Clients often do not seek an attorney because something wonderful has happened.  The link below is a helpful tool to any prospective client.  To read and print the checklist, please click the link below.

Preparing to Meet With Your Attorney

Idaho Law Report had its official launch party where the blog’s sponsor, Western Capital Bank, unveiled the new site to local attorneys and legal professionals.

Idaho Law Report aims to be a central resource for attorneys in search of upcoming continuing education courses, courtroom news or tips on how to run a more effective practice.

Updated weekly – and often more frequently – Idaho Law Report covers a wide range of topics including new hires and promotions, marketing tools and legal news. Many of the posts are written by guest bloggers who are practicing Idaho attorneys.

“We created the tool, but the content is really driven by the community,” said Rob Perez, President of Western Capital Bank. “We’ll continue to adapt and customize Idaho Law Report as users share what features are most important to them.”

If you’re an attorney (or you know one), please pass the word.

Reproduced with permission from The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar and the author, Stephen M. Nipper.

Back when we were kids, if our parents were asked to define the term “social media,” they would have likely come up with a pad of paper used in a game of charades.  Not a bad definition, even if it is a bit dated. 

So what is “social media?”  Wikipedia gives us the general definition of “[s]ocial media is media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques.”  Such a broad definition includes how we communicate, how we collaborate, how we share multi-media, and even how we share information about businesses.

For attorneys, one of the most relevant applications of social media is in the “communication” area.  For any businessperson (including attorneys), your success is defined by the size of your network.  Thus, there is a great incentive for attorneys to examine the possibilities offered by social media.  The three social media platforms best suited to this purpose are:  LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

LinkedIn.  Of the three social networks discussed here, LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com) is the most “professional.”  LinkedIn is, in a lot of ways, easiest understood as being your on-line curriculum vitae, much akin to what Martindale-Hubbell does in print (and on the web).  LinkedIn is a way for people to build networks by connecting with clients, former employees/employers, and former classmates.  LinkedIn even allows your past clients (with your permission) and colleagues to provide recommendations to your services. 

One of the advantages of LinkedIn is that it is a closed network: an individual cannot add you as a contact unless they have your permission first.  They can’t even initiate the connection process without first demonstrating to LinkedIn that they have sufficient contact with you (e.g., your email address).  Through such screening processes, LinkedIn does a lot of the work of eliminating and reducing the potential SPAM that is inherent in social media.  Attorneys should remember the model rules as they create their LinkedIn profile, making sure to not define their “specialties” in a manner which would violate the rules.  In my opinion, of these tools, LinkedIn is one tool which every Idaho attorney should be using. 

Facebook.   LinkedIn can be used to show your “professional” (work) side, whereas Facebook (http://facebook.com/) is how you show your “personal” (home) side.  While the lines between work and home are not very well defined, both do have a role in a lawyer’s social media presence on the Internet.  Facebook, at its core, is what the old website Classmates.com should have been, that is to say, a way to connect people online who know one another, whether that be old high school or college classmates.  While Classmates.com was around for years before Facebook started, Facebook quickly overtook Classmates.com, likely due to the price (Facebook is free, whereas Classmates.com charges a membership fee).  Facebook eventually went beyond the “connection” aspect, evolving into an entertainment platform where friends can connect with one another, play games together, share photos, chat, etc.  Recently, the fastest growing group of Facebook users has become the Baby Boomer generation; something that has surprised a number of people.

Facebook has recently expanded its offerings to include providing “pages” where businesses (including law firms) can establish a presence on Facebook and connect/engage with their customers.  While that function may be terrifying to some attorneys, it does provide one additional venue for lawyers to connect with their clients and stay in touch with what is important in their clients’ lives.   

While Facebook can be an excellent way to network with your customers, friends and colleagues, it can quickly become quite overwhelming, much akin to trying to drink from a fire hose.  One tip I give to attorneys looking at trying Facebook is to be very, very careful whom you add as “friends” on Facebook.  If it is not someone you are close with or if it is not someone with whom you have reason to build a personal or professional connection, you should consider carefully whether or not you want to add them as a friend.  This is due to the fact that every “friend” that you add increases the volume of information which you must filter or sort through in order to have conversations with people.  Also, a savvy attorney will make sure to examine Facebook’s privacy options carefully (and regularly) to control who has access to what information you provide.

