With the growth of Uber and Lyft and the emergency of the gig economy, courts have struggled to fit workers in such businesses into the traditional framework of either being an employment of independent contractor. Uber and Lyft both have agreements with its drivers that mandtes Arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The issue is whether the FAA applies to drivers who work for Uber and Lyft. If the FAA applies, predispute arbitration agreements will be enforced; if the FAA does not apply, enforcement will be a matter of state law. Section 1 of the FAA provides that the FAA does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in two significant decisions. First, in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), the Court held that the exception only applies to transportation workers “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Second, and more recently, the Supreme Court in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019), held that “contracts of employment” included independent contractor agreements with interstate truckers.Since New Prime, federal courts have decided several cases involving rideshare drivers for Uber and Lyft that have considered the scope of § 1. Their decisions have largely addressed two questions left open by New Prime that are necessary to decide if rideshare drivers are “transportation” worker “engaged in . . . interstate commerce” and, thus, not subject to the FAA.The first question is whether the § 1 exception is limited to transportation workers who transport goods, or if it extends to rideshare drivers who transport people. This question stems from language in Circuit City that “Congress’ demonstrated concern with transportation workers and their necessary role in the free flow of goods” justified extending the § 1 exception to truckers. 532 U.S. at 121 (emphasis added). Relying on this language. Uber and Lyft have argued their drivers are not covered by the exception because they transport passengers, not goods.The majority of courts have rejected this argument. The Third Circuit examined the history of the FAA and the understanding of the terms “seamen” and “railroad employees” at the time the FAA was enacted. The court looked to two statutes passed contemporaneously with the FAA that the Supreme Court cited in Circuit City to explain why Congress may have excluded seaman and railroad employees in § 1. Those statutes—the Transportation Act of 1920 and the Railway Labor Act of 1926—regulated railroad carriers that contained sleeping cars, which meant they transported passengers. Because railroad employees at the time would have included those who worked on passenger trains, the Third Circuit reasoned that “§ 1 is not limited to transportation workers who transport goods, but may also apply to those who transport passengers. . . .” Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc., 939 F.3d 210, 223 (3d Cir. 2019). Further, the court noted that Circuit City’s use of “goods” was “convenient shorthand to discuss interstate commerce.” Other courts have agreed. See, e.g., In re Grice, 974 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2020); Cunningham v. Lyft, Inc., 450 F.Supp.3d 37, 44-45 (D. Mass. 2020).Despite Singh’s reasoning, the authority on the goods/passengers issue is not uniform. In Tyler v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a district court relied on pre-Circuit City law in the D.C. Circuit, and, constrained by that law, held § 1 “ 'only excludes from the provisions of the Act the employment contracts of workers engaged in the transportation of goods in commerce.’ ” (quoting Cole v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). In Osvatics v. Lyft, Inc., a different district court in the District of Columbia reached the opposite conclusion. This creates an intra-circuit split that the D.C. Circuit may need to resolve. If that court agrees with Tyler, or another circuit holds § 1 only applies to workers who transport goods, the Supreme Court would need to resolve a circuit split.The second significant question left undecided by New Prime is what constitutes “engaged in . . . interstate commerce” and whether it applies to rideshare drivers. To qualify for the FAA exception, must a driver transport passengers across state lines? Must that be a regular activity? Or is it sufficient that they transport passengers from other states or countries—as drivers taking passengers to and from airports commonly do? On this issue, the courts are more divided.As a general rule, courts do not decide the scope of the § 1 exception based on the tasks performed by the individual plaintiff, but on “whether the class of workers to which the complaining worker belonged engaged in interstate commerce.” See, e.g.,Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., 970 F.3d 798, 800 (7th Cir. 2020). This largely depends on the role drivers play in relation to the employer’s business and does not depend on the workers actually crossing state lines. For instance, the Ninth Circuit has held that drivers who complete “last mile” deliveries for Amazon products that routinely originate from another state “form a part of the channels of interstate commerce” even though they rarely crossed state lines. Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904, 917 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1374 (2021). Conversely, the Wallace court noted that drivers who deliver food from local restaurants are not engaged in interstate commerce.Applying this test to Uber and Lyft, a good number of courts have held that rideshare drivers are not engaged in interstate commerce. In re Grice reasoned that rideshare drivers are much like cab companies, serve only a local area, and, thus, “have an 'only casual and incidental’ relationship to interstate transit.” Other cases acknowledge that drivers may regularly transport interstate travelers, particularly to and from airports, but nonetheless find that the class of drivers do not “perform an integral role in a chain of interstate transportation.” Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 3d 919, 932 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing statistics that only 2.5% of Uber trips crossed state lines and only 10% of all trips began or ended at airports); Hinson v. Lyft, Inc., 2021 WL 838411, at *7 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 206, 2021) (while Lyft drivers may affect interstate commerce, they “as a whole are not in 'the particular business of offering interstate transportation to passengers’ ”).Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion. In Haider v. Lyft, Inc., the court focused on the particular nature of Lyft operations in the New York Tri-State Area. It cited evidence that 25% of Lyft trips begin or end at air, train, or bus terminals and that Lyft has marketing partnerships with airlines and hotels. The “quantity and nature of Lyft’s connections to hubs of interstate travel lead the Court to conclude that its drivers engage in interstate commerce even when they do not personally cross state lines.” It distinguished the cases finding that rideshare drivers did not fall within the scope of the § 1 exemption as turning “on an apparent instinct that their trips across state lines must be vanishingly rare.” “That instinct may resemble reality in San Francisco, some two hundred miles from the closest land border with another state. Not so much in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and many other parts of the country.”Most circuits have yet to render decisions on whether rideshare drivers fall within the scope of § 1. In re Grice appears to have resolved the question in the Ninth Circuit, but the issue remains unsettled in other circuits. Even the Third Circuit, which decided Singh, merely held that rideshare drivers may fall within the exception if they are in a class of employees engaged in interstate commerce. However, it remanded the case to the district court to decide that question. The case is likely to return to the Third Circuit which, along with the Second and Eleventh Circuits are likely to soon be faced with deciding whether Uber and Lyft drivers fall within the scope of the exception in § 1. Depending on the outcome of those cases, we may see a circuit split that will require the Supreme Court to revisit § 1 and decide whether rideshare drivers fall within the scope of the FAA. Personally, I think the FAA was meant to apply to those who transport goods or persons. There is no rationale for a distinction. Also, the reach of the commerce clause in the 20th century became so vast that it is almost impossible to not engage in an activity that invovles interstate commerce. Whether a Uber or Lyft driver crosses state lines is of no consquence. If Uber and Lyft regularly facilitate the transportation of persons to the airport, then the vast majority of those persons are surely flying to another state and thus, they have a hand in the facilitation of interstate commerce. Time will tell how the court swill rule, but I dont see how this case does not end up before SCOTUS.
