Episode 180: Thinking About Starting Your Own Law Firm? Avoid These Ethical Mistakes (With Mike Rossi)

Stephen Seckler (00:11.642)
Welcome back everybody. Just a reminder that if you're listening to Counsel to Counsel on one of the audio podcast platforms like Spotify or Apple Podcasts, you can also find us now on YouTube. If you're watching on YouTube, it's nice to have you here. Many lawyers dream about starting their own law firm. The appeal is easy to understand. More autonomy, more control over your clients, more flexibility, and the opportunity to build something that reflects your own values and visions.

But launching a practice is not simply about finding clients, creating a website, and sending out invoices. When you become a law firm owner, you also take on a new set of professional responsibilities. You are responsible for protecting client confidences, managing client funds, avoiding conflicts, supervising others, and making sure that your business development efforts comply with the rules of professional conduct. My guest today is Mike Rossi, a partner at Con Kavanaugh in Boston.

where his practice focuses on professional liability, business litigation, and advising lawyers and law firms on issues involving professional responsibility and risk management. In this episode, we'll discuss some of the ethical issues lawyers need to consider when launching and growing their own firms, including client intake, conflicts, engagement agreements, trust accounting, marketing, technology, artificial intelligence, and the responsibilities lawyers have when they leave one firm to start another.

Mike, welcome to Council to Council.

Mike Rossi (01:38.978)
Thanks, Steve. Great to be with you. Appreciate you having me.

Stephen Seckler (01:42.564)
Before we dive into ethics, can you tell us just quickly about your own career path and how you developed a practice advising lawyers and law firms on professional responsibility issues?

Mike Rossi (01:51.983)
Sure, and thanks for the very kind introduction. I have been a an attorney at Khan Kavanaugh in Boston now for about fourteen years. I started at a few other firms before that. I've been practicing for about twenty years. and when I came to Khan Kavanaugh, it I I quickly learned that the firm has a a really rich and long tradition of being lawyers, lawyers, lawyers for lawyers. And that means defending lawyers in legal malpractice cases, but also providing ethics advice to lawyers and law firms.

Representing lawyers in BBO matters and even handling some business transactions involving lawyers leaving or starting law firms. So it was a big part of the firm's history and tradition, and I quickly took a liking to it and got into it. So that's become a an important part of my practice over the last thirteen or fourteen years. And I'm happy to be able to carry on you know the tradition of the firm. I know a lot of people in the Boston area.

Lawyers in the Boston area and Massachusetts look to our firm and think of our firm in in in that regard, and it's great to be a part of that.

Stephen Seckler (02:53.07)
You work with lawyers and firms around the country too, right?

Mike Rossi (02:56.738)
Yes, we do. Right.

Stephen Seckler (03:00.836)
What size firms do you typically represent when you're doing these kinds of issues?

Mike Rossi (03:04.108)
We we are all over the map. We defend large law firms, primarily in legal malpractice cases or advising on some tricky conflict issues and w we advise solos in firms of two, three, four lawyers that are are facing similar issues. There's really you know, the the the issues are sometimes specific to firm size, but in many cases they're universal and we're pleased to have clients across the spectrum of firm size.

And and we enjoy working with different types of lawyers in in law firms.

Stephen Seckler (03:38.126)
You primarily represent them when they get into trouble, right? But you also do some preventive work.

Mike Rossi (03:44.079)
I th that's right. I I I I hope and would like to think that the the better work we do or or more of the work we do is helping people avoid difficult situations. We serve as outside general counsel in a way to a lot of solo and and small firms. So firms that may not have an in-house general counsel or an in-house risk management partner would call us or some of my partners to ask questions when just day-to-day conflict issues arise or client fund issues arise or or any sort of ethical issue.