Twitter.  Twitter (http://twitter.com/) is the other common social media platform used by attorneys.  As of last count, there are about a dozen Idaho attorneys I am aware of which use Twitter regularly.  Twitter is a “micro-blogging” platform whereby the blog posts are 140 characters or less in length.  The 140 character limitation is imposed because the platform was built to be friendly with cell phone text messaging, 140 characters being the maximum length of a text message.  While most people do not use Twitter via text messaging, the 140 character limitation has remained…forcing people to more quickly get to the point (something attorneys tend to be horrible at).

Think of Twitter as tool for facilitating conversations between people on whatever topics they choose:  from what they had for breakfast, what they are working on at work, to requests for a referral to a local attorney.  The local attorney example is true:  in the past few months, I have referred a number of clients to Idaho attorneys I know based upon posts on Twitter asking for recommendations.  Of course, attorneys whom themselves respond to such inquiries need to remember to follow the applicable model rules, including but not limited to the rules regarding “solicitation.”

As with Facebook, Twitter can itself be rendered useless by the sheer volume of people using it who are connected to you and can insert messages into the stream you are reading.  Because of that, it makes sense to limit the number of people you befriend on Twitter, or use Twitter’s “lists” feature to help you filter out the messages of people you truly want to follow the status of, versus the people you only occasionally have conversations with.

While it is a bit more complicated than charades, all attorneys should be aware of the social media tools their clients, friends and colleagues are using…tools that can be used to find new jobs, meet new clients, stay in touch with your friends and colleagues, monitor breaking news developments in your practice area, and even for simply enriching your social life.

Stephen M. Nipper is a Registered Patent Attorney with Dykas, Shaver & Nipper, LLP in Boise.  If you would like to test using any of the social media tools listed above with Mr. Nipper, you can find links to his social media accounts at http://imetnipper.com/.

Posted with Permission of the Author, Stephen M. Nipper

Abraham Maslow once said that “…individuals who are incomplete in their knowledge or training of solutions propose the same type of solution to every problem they encounter.   They opt for the more familiar solution to one that may be more effective yet with which they are unskilled.”  The concept is often referred to as “Maslow’s Hammer,” in that as Maslow put it, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

It is easy for lawyers to fall into the same cycle of being too busy to continue their legal education by expanding their knowledge base, often only “learning new tricks” when forced to take MCLE courses to meet licensing requirements.

Much is to be learned from other attorneys willing to share their experience, their knowledge and their insight into the practice of law for free on the Internet.  Where?  Legal blogs. 

Often referred to as “law blogs” or “blawgs,” there are now an estimated 2,780 of them, according to blawg.org.  Law blogs tend to be written by sole practitioners and small firm attorneys, although a number of large firms have started their own blogs in recent years, covering every possible area of the law, including specific practice areas, ethics, marketing, and law practice management.

The easiest way to find a law blog to read is to use the American Bar Association’s “blawg directory” located at http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/.  The directory includes a nice breakdown of the law blogs by topic (subject matter).  The ABA Journal also publishes a yearly list of what they believe are the top 100 law blogs at http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/.  Both blawg.org (http://blawg.org) and Justia (http://blawgsearch.justia.com/) also have blawg directories.

Blogs traditionally provide their content both in standard HTML format (viewed by visiting their website) as well as in what is known as “RSS” format.  [Note:  If you’d like additional information as to how RSS works, I encourage you to view the “RSS in Plain English” video produced by CommonCraft.  The video can be found on their website at http://commoncraft.com as well as on YouTube. ]

While you can read a law blog “the old fashioned way” by creating a bookmark in your browser and manually visiting the website from time to time, savvy blog readers typically use a “blog reader.”  The blog reader (sometimes referred to as an “aggregator”) allows you to subscribe to the blog’s RSS feed, whereby when the blog has a new post, the post will be displayed in the blog reader for you.  The benefit to using a blog reader is that you do not have to visit a number of websites checking for new content, instead the new content will be downloaded for you. 