Reprinted in large part from the New York Law Journal. 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. on May 14, 2021
Alternate Fee Arrangements Preferable to the Broken Billable Hours Model
The profession and practice of law is demanding. Our jobs are chronically demanding and involve long hours. A lot rides on our success and behavior, and this pressure only increases as lawyers rise in their profession in both law firms and in-house legal departments. I think it is fair to say, regardless of income or the type of law practiced, most lawyers work long stressful hours. Working as a lawyer is a great way to impact the world, to learn, to grow, to feel accomplished, and sometimes even to find happiness, but it can become a problem when lawyers do so at the expense of themselves and the people closest to them. Too many of us find ourselves spending so much of our lives on the proverbial treadmill of work that we do not have enough energy to sustain both work and a home life. There has a be a way to balance the two.
Most lawyers intrinsically intertwine their value with the number of hours that they spend on any particular matter. This is the primary reason lawyers have typically charged based upon the number of hours they work. Lawyers love to hate the billable hour where days are sadly measured in terms of our yearly, monthly, weekly, and daily targets. Most lawyers know how much time is needed to bill on a weekly if not daily basis to meet pre-determined targets. These targets may be imposed by our firms (with weekly reminders) or by ourselves (with constant reminders).
The billable hour is a form of economic tyranny that has controlled most lawyers’ working and personal lives. Recording our time; getting our time in; billing out our time; collecting for time billed — these are our preoccupations. Many lawyers hate reducing the relationship with the client to billable units but are nervous about changing the billing model. Most lawyers cannot fathom the possibility of alternate fee arrangements (i.e., charging the client on some basis other than the billable hour).
I am keenly aware of the fact that there is a purpose to billable hours. For the lawyer and law firm, it is a way in which to provide predictability. You work 5 hours, and you get paid for 5 hours, at least in theory. For the client, it is a way to ensure, theoretically, that you are not overcharged and only pay for time actually worked. I say theoretically because they client does not know if the lawyer spent 1.2 hours on the case or actually spent .8 hours but billed for 1.2 hours. It involves a certain level of trust. Unfortunately, when a large portion of the public still does not trust lawyers, the same public is not going to trust their lawyer to bill them for the exact amount of time they actually spent on a matter. The billable hour has created a crisis of confidence. It is our job to restore confidence to the legal profession.
The billable hour may be the most reviled payment structure in history. Clients hate it because they think it encourages busywork and padding. The biggest problem is that while clients want high- quality legal services and we have a professional obligation to provide them with such, the billable hour method does not reward efficiency or quick resolutions Even more insidious, there is nothing in the billable hour system that encourages innovation, but there is plenty that discourages it. The lack of reward for efficiency pits the lawyers interests against that of the client.
1
Billable hours not only have a negative impact on the psyche of the client, but it surely has an adverse impact on the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of the attorney. When you have a job that requires billing by the hour, your life revolves around every 6 minutes. I have heard horror stories of people that have to rush through going to the bathroom because it is time wasted when the lawyer could have been working on a client matter and recording their billable time. This is no way for an attorney to live a life. The treadmill of work and inability to sustain both a work and a home life leads to burnout as well as physical and mental health issues. It is no wonder lawyers experience a higher risk of mental illness and addiction than the general population. One in four lawyers suffer elevated feelings of psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and burnout. These feelings can and often do cause anger, fear, regret, remorse, grief and sometimes can even lead to suicide.
The law firm culture of billable hours encourages workaholic behaviors that lead to stress-related illnesses and dependencies, as confirmed by research showing that lawyers suffer from alcoholism and use at rates far higher than non-lawyers. Divorce rates among lawyers also appear to be higher than divorce rates among other professionals. Although lawyers represent some of the best-paid professionals, they are disproportionately unhappy and unhealthy. The result is a profession full of burnouts and resentment. Without something more, today’s lawyers will continue to struggle. Fortunately, there is another way.
