|
CONTENTS UNIT
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWS UNIT
3. CHALLENGES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM UNIT
7.CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNIT
12. A LAW FIRM STRUCTURE AND PRACTISE UNIT
14. IMPRISONMENT: RETRIBUTION OR REHIBILITATION |
UNIT 12. A LAW FIRM STRUCTURE AND PRACTISE Part 1 What’s the best way to structure a law firm? I fall back on the
lawyer’s favorite answer: «It depends». The optimal structure for a law firm turns on a whole host of factors,
including the size of the firm, its goals, its culture, and the market
segment it belongs to. But even if there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to
firm structure, it’s still fun to argue over the different approaches. That’s what five experts did this morning at the Thomson Reuters Law
Firm Leaders Forum. The panel, «Long Day’s Journey into Night: The Evolving
Law Firm Partnership & Strategic Models», featured the following participants: •Beau Grenier (moderator), chairman, Bradley
Arant Boult Cummings LLP •Steven J. Harper, author of The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession In Crisis
(affiliate link) •Bruce MacEwen, president, Adam Smith, Esq. •Roger Meltzer, global co-chairman and Americas co-chairman, DLA Piper •Dr. Larry Richard, founder and principal consultant, LawyerBrain LLC Beau Grenier, visiting New York from
Birmingham, Alabama, kicked off the discussion with a folksy quip: «Saying
that managing lawyers is like herding cats is an insult to cats everywhere».
Given the challenges facing the large law firm today, what is the best
governing structure for a firm? Bruce MacEwen, a longtime observer of the
legal profession and author of Growth Is Dead: Now What? (affiliate
link), said that he’s never been so worried about the legal industry – and he
placed much of the blame on the partnership model. It’s a good model for
maybe 10 or 15 large law firms – places like Slaughter and May, where each
partner has a cubbyhole for her napkin in the firm dining room – and bad for
the rest. Partnership «deludes equity partners into thinking they have a veto
over almost everything», MacEwen argued, even
though large firms with multiple offices really need strong, top-down
management. His solution: law firms should follow the lead of Wall Street
investment banks, many of which have evolved into C corporations. Steven Harper, a former Kirkland & Ellis partner as well as an
author, staked out the opposite position. Echoing themes from The Lawyer
Bubble, he cited the many virtues of the partnership model – teamwork,
collegiality, a sense of ownership a dedication to excellence – that so many firms have sadly moved away from. While
acknowledging that large law firms with thousands of lawyers across dozens of
offices may need to adopt some attributes of a corporation, he argued that
the partnership model still has much to recommend it. Harper recalled wisdom that he received as a summer associate from
legendary litigator Fred Bartlit, back when Bartlit was a K&E partner (before he left to start Bartlit Beck). Beck explained to Harper that under
Kirkland’s compensation system at the time, which had a partner pay spread of
around 3 or 4 to 1, Bartlit was effectively maxed
out (i.e., at the top of the pay scale). «So the only way I can make more
money», he told the young Steven Harper, «is to make you a better lawyer».
