Disruptive Lawyers Focus on Racking Up Client Wins—Not Billable Hours

Cruser Mitchell’s goal is NOT billing clients.

Yes, you read that right.

How much we bill clients is TOTALLY irrelevant to us!!

We care how LITTLE we bill.

Our only goal is learning what a “win” is for a client and then delivering the “win” in the most economical and efficient manner possible.

This is the value we give to our clients, and this is how we measure our lawyers—not, as discussed in the story below, by counting their billable hours.

Unlike Dinosaur Lawyers, who take a completely nonstrategic approach and, in effect, bill just to bill, we hire and train attorneys with the right mindset and skill set to come to resolutions that save our clients on indemnity AND legal fees.

As we’ve recently crossed the 100-lawyer threshold, we can safely say this model is the correct one.

The only question is: why are other firms so far behind??

Let’s disrupt something.

Bill

MASTERS OF NEGOTIATION

Join me for Cruser Mitchell’s Masters of Negotiation series and come away with the skills you need to save legal fees and indemnity by creatively and efficiently resolving cases.

April 17 — Playing Chess Instead of Checkers: A Strategic Approach to Negotiation

April 24 — Soft Skills of a Master Negotiator

May 1 — Key Leverage Points

May 8 — The Theatre of Mediation

May 15 — Identifying the 1% that will Go to Trial

Do Your Attorneys Care About YOUR Wins or Their Own?

The Disruptive Lawyer had recently hired a new associate from a very reputable firm. At his former firm, as in most traditional law firms, the associate had been told to bill, bill, bill. In fact, his success was judged not on saving fees or quickly resolving cases, but on the number of hours he billed. So, it was no surprise when the associate came to visit the Disruptive Lawyer’s office one sunny morning, barely able to contain his enthusiasm. He blurted, “You know that employment case we got where there are 10 employees working at a few different fast food franchises making a claim for race discrimination against our client? Well, the plaintiff countered our $15,000 offer with a demand of $900,000 and rejected mediation. I reported this to the client who, given the crazy demand, gave the word to ‘start litigating!’ I’m psyched! There will be 30 depositions and likely 10 motions for summary judgment to file. This case will make my billable year. Maybe I’ll even get a bonus, like at my old firm!”

The Disruptive Lawyer was well aware of this case. The firm had just submitted its 45-day Resolution Strategy report indicating the client had a good chance of winning eight cases on MSJ, but two would go to trial with a 50/50% likelihood of winning what amounted to a swearing contest. Seeing the look on the Disruptive Lawyer’s face, the associate immediately sensed that the Disruptive Lawyer did not share the same enthusiasm for the assumed billing bonanza (and/or perhaps the proposed bonus).

The Disruptive Lawyer replied to the associate, “You know that the client would settle all these cases for a reasonable number if the plaintiffs’ lawyer got real. Do you think the client really ‘wins’ if it pays us $300,000+ to litigate these cases over the next two years and still puts at least 2 race cases in the hands of a jury?” The associate responded, “The plaintiffs’ lawyer won’t get real, so we have no choice...right?” The Disruptive Lawyer did not agree. He explained, “That’s Dinosaur Lawyer talk. While the plaintiffs’ demand is certainly crazy, it is our job to find a way. FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! We do not measure ourselves by the fees we bill, but by how much in fees and indemnity we save. You’ve got 24 hours to tell me our strategy to SAVE fees, not BILL fees.”

The associate headed back to his office, shell-shocked and thinking to himself, “Huh? I make money for the law firm by saving fees? I think I just got a job in Bizarro World.”

The next day, the associate met with the Disruptive Lawyer to set out a plan. The main basis of the plan focused on some research they had done on the plaintiffs’ lawyer—they learned the plaintiffs’ lawyer was not necessarily crazy or unreasonable. Rather, he was very young and inexperienced and had just opened his law firm. In effect, the plaintiffs’ lawyer needed to be “educated” that the cases were very likely losers and money pits. So, they determined the most effective way to sway plaintiffs’ counsel was an in-person meeting. They then contacted plaintiffs’ counsel who agreed, but only if the Disruptive Lawyer was willing to drive 150 miles to plaintiffs’ counsel’s office. The Disruptive Lawyer agreed, so a week later the associate and Disruptive Lawyer set out on the two-hour drive to meet the plaintiffs’ lawyer. (Of course, the client’s billing guidelines only paid for 1 lawyer to attend the meeting and only for 50% of travel, meaning the Disruptive Lawyer was attending the meeting literally for FREE.)

At the meeting, the Disruptive Lawyer began by asking plaintiffs’ counsel to explain why the claim was worth virtually $1.0. The Disruptive Lawyer quickly learned the young lawyer had clearly not thought the case through and had a very feeble response. Essentially, counsel focused on lost income for his clients who counsel claimed had each bought out of work in the fast food industry for 10+ months. The Disruptive Lawyer then went into education mode, setting out all of the legal and procedural hurdles the young plaintiffs’ lawyer would face—including that the the case would not qualify as a class action and counsel in his new practice would have to go through the time and expense of 10 different lawsuits, discovery, MSJs and perhaps trials. The meeting concluded with the plaintiffs’ counsel refusing mediation but reducing the demand 40%. 

