If one, or more, of these posts at LawSites doesn’t rock your lawyer or law librarian world, you might want to rethink your career choice:
“Available Now for Pre-order: Oregon Attorney Fee Codebook and Compilation, Vols. 1 and 2: This two volume set will include Oregon Attorney Fee Codebook and Oregon Attorney Fee Compilation. Don’t miss out on the preorder discount. Order your copies today by visiting our online bookstore. You may also contact our order desk at (503) 431-6413, or toll-free in Oregon, 1-800-452-8260. Pre-order discount ends December 1, 2014.”
I haven’t laughed this hard for a while – and I can’t say this Harvard Business Review blogger doesn’t offer *some* great advice. But I’m not so sure anyone below C or D level (C=Chutzpah, D=Dilbert) could carry off the “chat application” requirement without subordinates having a field day about it during happy hour:
Excerpt: “…. Force others to prepare. We all hope and expect that others will prepare for meetings with us. Surprisingly often, they don’t. Even when they’re requesting the meeting, they may have done very little research and waste our time with extremely basic questions they could have Googled. Instead, we need to force others to prepare in advance. “Force” is a harsh word, and that’s intentional — because it’s not burdensome for people who would have prepared anyway, yet it effectively weeds out the uncommitted. Debbie Horovitch, a specialist in Google+ Hangouts, has long offered complimentary initial strategy sessions, but realized that some people were taking advantage with irrelevant discussions.
She’s adopted a new policy: “Everyone who wants a call/chat with me must fill in an application” with specific questions about what will be discussed. “Now that I’ve set my boundaries and expectations of the people I work with, it’s much easier to identify the time wasters.” Similarly, when people request informational interviews with me, I’ve begun sending them a document with links to articles I’ve written about their area of interest (becoming a consultant or speaker, reinventing their careers, etc.) and asking them to get back in touch after they’ve read them to see what questions they still have. Most never get back to me, which is just as well — I only want to speak with people who are interested and committed….” [Link to full article.]
Visit our Oregon Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Course Materials in Law Libraries blog post for links.
And if you want to speak out on the future of CLE independent-study (i.e. borrowed and shared CLE course materials), read OSB President Tom Kranovich’s column in the August/September 2014 OSB Bulletin.
From the PLF Law Practice Management blog: “I Say Of Counsel You Say …” (posted 10/13/2014)
“Of Counsel relationships remain a strong area of interest for lawyers who are drawn to the idea of creating a professional affiliation. In that quest, there are many misunderstandings about what an of counsel relationship is ….” [Link to LPM blog post.]
The Oregon Law Practice Management blog says it best:
“Clients and Suicide: The Lawyer’s Dilemma,” by Ken Strutin, Published in LLRX on October 11, 2014
Gallagher law librarians alert us to the BestLaw add-on: Bestlaw – Improving WestlawNext Citations and Functionality
Direct link to bestlaw dot io (“A browser extension to add the features Westlaw forgot”)
The 2014 edition of Oregon Statutory Time Limitations is available on BarBooks.
(In the past one could purchase a print copy of this book. We don’t know yet if this one will be available in print or digital format for purchase and use outside of BarBooks.)