That’s what true partnership is about – improving one’s individual lot by
growing the pie for everyone. Alas, that’s not how so many Biglaw firms
work today. Partner pay spreads have exploded; at some firms, such as Dewey
& LeBoeuf before its collapse, the highest-paid
partner earns twenty times as much as the lowest-paid partner. That’s not a
real partnership, Harper argued, but a partnership within a partnership. (Fun
fact: Harper mentioned his next book will discuss the rise and fall of Dewey
& LeBoeuf, a cautionary tale about what happens
when a firm abandons its partnership ideals.) Another problem with the structure of many Biglaw
firms today: super-high leverage (i.e., «the ratio of all lawyers (minus
equity partners) to equity partners»). Decades ago, most firms had leverage
in the 1.5 to 1 range; now the average is around 3.5 to 1, with some firms
going as high as 8 to 1. The message this sends to the next generation of
lawyers, according to Harper, is that they’re not as deserving of partnership
as their forebears. Roger Meltzer of DLA Piper offered a qualified defense of the status
quo. He noted that he, unlike MacEwen and Harper,
still toils in the trenches of Biglaw, and it’s a
lot easier to offer criticism from the outside than to deal with problems
from the inside. He pointed out the many challenges facing large law firms
today, including anemic demand, a shift in leverage from firms to clients,
and a dramatic rise in lateral movement (i.e., the «free agency» model of
partnership). The golden age for law firms, in which demand growth concealed
a whole host of weaknesses, ran from about 1985 to 2007; it has been over for
almost a decade. Meltzer still believes in the partnership model, «with tweaks». With
more than 3,000 lawyers, DLA Piper can’t function as a pure democracy. Instead,
it needs strong leadership – but those leaders, Meltzer included, rule by the
consent of the governed. If they lead their firms well, they will remain in
power; if they stumble, they will be removed. A major challenge for law firm leaders right now, according to
Meltzer, is the sense among many lawyers that the social contract has been
broken. Many partners feel that their firms won’t stand by them in tough
times, and many associates feel that they don’t have a path to partnership,
to say nothing of firm leadership. For a partnership to work, Meltzer argued, partners need to feel they
have «skin in the game». This is why DLA Piper revamped its partnership about
eight years ago, requiring income partners to put capital into the firm. Some
observers at the time viewed this as a cash grab by DLA during the downturn,
but that wasn’t it at all, according to Meltzer; it reflected his belief,
from his years at Cahill Gordon before joining DLA, that a single-tier
partnership better aligns the interests of individual partners with the
interest of the firm (as opposed to a two-tier partnership in which income
partners get guaranteed salaries, regardless of firm performance). Bruce MacEwen agreed that it’s important for
lawyers to have «skin in the game», but partnership isn’t the only way to do
that. Law firms can and should structure themselves more like corporations or
consulting firms like McKinsey, where employees can, over time, move up
through a series of tiers (e.g., analyst, associate, vice president, managing
director). This incentivizes lawyers better than the current binary system,
where – here MacEwen seemed to channel Donald Trump
– «you’re either an equity partner or a loser». A more flexible
organizational structure also appeals to millennials,
a growing segment of the law firm workforce. Ah, millennials. At this point in the
discussion, Roger Meltzer went into curmudgeon mode: «I question whether millennials are prepared to do what I had to do». There’s
a huge amount of sacrifice that’s required in order to succeed in Biglaw, and Meltzer said he’s not convinced that millennials are prepared to make the same commitments to
the practice of law and the legal profession that he and his contemporaries
made back in the day. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
Meltzer 1)_________ a bit worried before he
launched into curmudgeon made – he asked if any members of the press were in
the room – but I wasn’t shocked or troubled by his
comments. Complaining about millennials is a
favorite 2)_________ of baby boomers, and Meltzer
did so in entertaining fashion. I’ve seen him on a number of panels over the
years, and he always brings a refreshing candor to bear on discussions. Also,
he was looking 3)_________ tan for a law firm
leader. Do millennials have enough «fire in the
belly» to succeed in Biglaw? Dr. Larry Richard, a
psychologist as well as a 4)_________, shared some
research he conducted while at the Hildebrandt law firm consultancy. Back in
2007, Hildebrandt conducted a study and 5)_________ that only 23 percent of
associates would qualify in psychographical terms
as willing to do whatever it takes to succeed at their firms. The number
today is probably even lower, he added, because most millennials
don’t 6)_________ to become «lifers» in their
organizations. What can firms do to 7)_________ their
millennial lawyers? According to Larry Richard, millennials
(and employees in general) look for four things from their jobs: •Autonomy: On a day-to-day basis, people want to have 8)_________ in terms of how they perform their jobs; they
don’t want to be micro-managed. •Meaning and purpose: People 9)_________ to
feel that their work makes a difference, that it matters – and
this is doubly true for millennials. •Social connection: People want to build friendships in the workplace,
and they want to 10)_________ included in a larger
enterprise. •Achievement, competency, and mastery: People want to feel that they
are good at what they do and continuing to get better. Bruce MacEwen 11)_________
that law firms need to give their people, regardless of role, a sense that
they are building something together. Yes, the Biglaw
bucks are nice – and you need to pay your 12)_________
performers what they’re worth on the market, or else they’ll leave – but
while undercompensating your people can kill your
firm, paying people properly isn’t enough to keep your firm alive and 13)_________. Surveying the Biglaw graveyard – Dewey, Howrey,
Bingham, Brobeck – MacEwen noted a 14)_________
thread. At firms that have failed, at some point key people woke up and asked
themselves, «What am I doing here?» The inability to
come up with a good answer 15)_________ doom for
their firms. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. 10
ОШИБОК В РАБОТЕ ЮРИДИЧЕСКОЙ КОМПАНИИ: 1.Неправильное управление финансовыми ресурсами Ошибочно начинать юридический бизнес на заемные средства. Чтобы
избежать неплатежеспособности, следует предварительно просчитать свои
финансовые возможности и возвратность вложений. Будет хорошо, если учредители
юридической компании будут надеяться только на собственные силы и средства.