On the other hand, the billable hour model also engenders distrust of the legal profession. Let's face it. Anytime a client receives a bill from a lawyer where billable hours is involved, one of a number of things happens. Either the client looks at the bill and delays paying it, or they look at the bill and question whether or not the lawyer actually spent three hours working on a motion (as opposed to weather another lawyer could have done the same task in 2 hours) or the client eventually calls up and seeks a reduction of the amount of the bill for whatever reason. This means that the lawyer will either reduce their bill and accept less than was bargained for or the lawyer will raise their fees in the future and build into the cost the likelihood that the client is going to seek a reduction. This is not a good way to start or maintain the attorney-client relationship. When the legal industry is already reeling from a crisis of confidence, the last thing that we need is clients who simply do not trust their lawyer. Clients want high-quality legal service and we have a professional obligation to provide them with such a service.
Personally, I have never been a fan of the billable hour. Early on in my career, over 20 years ago, it seemed extremely tedious to have to keep track of every 6 minutes of every workday. It also seemed that utilizing the billable hours method was a disincentive for clients to contact a lawyer when an issue arose. Think about it. If somebody has a problem, whether it be an existing client or prospective client, there is no doubt about it that, due to billable hours, they are going to think twice about whether to contact a lawyer when there is a legal question. Why pay for a lawyer when the prospective problem may never come to pass. It is often a simple legal question that can be answered in short order by counsel that can prevent full-scale litigation. Some lawyers they like this mentality because it generates litigation which generates billable hours which generates money. I do not like the billable hour model not only because it discourages efficiency and perpetuates distrust of the profession, but because there is another alternative that I believe works to restore client confidence in the legal profession, strengthens the attorney-client relationship, encourages efficiency and at the same time provide provides predictability to both the attorney and the client.
2
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Law Firms that fail to innovate do so at their own peril. If we learned anything from the 2020 COVID pandemic is that you have to be prepared for all contingencies. Law firms that relied upon billable hours from companies that were hard hit by the COVID pandemic saw themselves in crisis mode. The courts shut down for a while and any person or company who did not have an emergent legal matter simply told their lawyers to hold off on the case, hold off on the matter or to hold everything in abeyance until further notice. Many law firms immediately lost their stream of income because the billable hour became useless. No work equals no billable hours which equals no money. No money means cut- backs, layoffs, and sheer hard times. Sometimes you cannot fully prevent this but sometimes you can. By now, law firms should see the importance of pushing outside the mold, doing something different and coming up with a new model. So, what is the alternative?
The answer, in part, is that law firms must start shifting toward Alternative Fee Arrangements “ALAs” including flat-fee models. Flat rates cure most of the inefficiencies of billable hours and shift the risk of uncertainty from clients back onto their attorneys, who are better equipped to anticipate and price those uncertainties. Flat fee models give attorneys the incentive to work efficiently and innovatively, since they make the same money whether they take 2 or 20 hours to complete a flat-fee task. While there will certainly be cases where an attorney spends more time than they anticipated on a task, smart attorneys will find ways to drive efficiencies and improve their effective hourly rate.
Clients love flat rates, too, because they know exactly what they are going to pay for the service they ask for and receive. Many attorneys love flat rate fees because they know what to expect from each matter/case that they handle in terms of the work required. The attorney can also accurately predict what they will be paid. No more late payment of invoices, no more reduction in payment of bills. The parties come together from the outset, agree upon a flat rate and the full amount or the balance is paid within 30 days of completion. Some attorneys say they cannot use the flat fee- based model it because how can you accurately predict how much time it will take to handle a case as there are always variables that cannot be fully predicted. My answer to that is easy.
If you have been practicing long enough you can predict with pretty decent precision how much time it will take to handle a matter. If you cannot make an accurate prediction, then just look at your past history of how long it took on average to handle similar matters. Some say that this may work for transactional matters such as drafting a contract, preparing a will, a real estate closing, etc., but not for litigation. My answer to this is to say that the ability to predict is there. Even with litigation, with sufficient experience, we know on the vast majority of cases how long it takes to prepare an answer, prepare discovery demands, take a deposition, draft a motion, etc. Look at the worst and best-case scenario. If you underestimate and you spend way more time on a matter than anticipated, then either you have not been efficient enough and need to figure out how to be more efficient or use that experience to be able to more accurately predict it for the future. You may also want to consider the utilization of up-to-date technology to not only be more efficient, but to arrive at the right pricing structures.
3
If you overestimate and received a very fair amount of money for the work performed, you will be happy. If you way overestimated to the point of being obscene, then you can even consider refunding some of the money to the client or reducing the final bill. A client will surely not object to a refund or voluntary discount. In fact, it would tend to engender trust and even a sense of loyalty. Either way, there is more predictability for both the attorney and the client and no need for the pressure of billable hours. Spend your time working on the case rather than billing and worrying about billing. Less worrying leads to less stress. Less stress leads to a happier lifestyle. Happier lifestyle leads to a happier person in general.
I start with AFA’s about 15 years ago. It was so successful in terms of the financial and other benefits that I took it one step further. About 10 years ago I took it to the next level. The business model that I created helped stabilize my law firm, my work life and my finances. It also made me happier, gave me more time to spend with my wife and family and took away a massive amount of stress and anxiety. Surprisingly and happily, it helped strengthen the relationships I had with my clients. In fact, the relationships were so good that they became my biggest source of referrals to new business and new clients. My clients were so happy with my work and the pricing structure that they frequently referred me to everyone they knew who needed a lawyer. Finally, this business model helped me get through the COVID crisis without being financially harmed. Let me explain a bit.
