Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/the-colorado-lawyer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:44:33+00:00

Document:
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the March 2016 edition of The Colorado Lawyer. Reprinted with permission.
Keith M. Olivia is a member of Roberts & Olivia, LLC in Boulder, where he represents businesses and individuals in their transactional matters. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of Colorado School of Law, where he co-teaches the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic—kmolivia@wrrlaw.com.
Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado is a practitioner’s guide that is primarily focused on Colorado limited liability companies (LLCs) and Colorado partnerships, including general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability limited partnerships. A typical chapter opens with a discussion of the relevant Colorado LLC law and then compares and contrasts the various Colorado partnership laws. In addition to the primary focus on Colorado unincorporated business entities, the authors frequently compare and contrast the Colorado law with the Delaware law on unincorporated business entities, especially when the Delaware law differs from the Colorado law or the Delaware courts have addressed a matter that has not been addressed by the Colorado courts.
The first chapter provides an interesting historical perspective of the development of partnerships (which date back to ancient times), limited partnerships, and LLCs. The early chapters address choice of entity issues and then walk the reader through forming the entity, drafting the operating or partnership agreement that governs the entity, and dissolving the entity. The chapters that follow focus on the rights and duties of members, managers, and partners; derivative actions filed by members on behalf of an LLC; the transfer of membership and partnership interests and the restrictions imposed on such transfers; creditors’ rights and theories of owner liability for the debts of the entity; the merger or conversion of LLCs and partnerships into other business entities; special uses of unincorporated entities, such as single or special purpose entities, joint ventures, and regulated businesses, including the practice of law; and the “Series LLC,” which provides for the segregation of assets under a single legal entity and is permitted under Delaware law but not yet under Colorado law.
Additional chapters address the applicability of the securities laws, income tax laws, and employment tax laws to LLCs and partnerships. The final chapters address the use of LLCs and partnerships for estate planning purposes, as well as ethical considerations, such as defining “who is the client” and potential conflicts of interest when the attorney represents multiple parties and enters into business transactions with the entity client.
The three appendices to the text are (1) a form operating agreement for a manager-managed, multi-member LLC, (2) a form operating agreement for a manager-managed, single-member LLC, and (3) an LLC formation checklist that summarizes the material points that counsel should consider when forming an LLC. Each of the appendices includes cross-references to where the relevant provisions are addressed in the text and annotations to the underlying law. The accompanying CD-ROM includes Microsoft Word versions of the form documents and a searchable table of authorities and subject matter index for the text.
Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado is a comprehensive practitioner’s guide that is suitable for seasoned transactional attorneys who routinely form unincorporated business entities and attorneys who occasionally work with discreet issues related to Colorado LLCs and partnerships. The text is compiled into coherent chapters that thoroughly address the Colorado statutes for unincorporated business entities; other substantive areas of the law related to LLCs and partnerships that attorneys routinely address, such as tax law and securities law; and practical uses of limited liability companies and partnerships to address specific client needs, such as estate planning.
Colorado attorneys who work with LLCs and partnerships and who purchase this cost-effective reference tool for their law libraries will quickly recoup the cost. Attorneys will also appreciate the well-developed forms of multi-member and single-member operating agreements and the LLC formation checklist, whether they are used as a starting point for drafting documents for a client or to supplement clauses in practitioners’ existing form documents.
Order this CLE book online here or call (303) 860-0608 to order.
Readers’ comments and feedback on this series of “Whoops—Legal Practice Malpractice Prevention” articles are welcomed and appreciated. References in the articles to “safest courses to proceed,” “safest course,” or “best practices” are not intended to suggest that the Colorado Rules require such actions. Often, best practices and safest courses involve more than just complying with the Rules. In practice, compliance with the Rules can and should avoid a finding of discipline in response to a grievance or a finding of liability in response to a malpractice claim. However, because most claims and grievances are meritless, effective risk management in the modern law practice involves much more. Hence, best practices and safer courses of action do more; they help prevent and more quickly defeat meritless claims and grievances.
Few things are worse for an attorney than getting a new big matter, starting work on it, and then facing a motion to disqualify. At that point, the attorney is put in the awkward position of either explaining to the client why he or she should pay more money to keep the attorney, or absorbing the fees associated with defending the motion to disqualify.