Второй ошибкой является применение денежных средств не по назначению, что
обусловлено отсутствием системы планирования и управления финансовыми
ресурсами. Полученные гонорары от Клиентов следует безошибочно распределять между
затратами на текущие нужды и будущими инвестициями, под которыми понимаются,
например, расходы на маркетинг (рекламу), на повышение профессионализма
персонала либо на автоматизацию и ИТ-инфраструктуру. 2.Неспособность распределить обязанности между партнерами, юристами и
ассистентами При создании юридической фирмы зачастую возникает проблема отсутствия
ясного распределения обязанностей между коллегами. Как результат, сотрудники
могут заниматься одной и той же работой, либо, наоборот, какие-то определённые
направления юридической фирмы не получают должного внимания. Для
предотвращения подобной ситуации, оговаривайте всё заранее. Кроме того,
необходимо максимально развивать внутренний аутсорсинг, когда определенная часть функций и
обязанностей, несвойственных юристу как эксперту, перераспределяются между
ним и клиентскими менеджерами, секретарями, ассистентами/младшими юристами,
курьерами и т.д. 3.Принимать в работу заведомо невыполнимые дела Клиентов Корректное построение отношений с Клиентом требует верных действий.
Многие юристы не могут ответить отказом Клиенту, даже если они наверняка
знают, что не справятся с этим делом. Иногда это обусловлено желанием
руководства получить предоплату за услуги «во что бы то ни стало». В
результате у Клиента наступает разочарование компанией в силу его
нереализованных ожиданий. Поэтому, чтобы не получалось противоречивых
ситуаций, не вводите в заблуждение Клиента. 4.Не проводится сегментация клиентов, работаем «со всеми подряд» В любой юридической компании в том или ином виде (автоматизированном
или полу ручном) должна быть внедрена CRM – система работы с клиентами. Руководитель,
партнер фирмы должен четко понимать: •как ведется взаимодействие с Клиентами –
сколько было контактов и какова их
результативность (конверсия) в продажи •какие категории (портреты) Клиентов обращаются в компанию чаще всего,
за какими услугами, какова доля выручки по разным категориям (группам)
Клиентов и услугам •источники обращения клиентов в юридическую компанию,
частота/сезонность оплат Клиентов, причины отказа Клиентов от предложений
компании и т.п. Если этого не сделать, то в результате мы будем работать с «посредственными» клиентами, а в худшем случае – начнем
работать с «плохими» клиентами – неплатежеспособными и необязательными
юридическими и физическими лицами. Старайтесь оградить себя от них,
заключайте договоры с указанием тарифов. В обязательном порядке необходимо
вести реестр таких клиентов, как-то выделяя их в общей клиентской базе. При
первом же их появлении следует вежливо «указывать им на дверь». Например: «Извините,
мы не занимаемся такими делами». Оборотной стороной недостаточной клиентской
работы в юридической фирме является отсутствие особых подходов к
привилегированным, «элитным» Клиентам. Это вовсе не означает, что нужно
пренебрежительно относиться к другим Клиентам, это будет негативно
сказываться на репутации Вашей фирмы. Однако правило Парето работает и здесь –
повышенная забота о небольшой по численности группе состоятельных Клиентов
может дать максимальный финансовый результат. 5.Плохое, несистемное управление своим рабочим временем Время профессиональных юристов –
самый ценный и главный ресурс юридической компании. Однако большинство
юристов, к сожалению, не могут распоряжаться своим временем целиком и
полностью. Множество вещей отвлекает нас каждый день – от звонков и писем до вопросов помощников и
неожиданных визитов друзей-юристов. Обычно юристу приходится вставать на
реакционный путь в отношениях с окружающим миром. Но цена этого подхода
высока. Если не контролировать свое время, то потери из-за такого «хаоса»
оцениваются в 10-30% от времени, которое можно продать клиентам. Решение
очень простое: лучше планируйте свой рабочий день. Закладывайте время на
звонки, ответы на письма, общение с коллегами. Просите ваших помощников не
беспокоить вас в какие-то часы, например, с 9 до 10 утра каждый день.
