Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/08/24/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:12:41+00:00

Document:
Over a period of three weeks during June 2011, the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) conducted a survey of the Colorado legal community related to the economics of law practice in the state. Survey questions pertained to activity in 2010 and were based on questions asked in previous CBA economic surveys that also had been created, in part, by the CBA Law Practice Management Department. The survey was sent to all CBA members.
The CBA is grateful to the 1,771 members who participated in the 2011 survey. The CBA invites members to review the entire report, which can be viewed here.
The CBA Economic Survey was divided into two parts. The first part studied incomes and work statistics of responding attorneys. The second part sought practice information from practice administrators and those who may not carry that title but who manage the day-to-day operations of smaller practices.
The survey tracked attorney income by location, practice size, type of practice, years in practice, and age of member. This summary generally discusses survey results in these categories. Also, because the CBA was able to factor in data from two previous economic surveys, it was possible to compare information over an eleven-year period.
Attorney income has increased since 2007 in all except one of the eleven practice locations. Metropolitan Denver (excluding downtown Denver) had a slight decrease in income (.3%); all other geographical areas in Colorado show an increase of annual income (ranging between 1.7% and 5.8%). The greatest increases in income occurred in Pueblo, El Paso, Larimer, and Weld Counties. Attorneys in downtown Denver recorded the highest income.
credit card payments are accepted among large firms (36.9% of all firms report accepting them).
Firms of all sizes report good profits: 72.2% (of the firms) report an increase in profit (of 5% or more) in calendar year 2010 over calendar year 2009.
realization rates vary with firm size, but generally are good.
Attorney incomes are growing, firms are showing a good level of profitability, and revenues are either staying the same or showing recent growth. Overall, the statistics in this study paint a very positive picture of the economics of law practice in Colorado. The CBA is pleased to provide this information to its members.
Reproduced by permission. ©2011 Colorado Bar Association, 40 The Colorado Lawyer 25 (September 2011). All rights reserved.
James H. Rohrer is with The Loyalty Partners, Evergreen—cbasurvey@theloyaltypartners.com. The CBA Economic Survey was supervised by the CBA Law Practice Management and Risk Management Department—reban@cobar.org, and the CBA Communications and Marketing Department—hclark@cobar.org.
Teddy Snyder: Get Out of the Office!
Social media is great, but it’s no excuse to sit at your desk and think you have completed your networking outreach. Meeting people in person is still the best way to connect. Real-time conversations allow you to gently probe for information about any potential need for your services, and your charm will come through in a way you just can’t achieve online.
Identify where to do your networking. It might be at a professional event. Personally, I prefer to spend my networking time with potential clients at their industry’s events rather than with lawyers who are potential referral sources. But this should be an individual choice based on your practice area and where your business traditionally comes from. On the other hand, breaking with tradition might get you where you want to be. Maybe participating in a charity will have you hobnobbing with the right folks while working for a greater good. What about an alumni event—at various education levels right down to grade school? If no one else is getting the old gang together, maybe you should. The point is to get with people and let them know who you are and what you do.
Joining is not enough. Getting your name on a membership list isn’t marketing. Sitting in the back of a meeting or quietly eating your chicken breast dinner won’t get you there, either. Once you choose an organization, make the commitment to be active. Go to meetings regularly and get on the board.
Maximize the opportunity to mingle. While some events are specifically labeled as mixers, walk around before and after all the events you attend to meet people. After dessert is served (but not during any speeches), feel free to table-hop.
Put your nametag to work. Wear your nametag on your right side so it is easily visible as you shake hands. If the type is small, write your first name in large letters. If you prefer a nickname to the name on the badge, write it on there. One networker makes a point to carry markers just for this purpose. Add your company name or perhaps your city if that would be helpful to the particular setting.
Introduce yourself. If people are standing in clusters, look for a group of three. It’s easier to join an odd-numbered group of people than an even-numbered one. Start with “Hi.” Introduce yourself and stick out your hand for a handshake.