We're a phone call for them. They reach out to us. They feel they can I I hope trust us and and rely on us for maybe quick advice that they need to get through their day or work through a difficult situation. So yeah, a part of what we do is is defending lawyers and firms in malpractice cases, which of course, you know, can last years and it's it's just t typical litigation. But we also really enjoy and and and like to focus on

the the the consulting aspect of it of providing ethics advice and and as I said being that outside general counsel to smaller firms.

Stephen Seckler (04:46.042)
Let's jump into the main topic for today. When a lawyer decides to leave a firm and start their own practice, what are some of the first ethical issues they should be thinking about before they open their doors or even before they leave their firm?

Mike Rossi (05:01.164)
I think that's a a a great way to start because i I I know our topic is focused on opening a firm, but really the most I think the the the the first ethical issue that a lawyer needs to think about in that situation are his or her ethical obligations to the firm that he or she may be leaving. And that can be a minefield. Fortunately there is an ABA opinion that is really the Bible in this area. I I I will give you the

the the number it's ninety nine dash four one four. I keep a copy of it in my risk management folder on my desk because anytime somebody calls with questions, if they say to us, Hey I'm thinking of leaving my firm, what do I do? Can I tell my clients? that I that that's the go to. We go right to that ABA opinion and and walk them through the steps. generally in a nutshell the the the

The ethical guidance on this issue strongly encourages lawyers who are leaving firms to do so harmoniously. Ideally, there is a joint communication that's agreed upon that goes out from both the lawyer and the firm that he or she is leaving to all clients for whom that lawyer had supervisory responsibility, indicating that the lawyer is leaving the firm and that the client has three choices. The client can keep the matter with the firm, the client can

go with the lawyer to the lawyer's new firm or the client can go to another firm altogether. And

I think the most important thing to keep in mind with that is that sometimes you know instinctively we may think of clients as our clients and where we're going to take them or they belong to certain people. Clients have the ultimate autonomy, they will choose who their lawyers are and there's no dibs. Lawyers can't simply say, Well, I'm taking this client with me. The client needs to be presented with the choice and affirmatively indicate what he or she or the company wants to do.

Stephen Seckler (06:48.752)
From where I sit, it seems like as a practical matter, a lot of times when lawyers are thinking about leaving their firm and they have clients that they've been working with, the clients think of them as their as their lawyer. They don't think of the law firm as their law firm. So while you're saying they have a fiduciary responsibility to their partners to let the client decide as a practical matter, often the client's going to decide to go with the the lawyer, right?

Mike Rossi (07:15.886)
I think that's right. There's certainly plenty of instances and we have this at our own firm where we you know, we have clients that are so embedded in the firm, they've worked with so many different lawyers in different subject matters that you know, th th it it may be

something that would at least give the client some thought as to what they want to do. But I I think you're right. Clients hired lawyers, typically not law firms, and and most of the time the client is going to go with the rel you with the relationship that they're comfortable with. But the key is really not jumping the gun. I mean where we see lawyers run into trouble.

as if they've decided to leave a law firm and before they notify their partners, they notify all of their clients to try to get a a heads up or a leg up on on maintaining the business and and the guidance on that is that that's absolutely not appropriate. It's not so much an ethical issue as it is a fiduciary one. So it's really important to review the ABA's guidance on this and try to come up with some joint communication or joint approach to in notifying the clients.

Stephen Seckler (08:15.386)
I get to see a lot of lawyers when they're thinking about doing this but they haven't pulled the trigger or they're just doing some exploration. Who can a lawyer speak to when they are thinking about doing this or they want to gather information? We you've just told us a lot about, you know, how it it should properly be handled vis a vis the the clients, but what about their associates, what about other partners?

Who who can somebody talk to, other lawyers outside the firm, who can you talk to when you're doing this exploration?