To add a blog’s RSS feed to your blog reader, you need to find the RSS feed.  Typically, a blog will include a handy “Subscribe” link or will use an orange RSS icon linked to the RSS feed.  Clicking on the icon/link will then take you to the feed’s URL which you can cut and paste into your blog reader.  If you are lucky, the feed will be “smart” and will ask you which reader you would like to use to subscribe to the blog.

Commonly used RSS readers include Google Reader (http://reader.google.com) and FeedDemon (http://feeddemon.com).  Newer versions of Microsoft Outlook allow you to use Outlook as your blog reader.  For instance, in Outlook 2007 you can add RSS feeds by selecting “Tools” then “Account Settings” then the “RSS feeds” tab.

Some of the law blogs I highly recommend include:

·       The Non-Billable Hour Blog (http://nonbillablehour.com) where former attorney Matt Homann writes on client service, innovation, marketing and technology topics.

·       3 Geeks and a Law Blog (http://www.geeklawblog.com) which focuses on knowledge management, Internet marketing and library sciences.

·       Adobe’s Acrobat for Legal Professionals Blog (http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/) which covers how lawyers can get the most out of Adobe Acrobat (e.g., how to redact correctly, how to Bate’s number).

·       The FutureLawyer Blog (http://futurelawyer.typepad.com/) which talks about “future technology for the lawyer of today.”

·       The Dennis Kennedy Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/) where legal technologist Dennis Kennedy discusses tech for attorneys.

·       I Heart Tech (http://www.ihearttech.com/) where legal technology consultant Adriana Linares writes “how to” articles many lawyers would find useful.

·       In Search of Perfect Client Service (http://www.patrickjlamb.com/) where Patrick J. Lamb shares his insight on client service to fellow attorneys.

·       LawBizBlog (http://www.lawbizblog.com/) where Ed Poll shares an amazing collection of blog posts and video podcasts on the practice of law (for profit).

·       Law Practice Tips Blog (http://jimcalloway.typepad.com/lawpracticetips/) where Oklahoma State Bar Law Practice Management chair Jim Calloway shares the best law practice management tips he finds on the Internet.

·       iPhone J.D. (http://www.iphonejd.com/) which covers, you guessed it, how lawyers can better use their iPhones as a law practice tool.

·       Law Practice Management  (http://www.pa-lawpracticemanagement.com/), a blog provided by a consulting firm that does an excellent job of discussing new technology and how it will impact lawyers practices.

A number of Idaho lawyers also have blogs, including (but not limited to):

·       Chuck Peterson – http://www.idahocriminaldefenselaw.com/

·       Thomas Walker – http://www.ricolawblog.com/

·       Paul Stark – http://idahobizlaw.blogspot.com/

·       Brad Frazer – http://internetlawyer.blogspot.com/

·       Bob Shaver – http://bicyclepatents.com/

·       Bruce Perry – http://www.integralawblog.com

·       Barry Peters – http://barrypeters-law.com/law-journal-2/ 

Hopefully, I have encouraged you to check out some of the great content available for free to you via law blogs, and add a few new tools to your tool box, as Abraham Maslow would have encouraged.

About the Author - Stephen M. Nipper is a Registered Patent Attorney with Dykas, Shaver & Nipper, LLP in Boise.  He welcomes any questions, comments or feedback (nipper@dykaslaw.com).  His law blog (covers technology tips for lawyers) can be found at http://inventblog.com.

By: Sandra L. Clapp

Sandra L. Clapp & Associates, P.A., Eagle, Idaho

     It’s not often that new property laws appear to make life simpler for the citizens that it affects; however, recent changes appear to do this. Idaho has addressed the issue of how to efficiently transfer real property (real estate) between spouses while maintaining the estate tax advantages of community property law. Under existing Idaho law, married couples had few options to retain the community property character of Idaho real property and provide a means of simple title transfer upon death of the first person. Community property is the character of an asset where each spouse owns an undivided one-half (1/2) interest (as compared to separate property which is the sole property of the spouse who owns it). Effective July 1, 2008, Idaho law will authorize real property to be held by a married couple as “community property with rights of survivorship.” Prior to this law, it was common practice to title Idaho real estate as community property through designation on the deed using the phrase “husband and wife.” Upon death of a spouse, a probate proceeding is often required to transfer the decedent’s interest in the community real property to the surviving spouse. It can come as a surprise to the surviving spouse to learn that probate is required to accomplish this title transfer because many believe that jointly held property automatically transfers title to the surviving spouse. The need for a probate is often disclosed and required when the surviving spouse (or even the children or other heirs) try to sell the real property, only to learn from the title company that probate is required to obtain title insurance on the transaction. This is not time dependent and is required even years after a death and may result in a closing delay or losing the transaction.