Exchange business cards. After you’ve chatted for a while, if it seems appropriate, suggest swapping business cards, or ask if you may offer yours. When you are given a business card, be sure to write the date and event where you met on the back, and jot down any issues that came up during your conversation. If you offered to send something, say a copy of an article on a topic important to them, write that down as well—and make sure you fulfill your promise.
Keep the conversation going. Ideally, you will have a system to save and follow up on those promising business cards. Invite the person to join your LinkedIn network. Add their email address to your electronic newsletter distribution list. Diary a follow-up date to call the contact to get together.
Every networking contact you make is the first step toward another attorney-client relationship. So put down the mouse, step away from your computer and get out there!
Theda C. Snyder is an attorney and structured settlement broker with Ringler Associates. Teddy is a frequent speaker and has written four books on law practice management. More tips on networking can be found in her book, Women Rainmakers’ Best Marketing Tips, 3rd Edition (ABA, 2010). She also contributes to the Attorney at Work blog, where this post originally appeared on August 15, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Hernandez on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. Petitioner was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm. Part of his sentence included supervised release. When he violated his release, he spent more time in jail, followed by another supervised release violation, more time in jail, and another violation resulting in a final sentence of eighteen months (no longer followed by supervised release). Petitioner challenges his latest prison sentence, alleging that it exceeds the authority granted to the district court by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
The Court disagreed with Petitioner’s reading of the statute. His current term of imprisonment falls below the two-year maximum and he is not entitled to “time served” consideration because the language provides that the two-year sentence may be imposed “on any such revocation” of supervised release. Also, despite Petitioner’s claims to the contrary, safeguards are in place to prevent defendants like him from being trapped in endless cycles of imprisonment and release, even when their continued pattern of revocation makes them feel otherwise.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Weight Loss Healthcare Centers of America, Inc. v. Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision. Petitioner performed surgery for a federal employee who was covered by a Standard Option health insurance plan administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City. Petitioner had no contractual arrangement with Blue Cross as either a preferred provider or a participating provider. Nevertheless, the patient had outpatient laparoscopic surgery at Petitioner’s office to insert an adjustable gastric band that would help him better control his weight. Although the patient obtained preauthorization from Blue Cross for the surgery, there is no indication in the record that he requested or received information about his out-of-pocket costs. Blue Cross only covered $1,610 for the procedure, and billed the patient the remainder of the $56,000 bill. Petitioner acted on behalf of the patient throughout the resulting dispute over coverage and payment.
When the matter was appealed, Respondent determined that Blue Cross’s interpretation of the patient’s plan was correct and that the insurance company had paid the proper amount. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Respondent’s interpretation of the insurance plan is entitled to deference because of its intimate and extensive involvement in the negotiation and interpretation of federal health insurance plans. Also, the Court determine that Respondent reasonably interpreted the plan language. However, the Court found that Respondent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious for failing to explain why it accepted Blue Cross’s allowance figure as correct; Respondent neither reviewed the evidence that would show whether Blue Cross had correctly calculated the plan allowance, nor explained why such review was unnecessary. The decision was therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings to allow for additional investigation and explanation.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Rojem v. Workman on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner attempts to challenge his death sentence in federal court after the state courts denied him relief in several rounds of post-conviction proceedings. The district court appointed him counsel to help him prepare his application. While Petitioner requested the court to pay for his counsel’s work on habeas issues, an extensive pre-petition investigation, and guilt-phase issues, the magistrate limited the budget to compensation for work on penalty-stage claims and minimal review of the record for background and history. The district court affirmed, and so did the Tenth Circuit. “Because this appeal, at its core, challenges the district court’s decision regarding how much compensation to award counsel,” the Tenth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the matter; the district court’s Criminal Justice Act fee determination is not an appealable order because the requested amounts were not reasonably necessary for the matter then before the court (issues surrounding Petitioner’s third sentencing).
On Tuesday, August 23, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and thirteen unpublished opinions.
DeMoss v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc.
Pyramid Diversified Services, Inc. v. Providence Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

References: v. 
 § 3583
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.