When he walks through the room for the first time after his mission statement has been distributed, his colleagues all start clapping. While Jerry basks in his colleagues’ applause, one leans to another and says that Jerry will probably last only another week at the agency. If you’ve seen the movie, then you know that Jerry is fired shortly after distributing his mission statement and that his own words (“Fewer clients. Less money.”) are used against him by the man who fires him — the wonderfully named Bob Sugar.

I mention Jerry Maguire as a way into what has happened at mega-firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP in recent weeks and what is means for everyone who practices law. As you have probably read, Dewey & LeBoeuf will almost certainly be forced to close its doors in a matter of days. Most of the partners have jumped ship to other mega firms. For a time, all employees were rumored to have lost their health benefits due to the firm’s inability to pay its carrier. Its former managing partner is being investigated by the New York District Attorney.

As I understand it, the firm’s downfall was caused in no small part by guaranteed payouts to partners based upon their past ability to generate work. The New York Times has called Dewey & LeBoeuf a cautionary tale and has suggested — much like Jerry Maguire — that it is “time for lawyers to reshape corporate practice so they make less money, have time to serve other legal needs and approach their work with the independence that would make them true professionals.”

The underlying indictment behind the Times’ editorial is the same one I saw recently in the quote-a-day legal calendar my mother-in-law gave me as a stocking stuffer last Christmas. The quote for April 11 read: “To a large extent, lawyers have shed traditionally professional qualities, and the law has become an ordinary trade whose success is measured by profits.”

Of course, Jerry Maguire opens his own firm after he is fired and promptly forgets about his mission statement. In an desperate attempt to maintain his relationship with a prized college quarterback who will be taken first or second in the coming draft, he neglects the one client who elects to follow him to his new firm. It is, of course, the lessons of loyalty, sacrifice and friendship that Jerry needs to — and does — learn that ultimately makes the story satisfying.

I wonder, though, about where this leaves me, as an attorney working in private practice, grinding hard to both build my book of business and meet my billable hour goals. I wonder about this idea of true professionalism and what it means for the future practice of law, for both me and everyone.

Are profits and professionalism diametrically opposed? Are the only choices Jerry Maguire or Dewey & LeBoeuf? Or is there a middle ground where profits and professionalism can coexist? I, for one, certainly hope so.

Recently, the ABA Journal provided an overview of ethics opinions on lawyers and law firms using these services. The state bar associations in North Carolina, South Carolina and New York have issued opinions suggesting it’s OK for lawyers to jump on the deal-of-the-day coupon bandwagon. As this phenomenon spreads, I am willing to bet that more bar associations will also opine on the issue. Here are three main concerns discussed in these opinions:

1)  Does this kind of payment arrangement amount to fee splitting with non-lawyers, which is prohibited by Rule 5.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the ethics rules of all the states?

2) Are advertisements for discounted legal services using this “couponing” method inappropriate for attorneys to use from a professionalism or appearance standpoint?

3) Is a “couponing” for business a good business model for attorneys?

One analysis of the fee-splitting issue says it does not amount to more than a payment of reasonable advertising costs. The South Carolina Bar’s advisory opinion states the fee charged by the website operator amounts to payment of the reasonable cost of permitted advertising by a lawyer rather than sharing the lawyer’s fee.

“The fact that the charge for this form of advertising service is deducted up front by the company rather than invoiced and then paid from the lawyer’s operating account does not transform the transaction from the payment of advertising costs into an improper fee split,” the opinion states.

A second analysis in the opinion concludes that the transaction does constitute fee splitting but the transaction still is OK “as long as the website does not have the ability to exercise any control over the services which are to be subsequently rendered by the attorney.”

“Sharing fees with a non-lawyer may be permitted where the circumstances do not suggest any encroachment on the lawyer’s independent judgment,” the opinion states.

On the propriety front, the “couponing” method may carve out a new perspective about how law firms communicate their fee information to potential clients and how they advertise. But the perception of a “legal Groupon” is difficult for some to overcome.

“There have been people who say that [it] is not appropriate. It makes us look like we’re in the bazaar, not practicing law,” Ronald C. Minkoff, a partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York City, told the ABA Journal.

Finally, the most important question is whether online coupon advertising will catch on with lawyers and whether it is a good business model. Robin Iori, a marketing director based in Chicago, told the ABA Journal using such services might be limited to one-time hits, rather than the repeat business most lawyers want.