The Disruptive Lawyer reported to the client the plaintiffs’ counsel 40% demand reduction. In turn, the client indicated, “That’s still crazy! You have the authority to litigate.” The Disruptive Lawyer responded, “Before you start writing me big checks to fight, let’s be patient for another couple of weeks. I’m slightly optimistic that if we blow holes in the damages calculation, we may see more significant movement.”

The Disruptive Lawyer and the associate gathered information and evidence to “educate” the plaintiffs’ counsel that the damages calculation was excessive, including:

• Department of Labor data that employee turnover in the fast food industry is very high.

• Help-wanted ads in the local newspaper dating back a year, showing that lost income would be capped at two months, given the plaintiffs could find comparable work in the area.

The Disruptive Lawyer also delivered the information/evidence with a detailed letter to the plaintiffs’ lawyer (to be shared with the plaintiffs) explaining why the plaintiffs’ cases were weak, exposing the reality of a ZERO recovery, and making an offer directly correlated to a severance of two months out of work. The letter also invited plaintiffs to mediation, for the third time.

It appeared the letter made an impact, as the dialogue between the parties picked up. Finally, after several more conversations and more picking apart of the cases by the Disruptive Lawyer, the plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to mediate.

And, at the mediation, the cases all settled. The total cost of INDEMNITY to resolve the 10 cases was WELL under $100,000—a fair valuation for the 10 cases—with the two cases with the most exposure getting most of the money. More importantly, the cost of defense was about $22,000—a savings of more than $200,000 in legal fees (not to mention the client’s capital costs of supporting the litigation).

In effect, this case was a demonstration of the right Mindset (getting cases in a resolution posture) and right Skill Set (master negotiating to close cases).

And, if you’re wondering—yes, the associate did get his bonus. How? He got more work because the client started using him more often, and also recommended him to other clients as “a lawyer who gets it.” As he reflected, the associate realized he had been practicing in Bizarro World...but then moved to the Disruptive Lawyer’s law firm.

Cost of Defense Saved: $200,000

Indemnity Saved: $0 to $100,000

Want to learn more about how hiring a Disruptive Lawyer can help you save time, sanity, and legal fees? Sign up for the Masters of Negotiation webinar via the link above!

Claims Never Sleep

If you missed last month’s announcement, Meghan Henry’s new weekly podcast, Claims Never Sleep, is HERE!!

I wanted to highlight a recent episode that we’ve found HIGHLY relevant at Cruser Mitchell.

As you know, we recently hired Bob Walsh as our new Director Of Litigation Management, Training and Quality Assurance. This is just one small part of our focus on company culture—something that helps a team deliver case after case.

Meghan recently spoke with Louis Pippin, Chief Claims Officer of Venbrook Group, about the intricate process of integrating company culture, particularly when overseeing multiple organizations.

Louis shared his wealth of experience in navigating the challenges associated with this task, including insights on integrating systems effectively, ensuring every employee feels valued, and identifying the right role fit for individuals within the organization.

It was a great conversation—listen to the episode of the podcast here, and thanks to Louis for joining the call!

Dinosaur of the Month

Dinosaur Lawyers on ALL sides need to be extinct.

I talk a lot about Dinosaur Lawyer behaviors on the defense side that need to face the asteroid.

But plaintiff’s lawyers can be dinosaurs too! And their outdated philosophies and tactics also can make coming to an economic and efficient resolution difficult for EVERYONE.

A plaintiff’s lawyer friend called for some advice the other day complaining he couldn’t get traction to settle a matter I had nothing to do with. He made a demand, but the case was unnecessarily going through discovery. I told him essentially, “It is you and your client suffering the consequence of the litigation bleed, so what are you going to do differently? Swallow your pride. This isn’t 1990 where if they don’t counter, you just litigate. Push harder. Educate the defense more. Educate the carrier. Recommend a mediation. Figure out what are the barriers that prevent negotiations from going forward and address them. In effect, get the discussions started now versus a year from now!”

Of course, there are cases that need to be litigated but they are a minority. Again, we all come together and resolve 92% of our cases. Like it or not, we are all in this together. I know part of this is a lack of trust that occurs on both sides, but this is Disruptive Lawyering 101. You have to work with the other party to get to a resolution—regardless of what side you’re on.

The Disruptive Lawyer’s Tequila Corner

Did you know that tequila is actually mezcal?

Any plant distilled from agave is considered mezcal; tequila comes from blue agave while mezcal typically comes from Espadín. (And FYI, neither should have a worm in the bottle!! Worms were put in mezcal as a marketing ploy and are prohibited in tequila!)

They are both excellent spirits and actually pair well together! Here’s a spin on an Old Fashioned that uses them both:

• 1.5 oz reposado tequila

• .5 oz mezcal

• 1 spoonful agave nectar

• 2 dashes Agnostura bitters

• orange peel

In an Old Fashioned glass, mix tequila, mezcal, agave nectar, Angostura bitters, and 1 large ice cube. Stir until chilled and garnish with a flamed orange peel.

Cheers!

Ready to get a little disruptive?

Join me for some Disruptive Litigation Advisement.

Thanks for reading The Disruptive Lawyer’s Little Newsletter.

Want to know more about how to disrupt litigation management? Follow me on LinkedIn.

Was this newsletter shared with you? Subscribe here.