Approximately 10 years ago, a client of mine, who is the CEO of a NYC company and someone who I have great respect for, was unhappy with the billable hour model. I did perform regular work for him, and he wanted to keep my firm as his counsel, but he simply did not like the uncertainty of how much it would cost each month. I asked him how can I be able to come up with some new arrangement without knowing what the future would bring. He said he did not know, but if we don’t come to a new arrangement, he may have to consider his other options. I did not want to lose him as a client and was backed into a corner. It was at that moment that I had the proverbial “Ah- Ha” moment. I said what if we agree upon a certain scope of work for a certain amount of money each month for one full year. I would perform all work within an agreed upon scope and he would pay me the yearly fee in 12 equal installments by the 1st of each month. At the end of the year, we will review the amount and nature of the work performed, the work that is anticipated to be performed in the future, see how satisfied he is with my work and we both see how satisfied we are with the finances of it all. I threw out a number and he agreed. We shook on it. Never had a contract with him and never had to. I know I am good for the work and I know his word for payment is good as gold.
This was a huge risk for me. I could have been stuck performing work the entire year for this one company and not have time to work on anything else, much less run my law firm and have time to spend with my wife and kids. On the other hand, I would have a guaranteed payment each and every month for 12 months and would not have to worry about how much would be paid, when it would be paid or whether it would be paid at all. Most of all, I didn’t have to worry about billable hours.
Fast forward one year. Not only was the arrangement beneficial for both of us, but we each agreed that we mutually wanted to continue on the same terms for another year. Now, after a year of experience with this one company, I knew with pretty good precision how many transactional matters I would have to handle for them and how many litigation matters I would be responsible
4
for. In other words, I was able to figure out how many hours of the week I would be dedicated to this company. It also enabled me to pretty accurately determine how many hours per week I would have to dedicate to other companies and other cases. What happened thereafter was amazing. First, our attorney-client relationship grew closer and stronger. My client got me involved in more and more legal and business matters. He loved the fact that he could pick up the phone and call me without worrying about being billed for a 12-minute call or a 6-minute email. By my client not having to worry about picking up the phone to call me for fear of the cost, I was able to be more proactive with his company. I also took the initiative to get involved in certain things that I thought my client would benefit from me helping with. My client loved it because he was paying my firm the same no matter what I chose to take on. Over time, the things I chose to take on became so important to my client for me to handle that my client soon began to rely upon me to take these things on. Do you see what is going on here? The additional work I took on inadvertently generated more work and a better relationship with my client.
Soon thereafter, I was doing such a good job for this one company that the CEO referred me to the CEO of another NYC company. I offered the same flat fee yearly arrangement, but they wanted to start with hourly billing. I said OK. After about one year or so they wanted to know if the yearly flat fee arrangement was still available. I said sure. I did the same thing with this client as I did with the first client. I would perform all work within an agreed upon scope and he would pay me the yearly fee in 12 equal installments by the 1st of each month. At the end of the year, we would review and see how happy we were. Over time, with this client, I became the right-hand man of the CEO. I became the go to guy. He got me involved in so much work that I had to increase his fees after 2 year and he gladly agreed. He also loved the fact that he could pick up the phone and call me without worrying about being billed and he enabled me to be more proactive with the company. So much so that in certain instances, in his absence, I was designated to run the company for him.
Word soon got out. Steven J. Shanker, Esq. was a fair and honest lawyer who does a great job, is responsive to his clients, is reasonable with fees and is a man of his word....and he knows how to get the job done. Hence, that’s why I started to call myself their “trusted advisor”. I liked this better than simply the lawyer. I liked it because I was more than their lawyer. I soon had this arrangement with multiple companies in NYC. So much so that I was unable to take on new clients.
As a result of the succes I personally saw with this model, I then took it to the next level. I created what I call the “Outside General Counsel”. What this means is and what I offer to clients and prospective clients is that I acts as in-house counsel for a select number of companies, but they pay me as an independent contractor. Again, just as stated above, I perform all work within an agreed upon scope and get paid a yearly fee in 12 equal installments due by the 1st of each month. At the end of the year, we review and see how happy we each are. I essentially act as an in-house counsel would, by being the go-to person not just for all legal matters but any matter that the C- suite needs me for, and I get paid to do so on a regular basis. Essentially it is guaranteed pay like an employee but with the freedom of an independent contractor. My obligation is to ensure my clients needs are well attended to, that I make myself available when my clients need me and that I handle each case and matter entrusted to me with excellence. I do this and have been doing it all to the satisfaction of my clients.