“I don’t necessarily think it would build a really great practice because you’re going in with the idea of discounting it from day one,” she said.

On the flip side, she said that younger legal consumers, who are accustomed to meeting their needs on the Internet or through these types of deals, might find coupon sites a desirable way to seek out legal services.

What are your thoughts? Is a coupon for legal services too “out there” at this point in time? Would you purchase a “groupon” for legal services?

Just about every year there are bills proposed in the Maryland General Assembly to help protect the homeless. In fact, Maryland is a leader in legislation protecting the homeless and in 2009 became the first state to pass a law classifying crimes against the homeless as hate crimes. (Other states, including Rhode Island, soon passed their own versions of the bill.)

But Maryland still has its struggles with this issue. Just recently Baltimore City faced a controversy when it shut off the power supply to a homeless shelter after the shelter allegedly didn’t pay its bills. The shelter alleges that the city owes the shelter money; hopefully the sides will reach a resolution so this vulnerable population isn’t left without a safe haven.

(For more about the homeless in Baltimore, check out this blog. It’s written by a formerly homeless man living in Baltimore. It hasn’t been updated recently but the posts are personal and informative.)

Statistics on the number of attacks on homeless people are extremely sad — 1,184 cases of violence since 1999, according to one report. And these are only the cases that we know about. It’s likely that there are many more incidents that go unreported.

The homeless already have such a small voice in our society; I can’t imagine what it must be like to face discrimination from the people that you need help from. It’s enough of a struggle for them to try and to survive and get their lives together. (Check out the comments in the story about the Rhode Island law to see some of the hatred that exists.) Although this Rhode Island bill may be difficult to enforce, I believe it is an important step in protecting the homeless.

As my friends know, I’m a science-fiction fanatic. With “Star Trek” off the television airwaves, I’ve had to find enjoyment elsewhere. I’ve come to know and love the British series Doctor Who and recently discovered that one of the writers of Doctor Who also created a modern spin on Sherlock Holmes for the BBC.

I’m a little late to the game — I started last week with season two (it airs Sunday nights on PBS’ Masterpiece Mystery!). I watched the first episode of the season and highly recommend it. (Nerdy sci-fi note: the actor who plays Sherlock in the BBC production is also cast in the next “Star Trek” movie. Reports are that he will play Kirk’s (original timeline) nemesis, Khan Noonien Singh).

It got me thinking about the how our profession is like a mystery story. For personal injury lawyers, many cases are about unfolding mysteries. Sure, there are some garden variety automobile accidents, but almost every case brings something interesting to the table. I’ve found defendants through Facebook, surveyed hours of MTV video footage to identify the events surrounding a crowd crush incident and pored through tens of thousands of pages of documents to identify corporate wrongdoing. Particularly in the beginning, when that new phone call comes in and the facts need to be pieced together to determine if something actionable happened. It’s a thrill.

The thing about mysteries is that they are not usually as sexy in real life. Rarely solved through Holmesian deduction, they require methodical plodding and fact-checking. One of the smartest and most effective lawyers I know was an investigative journalism major — his depositions are a wonder to behold. The key in this line of work is to keep pushing, to keep asking questions and to accumulate as much data as possible. That’s how crimes get solved.

My presentation will focus on how social media can be used effectively by lawyers. From blogging to LinkedIn to Facebook and Twitter, social media can help you find new audiences for your work and can put you in control of your professional reputation. There are a few lawyers who have perfected the art of using these social media platforms for professional purposes.  Check out the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, and The Employer Handbook.

My materials include, among other things, a list of tips on how lawyers can use social media effectively. I think one of the most important is, “don’t be afraid to show your personality.” Tastefully and professionally, of course, and in moderation.

We spend so many of our waking hours thinking about work and do so much of our communication and networking electronically that it is far too easy for us, the online generation of lawyers, to lose who we are as individuals. We may not think about it, but in divorcing our personal lives from our professional lives so completely, we are losing the things that set us apart and that can help us naturally identify with colleagues, potential clients and referral sources.

If you Google me, the first thing that comes up is my profile on my firm’s webpage.  Second is my LinkedIn profile, followed by other social media results such as JD Supra, Facebook and Twitter. You’ll find articles that I’ve written and Bar Association results, but there are also more personal results.