Mike Rossi (08:48.8)
it it sounds I think in that case your your safest bet probably is gonna be con to consult with lawyers outside of the firm. I mean if there if there's i obviously this is dependent entirely on the dynamics of a particular situation, but I would think in most cases sharing this information with others in the firm is probably not something that would end well. it's it's a lot more difficult to contain information. But it would certainly be a a really good idea to consult with a lawyer outside of the firm who might be able to provide some

some business advice or some practical advice on on what it is to leave a firm and start a practice. And it would also be good just to check in with somebody like you know, our firm that helps advise lawyers on the ethical issues of doing that and maybe, you know, helping them avoid some some traps for the unwary. certainly there's a business side of it too. I mean y I I if I was to start my own firm I'd want to have a

conversation with somebody who who knows a lot about legal technology and that could help me understand and we can talk about the ethical implications of that, but who who can help me understand what sort of technology I would need because you're gonna want to have that up and running on day one.

Stephen Seckler (09:55.355)
What if you're thinking about leaving the firm with another partner or another associate?

Mike Rossi (10:02.018)
Yeah, I think in in that situation, you know, obviously there's gonna be communications with that partner. the obligations that you would have to your remaining partners are the same. It's no different if you are you know, if you're operating as a group, you still have fiduciary relations and y you you'd wanna make sure that you're not

colluding or or conspiring in some way to you know breach those obligations to your partners. But it happens all the time as we see that partners join together to leave firms and and that's that's okay so long as all of the other requirements are are satisfied.

Stephen Seckler (10:33.808)
Okay, I don't wanna overdo it here and push you too hard, but okay, but so what can you do? Can you start a conversation with the litigation partner that, you know, is practicing right next to you and you're a trust and estates partner and you're you know, are you allowed to say, Hey Jim, you know, I'm thinking of branching out. Have you ever thought about doing that? Would you be interested in in coming with me?

Mike Rossi (10:57.654)
Yes, I I'm aware of no restrictions on any any

communication of that kind at all. It happens all the time. Again, th the the importance is is is carrying out the departure in the right way and not doing things that would impair the business of your, you know, existing partners once you leave, in terms of taking clients or things like that. But I I I think you know, we see partners or groups of partners leave law firms all the time. So having that type of conversation about, you know, potentially branching off, I I I see no reason that that would be

Prohibited in any way.

Stephen Seckler (11:34.192)
You started talking about what should be in place on day one. So could you say a little bit more about that? Like engagement agreements and and other things?

Mike Rossi (11:38.903)
Sure.

Yeah, there's a lot. I I think the the what spurred my my thinking on that is is is the technology and I think that's one of at least the three most important pieces. We not to get too technical on the rules here, but we do as lawyers have a duty of competence and that is spelled out in the ABA model rules of professional conduct and it's in in almost every state version of that rule. And part of that

Concept of competence is technological competence. And there's a comment actually, it's Rule 1.1 under the ABA model rules, and in most states. And there's a comment specifically to that rule that says that lawyers have an obligation to understand evolving technology and to stay on top of the technology that we need for our practice. It's not we can't we can't close our eyes to it. So when when starting a firm

We have to g lawyers would have to give some thought to what is the the basic technology that we need to do that. Billing software, maybe I AI tools these days, calendaring software, conflict check software, billing software.

we have i an oblig not not only is that desirable from a business standpoint, but we have an ethical obligation to be competent in our use of technology. So i i it's twofold. I mean there's a there's there's the ethical piece, but also I think just from a practical standpoint, having that technology in place from the get-go is critical.

Mike Rossi (13:06.456)
The the reason for that is because I think the types of claims or or ethical issues or or BBO matters that we see most frequently for small own solo and small firm practitioners are a mismanagement of client funds, which is oftentimes not intentional or nefarious at all. It's just that the lawyer does not have a good system in place to do it. And the second one would be missed deadlines.

Which again is something that can be addressed and should be addressed through practice management software. So there's plenty of really compelling reasons to have your software in place on the day you open your doors.

Stephen Seckler (13:46.114)
Anything to add about Iolta accounts?