5
More importantly, I have personally seen the effect I have had on being able to be pro-active for my clients. I used to and still say a lawyer such as myself and the services I provide can make me be akin to either a fireman or a doctor. If I act as a fireman, that means a client calls me when there is a problem and when there is a problem that usually means litigation. Hence, the house is on fire. I tell the client, there is going to be damage (heavy costs) and I will do my best to contain the fire (the damages) but there is no guarantee in terms of the outcome or the costs, due to billable hours. In the other hand, I can be a doctor who is on staff to give regular check-ups (be available to ensure compliance) provide diagnostic tools (proactive to mitigate risk) and if a problem arises (threat of litigation), it can likely be taken care of or neutralized with minimal costs. Hence, the choice is up to the client. If they go the route of me being a fireman, then they don’t have to pay me a penny to be their outside general counsel. But if a problem arises, we go the route of billable hours and it will get costly. If they go the route of me being a doctor, then they pay me perhaps sometimes when they wouldn't have to, but on the whole having me around causes them less headaches, prevents more problems and helps keep their businesses running smoothly. I am sure I don’t have to reiterate that me as the fireman is much more expensive than me at the doctor. All of my clients have seen the good and the bad. They choose for me to be their doctor. It works well for them.
Best of all, for me, I work 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. I only work Monday through Friday. I don’t deal with criminal law so there is rarely an “emergency” that has to be dealt with before 9:00 am, after 5:00 pm or on the weekends. My clients appreciate this unspoken rule and respect it. So now I know if they call me after hours or on a weekend, someone must be in some serious trouble. Financially, I can say that I make more money now than I ever did. I don’t really care a lot about money. I believe money is just a way to pay the bills. I do believe money is the root of all evil. All I really care about is my wife and family. So, if I am happy doing my job, my clients are happy with the service I provide to them and my bank account is flush, then so be it.
Finally, when COVID hit in March 2020, most lawyers went into a frenzy. Some were laid off, some were paid less, some lost their jobs, many saw their clients put a hold on all work and hence all income came to a sudden stop. I don’t want to say that I am immune to the economic effects of COVID, but because of the business model I have, my clients, so long as they still have a business, they cannot say to me to stop all work or we cannot pay you. They know that I work my ass off many months at a time when the pay for those months is lower than it would be under a billable hours’ model, but I also get the benefit of getting paid the higher amount when the work is less. Now that the ebb is low, meaning the work has decreased, I get the benefit of getting paid the same agreed upon monthly amount. It is an ebb and flow type of arrangement and that is how it works.
Despite my ability to tell my clients they must pay me the agreed upon amount of money as contracted before COVID hit, I did not do that. While they would have paid my bill if I had insisted, I am loyal to my clients and think for the long term. If I didn’t reduce my fees then they could say to me at the end of the yearly period, they don’t want me or can’t pay me. Also, they may have been disgruntled because everyone is taking bite of this big COVID shit sandwich and my failure to take a hit is a reflection upon my character. That is why I said to myself, since my clients’ businesses were hurt by the pandemic, I am going to take the hit with them. As such, I volunteered to reduce my monthly fees until this all blows over. I believe I am a decent human being and a loyal person. My generosity in reducing my fees for my clients was well received and well appreciated. Money can’t buy you love, and it can’t buy you happiness. Also, one can’t buy loyalty or trust or honor. Those have to be earned. I believe through my business model and my acts of
6
generosity towards my clients during this pandemic has gone a long way to strengthening my relationship with them long into the future as well as ensuring that my good name is preserved.
So, to wrap it all up. With all this in mind I can honestly say, not only are my clients happier, but I am happier. I don’t have to worry about billable hours, don’t have to worry about collection or involuntary fee reduction. I don’t have to even have to worry about new business because it keeps coming in. While NYC is a big city, I found out that it is a small business world, and if you have a good reputation, it will precede you. Most of all, I am less stressed, have more time to spend with my family and do the other things I love to do other than play lawyer, such as play guitar, paint, drive fast cars, shoot guns, ride my Harley motorcycle and enjoy the summer on the beach. Life is too short to be on the treadmill of the billable hour
I am in the best place I have ever been in my career and I love it. I was reluctant to even write about it for fear of superstition creating a hex on me for sounding confident. I don’t know what the future will bring, but I am doing all I can to be the best lawyer I can be today and planning my practice to be doing the best it can for all my clients tomorrow.
The bottom line is this. The billable hour model is broken, and lawyers need a new model to keep clients happy, keep themselves happy and to stay more relevant to the times. If you do not consider AFAs, you are leaving a HUGE marketing advantage on the table. If you are in an industry where everyone bills by the hour, it is a great opportunity to stand apart from the crowd.
By: Steven J. Shanker, Esq.
Uber and Lyft Sued by California Attorney General Over Driver Misclassification
Today, the Attorney General of he State of California sued Uber and Lyft. The state claims the business model of Uber and Lyft take advantage of the gig economy and the gig workers that provide services. Uber and Lyft have been has been under fire for years, but Californian is now the epicenter of that fight The COVID19 pandemic has become the catalyst for change. The long-simmering battle between California on the one hand and Uber and Lyft on the other, has spilled over in a lawsuit alleging widespread worker misclassification. Uber and Lyft have both made it quite clear in SEC filings that they treat driers as independent contractors in order to avoid the sort of overhead associated with employment.
In California, Uber and Lyft do not exist in a legal limbo. Almost two years ago to the day, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that another company, Dynamex, had exerted undue control over its independent contractors, putting in place a stronger precedent for determining worker classification in the state. On January 1, after a fast trip through the legislature, California’s Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) took effect, which essentially codified the Dynamex ruling into law, in a challenge to Uber, Lyft, and similar businesses. In California, AB5 makes their driver employees as a matter of law. In all other states there is some variation of the ABC test. Some states like New York look at a variety of factors to determine of one is an employee or an independent contractors.