You will see my Sjogren’s Syndrome Foundation fundraising page, you will find information about my pro bono client and children’s school, Bryant Woods Montessori Children’s House, and you will find my posts on this blog where I talk about work-related things as well as my kids, my family, my practice assistant, my fantasy football team and my thoughts about fast food play areas.

The first set of online content will give someone an idea of my professional qualifications and may encourage someone to contact me for my professional opinion on one of those topics.

But it is the personal set of content that will give people an idea of who I am as a person, what I am like to work with and whether my interests align with theirs. It may also give a reader more of a sense of my judgment than an alert on a breaking news item would. And, as lawyers, isn’t our judgment a little more important than our ability to summarize the news? Keeping at least some personality in your social media will also help you develop and maintain relationships.

I will leave you with my favorite blog (and some of my favorite recent posts from the blog, here, here, here, and here).  This is not a law blog, but a personal blog with an impressive 13,000 unique visitors per month.  It is an excellent example of how tastefully personal blogging can be done.

I am sorry it has been such a long time since I last wrote, but the life of a lawyer is not easy. It’s been almost two years since I last wrote and a lot of things have changed and a lot of things are the same.

I made partner this year, which has required more (non-billable) work. The kids are getting older: Braden is almost five and Kyan is a rambunctious two-year-old. Some days, Michelle and I battle to a draw with the kids, but for the most part, they are winning the war at home. I’ve even been able to squeeze in a few marathons since I last wrote, most recently one in New Jersey on Sunday.

But enough about me (and the potential discussion on partnership, family planning and work-life balance). Let’s talk about you.

The legal job market is still fairly tough, especially for new lawyers. Firms are looking for attorneys with some experience, but new attorneys can’t get experience without getting a job. It’s our own legal Catch-22.  There have been reports of a comeback, but that is probably of little solace if you are still looking for a job. My advice on the job search remains the same:

When it comes to the economy and available legal employment opportunities, I do not envy you. We all know that it is a tough market out there. Legal jobs are scarce and the competition is brutal, but keep your head up. The toughest legal job to find will be your first one. All you need is one offer.  I remember the stack of rejection letters that sat on my coffee table years ago. I also remember when I got my first offer (thanks Judge Murdock) and the excitement I felt to start my career. It would do a lot of attorneys good if they remembered how hard it was at the beginning. We forget sometimes, as if we never struggled in court or with a client or to find a job.

(See also “Getting an Interview and getting a job: Interviewing at law firms” Part One and Part Two.)

Additionally, since the last time I wrote, Shauna Bryce, of Bryce Legal Career Counsel, wrote “How to get a Legal Job: A Guide for New Attorneys and Law School Students.” I have not read the book cover-to-cover, but Shauna lays out some pretty important dos and don’ts for all stages of the legal job search. (Full disclosure: I was one of the people that Shauna interviewed for this book but have no financial interest in the sale of the book. I do have a personal interest since I am hopeful some of my advice will help young lawyers get there first legal job).

The recommendations from my previous letter still hold true: protect your reputation; find mentors; never commingle funds; strive for a work/life balance; and have fun.

I am trying to figure out what has changed over the last couple of years. Technology is a big game-changer in the field of law, but there is a high probability that you know more about how to use an iPad than I do. Just don’t hide behind your technology. Handwritten letters and meeting someone at his or her office usually means a lot more to a client or potential client than a text or an email. The world is getting smaller, so also consider protecting your online reputation. I google candidates that I interview and counsel that I work with and against.

Something I didn’t mention in my last letter, but I should have: take some time to yourself. Being a lawyer (and a grown-up) comes with a crushing sense of responsibility and deadlines. As Ferris Bueller said in a movie that came out in the year that some of you may have been born: “Life moves pretty fast.  If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

In closing, good luck. Good luck with the bar exam in the next few months. Good luck with the job search. And good luck with navigating toward your first legal job.

Of course, that didn’t resolve the issue, and then it took another 15 minutes for another restart. Something was really wrong but maybe I needed to do a complete shutdown. Nope. A shutdown didn’t fix the problem because it took about 20 minutes to load up. I was in big trouble!