Mike Rossi (13:48.995)
That's a minefield. There's just so much to consider on this. I would say state rules obviously vary, so it would be important for everybody to look at their state rules, but it is really, I would say, the single highest stakes area for new solos, and and worth a lot of attention. You would one thing of course is you'd want to set up

a compliant IOLTA account before ever taking a client retainer or ever taking any client funds at all. You'd want to understand your state's particular prohibitions on co-mingling and what that means. You want to understand the reconciliation practices that are required, the record keeping requirements. This can be outsourced, and I know a lot of firms do do that, but you know, in the early days of starting a firm, you may not be ready for that yet, and it it's really important to drill down.

on on those requirements. Many barred disciplinary cases that we see against solos stem, as they said, not from intentional theft, but from really just sloppy bookkeeping. failure to reconcile, fail using trust funds to cover operating shortfalls, even you know, even temporarily. this is a real area of of attention for at least in Massachusetts for our you know disciplinary process.

Stephen Seckler (15:08.72)
Not our core strength. I don't think I've I can't remember the last time I balanced my checkbook. It's probably been decades, but fortunately I don't practice law.

Mike Rossi (15:17.694)
Yeah, you know, and and this is really an area if just for that reason Steve we're hiring, you know, even a part time bookkeeper can can can help and it's money well spent.

Stephen Seckler (15:28.622)
It's a difficult balance. You don't wanna overspend when you're starting a new venture 'cause you need to have cash to keep you going until you're profitable. On the other hand, don't be penny wise and pound foolish on some things like this when it comes to money for sure, right?

Mike Rossi (15:43.777)
Absolutely. Absolutely. I I think, you know, ILTA compliance would be, as I said, money well spent and it'll give you more time to do what you want to do, which is practice law and go out and get clients and not worry so much about administrative things.

Stephen Seckler (15:58.961)
Speaking of going out and getting clients, there are lots of ethical issues that come up in setting up a website, social media, testimonials, advertising. What can you say about that? What should lawyers be thinking about in those regards?

Mike Rossi (16:13.274)
great question. So this is also addressed straight from the rules and I I'm I'm I don't want to be too technical, but if anyone is interested, I would take a look at rules seven point one to seven point three. Again, they tend to vary by state, but that is the starting point always. Those rules address lawyer marketing and I think what

lawyers understand about marketing and what their impressions are about what's allowed and not allowed has changed so much over the last two or three decades because we've seen such a prolif proliferation of lawyer marketing. We can't drive down the highway in Massachusetts now without seeing lawyer billboards, some of which seem sometimes to be I I guess I would say sort of a cutting edge or or maybe a little bit edgy. But the the a couple of key points to keep in mind.

the the the rule says that we cannot we cannot advertise with statements that are false or misleading, which sounds really vague, but that

term misleading is usually interpreted as being broader than than what may be appear. So you know any communication that creates some expectation on the part of a client or omits material information or or leads a reasonable person to to come to an inaccurate conclusion could be considered misleading. Where we would see that for example is it saying I am the best or I am the top lawyer or something like that. Any sort of results based advertising also tends to draw a lot of scrutiny

So for example, highlighting large settlements or v or verdicts that create unjustified expectations. You have to provide proper context. You have to provide disclaimers. It's important where those disclaimers are placed. There's there's a lot to it. And it's it's worth just taking a step back. And and we all want to put our best foot forward.

Mike Rossi (18:03.298)
But we we have to make sure we don't step over the line to the point where we are creating a false impression about our our accomplishments, our qualifications, and our abilities.

Stephen Seckler (18:15.566)
Now you and I are both in Massachusetts and so I don't think that much in terms of ethical rules outside of Massachusetts, but there are jurisdictions where specialization is regulated, right? Like you have to be certified as a specialist in some jurisdictions.