Motions to disqualify are far from rare occurrences. In recent months, a number of high-profile disqualification motions have been reported. Many disqualification motions are well-founded. Others are nothing more than a litigation tactic, forcing attorneys to scramble to protect valued client relationships. Significantly, the increasing mobility of lateral attorneys (with attorneys rarely spending their entire legal careers at a single law practice or firm) has raised issues that can serve as the basis of a motion to disqualify.
Disqualification motions implicate the most important duties that an attorney owes a client: the duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colorado Rules or Colo. RCP), an attorney must safeguard client confidences and secrets, subject to a few exceptions. The attorney is also obligated to elevate the client’s interests above the interests of the attorney and the law firm. Disqualification motions put these obligations directly at issue.
Courts differ on how they address motions to disqualify, especially because such motions are at times simply a litigation tactic by an opposing party in search of a strategic advantage. Additionally, courts are usually reluctant to interfere with a client’s choice of counsel unless the conflict is real and there are few options other than to grant disqualification.
Courts also appear to distinguish between conflicts based on multiple representations and those based on successive representations. After all, parties filing disqualification motions based on multiple representation conflicts are typically strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
Conflict violations are not always the focal point for resolution of a motion to disqualify. As the Colorado Supreme Court has noted, “[v]iolation of an ethical rule, in itself, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for disqualification,” although there typically must be evidence of a violation or potential violation of “attorney ethical proscriptions,” such as those centered on the duties of loyalty and fairness or those intended to protect the integrity of the process. Often, motions to disqualify turn on the risk that a client’s former attorney or law firm might be able to use against the client the confidences or secrets gained during the prior representation. This is because it “must be presumed” that a client shared confidences with its attorney pursuant to the attorney-client relationship. Appreciating this distinction is important to successfully making or defeating a motion to disqualify.
In assessing motions to disqualify based on conflicts, Colorado courts also consider (1) a client’s preference for a particular counsel, (2) the client’s right to confidentiality in communications with his or her attorney, (3) the integrity of the judicial process, and (4) the nature of the particular conflict of interest involved. Below are some important concepts that have emerged in the context of motions to disqualify.
[a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Matters are “substantially related” for purposes of this Rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position in the subsequent matter.
Frequently, a former client accuses the attorney of having “insider information” regarding the client that does not rise to the level of a client confidence. Indeed, even if the attorney does not possess any direct information regarding the present lawsuit or transaction, the client may say that the attorney understands how the client thinks and acts. The attorney may know the client’s bottom line for settlement or how the client prefers to approach litigation. This is often referred to as “playbook knowledge”—the attorney knows the client’s paths and approaches.
This comment makes clear that attorneys are permitted, under some circumstances, to engage in representations that are adverse to a former client. Possessing “general knowledge” about a client may not, by itself, be enough for disqualification. Typically, a former client seeking to disqualify a former attorney from representing an opposing party must identify specific, cogent information that the attorney possesses and show that the information is confidential and implicates the duty of loyalty.
Attorneys should not assume that possession of mere playbook knowledge precludes disqualification. Attorneys should be aware, however, that clients can make a successful case for disqualifying attorneys who had a greatly invested role with the organizational client or where the playbook knowledge is uniquely and particularly relevant to the new representation.
The best way to deal with motions to disqualify is to prevent them. Two important pre-motion strategies are effective. First, identify and resolve potential conflicts, including both multiple and successive representations, before undertaking a representation or hiring a lateral. Where a conflict exists, an effective written consent is the best defense to a motion to disqualify.
Second, take effective steps to mitigate, if not eliminate, risks that a former client’s confidences and secrets might be accessible to attorneys working on a matter involving the former client. Increasingly, courts nationwide have recognized and accepted timely, effective ethics screens as a positive factor for permitting an attorney to continue the representation, although sometimes a screen is not enough to avoid the ramifications of an imputed conflict. Nonetheless, if the attorneys choose to employ a screen, it is important that it be erected before the involvement of the conflicted attorney in the new representation.
Upon receiving a motion to disqualify, the attorney should promptly notify the client. Attempting to defeat the motion without advising the client is not an acceptable solution.
In addition, if the motion is made by a former client, attorneys should consider providing notice of a potential circumstance to their legal malpractice insurer. Such motions are sometimes followed by either a grievance or a legal malpractice claim.
Finally, assess whether the firm or different counsel should defend the motion to disqualify. Independent counsel, free from the suggestion of economic self-interest, often can more effectively than the attorney press the case for allowing the client to keep its counsel of choice.
