Practice News

Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. I am a female non-equity partner in a 14-attorney firm in Central Kentucky. I have recently been considering approaching the partners in the firm about a reduced work schedule. The firm has no policy in place regarding “part-time partners”. Frankly, I am leery as I am afraid they will consider it a lack of commitment on my part and may have a negative impact upon my future with the firm. What are your thoughts? A. According to ABA studies, almost half of surveyed lawyers feel that they do not have enough time for themselves or their families. Almost three-quarters of lawyers with children report difficulty balancing professional and personal demands. The number of women who doubt the possibility of successfully combining work and family has almost tripled over the past two decades. Only a fifth of surveyed lawyers are very satisfied with the allocation of time between work and personal needs. A desire for more time to meet personal and family needs is one of the major reasons lawyers consider changing jobs, and it is a more important consideration for women than for men. Our law firm clients tell us that personal and professional life balance is their greatest challenge. Time is becoming more important to people than money. While it may be a battle for you in your particular firm – inroads are being made with regard to part-time partners in law firms – for both women and men. Here are a few ideas: No. 1: First and foremost - Develop the courage to ask and have the determination to say no. Create your life balance expectations for your clients and your superiors in the firm. When interviewing for a new job or position let your future employer know your expectations – upfront. No. 2: Create A Personal/Professional Life Plan. Establishing personal and professional priorities and making correct choices is crucial. You must begin by determining what’s important in life – make a list of what’s truly important in your life, establish boundaries and priorities, and formulate a plan. Typical elements that should be on your list include:

An ISBA-inspired change to the Home Repair and Remodeling Act, signed into law July 12, codifies a line of cases holding that a contractor's failure to give a homeowner a consumer rights brochure or to use a written contract does not bar the contractor from suing the homeowner for money owed. Instead, the new law gives homeowners a less severe but more appropriate remedy -- the right to sue under the consumer fraud act. As Adam Whiteman wrote last February in the ISBA Real Estate Law newsletter, the original act had "the laudable goal of making sure that a contractor utilizes a written contract and provides a Consumer Rights Brochure to homeowners who engage them to undertake home remodeling work valued in excess of $1,000." But the act did not make clear that "the intended remedy for a violation of the Act was to be found under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, " which led some courts "to impose wholly unintended penalties [against contractors] for even the most benign violations." The new law clears up the confusion.

By Shamla Naidoo The evolution of communications technology is blurring the line between work and personal lives. The recent Supreme Court decision in City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2010) is more relevant than ever, especially for employers. In Quon, the employee contends that his 4th amendment protections were violated when his employer, the Ontario Police Department, reviewed his text messages in an unreasonable search and seizure. In fact the employer reviewed his text messages as part of an audit of usage to determine whether or not the company’s wireless plan was adequate. The court accepted the premise that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy; even so, they found that the search was reasonable because:

1. It was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose; and
2. It was not excessive in scope.

In this case the audit was based on overuse of text messaging unrelated to police business. The court determined the audit was conducted for a legitimate work-related purpose, to determine if actual business usage exceeded the purchased plan. The employer communicated the policy and limited the scope of the search by redacting all messages that fell outside of Quon’s normal work hours. The court determined the search was not excessive. The court agreed with the employer that this was not an unreasonable search and that Quon’s 4th amendment rights were not violated by this search. This opinion applied narrowly to the government as an employer and to an employer issued device.

In the July Illinois Bar Journal, veteran employment lawyer Mike Lied of Peoria takes a look at some of the new (2010) Rules of Professional Conduct that affect his practice area. Especially noteworthy, he says, are rules governing lawyers who represent i) organizations and ii) clients who appear before agencies and boards, along with rules aimed at prospective clients, misdirected documents, and lawyer-arbitrators.