Uber, Lyft, and other “gig economy” companies opted to fund a grass roots campaign to repeal AB5 through a ballot measure (to be voted on this fall.) The gigs put up approximately $100 million dollars ($100,000,000.00) to fund this ballot measure. Not only does the lawsuit claim that Uber and Lyft are breaking existing California law by misclassifying drivers and denying them basic protections, but it also points out that this scheme is also harmful to Californian taxpayers generally. The case, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid wages for drivers and civil penalties, as well as an injunction to permanently bar Uber and Lyft from misclassifying drivers.
This lawsuit may be the first, but it will not be the last. Other states, such as New York, we proposing an AB5 type law and then COVID19 broke out, putting the legislative process on pause. COVID19 showed the government that the gig economy and its lack of benefits to independent contractors is insufficient for the modern day economy were we will soopn reach 50% of all workers being a part of the gig economy. This lawsuit is more than a serious threat to the business model of Uber and Lyft, but also an array of companies that save on labor costs by classifying workers as independent contractors. If the companies ultimately lose the suit, they could be forced to pay for overtime, health care and other benefits….and could driver them out of business.
The problem is that the modern day labor law only recognizes 2 classes of workers. You are either an employee who is entitled to full benefits and job protections or you are an independent contractor and entitled to nothing. The dichotomy of employee or independent contractor worked for the 20th Century workforce, but the rise of the gig economy proves that the labor law is outdated. A gig worker has great freedom but is subject to cert direction and control. A new construct is needed. One that recognized that applying the old labor law to the gig economy is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hold. It simply does not fit. We need a 3rd category to reflect the modern day economy and the needs of the workforce. No one should want to see the Gigs put put of business, but on the same note, they cant provide no benefits at all to the people that made them what they are today.
For years I have been advocating for a 3rd class of worker. Somewhere between employee and independent contractor. I call it the “gig worker”. One that has certain freedoms, but is also entitled to certain benefits. Not full employee type benefits, but some benefits. The gig worker is subject to certain direction and control by the Gigs of the world, but such also entitles the worker to certain job protection. This is a middle ground that provides a 21st Century safety net to the ever growing gig economy. This 3rd way will not bankrupt the gigs, as they will surely save money on the thousands of lawsuits they have to defend and will not have to pay an army of in house lawyers to deal with the gamut of labor law issues in all 50 states. The gig workers will not get full employee type benefits, but will have some social safety net in the event of an accident, loss of work, paid time off or even a pandemic.
I have devoted a large part of my career to the issues that now face Uber and Lyft and others in the gig economy. I have created a solution to what ails the gigs and provides what independent contractors should be entitled to. In conjunction with my partners and top rated carriers and benefits providers, we have the solution to make everyone happy. The gigs will benefit, the workers will benefit, the economy will benefit and the government will benefit. All we need now is Uber and Lyft and the other gigs to give me a call to provide the relief you now so desperately need. I am just a phone call (212-461-2244) or an email away (steven@shankerpc.com).
The NYC Transportation Crisis
Dear Fellow For-Hire Vehicle Stakeholder:
I know that these are trying times, and we have all been struck. What started off as news of a virus, seemingly no different than the common cold, has now turned into a worldwide emergency that is quickly transforming the situation into one of the gravest political and societal challenges of the modern age. Initially, most of us believed the effects would be short term and limited to those who became infected. Now, in only a short period of time, it has turned into not just mass isolation for purposes of self-preservation but is leading to disaster to those who have not been infected with the Coronavirus. In order to protect the health and safety of the residents of the City of New York, and the entire world, businesses have been forced to close and lay off untold numbers of people. Out of work, with no pay, limited availability for food and everyday supplies, like toilet paper and paper towels, can and is quickly leading some into despair. And rightly so.
The For-Hire Vehicle (“FHV”) industry in New York City (“NYC”) was already reeling from years of overregulation, unchecked growth of the marketplace, over saturation of the arena with new drivers, and what I call the “Uber Effect” (massive disruption of the FHV industry due to the entrance of the app companies). FHV drivers were already bringing home less and less money as well as spending more and more time on the road away from their families. Taxi medallion owners were already going bankrupt. Traditional FHV base owners were doing their best to keep their business afloat amid the loss of drivers to Uber and Lyft. Some were on the brink of going out of business. And this was all before the Coronavirus hit NYC.
Now that the Coronavirus has infiltrated NYC, as a precautionary measure, restaurants have been forced to closed, and the schools are shut down. People are afraid to come into contact with one another. Most of all, no one is travelling. The three NYC area airports are virtually empty which means FHV drivers and FHV bases have no one to transport. It is as if society has shut down and our elected leaders are trying to help take measures to stop the spread and contain the virus all while attempting to offer some relief to those affected the most.
In the meantime, we all have to put food on the table and pay the rent. How does one do this when you are essentially out of work? The bills you have don’t get paid on their own. For the over 100,000 FHV drivers in NYC, this is a recipe for disaster. Questions are coming in asking, “when will this end”, “what will I do in the meantime,” how do I feed my family when I have no work.” These are all genuine and valid questions. No one in the FHV industry is immune to the effects that this virus has caused. It is a vicious cycle. If an FHV base is not receiving calls, then drivers will have no one to transport. If drivers have no one to transport, then they will be unable to pay the rental on their vehicle or their vehicle loan. If a FHV driver cannot pay their vehicle rental, then the rental companies will not be able to pay their loan, thus a loss of the vehicle for the rental company and the driver. When will this cycle end? The reality is that no one knows for sure. Some industry experts are predicting as low as 2-3 week but potentially up to 2 to 3 months.