I quickly pulled out my external drive in an attempt to backup. My mind was focused on saving my pictures, my documents, my music, my pictures and my pictures. Once I connected my external drive, I sat back and watched the screen. It indicated that it was “processing” and it “processed” for 30 minutes. By that point I was frustrated and exhausted so I ended the backup, disconnected the external drive and shut the Mac down.

I restarted, waited another 20 minutes for everything to load and plugged in the external drive. I figured since there was a lot of information to backup, it probably needed to run overnight, so I let the Mac do its thing while I was sleeping. I didn’t get much sleep because I was too worried about the situation. I woke up at 5:30 a.m. and found that the backup was still “processing.” That is when my frustration turned into panic. My last backup was Aug. 25, 2011. That wasn’t good.

I had a Carrie Bradshaw moment. If you are fan of “Sex and the City,” you probably remember the episode where Carrie’s laptop died. She hadn’t backed up and lost years of her work. At least I had backed up, but I still felt that I had lost both arms.

I did a quick analysis of the situation. I wasn’t too concerned about my documents because I usually saved them on my thumb drive or emailed them to someone. I purchased my music so I could always get my songs from iTunes. My contacts were on my phone. But what about my pictures?

The thought of having to buy a new Mac and losing almost a year’s worth of information stayed in my mind all day. Eventually, I was able to think rationally and I figured I would try to copy my pictures to my external drive. I rushed home after working late and headed straight for my Mac. There were more than 2,000 pictures to copy so it took all night. Thankfully, I woke up the next morning to find that the copy was a success.

The only thing left to do was take my Mac to Apple’s Genius Bar and find out its actual diagnosis. Not surprisingly, it was a dead hard drive, which I sent out to get replaced.

The moral of the story: remember to back up and back up regularly. You never know when that reliable electronic device you love so much will one day become not so reliable.

Take S.H.I.E.L.D. for example, the shadowy government agency that appears to have its nose in a variety of superheroes’ business and in saving the world in general. The organization’s status within international law is explored by the Multiverse, which finds SHIELD is inconsistently depicted as either a U.S. or a United Nations entity. If it’s a U.N. organization then, “every single deployment would require the authorization of the member states, so the potential scope of authority in each engagement is likely to be very limited.”

On the other hand, if SHIELD is an American entity that “clears up a lot of problems, like the question of why it can exist in the first place, and it doesn’t necessarily introduce any new problems that aren’t already in play in the real world.” We’ve got SEAL Team 6 doing what SHIELD does anyway. So, maybe the comic book world isn’t so far-fetched.

In the case of The Incredible Hulk, the Multiverse finds that although Bruce Banner probably wouldn’t have an action against the government for his health problems, “depending on the nature of Banner’s employment, either the Federal Employee Compensation Act, the federal equivalent of workers’ compensation, or the Veterans Affairs Administration would provide compensation for his injuries, as he sustained them while executing his duties as a government employee.” I suppose a similar analysis would apply to Captain America.

Superhero Law focuses more on the intellectual property issues of the Hulk and other superheroes endowed with powers as a result of scientific experiments. It finds that “the process by which a human could be endowed with near limitless strength or power over time and space, respectively, could be patented.”

Within the workplace, the blog’s analysis finds that in “most situations where an employee makes a discovery at work, the fruits of that discovery belong to the employer” and that in other states “many employers draft employment agreements that transfer rights in discoveries to the employer.” The blog concludes the Army could get a patent for “Hulks.” (Superhero Law seems more corporate focused than the Multiverse.)

Regarding the “gadget” superheroes, those mere mortals with superhuman bank accounts, the Multiverse also explores their legal issues. The blog finds that “just about everything in one of Iron Man’s suits is going to find its way” on the restrictions list of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations “from the armor itself down to the micro-controllers in the servo motors.”

The blog concludes that the real-world legal system doesn’t quite “sync up” with the comic book world as it is “unlikely that the federal government would either 1) decide to scale back arms control laws when faced with gadget-based superheroes or 2) decide to give those superheroes a pass, especially if they wouldn’t share.”

Anyways, these are issues for legal and comic book nerds alike to explore on their own time, but let us know what you think of the movie. I’m going to wait until the crowds die down.

Yet I took some relief in knowing that I kept my client fully advised throughout my representation, that my client knew that this could be the outcome, and that I did everything I could do to advance my client’s case. I reminded myself that, despite my efforts, we simply cannot win them all.