Mike Rossi (18:28.94)
Right. Absolutely. And if it and that's in the the ABS model rules that if you're going to say in any of your advertising or even in your testimonials that you're a specialist or an expert in some area of the law, that has to be backed by an actual certification. And that we see less of that in Massachusetts. But what I always say to people, and I've seen this come up in many malpractice cases, that's the first

place that an adversary is going to look. If you hold yourself out as an expert or a specialist in some area and it's splashed all over your website and you happen to make a mistake, you know you're gonna have a a plaintiff's lawyer that's gonna make the argument that you should be held to an even higher standard of care because you've held yourself out as a specialist or an expert in that that area. And that's really not a burden that we need to undertake.

Stephen Seckler (19:20.804)
have any good stories obviously preserving client confidences of the way an ethics issue might have snuck up on a lawyer who thought they were doing the right thing?

Mike Rossi (19:31.843)
Yeah, I think where I maybe see this come up most frequently, and I've had a number of cases in in this area, are where lawyers who are starting out are excited and also a little bit nervous about paying their bills, and so they take whatever case walks in the door, especially in the early years. And that I I've had a number of instances where that can lead to problems, especially where I've seen it in the area of probate law or trust law.

where a lawyer might set up you know a state planning vehicle or a trust for some clients and it turns out that because these are a little bit more intricate than than we all may think, th the the the protections that the clients

thought they were getting didn't exist in the document. The beneficiaries didn't have the protection that they needed, and the trustee didn't have the authority that he or she needed. So I th that is, I think, where I tend to see this come up most. The the rules require us to have the the legal knowledge and skill and and preparation that are reasonably necessary to take on a matter. It doesn't mean we have to be an expert and there are plenty of lawyers that have varied practices.

And it doesn't even mean never taking on unfamiliar matters. But y we all have to be mindful of of when the learning curve is just too steep for the clients' stakes. And and I that's I think where I have seen this come up

Most frequently, where lawyers have, in hindsight, they have said to me, I should not have taken that on. One easy solution there is if you want to keep the client, is associating with co-counsel. There's a lot of other lawyers in in your jurisdiction, I can guarantee you that would be happy to pair up with you and provide maybe the the legal background while you deal with the client relationships and you can work together to serve the client's needs. I've found in my own practice that associating with co-counsel is a great way to build up referrals. If you refer out, if you bring

Mike Rossi (21:28.09)
somebody else into one of your cases, oftentimes they're gonna want to repay the favor.

Stephen Seckler (21:33.391)
I don't know if this is an ethical issue or just a business issue, but when you do do that, does that have to be in writing with you know, between the lawyer and the person that's helping you or with the client? I guess the client has to know, right?

Mike Rossi (21:47.405)
Sure. The client does have to know, and there's a couple of ways of of going about it. I I find the easiest way to do it is to just have the client

have an attorney client relationship with both lawyers. So it's not as though you are hiring the lawyer. The client is hiring the lawyer just as the client hired you, and there'd be separate engagement agreements and both of you would advise the lawyer. I I've seen some instances where lawyers essentially hire other lawyers as a consultant, maybe to advise on a specific area of the law that that is unique. But I find that that is a little trickier mainly for the lawyer who's being hired, because I like to know clearly and without question when I have an attorney client relationship.

relationship with somebody. And that arrangement to me blurs the lines a little bit. Is the is the expert, consultant, lawyer working for the lawyer? Is he or she working for the client? I'd prefer that

that the line be be clearer and so I think it's best to have an attorney client relationship with the client. A related issue there I just want to touch on briefly is referral fees, which I think you may have been alluding to. In that instance where i if a lawyer refers a case to you, in at least in Massachusetts, and you're going to take a referral fee on that case, that does need to be disclosed to the client in the engagement letter.

Even if you're not doing any work on the case. We see this come up typically here in Massachusetts where referrals on contingency fee cases are allowed. So if somebody, just for example, was to come to me and ask me to represent them in a personal injury case, I don't practice in that area. I refer that case out to a colleague at another firm. In exchange for that, he's he's agreed to give me a a percentage of the recovery. I won't have to do much work. That has to be disclosed to the client in the engagement letter.