Помните, что если вы всегда доступны, то это приводит к тому, что помощники
начинают меньше думать самостоятельно. Просите помощников собирать их вопросы
в группы и по возможности готовить не только вопросы, но и варианты ответов
на них. Следующая вещь, о которой нельзя забывать – это регулярный,
контролируемый учет рабочего времени в разрезе выполняемых работ, Клиентов и
их проектов. Причем вне зависимости от того, используете ли Вы в отношениях
со своими Клиентами почасовую или фиксированную оплату, учет рабочего времени
поможет Вам дополнительно дисциплинировать сотрудников, пробудить в них
рефлексию относительно потраченного времени, стимулируя не тратить время
бесцельно. Кроме того, эта мера позволит Вам понять истинные трудозатраты, а
значит и себестоимость выполняемых работ, а в сочетании с используемыми
тарифами, общей рыночной ситуацией и конкурентной средой, а также расходами
на привлечение Клиента по этой услуге, оценить ее востребованность и
эффективность. На этапе выстраивания системы управления временем можно
рекомендовать книги и тренинги по управлению временем. Например, из
книг-бестселлеров по этой теме следует отметить «Как привести дела в порядок.
Искусство продуктивности без стресса» Дэвида Аллена и «Формула времени» Глеба
Архангельского. Part 2 HOW TO
START A LAW FIRM: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE In case you are wondering about the ways to structure a law firm,
there are several options. But despite the variety, choosing a law firm
structure will largely depend on the jurisdiction in which you practice and
the realities of your circumstances. Naturally, whatever type of structure
you choose for your law practice, there will be some advantages and
disadvantages. The key, as with most business decisions, is to carefully
weigh your options and make the best decision in light of all the relevant
information. Regardless of the type of law
firm structure you end up selecting, your decision process leading up to that
choice should be guided by two, sometimes conflicting, interests:
flexibility and security. Flexibility in the sense that the law firm
structure you choose should not encumber the growth and mobility of your
practice; security in the sense that the legal structure of your law practice
should expose you to the least amount of liability. Think of these interests
as spectrum with each interest on opposite, extreme ends. A good law firm
structure will find the right balance between the two ends. There are, however, common law firm structures that you should spend
some time weighing to see if they are compatible with your flexibility vs.