Attorneys understandably may feel apprehensive about the threat of a motion to disqualify, given the potential risk and loss of work. However, by understanding the underpinnings of this ethical issue, attorneys will be better prepared to anticipate, respond to, or even avoid motions to disqualify.
 E.g., Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem., Ltd, No. 2014-1675 (Fed.Cir. Dec. 10, 2014) (order disqualifying Jones Day), http://assets.law360news.com/0606000/606910/Celgard-LGC%20Order%20disqualifying%20Jones%20Day.pdf; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 6:12-cv-01293-NAM-TWD (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2014) (denying motion for summary judgment on issue of whether Hunton & Williams should be disqualified in underlying arbitration), http://assets.law360news.com/0580000/580691/Memorandum%20and%20Order.pdf; Defendant and Counterclaimant Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Disqualify Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 2:11-cv-03473-CBM-MAN (Aug. 26, 2014) (motion to disqualify Squire Patton Boggs), www.law360.com/dockets/download/53fdfac81101ea655a00000b?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.cacd.uscourts. gov%2Fdoc1%2F031119586589&label=Case+Filing.
 Brown v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., No. 14-CV-01885-RM-BNB, 2014 WL 7177378 at *2 (D.Colo. Dec. 16, 2014) (the court noted that “[m]otions to disqualify opposing counsel are viewed with suspicion”).
 People v. Nozolino, 298 P.3d 915, 919 (Colo. 2013) (“Disqualification of a party’s chosen attorney is an extreme remedy and is only appropriate where required to preserve the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceedings.”) (citation omitted).
 See, e.g., People v. Shari, 204 P.3d 453, 457 (Colo. 2009) (distinguishing between duties to current clients under Colo. RPC 1.7 and to former clients under Colo. RPC 1.9).
 People v. Harlan, 54 P.3d 871, 877 (Colo. 2002).
 Id. (quoting People ex rel. Woodard v. Dist. Ct., 704 P.2d 851, 853 (Colo. 1985)).
 Myers v. Porter (In re Estate of Myers), 130 P.3d 1023, 1025 (Colo. 2006).
 Rodriguez v. Dist. Ct., 719 P.2d 699, 704 (Colo. 1986).
 Shari, 204 P.3d at 460-62. See also Harlan, 54 P.3d at 877 (the Court noted that “[i]n determining whether disqualification is warranted ‘the critical question is whether the litigation can be conducted in fairness to all parties’” and explained that “[d]isqualification should not be imposed unless the claimed misconduct in some way ‘taints’ the trial or legal system”) (quoting Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Isham, 782 F.Supp. 524, 528 (D.Colo. 1992)).
 By far the majority of successful motions to disqualify are brought on the basis of a conflict of interest with a former or concurrent client or imputation, but attorneys should also be aware that successful motions to disqualify have been brought on the following bases, among others: (1) lawyer as witness, (2) appearance of impropriety, (3) receipt of confidential data, (4) personal interest, (5) violation of the no contact rules, and (6) misconduct with a witness. See Swisher, “The Practice and Theory of Lawyer Disqualification,” 27 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 71, 77 (Winter 2014).
 See People ex rel. Peters v. Dist. Ct., 951 P.2d 926, 930 (Colo. 1998).
 See People v. Perez, 201 P.3d 1220, 1246 n.11 (Colo. 2009).
Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the September 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the third part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for Part 1 and click here for Part 2.
InQ: Walter, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted do as a career? How old were you when you first had serious thoughts about exiting the full-time practice of law? What prompted this change in your thinking?
Walter: When I went to law school I was unsure what I would do with my law degree. After law school I worked as a lawyer, but not until I turned 30 and moved to Boulder to practice with my brother did I first began to feel that practicing law was what I would do as a career. I worked full-time for twenty-four years; then part time, about three days per week, for eleven years; and since January 2014, I have been “of counsel” with no set office hours.
I’ve thought about the ability to exit full-time work (whether the practice of law or any other job) since I was in high school. My father impressed on me the benefit of putting oneself in an economic position such that you could work because you wanted to, not because you had to, so that has always been at least in the back of my mind. Also, I have always had many interests other than the practice of law, and I have sought to balance time spent working with time spent on other activities throughout my career.
I have always had the desire to work less than full-time, and I have maintained a modest lifestyle and saved money to allow me to do so. I started making concrete plans to exit the practice of law when I was 44, when I took a year off from my practice. At the time, I thought that it was unlikely that I would return to the full-time practice of law. After my year off, however, my thought process changed and I began focusing on creating a firm structure that would let me continue to practice law—which I realized I enjoyed—but not have to do so full-time. I wanted to have time to pursue my other interests so that the practice of law would be less stressful and more fulfilling.