     One presently available option to automatically transfer title to the surviving spouse is to hold the title as “joint tenants with rights of survivorship.” The risk of holding title as JTWRS is the possibility the income tax basis in the entire real property is not stepped-up or increased on death of the first spouse because the real property is not considered community property. Consider how fortunate Idahoans are to live in a community property state. Under current law, upon the death of a spouse all community property receives a “step-up” in the tax basis of the property. This applies to the entire property value not just half of it. For example, if a married couple purchased a parcel of real property for $100,000, the income tax basis in the real property is $100,000 (assuming no depreciation or other tax adjustments). If the parcel of real property appreciates to $500,000 when the first spouse dies, the new income tax basis for the community real property is “stepped-up” as of the date of death and, in this example, would be $500,000 (which avoids a potential capital gain of $400,000 which is the difference between the fair market value and the original income tax basis). In comparison, if the asset is considered to be joint tenancy (and not community property), the basis may only be stepped up in the interest owned by the deceased spouse (and not the entire community property). Using the foregoing example, if each spouse owned one-half (1/2) of the real property, the new income tax basis for the deceased spouse’s share would be $250,000 (1/2 of the fair market value) and the surviving spouse’s interest continues to have an income tax basis of $50,000 (1/2 of the original income tax basis).

     A second transfer option previously available for community property real estate was the use of a devolution agreement or community property agreement. This agreement is recorded with the county recorder, describes the real property using a valid legal description, and must be updated with each parcel of real property that is acquired. Many couples forget they even have such an agreement, let alone keep it updated as they move residences or acquire different real property. A community property agreement can cause results over time that are not expected and which may not be consistent with the testamentary plan of the decedent.

     The final option available under current law is to hold the real property in a revocable trust or other entity format. This option can generally be more cumbersome and costly than a simple change on the vesting deed.

     The new law will allow married couples to obtain the best of both worlds – an income tax basis step-up for the entire community real property and a simple title transfer through the “joint tenancy” designation. However, as with all title changes, please consult your legal or tax advisor to ensure the change in title is consistent with the character of the asset and doesn’t conflict with your estate and tax planning. This information is provided as general guidance and should not be relied upon in lieu of legal and tax advice that is particular to your situation. And if appropriate, let your state legislators and governor’s office know how much you appreciate their work in this area. It simplifies and clarifies real estate asset transfers for many of the state’s citizens.

www.clapp-legal.com

Posted with Permission of the Author, Stephen M. Nipper

     My office is slowing going paperless, doing a number of things including scanning all paper files to PDF when we close them.

     One little insight that those of you whom are not yet paperless should consider: staples.

     To scan a file to PDF, all papers in it must first be unstapled. The kicker is that the task of unstapling the file takes almost as much labor as scanning the file. Believe it, or not. Just think about it!

     Thus, even if you know you are years (or decades) from going paperless, it makes sense to institute an “Everyone Should Use Less Staples” policy. Before you staple something together that is going to be tacked down in the file, ask “do I really need to staple it?” If no…don’t. For things that must be stapled together…staple away!

     About the Author – Stephen M. Nipper is a partner with the law firm of Dykas, Shaver & Nipper in Boise, Idaho. Mr. Nipper received his Bachelor of Science Degree from Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri, and his Juris Doctor from Southern Illinois University School of Law.

With permission by Alin Wagner-Lahmy on September 30, 2009

     “I don’t have time for social media chatter “ is a claim often heard by many people, including lawyers  “I don’t want to know what you had for breakfast, or that you took your dog out for a walk.” The perception of the information overload social media creates is fundamentally a misconception of social media.