security profile. A sole proprietorship represents the ultimate in flexibility. Most
solo practitioners are organized as sole proprietorships. A sole
proprietorship is a type of unincorporated business entity where the business
is owned and managed by a single individual. Legally, a sole proprietorship
is not separate from its owner. Therefore, management flexibility is the most
significant advantage to a sole proprietorship. As a sole proprietor, you are
free to set your hours, pick the type of practice you want, determine
earnings, and decide which clients to take and which ones, if any, to turn
away. A sole proprietorship, however, has its challenges. Some of these
challenges may include a limitation on sources of funding for your practice,
carrying the administrative burden of your practice alone, and an exponential
increase in work just to generate sufficient client base to sustain your
practice. As a sole proprietor you will also assume the liabilities of your
practice, since a sole proprietorship does not have the benefit of a
corporate shield. An ancillary issue often associated with the choice of a sole
proprietorship structure for a legal practice is the issue of trade or
fictitious business names. This issue usually arises in the context of a sole
proprietorship because, and although generally, the legal name of a sole
proprietorship is the person who owns or operates the proprietorship, you may
want to give your law practice a name that is different from your name -– i.e., a trade or fictitious name. The
question then becomes whether under the canons of legal ethics, trade names
are permissible, and if they are, whether there are any special filling
requirements. As to the first question, the issue of whether a lawyer can ethically
practice law under a trade name is best directed to your State Bar. But
generally, most jurisdictions on First Amendment grounds permit lawyers to
use a trade name as long as the name is not deceptive or misleading. On the issue of special filing requirements, again, the rules of your
jurisdiction controls. Some states require a special registration filing and
fees prior to using a fictitious business name. So, check with the Business
or Corporations office of the Secretary of State of the state you intent to
set up shop in, to find out whether you are required to register a trade name
in addition to the customary incorporation filings. If it turns out that as a solo practitioner, you are disturbed by the
absence of a corporation shield with a sole proprietorship, then a professional corporation may be an option depending
on the jurisdiction in which you practice. There are various permutations of
the professional corporation, but generally a professional corporation is a
type of corporate entity formed to engage in a business, the practice of
which requires a professional license. Therefore, the professional
corporation has a distinct legal existence from its owners or shareholders. Because of this characteristic, a professional corporation may be an
ideal choice if you are a solo practitioner but want the security provided by
the corporate shield. The corporate shield advantage, however, requires
strict adherence to corporate formalities, and this may be onerous on a small
practice. Depending on the arrangement, a professional corporation may also
provide the capital advantages of a partnership without some of the
management and liability disadvantages of a partnership. Also, and again
depending on how the professional corporation is structured, there might be
some tax advantages. You should discuss the matter with your accountant and
tax adviser. A general partnership is another structural option, especially if you
are considering starting your law practice with another attorney. A general
partnership is a business owned by two or more persons, all of whom share
equally in the profits and liabilities of the partnership. In theory, any
member of a general partnership can manage the affairs of the partnership.
This feature of a general partnership may make the choice lack advantage if
the partnership does not take care to identify the various managerial roles
of the partners. Also, keep in mind that any partner in a general partnership
can bind the partnership to a legal obligation without express authority from
the other partners. The possibility of dual taxation also raises issues to
consider and address. Staring within the confines of a partnership structure, a limited
liability partnership is also another common structure for a law practice. A
limited liability partnership differs from a general partnership in one major
respect: unlike a general partnership, liability for the partnership's debt
in a limited liability is not borne equally by all the partners. Therefore, the share of profits is also uneven. But, for several legal
and practical reasons, a limited partnership may be ideal for your law practice,
particularly if you are starting the practice with several attorneys. Dual
taxation is also a concern with a limited liability partnership. You should
consider how best to address this problem with your accountant or a business
lawyer. Recently, limited liability companies have become the preferred
corporate structure in many industries. This is so because a limited
liability company is a hybrid entity that provides the organizational
flexibility of a sole proprietorship coupled the liability shield of a
corporation. Think of a limited liability company as the best location to
perch on the flexibility v. security spectrum. Despite its advantages,
however, many jurisdictions do not allow the practice of law under a limited
liability company structure. It may save you time to inquire at the outset,
whether your state bar and corporation rules allow you to structure your law
practice as a limited liability company. In any event, you should note that
some states will require you to announce the formation of a limited liability
company through a newspaper publication, which may add some cost to your
startup budget. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
The 1)_________ line is that the choice of
the type of law firm structure you pick is an important one. The type of law
firm structure you select will determine, for instance, how much tax you pay
and whether others can 2)_________ you for the
actions or in-actions of your law practice. You should therefore spend an
appreciable amount of time thinking about your options, and talking to your
account and 3)_________ lawyer to determine the
right choice for you. How to Start a Law Firm: Organizational Structure 21 7778 In case you
are wondering about the ways to structure a law firm, there are several
options. But despite the variety, choosing a law firm structure will 4)_________ depend on the jurisdiction in which you
practice and the realities of your circumstances. Naturally, whatever 5)_________ of structure you choose for your law practice,
there will be some advantages and disadvantages. The key, as with most
business decisions, is to carefully weigh your options and make the 6)_________ decision in light of all the relevant
information. Regardless of the type of law firm structure you end up 7)_________, your decision process leading up to that
choice should be guided by two, sometimes conflicting, interests: flexibility
and security. Flexibility in the sense that the law firm structure you choose
should not encumber the growth and mobility of your practice; 8)_________ in
the sense that the legal structure of your law practice should expose you to
the least amount of 9)_________. Think of these interests as spectrum with
each interest on opposite, extreme ends. A good law firm 10)_________
will find the right balance between the two ends. There are, however, common
law firm structures that you should spend some time weighing to see if they
are compatible with your 11)_________ vs. security profile. Sole
Proprietorship A sole proprietorship represents the ultimate in flexibility.
