweets, I probably won't. If there is no bio, or there are no tweets, I probably won't. If all the tweets are in - say - Portuguese, I probably won't follow either . . . I'm sure she's interesting, but if I can't read it, I don't see the point. 

At this point I follow people in a variety of professions and locations. Of course I follow a lot of legal professionals, but also people who specialize in marketing, sales, business, copywriting, web design; it's an increasingly eclectic list. If we've interacted in a chat arising from a webinar or some other common interest, I'll definitely follow. If when I look at a profile and a sample of tweets, I have an "I like this person!" reaction, I'll definitely follow. Maybe I wouldn't even make the same decision on two different days - as I said, it's pretty subjective. 

However, I definitely don't feel an obligation to follow everyone back. I think that's a numbers game, and I don't take it that personally, and if you do - well, my apologies.

Periodically, I'll go through my followers and look once again at who's following me that I'm not following, and reevaluate it. I'll also periodically cull down who I follow a bit. 

My final observation: I really enjoy Twitter! I try to be helpful and friendly and pass along things that interest me, and I do experience a gratifying connection with many of the folks in my network. All of which reveals how very far I've come since I wrote my Confessions of a Lurker post!

So there you have it. Follow me on Twitter if you like! :P And tell me what you think in the comments!

After all, it's just an experiment!

People are going to peg me as a Peter Bregman groupie.  Oh well, there are worse things, I suppose.

Bregman wrote another post last month that has stuck with me ever since, called Live Life as an Experiment.  In it, he tells a story of an experiment in which he returned an item to a store and tried to get out of paying the 20% restocking fee.  His experiment succeeded; he appealed to the store manager’s generosity and avoided paying the fee, and learned that many people really do want to be generous, given the chance.  But he drew a much bigger lesson from this, which appeals to me a great deal.  And that was,

Live life as an experiment!

“Because when we live life as an experiment, we are far more willing to take risks, to acknowledge failure, to learn and develop. That's what experiments are all about: discovery and growth. There is no real failure in an experiment because it's all data. If something doesn't work, that's simply data that leads to changing behavior to see if something else does work.”

Bregman's argument suggests to me that I might be willing to do something I would normally find embarrassing, if it’s an experiment.  Take, for example, business cold calling!  Something I’m horrified at the thought of doing, for a number of reasons which are probably pretty sound.  But what if I made an experiment of it?  What if the point was to see whether a cold call resulted in a meeting, or in a hang-up?  If the goal of the experiment is simply data, then either result is OK, right?

What other business related icky projects could I turn into an experiment?  How would this mindset improve my willingness to take a risk?  What could I learn from it?

Who knows, it might even result in increased business!  Now, wouldn’t that be grand?

25 Things

This is admittedly a rather odd, random post for this blog, but it was inspired by a wonderful, fairly recent post by one of my favorite bloggers-writers-inspiring people, Barbara Winter, called Things I Haven't Told You, and perhaps it was a bit of an odd random post for her as well.  But I had fun coming up with it!  So I'm going to go ahead and "pooblish" it (as Havi would say)!  Here goes, 25 random things even friends and family may not know (or remember) about me, in pretty much the order they popped into my head:

1. I once cooked a complete Indian (as in the country, predominately N. Indian, if memory serves) meal for a chef of a well known Seattle restaurant.  Quite scary!
2. Game of darts anyone?  As a kid, I was the unfortunate recipient of a dart to the face, a result of standing in the wrong spot at the wrong moment.  No lasting scars, happy to say.
3. I do not own a DVR or Tivo and have no plans to buy them – in fact, I plan to discontinue Cable altogether in the near future - just have never wanted to give TV quite that much importance.
4. I hate sit-coms and reality shows with equal vigor.
5. When I was a mere youth of 23 (or 24), I managed around 20 people for a month or two in a massive database and mailing project.
6. I have lived in the greater LA area on two separate occasions in my life, approximately 20 years apart.
7. I have been interested in wine tasting and (modest) collecting for almost 25 years.
8. I used to be very unhappy about being sent to bed just when the Flinstones was coming on TV (this was prime time, not re-runs my friends - boy am I dating myself).
9. When I was very little, my parents nicknamed me DeeDee in hopes of avoid the Daffy-Duck teasing.  It didn’t work, and the DeeDee nickname never stuck.  And, I eventually developed some affection for those references and bore the nicknames of Daphe, Duck and Duckling rather happily.  (DON'T call me that now, unless you are my brother.)
10. I have never enjoyed going to bed early or getting up early, and I probably never will.
11. When I was young, Music Man was my favorite movie musical, and I used to know all the lyrics to all the songs.
12. I took ballet lessons until I was about 7 (I had no talent to speak of) and later regretted that I quit.
13. I studied piano for about 15 years.  I didn’t play half badly.  (Now I haven’t played for a very long time, but hope to pick it up again someday.)
14. Apart from babysitting, my very first job was as a helper at a neighborhood pre-school.  Adorable kids, but I’ve hated the smell of Lysol ever since.
15. I’ve never worked as a waitress or in any other capacity in a restaurant, and given my love of cooking, I think it would have been helpful.
16. The above doesn’t include fast food however; I did spend a summer working at a Taco Bell.
17. Once I had a dream about a rather involved sort of team game not unlike hide and seek (the rules of which I’ve long since forgotten), and proceeded to organize 7 friends to play the game one weekend.  I don’t remember much about the game, but I recall we all had a good time.
18. I came to my love of opera via Wagner, which is unusual – most people start with Puccini or Mozart, I think.  (I love those composers too, of course.)
19. I travelled through Europe for 8 weeks with a college girlfriend when I was 22; it was a wonderful and in many ways a formative experience.
20. I loved to read as a child and would become so engrossed in my book that my mother would have to call me multiple times (from 10 feet away) before I heard her.
21. My 3rd grade teacher was the first to complement my writing skills when she assigned a little short story assignment.
22. However, I have always been so intimidated by writing fiction that I dropped out of my college creative writing class – couldn’t handle the stress of it.
23. I camped and hiked my way through the Four Corners area alone for a month when I was 38.  One of the incredible highlights of my life!
24. When I was in college, I wanted to be a student forever.  Philosophy-Lit major – yeah baby, loved it! 
25. I dabbled in at least three graduate areas of study (or four, depending on how I count) and ultimately didn’t complete any of them.  And I’m OK with that.

Got your own list of things most people don't know about you?  Share some in the comments!