So, the real question is what do you do? I would like to believe some people have some savings to be able to weather the ill effects of having no income for a few weeks. But we all know that most in the FHV industry are lucky to still be operating, much less to have a savings account to weather this storm. No one could have prepared for this disaster. But there are steps you can take to help yourself. First, no matter what part of the industry you work in (a FHV base owner, FHV driver, FHV vehicle rental company, medallion owner), you have to all come together and work on this together. If you don’t come together as a team, then your chances of surviving this crazy situation will likely be bleak. Remember, there is strength in numbers. Remember, there are many others out there who are in the same situation as you. Most of all, you must take action and take it now.
If you have a vehicle lease, call up the vehicle owner work out some payment plan with them. If you have a vehicle loan, call up your bank/lender and ask for your payments to be deferred until the end of the term. Call your insurance carrier to see what your options are for an extension of time for payment. Use what credit cards you may have, make the minimum payment, and/or ask the banks to make an exception to their normal payment requirements. Reach out to your trade organization to see what they can do to help you, just as you will be asked what you can do to help others too.
People around the world who are employed are being laid off on a massive scale, but they have some short-term options like unemployment. As independent contractors, FHV drivers do not have the luxury of filing for unemployment. For years I have been an advocate of creating a system for the provision of benefits to FHV drivers and others in the ever-growing “gig economy.” Such benefits include medical, vision, banking services, disability, retirement, and individual savings accounts to be used for the proverbial “rainy day.” If this type of program were in place now, the stakeholders in the FHV industry would have a better fighting chance to weather this storm. It is precisely this type of benefits plan that I am working on providing to FHV drivers and other independent contractors. I will continue to do my best to make this plan a reality, so in the future, the FHV community has more of a safety net to fall back on when hard times hit.
While most of us have never been through anything like this, we have to remember that NYC and society, in general, has weathered its fair share of storms in the past. World War I, The Great Depression, World War II, The Oil Crisis of the 1970s, the Banking Crisis of the 1980s, the Dotcom Bubble/burst, September 11, 2001, and the Housing Market Crisis, just to name a few. Do what you have to do to survive in the short run but keep a positive outlook. We, as a people, have weathered many crises in the past, and we WILL survive this one.
As always, feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns at http://www.shankerlawfirm.com/questions
Sincerely,
Steven J. Shanker, Esq.
Advertising in FHV's in NYC- Good for Drivers, but TLC Will Not Allow It.
I recently represented a company named Vugo, Inc. in an appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court whose decisions are only reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. Vugo is an infotainment company whose goal is to enhance the passenger experience in for-hire vehicles (“FHV”). In essence, a screen the size of a small iPad is put in the back of a FHV. The customer gets in and can see ads, information and entertainment that is targeted towards the specific passenger. If the customer likes the info/ads/entertainment on the screen they can watch. If not, they can ignore, turn it off or simply mute it. This is not like the Taxi TV created years ago by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC”). This is high tech and its purpose is not to just entertain the passenger, but most of all, to pay the FHV driver for putting the device in the vehicle. The FHV driver does nothing except collects an agreed-upon sum of money. These days, those in the FHV industry, including drivers, can barely make ends meet. The ads can provide FHV drivers with upwards of $300 per month. This extra money to drivers is no small sum.
When Vugo asked the TLC for permission to place the tablets in FHV’s, the TLC said “NO”. So, then here is the question: why would the TLC choose to take away a meaningful source of income for drivers who are still struggling despite the minimum pay regulations and when many other cities around the country allow advertising to help drivers? After all, it was the advertising revenue that was and is still paid to the yellow taxi owners that caused the TLC to create Taxi TV in the first place. And how hypocritical of the TLC to ban ads inside FHV’s when it still allows ads on taxi rooftops.
The TLC’s reasoning for the ban was that people didn’t like Taxi TV and the public should not be bombarded with ads through their ride. In the TLC’s view, a trip in a FHV is supposed to be a relaxing experience and a quiet respite from the hustle and bustle of NYC life. What a load of crap. People get in a FHV to be transported from Point A to Point B. That’s it. There is no stretch out your legs and take a steam bath experience with a cocktail in hand when a person takes a trip in a FHV.
Vugo didn’t like being denied a permit by the TLC and decided to sue. Vugo claimed that TLC’s refusal to allow the ads violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The TLC argued in opposition that the agency’s restrictions on advertising inside FHVs were justified because the screens are annoying to passengers. Well if they are so annoying to passengers then why are such ads still allowed in yellow and green taxis? While taxis now perform fewer trips than Uber and Lyft, before 2016 this was not the case. It was only a few years ago that ridership via Uber and Lyft overtook ridership in taxis. This leads to two the inevitable questions (1) why does the TLC seek to protect a passenger taking one mode of transport that has been suffering economic loss (taxicabs) to be annoyed by in-vehicle TV ads and at the same time seek to protect competing companies, like Uber and Lyft, passengers from the same alleged annoyance? and (2) why doesn’t the TLC give this form of advertising a shot. Perhaps the public will like it more than Taxi TV and not be annoyed by it. Or perhaps the TLC will just simply allow this means of advertising because it provides well-needed revenue to FHV drivers.