Most solo 12)_________ are organized as sole
proprietorships. A sole proprietorship is a type of unincorporated business
entity where the 13)_________ is owned and managed
by a single individual. Legally, a sole proprietorship is not separate from
its owner. Therefore, 14)_________ flexibility is
the most significant advantage to a sole proprietorship. As a sole
proprietor, you are free to set your hours, pick the type of practice you
want, determine earnings, and decide which 15)_________
to take and which ones, if any, to turn away. A sole proprietorship, however,
has its challenges. Some of these 16)_________ may
include a limitation on sources of funding for your practice, carrying the
administrative burden of your practice alone, and an exponential increase in 17)_________
just to generate sufficient client base to sustain your practice. As a sole
proprietor you will also assume the liabilities of your practice, since a
sole 18)_________ does not have the benefit of a corporate
shield. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. СТРУКТУРА
ЮРИДИЧЕСКОЙ КОМПАНИИ Главный вопрос, который часто упускается из виду, это структурирование
вертикальных и горизонтальных отношений внутри юридической компании. Не будет
преувеличением сказать, что это одна из самых значимых задач при организации
юридической компании. Говоря о структуре юридической фирмы и подходах к ее
определению, следует применять те же самые подходы, какие применяются при
построении структуры юридического отдела. Характерной особенностью структуры юридической компании является
обязательное вхождение в ее состав ведущих (управляющих) партнеров,
партнеров, руководителей практик, главных юристов (senior lawyer),ведущих
юристов, младших юристов (accociate), помощников юристов (paralegal), обслуживающего персонала (курьеров, секретарей)
и прочих сотрудников. Структура юридической фирмы должна иметь не только
организационно-штатное, но и важное карьерное и мотивирующее значение для
всех ее сотрудников, т.к. строится по принципу движения вверх по карьерной
лестнице. Вот так может выглядеть этот карьерно-должностной
рост: Карьерная лестница юриста •управляющий партнер •партнер •руководитель практики •главный юрист (senior lawyer) •ведущий юрист •юрист •младший юрист (accociate) •помощник юриста (paralegal) •курьер, секретарь Part 3 SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIP An ancillary issue often associated with the choice of a sole
proprietorship structure for a legal practice is the issue of trade or
fictitious business names. This issue usually arises in the context of a sole
proprietorship because, and although generally, the legal name of a sole
proprietorship is the person who owns or operates the proprietorship, you may
want to give your law practice a name that is different from your name – i.e.,
a trade or fictitious name. The question then becomes whether under the
canons of legal ethics, trade names are permissible, and if they are, whether
there are any special filling requirements. As to the first question, the
issue of whether a lawyer can ethically practice law under a trade name is
best directed to your State Bar. But generally, most jurisdictions on First
Amendment grounds permit lawyers to use a trade name as long as the name is
not deceptive or misleading. On the issue of special filing requirements,
again, the rules of your jurisdiction controls. Some states require a special
registration filing and fees prior to using a fictitious business name. So,
check with the Business or Corporations office of the Secretary of State of
the state you intent to set up shop in, to find out whether you are required
to register a trade name in addition to the customary incorporation filings.
