Rimon Law Blog

What does the General Counsel of a Fortune 100 company want from a law firm?  In the case of one former GC – Theodore Banks of Kraft Foods – the answer is printed in black and white.  The ABA’s 2004 publication, “Marketing Success Stories” edited by Weishar and Smiley begins with an essay by Mr. Banks titled What We Wish We Could Get from  a Law Firm, or, Hot to Make Us Fall in Love Again.

The advice propounded by Mr. Banks is entirely commonsensical.  But it is only in recent years, if not months, that “innovative” law firms are touting their adoption of the practices that in-house counsel has wanted all along.

Bypassing the more obvious (but still sage) recommendations, here’s a summary of what one General Counsel recommends to outside counsel trying to get his business.

Getting The Client

• Firms need to distinguish themselves.  Oftentimes law firms cannot adequately answer the question, “Why should I hire you instead of someone else?”  Using vague generalities to answer this question is insufficient.  A firm must prove its capabilities for “high-quality, cost-effective service” in any relevant areas.  Rimon Law Group’s co-founder mused once that he found it odd when law firms tout that they are ranked third for this or that practice area.  As a General Counsel, my reply might be, “can you introduce me to numbers one and two?”
• Ditch the Picasso. While adequate overhead is expected, a firm that spends a lot of money on glass buildings or fancy artwork might suggest the firm is padding its bills to pay for unnecessary overhead.  In-house counsel would rather their lawyer buy a tasteful poster and pass the savings on to them.
• Do what you can to get in the door.  While a company might not be willing to try out a new firm on a billion dollar litigation, they might roll the dice on a smaller, more discrete matter.  Firms might offer new clients to work on a matter at a discounted rate, showing all along what it would cost at the usual rate, to gain a client’s trust and to expose them to the firm.

In these three categories, I’m proud that Rimon Law Group, and certain other virtual law firms, rise above.  More than most, they understand what a real brand identity means to the firm.  In the case of Rimon, we place the focus on lawyers with greater experience operating in an ultra-efficient environment and an assurance of predictable fees to our clients.  The combination of expertise and cost-effectiveness in many virtual law firms is impossible to match in the traditional law firm setting, which is often laden with overhead and leveraged to the hilt.  We’ve also acted creatively to address new clients’ needs in order to expose them to our non-traditional way of doing business.  This often comes at a cost but we’re building durable relationships in the process.

Next week, I’ll discuss Mr. Banks’s advice for keeping existing clients and also do a self-evaluation of Rimon’s practices in the areas of Listening, Communication, Billing, Staffing and Fees.

Stay tuned.

Monday’s article in the San Francisco Daily Journal by Jill Redhage asked the question whether virtual law firms will “be a lasting feature of the legal industry?”  (Among the virtual law firms discussed in the article as examples of this new trend was our own firm, Rimon Law Group, so we certainly hope the answer is yes. )  The article cites some critics of the model that identify certain challenges faced by virtual law firms, such as quality control, collaboration and training. To be sure, quality control, collaboration and training pose important problems for any business, virtual or not.  Virtual organizations, however, are forced to come up with different solutions to these problems.  This process becomes especially interesting when, in seeking these solutions, we develop tools that are more useful than their traditional counterparts, and that are equally useful for colleagues who are in the same office as one another or spread across the globe.

In my mind, the question whether virtual law firms are here to stay is no different than the question whether virtual organizations of any kind are here to stay.  And in that regard, Cisco’s Mark Chandler gets it right: being virtual isn’t black or white, it’s a continuum along which organizations adopt more or less “virtual techniques”.  (With Cisco as perhaps the leading producer of these techniques, he should know.) These techniques are often ones that lead to improved quality, efficiency and collaboration.  The advantage that virtual law firms have is that they are forced to adopt such best practices rather than clinging to traditional processes.  Traditional organizations and firms can also play smart, although they’re not required to.  In this way, virtual law firms are like small mammals during the cretaceous period that were forced to adapt under environmental stresses.  Traditional law firms that survive and thrive during the present shift may be those that learn well from their smaller and more nimble counterparts.

(For an interesting presentation that discusses virtual best practices, check out this keynote from BizTech Day featuring the CEOs of Elance and Odesk as well as Tim Ferriss – http://www.biztechday.com/how-to-build-a-virtual-organization/)

On September 1, 2009, the Government of the United Kingdom implemented the New Offshore Disclosure Opportunity (“NDO”).

 The NDO allows those individuals with unpaid UK taxes relating to previously undisclosed income and/or capital gains linked to offshore accounts and/or assets to settle related tax liabilities at a favorable 10% penalty rate.  Ordinarily, penalties are charged at up to 100% of the tax due.

The NDO provisions apply to all UK residents and certain non-UK domiciled individuals (who themselves may be or once were subject to tax in the UK) who have an interest in any Offshore Accounts, Trusts or Corporate entities that would otherwise be subject to UK tax. 

Under the NDO, formal notification of the intention to disclose must be given to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) in the UK by November 30, 2009 at the latest.  The actual disclosure must be submitted to HMRC together with payment of related taxes and penalty charges by March 12, 2010 if the disclosure is done online or by January 31, 2010 if the disclosure is done on paper. 

Care needs to be taken when making this disclosure since, by submitting a request under the NDO, an individual does not automatically receive immunity from criminal prosecution.

The amnesty will apply if any income, capital gains and inheritance tax outstanding is paid in full together with (in most cases) an additional minimum of 10% penalty charge if any tax due is above £1,000 and any interest due on the unpaid tax .

The NDO will not affect as many people living outside the United Kingdom as the US Voluntary Disclosure Program did for those Americans living abroad, since many of them are no longer considered to be UK tax resident.  However, historic tax liabilities are under review by HMRC and recent immigrants from the UK in particular will need to consider their position in more depth.

In addition, those who are considered to be UK tax resident, for example under a relevant Tax treaty or under general UK law, but who are neither ordinarily resident nor domiciled in the UK (for tax), may be able to use the remittance basis to argue that the offshore income and gains were not taxable in the UK.  In many of those cases, tax would only be due on income or gains that were brought into the United Kingdom.

For additional information about the New Disclosure Opportunity please contact Dave Wolf, Esq. by email at dave.wolf@rimonlaw.com.