InQ: What do you think were the key aspects of your developing a plan to accomplish these goals?
Walter: A key part of my planning was simply having an awareness that my economic and lifestyle choices affected how much I had to work, and that if I wanted to work less than full-time, I needed to make choices that would allow me to afford to do so. Beyond that, I’m not sure that I so much as had a plan as that I recognized the choices that were presented to me that would mean less time practicing law versus more time practicing law. So, the process was more recognizing the direction I wanted to take my law practice and making choices that took me in that direction when the opportunity arose, as opposed to actively seeking choices to implement a specific plan. I was fortunate that things fell into place!
InQ: How long did you expect your plan would take to implement?
Walter: If I remember correctly (which I probably don’t), I started to talk about retiring by age 40. My plan changed over time. As I mentioned, I took a year off at age 44, thinking that it might lead to retiring from the practice of law. But I learned that I liked much of what I did as a lawyer, and changed my objectives to focus on structuring a practice where I did more of what I liked to do and less of what I did not, and on balancing work and non-work time. I felt like I largely achieved those objectives six years later, when I reduced my work time commitment to three days a week. About ten years later, I decided that I needed more time to pursue non-work activities, and began my current “of counsel” position. I did not leave the practice of law completely because I still enjoy the work and had the opportunity to continue to practice in a very flexible environment.
InQ: What sort of obstacles cropped up, if any, impeding the plan’s implementation?
Walter: There is always pressure to work more, either because that is what you are supposed to do, or because of uncertainty about whether you need the income from working. In fact, getting to a financial position where you don’t need the income from working is a significant obstacle for most of us. Otherwise, I would say the impediments were more lack of opportunities than obstacles. I was fortunate to be in the type of practice (estate planning) and with the type of firm and partners that allowed me to be more flexible in structuring my work environment. Many attorneys don’t have that opportunity. At no time did I think about reversing course, but as I have noted, my course was altered by things I learned about myself.
InQ: Some say that the biggest obstacle to distancing oneself from the full-time practice of the law is the inability to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time. Others say it is a fear of not being able to fill up the time. Still others say it is a fear of not having enough money later in life? How did these factors affect your thinking?
Walter: The first two did not affect my thinking at all. For those who do worry about those things, maybe working part-time should be their objective if they still enjoy legal practice. The third factor—financial considerations—is something I had to get comfortable with before I reduced my income. I have some financial background and low expenses, so I felt competent to determine how much money I needed to save to retire. Others might need the assistance of a financial advisor to make this determination.
InQ: How did your significant other react while you were exploring options other than the full-time practice of law?
Walter: She rolled her eyes and told me I should get on with it. She made it clear that I should do what I wanted. And, she did not try to exercise any sort of veto power over my choices that I was realistically considering.
InQ: Did any tensions arise between you and others, including co-workers, as a result of you retreating from the full-time practice of law? How did you manage them?
Walter: I would not call them tensions, but there was definitely a need to negotiate with my law partners regarding the appropriate structure of and compensation for my part-time practice. It was very important to me that my partners felt that my deal was fair to them and to the firm.
InQ: What sort of activities have you embraced to fill the time you formerly devoted to the full-time practice of law? How satisfying have those activities been and have you run into any unexpected issues arising from engaging in them?
Walter: I’m still in transition from my three-day-a-week schedule to my “show up when I want/need to” schedule. So far, I have been spending my new-found time on outdoor activities, reading, managing some family investments, movies, socializing, and relaxing. So far, everything’s good.
Walter: My mistakes were more a lack of self-awareness that caused me to pursue the wrong objectives. It took me a while—and taking a year off from practicing law—to realize that I enjoyed and got a lot of satisfaction from my practice, and that it would be very difficult to duplicate that through some other activity. At about the same time, I realized that I did not want to get a job doing what I like to do for fun, but instead wanted my job to provide the freedom to do fun things. My goal became structuring my law practice so I could spend less time on work I did not find satisfying, which in turn allowed me to spend more time doing the non-work things I enjoyed. Looking back, I can’t think of anything I would do differently. I’ve enjoyed the evolution of my career, and the process of figuring out what I want to be doing and how to get to the position so I can do it. And that process will just continue from here.