Professional Corporation If it turns out that as a solo practitioner, you are
disturbed by the absence of a corporation shield with a sole proprietorship, then a professional corporation may be an option depending
on the jurisdiction in which you practice. There are various permutations of
the professional corporation, but generally a professional corporation is a
type of corporate entity formed to engage in a business, the practice of
which requires a professional license. Therefore, the professional
corporation has a distinct legal existence from its owners or shareholders.
Because of this characteristic, a professional corporation may be an ideal
choice if you are a solo practitioner but want the security provided by the
corporate shield. The corporate shield advantage, however, requires strict
adherence to corporate formalities, and this may be onerous on a small
practice. Depending on the arrangement, a professional corporation may also
provide the capital advantages of a partnership without some of the
management and liability disadvantages of a partnership. Also, and again
depending on how the professional corporation is structured, there might be
some tax advantages. You should discuss the matter with your accountant and
tax adviser. General Partnership A general partnership is another structural
option, especially if you are considering starting your law practice with
another attorney. A general partnership is a business owned by two or more
persons, all of whom share equally in the profits and liabilities of the
partnership. In theory, any member of a general partnership can manage the
affairs of the partnership. This feature of a general partnership may make
the choice lack advantage if the partnership does not take care to identify
the various managerial roles of the partners. Also, keep in mind that any
partner in a general partnership can bind the partnership to a legal
obligation without express authority from the other partners. The possibility
of dual taxation also raises issues to consider and address. Limited
Liability Partnership Staring within the confines of a partnership structure,
a limited liability partnership is also another common structure for a law
practice. A limited liability partnership differs from a general partnership
in one major respect: unlike a general partnership, liability for the
partnership's debt in a limited liability is not borne equally by all the
partners. Therefore, the share of profits is also uneven. But, for several
legal and practical reasons, a limited partnership may be ideal for your law
practice, particularly if you are starting the practice with several attorneys.
Dual taxation is also a concern with a limited liability partnership. You
should consider how best to address this problem with your accountant or a
business lawyer. Limited Liability Company Recently, limited liability
companies have become the preferred corporate structure in many industries.
This is so because a limited liability company is a hybrid entity that
provides the organizational flexibility of a sole proprietorship coupled the
liability shield of a corporation. Think of a limited liability company as
the best location to perch on the flexibility v. security spectrum. Despite
its advantages, however, many jurisdictions do not allow the practice of law
under a limited liability company structure. It may save you time to inquire
at the outset, whether your state bar and corporation rules allow you to
structure your law practice as a limited liability company. In any event, you
should note that some states will require you to announce the formation of a
limited liability company through a newspaper publication, which may add some
cost to your startup budget. Bottom Line The bottom line is that the choice
of the type of law firm structure you pick is an important one. The type of
law firm structure you select will determine, for instance, how much tax you
pay and whether others can sue you for the actions or in-actions of your law
practice. You should therefore spend an appreciable amount of time thinking
about your options, and talking to your account and business lawyer to
determine the right choice for you. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
There is no 1)_________
that a law firm be set up in any particular way, it can be a sole
proprietorship, partnership, professional 2)_________ or even an S
corporation. Lawyers being lawyers can
in fact come up with some pretty convoluted business 3)_________.
While I can't answer how every law firm is structured, I can tell you that a
partnership, either limited or 4)_________, is the
most typical structure. From
an 5)_________ and tax perspective a partnership
offers the greatest flexibility to allocate ownership and profit and loss
sharing among the partners. A
partnership also offers the advantage of pass through 6)_________,
so that the earnings flow through to the individual partners where taxes are
paid rather than at the entity level.