     Socialnomics, by Erik Qualman, in which he provides a few examples of the way social media can be used to help information management and overload. Taking the numerous examples Erik gives in his book, let’s translate this to the legal world: While Lawyer A is spending a lot of time networking via Rolodex (telephone) and email between meetings, setting face to face meetings scheduled over weeks and months, attending seasonal events in person, waiting for annual associations meetings to catch up with association members, Lawyer B is building deeper and quicker network on a daily basis with larger amount of people: he is walking to a meeting and connects with another lawyer who contacted lawyer B through his blog or twitter or Facebook or Connected, after reading his post and responding to it; in the elevator he checks out the status of a member of same association to learn he was promoted and send him congrats message via the site’s inmail; while he is waiting in line at the supermarket he replies a question a colleague asked on a shared group and by that enhances his reputation as an expert in his practice area. Relationship building is faster, deeper and wider. It does not replace face to face, but gives it a huge boost and accelerates the relationship to where they would be in 2 years from now had they been built using ‘offline’ tools only.

     Social media looks like it is overloading us with information when in fact it provides us the tools to manage our time and make progress more quickly and efficiently.

     I was once told if the Rolodex system works for you – stick with it, but if online networking can do the same for you in third of the time, you may want to reconsider.

The concept of the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts program is quite simple:
     This plan allows attorneys to invest small or short-term deposits so that these otherwise idle funds may be pooled to generate interest money channeled into a charitable foundation for use in law-related public interest programs. To the extent that interest on any single client’s deposit could be made available for the benefit of that client, the program does not alter long-standing, trust account practices within the legal profession which acknowledges the fiduciary option.

Q. What does the program do?
A. IOLTA funds can only be used to provide funding for the following purposes:

• To provide legal services to the poor;
• To provide law-related education programs for the public;
• To provide scholarships and student loans;
• To improve the administration of justice; and
• For such other programs for the benefit of the public as are specifically approved from time to time by the Supreme Court of Idaho.

The funding is administered by the ILF’s grant program.  Grant information can be accessed by clicking on the button at the bottom of this page

Q. Does the program operate successfully elsewhere?
A. The Idaho program was the third of its kind in the United States. Similar plans have now been established in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Q. Does my participation in IOLTA deprive my clients of their interest money?
A. No. The program was not meant to utilize money from all clients trust deposits – only those nominal in amount or to be held for short periods of time. Clients’ funds that are substantial in amount or to be held for a long period of time are to be placed in a separate trust account solely for that specific client.

Q. Are there any administrative duties caused by the program?
A. No. IOLTA imposes no administrative burden on participating attorneys or law firms. A participating attorney or firm places nominal or short-term deposits into a single unsegregated account. This unsegregated account bears interest, but this should not affect how an attorney or law firm handles client’s trust deposits.

Q. What are the tax consequences of participation in the program?
A. There are none to the client or the attorney. The Idaho Law Foundation receives the interest from participating trust accounts and is exempt from federal income tax.

Q. How does the program affect financial institutions?
A. Participating financial institutions – not attorneys – are responsible for transmitting interest income to the Idaho Law Foundation. The court’s enabling opinion provides that the Foundation will absorb any financial institution’s special charges or fees for its involvement in IOLTA, by directing that interest payments be net of such charges and fees.

Q. Do all financial institutions know about this program?
A. Most financial institutions in Idaho are presently participating in the program.   If any financial institution needs additional information about the program, please advise the Foundation officials.

Q. How does my trust account become an IOLTA account?
A. By order of the State of Idaho Supreme Court every general attorney trust account will be converted to an interest-bearing account with the interest paid by the financial institution to the Idaho Law Foundation unless the lawyer or law firm files a Notice of Declination indicating his/her or their decision to “opt out” with the Executive Director of the Idaho State Bar by February 1 of each year. The Trust Account Certification, which is a part of the annual licensing procedure, authorizes the financial institution holding your general trust account to convert it to an IOLTA account. The ILF will convey that authorization to your bank, so you do not have to do anything to participate.

Q. How can my firm or financial institution learn more about IOLTA?
A. This information provides a basic orientation to Idaho’s Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts program. Please refer to Idaho Bar Commission Rule 302 and Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 for more information on maintaining trust accounts and complying with rules governing IOLTA accounts. Personnel at the Idaho Law Foundation are available to assist members of the legal and financial communities with other questions.