Stephen Seckler (23:30.65)
I was actually almost thinking about the opposite 'cause recently I was talking to a client who is feeling a little bit uncomfortable about some of the

I don't want to say the practice area even, but but feeling they wanted some reinforcement about whether they were drafting things in the correct way or whatnot. And I was saying, Well, you know, we we have a very collegial bar or you you're in a jurisdiction where you have a very collegial bar, like find somebody who's willing to be a little bit of a mentor. So

How would that work without violating, you know, is it just a matter of keeping the actual specifics, the facts confidential and then just asking for more genera general advice? Can you do that?

Mike Rossi (24:15.758)
Absolutely. And I I y but you raise a good point, which is that if you're going to you you ha we all have an obligation to maintain the attorney client privilege and to maintain our clients confidential information. So we we certainly cannot go to a colleague and say, Hey, can I just run this by you and then share with them all of the client's confidential information. That that if that lawyer doesn't have an attorney client relationship and and that consultation is not for the purpose of that other lawyer advising the client, that could be problematic. But an easy way around that is to just generalize the questions and

and not disclose confidential information, but maybe describe a situation generally and and and ask for input there. Also, you know, I I would say a a lot of what we do is public. I mean if we're filing a motion and we want to have somebody review it or or help

work through a legal issue. I don't think there's any issue there. I do that all the time with with colleagues at my own firm and and even colleagues outside the firm. If if I know there's an issue in an area where they have a lot of experience, I I always pick up the phone. I think that is one of the more rewarding parts of getting older as a lawyer is that you develop a network and and resources to be able to call on once in a while when you need it.

Stephen Seckler (25:25.476)
just felt my blood pressure drop because I was thinking, Wow, I was telling this client, I'm not giving them legal advice obviously, even though I'm a lawyer, that, you know, why don't you kind of find some people to mentor you a little bit more? And, you know, he seemed to be open to that, but as long as it's kept anonymous is what I'm hearing from you.

Mike Rossi (25:45.475)
I think anything we do anytime we we talk to people as lawyers, we have to be mindful of our obligations to maintain client confidences. And so we have to be

just abundantly careful that we're not sharing information that's protected. And as long as we don't do that in our interactions with anybody, then I think general discussions or anonymized discussions for the purpose of, you know, developing our knowledge or just picking somebody's brain are are not only okay, but a really good idea.

Stephen Seckler (26:21.2)
A lot of times people start out practices where they're by themselves or they're just with a partner or two and they're not really that leveraged, but at some point they'll start hiring assistants, virtual assistants, associates, eventually contract lawyers. What are some of the ethical questions that you should be thinking about if you're getting to the stage where now you're starting to grow a little bit?

Mike Rossi (26:47.372)
A a couple I think. W first of all, we we have to be sure that we are not w certainly non lawyers can't participate in the ownership of a firm. that would be one thing. So we can't

you know, deal somebody in in into the enterprise who's who's not a lawyer. the other piece of that I I would think about are our duties of supervision. We have an obligation under the ethical rules to supervise paralegals or even associates who are working for us. The buck stops with us if we're a partner or supervising lawyer on a case. They I th certainly, you know, associates have their own ethical obligations, but there there are duties of supervision. And so

that would be something that I'd be mindful of as well. It's a lot easier when you're when your enterprise is sprawling and there's people doing all sorts of things to lose focus on what others may be doing. But you know, if if a piece of work product goes out the door, it it's it's on the lawyer to make sure that it's it's correct and and and done well and serving the client's interests. Same goes with you know maintaining calendars, deadlines and things like that. There was a case not too long ago, I forget where it was, but a lawyer you know essentially blamed a paralegal for a missed deadline.

and and got an earful from either a state bar organization or a judge or something saying, you know, that's that's just because you hired the paralegal to maintain your calendar does not mean you get to outsource your responsibility to meet deadlines.