Limited 7)_________ offer the partners a
degree of liability protection from the actions of the other partners. A partnership also offers a lot of
flexibility about how 8)_________ enter and exit the partnership, so there is
no rule about how that is handled and it is up to the partners to 9)_________
among themselves how to account for admitting a new partner or allowing an
existing partner to exit. Again it is 10)_________
for there to be a «buy in» amount for a new partner to purchase an interest
in an existing firm and it is common for there to be a «buy out» agreement
for exiting partners. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. СТРАТЕГИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ЮРИДИЧЕСКОЙ
ФИРМЫ Юридической фирме в
обязательном порядке необходима стратегия развития, хотя далеко не во всех
компаниях она осознана, разработана, утверждена и контролируется на предмет
ее совпадения с текущей деятельностью. В то же время, стратегия, т. е.
бизнес-модель развития на среднесрочную и долгосрочную перспективу, с одной
стороны, придает юридической фирме уникальность, а с другой – помогает ее сотрудникам и владельцам понять,
в каком направлении и как происходит ее развитие. При разработке стратегии
необходимо ответить на вопросы: к чему стремится компания, на какой стадии
она находится и как ей достичь поставленных целей? При ответе на эти вопросы
необходимо пройти ряд ключевых стадий, таких как: 1.Формирование
стратегического видения развития фирмы и ее миссии. Руководство и владельцы
компании должны прийти к консенсусу о том, какой они видят ее примерно через
три года – пять лет. 2.Постановка финансовых
и стратегических целей Цели лучше ставить согласно принципам
SMART-управления, т.е. они должны быть конкретными, измеримыми, достижимыми,
актуальными и ограниченными во времени (на те же 3-5
лет). На этом же этапе необходимо определиться со способами (методами) и
средствами управления. Один из проверенных методов – управление по юристами по KPI, установление которых является весьма
действенным способом управления и контроля реализации стратегии и целей
юридической компании. 3.Разработка стратегии
как документа, ее согласование с ключевыми лицами Для
успешного прохождения этого этапа следует понять, на каком этапе развития
фирма находится сейчас, для чего следует провести SWOT, PEST и конкурентный
анализ компании, обозначить, на каком этапе развития она планирует оказаться
через определенный промежуток времени, и какие действия кому для этого требуется
предпринять. 4.Внедрение стратегии.
Как и любую другую новацию, будь то компьютерная система управления или новая
стратегия управления, ее необходимо внедрить в каждодневную работу компании.
На этом шаге важна обратная связь от сотрудников, их обучение и мотивация с
целью включения их в круг активных, инициативных и целеустремленных «делателей»
стратегии. 5.Контроль и
корректировка стратегии под текущую деятельность Через
систему KPI руководство проверяет выполнение стратегии юридической фирмы, одновременно
анализирует изменения в рынке, конкурентной среде, внешних обстоятельствах
(законодательство, макроэкономика) и оперативно корректирует стратегию. Важной составляющей в
общей стратегии юридической компании является определение ее ИТ-стратегии. Требуется определить: •Модель ИТ-обслуживания – собственные специалисты или ИТ-аутсорсинг •Состав и мощности ИТ-инфраструктуры •Объем затрат на
поддержание и инвестиций на развитие ИТ-инфраструктуры •Перечень
специализированных программных продуктов, сайтов и платных сервисов, которые
будут использованы в работе юристами (СПС, программы для юристов, сервисы
поиска и проверки контрагентов и т.д.). Автоматизация как
способ управления юридической фирмой Одним из самых
прогрессивных и действенных прикладных инструментов управления юридической
фирмой являются программные продукты, позволяющие решать задачи управления и
контроля с помощью автоматизации. Автоматизация
юридической фирмы призвана устранять такие затруднения в ее деятельности,
как: •Трудности с поиском
документов, файлов, писем по Клиентам •Проблемы с контролем
выполнения поставленных юристам задач •Трудности учёта
рабочего времени и контроля загрузки юристов •Юристы не вовремя
информируют Клиентов о прогрессе по делам, Клиенты все время интересуются «что
с моим делом» •»Человеческий фактор» –
забывчивость, небрежность, злой умысел •Трудности при передаче
дел при временном или постоянном замещении юристов (отпуск, болезнь,
увольнение) Как показывает практика,
автоматизация юридической компании – это
наиболее рациональный способ повысить эффективность взаимодействия с Клиентом
и устранить человеческий фактор. |