Walter: The assumption that I wanted to retire completely from the practice of law.
Walter: When I was practicing law full-time, I was happy, but recognized that my life was not as well balanced as I would like it to be. I was very happy to begin working three days a week, and I am very happy now.
Walter: I needed to be comfortable with my financial position before I retreated from the full-time practice of law, and financial security allowed me to retreat from the full-time practice, but it was not the reason I retreated.
InQ: In retrospect, did you give financial considerations too much, too little, or just the right amount of weight?
Walter: I gave financial considerations a lot of weight in my decision-making process, and I think that was about the right amount. If I was not able to support myself, I would not have given up the income from the full-time practice of law. So, it was a necessary condition for me to be able to execute my exit strategy. However, I continue to practice law even though I no longer need the income from doing so. Basically, financial security lets you make choices based on what you want to do, not based on what people will pay you to do. I think maintaining a debt-free standard of living that you can easily support gives you tremendous flexibility in structuring a satisfying work environment. To me, being able to work because you want to, and not because you have to, is a great position to be in.
Walter: Not having children was part of my decision-making process. I don’t think any of us can have it all.
Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the final part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction, click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, click here for an interview with Roxanne Jensen, and click here for an interview with Kevin Rhodes.
InQ.: Jaimee, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted do as a career? How old were you when you first had serious thoughts about exiting the full-time practice of law? What prompted this change in your thinking?
Jaimee: I was a 22-year-old college junior when I started thinking about a legal career, and I was 27 when I started thinking of leaving full-time practice. I first had serious thoughts about exiting full-time when I was 33. I had a baby that year and my perspective changed, so I started thinking about different ways to use my law degree.
InQ.: Did you eventually leave the practice of law completely?
Jaimee: Yes, and it was a smooth transition. My clients were very supportive, as were my co-workers. It was a positive experience all around. I stayed at home for a couple of years before I decided to pursue a career as an insurance broker, which required passing a licensing exam. My husband had been in the insurance industry for many years, so I was already familiar with and interested in the field, and it was a natural transition for me.
Jaimee: No. I enjoyed my new career and I liked the quality of life. For me, leaving the practice of law was about quality of life and being able to spend a lot of time with my family.
InQ.: Some say that the biggest obstacle to retreating from the full-time practice of the law is the inability to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time. Others say it is a fear of not being able to fill the time. Others say it is a fear of not having enough money later in life. What do you think of each of these suggested impediments and how, if at all, did they affect your thinking?
Jaimee: I did wonder whether I would miss the practice of law because, for many years, that’s what I did and that’s who I was—it defined me. But, after I stopped practicing, staying at home with my child really changed my perspective on life and what really matters—being engaged with and raising my kids was very important to me. I now have time for my family, networking events (which I love!), helping in my community, and volunteering, all while still working. I think some people who have known me a long time were shocked because I was a natural “lawyer”—even as a child. I promised them I would keep my license active in case they needed any free legal advice!
InQ.: How did your significant other react during the course of your exploring options other than the full-time practice of law?
Jaimee: He was extremely supportive and wanted me to find something I truly enjoyed. His only advice was to find something I would enjoy doing day in and day out. Period.
Jaimee: Before I had children, I wasn’t unhappy practicing law. When I was practicing criminal law, I had a great time. All of us then were young and childless. When I transitioned to the civil side and started a family, things changed. I wouldn’t say I was unhappy necessarily, but I wasn’t fulfilled. I am very happy now.
Jaimee: It was a concern, but it came down to the fact that I had to make a decision and prioritize my life. In making my decision, I think I gave financial considerations just the right amount of weight.
InQ.: Do you ever feel you wasted time and money on a law school education?
Jaimee: Not really—law school and my experience practicing law gave me valuable skills—such as negotiating and reasoning—that were helpful, as well as “people skills.” Also, my knowledge as a former litigator that other insurance brokers do not have helps me navigate the field. I value the education I received and the transferable skills I’ve honed over the years.
InQ.: If you knew back in college what you know now about yourself and the practice of law, would you still have gone to law school?
Jaimee: Well, I met my husband while in law school, so I would definitely do it all over again!
Even though each of these dialogues and those appearing in Part II are merely vignettes among the many stories lawyers have to tell about exploring exit strategies in their own lives, some commonalities emerge. First, to paraphrase something former CBA President Mark Fogg said, “Marry well,” which I think is simply a shorthand way of saying, if you have a significant other in your life, he or she needs to share your life’s vision and support your efforts to achieve fulfillment. Second, “Don’t live large,” meaning moderate your accumulation of material things and unnecessary debt, so that you have greater freedom to change your trajectory, reprioritize your life, and find greater happiness.
Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the first part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Stay tuned for the interviews.
This two-part article discusses an issue all lawyers must face during their careers: developing and deploying an exit strategy. This can mean exiting one practice area for another; transitioning from the law to a different career; accommodating the demands of raising a family; and slowing down or retiring near the end of one’s career. This article explores the issue through the eyes of two groups of lawyers: the first group transitioned from the day-to-day practice of law to a different job; the second group sought to reduce their hours either to accommodate family needs or as they travelled the long and winding road to retirement.
Although it is easy for me to reflect on the extraordinary blessings my legal career has afforded me—I basically worked for the same law firm and with the same terrific people for thirty years—there were more than a few times when I wanted to run for the hills. One time came when I noticed a small, balding spot in the back of my head due to a nervous habit I had developed of unconsciously twisting and plucking out my hair. With this incontrovertible evidence in hand, I worried that my job was ruining my mental and physical health. Then, my firm’s revenues dropped by 70% over thirty-six months due to sea changes that were occurring in our insurance defense practice. At the time, it appeared like a good opportunity to make a change, but I could imagine no exit strategy that seemed feasible. How would working at another firm change anything? At least I was a partner in my current firm, which allowed me greater control over my life—but which also burdened me with sometimes crushing managerial and financial worries. Also, what skills did I have that would have transferred to a job outside the law? Zero: I had gone straight from college to law school, and practicing law was all I knew.
In the end, I was very lucky. My law partners and I effectively doubled down on our law practice (that is what gamblers do, right?), jumping from the defense bar and into the strange new world of a plaintiff contingency-fee practice. In my twelfth year of practice, at age 36, I realized that the last thing I wanted to do was work for someone else or work with anyone else. I also recognized that I had developed a civil trial skill set that, if refocused, could still bring me joy and, hopefully, reward.
My wife and I adopted austerity measures that I found liberating rather than constraining. Eight years and a lot of good fortune later, things had come full circle. I sat down with my law partner and told him I wanted to map out a five-year exit strategy (which took seven years to implement). Later, I realized there was so much that I enjoyed about practicing law that we agreed to lengthen the exit ramp. I still practice some today, as of counsel with an energetic and skilled group of attorneys in a newly merged law firm—and my little bald spot has (mostly) grown back in. I also teach occasionally at Colorado Law, have written much short fiction (which I am trying to get published), started this column, travel to places I thought I’d never see, and I am working really, really hard on my tennis backhand—the last, always a work in progress (and now a greater challenge with an artificial hip and a reconstructed knee).
The story of every lawyer I spoke to is different; however, the moral of those stories is the same: there are many, many better exit strategies than death. For those who want to “jump to the chase,” I will tell you right up front that all the people I spoke to were happy to have employed their exit strategies. Not a single one of them left the full-time practice of law with any serious regrets.
Some view practicing law like the Hotel California, a place “you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave,” and where the guests are “all just prisoners here, of [their] own device.” I spoke at length to eight lawyers over the past year, each of whom sought to exit the full-time practice of law, either early on, in the middle of, or near the end of their legal careers. Their reasons for exiting were personal to each, and none was provided a road map on how to accomplish this goal. All enjoyed the practice of law, but each saw the need to develop an exit strategy. By “exit strategy” I mean a change from the status quo, but not necessarily leaving the practice of law entirely—although for many, this is exactly what it entailed. For example, one lawyer with whom I spoke, Sue Borgos, practiced law for ten years, and then transitioned to information technology (IT) for twenty years. She ran her own IT company for the last nine of those twenty years before being hired as a territory manager for a national IT firm. Sue told me that she firmly believes her law degree was not wasted, nor was her time as an attorney, and that she still uses the skills she gained as a lawyer in many different ways on a regular basis.
4) clearly communicating their desire for change to those around them.
In this Part I, we talk to four lawyers who sought a change of scenery outside the day-to-day practice of law. In Part II, we will talk to four lawyers who sought a reduction in workload on the road to retirement.
 From “The Hotel California,” by the Eagles, words by Don Felder, Don Henley, and Glenn Frey (1977). Having grown up in the 1970s and 1980s, I am most familiar with the Eagles’ lyrics; but every generation’s music seems to repeat their themes.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.