Oftentimes our clients want us to tell them what the outcome of their case will be. They want to hear that they have got a slam-dunk case and that everything is going to go their way. They believe that, by virtue of retaining a lawyer, they are going to obtain the relief that they seek. They believe that, because they are on the “right side” of the case, justice will prevail.

Yet, lawyers don’t have crystal balls or magic wands. The fate of a case rests with a judge or jury and with what you can prove. Thus, the vast majority of cases settle because the client is able to maintain control of settlement negotiations and the ultimate outcome. Most clients are simply not willing to “roll the dice.”

We have all been before a judge or jury who we thought got it wrong, whether legally or factually. We have all had cases that looked to be an easy win that turn out to be anything but easy.

There is a mantra in the business world to under-promise and over-deliver. Yet, if we under-promise too much, we run the risk of losing the client to an attorney who expresses more optimism about the case. Conversely, if we over-promise, we run the risk of proceeding with a client who has an unrealistic view of the case. This may cause unintended consequences, like a client who will not accept a fair settlement offer and insists on going to trial, certain the million dollar verdict is a foregone conclusion.

So how do we realistically manage our clients’ expectations without losing business? How do we toe the line between being a counselor and being a business person?

I have found that being completely upfront with my clients is the best approach. I keep them informed of the progress of the case, particularly when challenges arise. I explain the strengths and weaknesses of our case from the outset and as the case progresses.

For example, I might tell a client that if I can find certain evidence, the case could be worth X, but if I can’t, the case is likely worth Y. The client then understands the range and the issues and nothing comes as a surprise down the line.

We cannot always tell our clients what they want to hear. We must sufficiently inform and advise clients so that they have all the information that they need to make decisions about moving forward. I value the case as best I can but always make sure the client understands that if the case goes to trial, there is no way of knowing what the judge or jury will do.

When discussing a settlement offer or demand, I often go back through that analysis — the valuation, the strengths and weaknesses, the costs associated with proceeding to trial, the risks associated with proceeding to trial, etc. The client ultimately will make the decision but the client is counting on me to enable him to make the best decision possible, with the most information available to him.

That recent case settled for the best  number that I felt I could get my client. My client understood that a worse outcome was possible at trial, including possibly a defense verdict. Had I not had ongoing conversations with my client about the issues with this case, had I inflated the the issues or simply told the client what the client wanted to hear, I am certain that we would not have resolved this case and that, ultimately, this would be to the detriment of my client. While I am not pleased with the result, I do believe that I did my job in that case.

She has been dealing with her custody case for nearly a decade. I can’t imagine the emotional and physical stress she has been through over the years. I made several attempts to reach out to opposing counsel in attempts to settle the matter, but he refused. As time passed, it became clear that I had a strong argument to support a motion for judgment.

I had a slight setback at the beginning of the trial when the judge decided that he wasn’t going to hear from the child, now a teenager. But things started looking brighter after my oral motion to limit the scope of the testimony and evidence to a specific time period was granted over the other side’s objection. The plaintiff’s lawyer finished his direct in about 30 minutes and offered no evidence.

My cross was even shorter. I made my motion shortly after and all I had to say was “under Wagner v. Wagner, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that there has been a material change in circumstances…” The judge abruptly cut me off and asked the plaintiff to respond — and that is when I started feeling good. After a brief dialogue between the plaintiff and the judge and my quick rebuttal, the judge granted my motion.

I immediately leaned over to my client and said, “It’s over.” I wanted her to finally have peace of mind. I didn’t realize how emotional she had become until we were outside of the courtroom. She was still processing the fact that this issue was finally over and she was overwhelmed. She was so grateful for the services of Legal Aid and showed her gratitude by giving my supervisor, two of my colleagues and me tight hugs.

Knowing that I’ve impacted someone’s life in a positive way is extremely rewarding. I wouldn’t trade that feeling for anything. That is why I decided to become a lawyer. I might not make a lot of money, but I do have the satisfaction that I provide a much-needed service to an underserved population in my community. I provided my client with thousands of dollars worth of legal services for free. I can honestly say that I believe I zealously advocated on her behalf.

I know that I won’t have favorable outcomes all the time. But this win validates that Legal Aid is the right place for me. Although it has its challenging moments — and sometimes I could use a larger paycheck — those moments are outweighed by the smiles on my clients’ faces at the conclusion of their cases.