Stephen Seckler (28:11.492)
drove me crazy when Chat GPT was really first coming on the scene and you know, you'd hear a lot you know, some reports of lawyers citing cases that were basically hallucinations and, you know, I don't know, I figured out pretty quickly that's like a duh. Like you're supposed to supervise AI just like you would supervise anything that's helping you in your practice. So can you say something about without going in great depth 'cause it's a huge topic.

about AI and and how to safely use that.

Mike Rossi (28:44.076)
Yeah, this is a Pandora's box. We have spent a ton of time thinking about this at our firm. I've written some articles on it. I've I've read a lot of commentary on it. A couple of quick takeaways. I think number one, now the bigger risk is not hallucinated cases, meaning not completely fabricated cases, but it's citing the cases that don't say what we think they say or what we say they say. So you might throw something into

Chat GPT or something like that, and it might give you a case and it might say, This case stands for this proposition. You go onto Westlaw, you look it up, you find the case, you say, Great, the case exists, it's not hallucinated. You put it in your memo. But if you actually read the case, you would realize it doesn't say anything close to what you said it said. And that to me, we're seeing more of that, it's becoming more of a problem. And I think people really need to be mindful of that.

It's not simply that the case exists. The hallucination days, you know, I don't want to say they're behind us, but that the bigger issue is does the case say what you think it says? A related point, I I've I've also been really interested on this, and this came up in Massachusetts recently, where a an attorney filed a motion for pro hawk vice admission here, and the application was denied because that lawyer had been found to have submitted a brief in another court in another state that included hallucinations.

Cases. And part of the decision in that case talked about a lawyer's supervisory responsibilities. And this is what's interesting to me. In the past, if I had an associate give me a memo, a legal, you know, memo of law or a motion, I don't know that it would have occurred to me.

to look up every case and read every case. If it's a routine motion to compel, on a discovery issue that we see frequently and there's cases cited to support things, for better or worse, in the past I think I would have taken it at face value that th that the the associate found those cases, read them.

Mike Rossi (30:46.568)
And that they stand for what we say they do. Now there seems to be a a I think a an opinion that we can't do that as supervising lawyers. We need to read every single case that is cited in any pleading that we file, because if there's something wrong there, it is it is not an excuse that it was prepared by somebody else.

Stephen Seckler (31:08.377)
It's hard for me to believe that it isn't a matter of training and and trust that develops over time. You have a an associate that's a first year associate, you're gonna need to do that. In fact, I have this terrible memory when I was in law school of submitting a memo to I was doing a co op and

I could even remember what the question was. It was this is like forty years ago. Like, who bears the burden of proof in the state of the art defense involving asbestos products liability litigation? And so I did my research, gave the memo to the partner that was supervising me, and he walks over the case digest, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about. In the old days you had to get case information from books. And he said, Like, well, what about this case, Steve? And so

Anyway, I decided not to practice law. I'm not sure how much of it had to do with that particular example. But, you know, I was a law student. So of course the of course the lawyer was going to look behind the memo that I wrote and see if I'd gotten everything. But, you know, what if I was like five years out? You know, would would that be necessary?

Mike Rossi (32:20.303)
It's a tricky call. I don't I I I I don't have a good answer. It's it I feel like the landscape is changing so frequently.

Stephen Seckler (32:28.538)
Okay.

Stephen Seckler (32:33.186)
If you were advising a lawyer who was six months away from launching a practice, what steps would you tell them to take now to reduce their risk later?

Mike Rossi (32:42.424)
I think I I focus mainly on things that we've touched on. I would say get to know the legal technology as well as you can. Know what is out there, know what you can afford, and know what you need. Building software, calendar, software. A lot of these comes in suites, practical practice management suites. But I would start immediately doing tests of those, trying them out and see what works best for you so you have that up and running. number two would be IOLTA stuff.

I I'd absolutely you know, you'd wanna open a bank account, underst you know, learn and understand what your

What the requirements are in your estate, so you have that open and ready to go. And then I think one thing we haven't touched on entirely here is conflicts as well. You're gonna want to have a conflict check system from day one where you you can make sure when clients come in the door, you you're aware of who the they are and that you can check them against other clients in the future. And on that point, worth keeping in mind that when we leave a law firm, it it's not a clean break in terms of our conflict analysis. If you had represented a

Client at your prior firm and you developed confidential information about that client that could prohibit you from representing somebody adverse to that client once you open your new firm. So even though they may not be a client of your new firm because you have had that affiliation and you may have developed some understanding of that client's business, for example, there may be a conflict issue there. So I think those are the three things I'd focus on: a conflict system,

Legal practice software management and ILTA.

Stephen Seckler (34:17.562)
Okay. Well we're we're we're getting we're just about at the end here. So if there's one thing that you wish every lawyer understood before starting their own law firm, what would it be?

Mike Rossi (34:30.006)
I I i i i i it's hard to pick just one. I I I think I I would say and I I and I'm not you know, I I I'm not saying this because I think that the work that we do at our firm is you know, so essential that everyone needs to think about it. But a a a pound of or a what's the expression I'm looking for, Steve? A pound of prevention is

Stephen Seckler (34:55.386)
prevention. I mean an ounce of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Yeah.

Mike Rossi (34:58.868)
Ounce prevention, it's ex- that's exactly what I'm trying to say. So meaning if you think you may have a problem or you have a question, rather than let it linger in the back of your mind and and develop and grow into something that could be a problem, just take the time to deal with it, even if it costs you a few bucks, because those those types of quirky issues or things that are just a little bit nagging in your mind are exactly what grow into big problems down the line.

Stephen Seckler (35:27.022)
I will add though also that analysis paralysis will prevent you from launching anything entrepreneurial. So you gotta also that's my whole shtick, like think like a lawyer, act like an entrepreneur. It's hard for us as lawyers to act like entrepreneurs, but I would summarize what you just said as don't be stupid.

Mike Rossi (35:33.133)
True.

Mike Rossi (35:46.174)
Think that's it. I think that's well put.

Stephen Seckler (35:50.469)
All right, last question that I like to ask all my guests. What's one movie, streaming television series or podcast that you would recommend for entertainment purposes?

Mike Rossi (36:01.07)
I do not watch much television or podcasts. I so I'm not a great person to take

recommendations from in terms of movies or streaming shows in particular. But one thing I will say is I love music and I love playing music. I love to play the guitar and I've done this since I was 14 or 15. And I am blown away by the resources that are available through podcasts and YouTube now for people that want to learn an instrument. So I I if I had this when I was 15 I just I couldn't believe or how how different the experience would be. So I think that would be my recommendation. If take take up an instrument

and and learn on YouTube.

Stephen Seckler (36:44.398)
Okay, I'm gonna have some follow up questions for you after we finish this because I now have a an electric piano sitting in storage and a Martin guitar that I stopped playing a few years ago. and I need to get back to those. But but great great advice.

Mike, this has been a great conversation. Thanks so much for joining me today. If anyone in our audience has follow up questions, how can they reach you?

Mike Rossi (37:10.676)
please feel free to reach out. You can find me on LinkedIn or go to our firm's website, Con Kavanaugh in Boston. You can find my email and phone number. Feel free. It would be great to hear from you.

Stephen Seckler (37:23.002)
Thanks so much and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you. I hope I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you did, please tell others and rate us on iTunes or your favorite podcast app and share it with someone who you think might be interested. And if you're watching on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. It will help others find us. If you would like to continue the conversation, I welcome your inquiries and invite you to set up a time to speak with me about your own career or marketing concerns.

Mike Rossi (37:27.416)
Thank you, Steve. It's been a pleasure.

Stephen Seckler (37:50.756)
I've been coaching lawyers for almost 30 years and I'm happy to do a free 30-minute consultation. You could sign up on my website at seckler.com, that's S E C K L E R dot com. On my website, you could also find links to more episodes of Council to Council and get access to many free career marketing and leadership resources. In the meantime, thanks for listening.