On September 10, 2019, the Independent Drivers Guild (“IDG”), which represents approximately 85,000 FHV drivers in New York City, called on the TLC to allow FHV advertising at a driver rally outside City Hall ahead of the Council’s oversight hearing on the TLC. According to the IDG, the ads can generate an extra $4,000 annually without drivers having to log more hours on the road.
In the Vugo lawsuit, the federal district court sided with Vugo, finding that the TLC’s ban on advertising was unconstitutional, and prohibited the TLC from enforcing the rules banning FHV advertising in vehicles. On appeal, the federal appeals court reversed the lower court and upheld the TLC’s decision to ban advertising inside FHVs. The appellate court’s decision is essentially the end of the road because the U.S. Supreme Court hears less than 2 percent of all cases where their review is sought.
Just to be clear, the court case does not prevent the TLC from allowing ads in FHVs. The only thing stopping the TLC from doing so is the TLC. In the current environment, where the unchecked massive expansion of the FHV industry has led to driver unrest, pay diminution, and despair resulting in several driver suicides, there is now a compelling rationale to allow the TLC to help drivers make ends meet. Vugo and my firm did its best to bring this form of revenue to drivers, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the ball back in the TLC’s court. It is now up to you, the FHV driver, to reach out to the TLC, the City Council and the Mayor’s office to ask why is it denying FHV drivers the ability to easily make more money without having to do anything?
If you have questions, you may contact me at http://www.shankerlawfirm.com/contact
Steven J. Shanker, Esq.
Uber Loses Lawsuit Against City and TLC For-Hire Vehicle cap
Here is a link to the decision on the Under lawsuit regarding the FHV cap. Click here. But I must throw in my 2 cents. I said it when this lawsuit was filed, that it has no shot in hell. The Court’s go to great lengths to give cases and legal issues the proverbial “punt”. In other words, let someone else do the heavy lifting. Judge’s do not want to peel back the curtain and make a bold statement that the legislature went too far in granting an administrative body too much power. The Court, in this case, disagreed with each and every one of Uber’s arguments. I can not fault Uber for trying but the reality is that an Article 78 proceeding claiming an administrative body acted arbitrary and capricious is lick climbing Mt. Everest in your underwear. It is almost impossible to win. No matter how many high powered and extremely expensive of a legal team they assemble, this case had no legs form the start. The City claims victory, but it is the rest of the industry that suffers from the poor judgment of the regulatory body calling the shots. The NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission has been screwing up this industry since Bloomberg’s 2nd Term. It all started with former Chairman David Yassky and has continued unabated. The hits just keep on coming.
I do not expect anything from the TLC as they have proven to be inept. I do not expect anything from the Mayor’s office as deBlasio has proven to only care about taking campaign donations from the FHV industry but not actually helping it in any way…that is unless he will benefit politically. What bothers me is that in order for the law to progress, you need one judge who is going to stop the madness and say the regulatory agency went too far. If the government does not like it, then they can appeal and that is how case law is made. Binding authority from a higher level court that rules on an issue. No case law is made by having a judge dismiss a case and punt to possibly face the issue another day. In New York City, the administrative entities do not possess the necessary technical expertise and should not be blindly given considerable discretion to flesh out a policy broadly outlined by legislators. When the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission actually shows it has technical expertise, I will change my tune. Until then, just because an administrative body exists does not mean they should be given the broad discretion this Judge found fit to bestow upon them.
Outspoken- You Couldn't Silence Me If You Tried
A few years ago someone called me “outspoken”. I believe I knew what the word meant, but the way the person said it to me made me think it possibly had a different meaning. So I went to the online dictionary and looked it up. The word outspoken means “frank in stating one's opinions, especially if they are critical or controversial.” My response to my own query was yea, you bet I am outspoken. I have always had my opinions and firmly held beliefs, but over the years I have become even more outspoken in the sense that I actually enjoy speaking my peace not just because I want to hear myself talk, but because it generates a conversation with others, it gets the ball rolling, it gets the juices flowing. I don’t want anyone to “yes” me to death. I don’t want to hear what I want to hear. If someone disagrees with me, then feel free, but be sure to back up your opinions with cold hard facts. I never go into anything half-cocked. I am never unprepared. I can handle criticism, but what I cant handle it staying quiet when I have something to say. To me, it doesn’t matter who is listening or how long they will listen. I always believed that if you want something in life you have to go after it. No one will hand you anything for free. So you have to get out there and don’t worry about the critics and don’t worry about those who disagree. Those who have different opinions are free to speak their peace too. It is what causes the dialogue and the free flow of information. The First Amendment’s protection for freedom of expression applies to the gathering of information for the purpose of engaging in speech. Exercise your right to free speech every chance you get.
Speaking your mind is useless if you’re just tearing someone down. To have a productive conversation, you should empathize with the person you’re speaking to so you can connect with them and they can appreciate and take to heart what you’re saying. Take a deep breath and walk into every room with confidence, knowing that you’ve earned the right to be there. Speak with great intention, even though you know that not everybody is going to like what you say. Over the years I have learned that you should not always wait to speak. I started listening actively, knowing that I was going to comment on something and having it in my mind that I would interrupt at the right moment. It’s both polite and useful to say, before we proceed to the next subject, I would like to add the following…. If you wait to be called on, often the discussion will move on so far that whatever you’re talking about will not be germane. Being able to express yourself fully means not worrying that someone is going to talk over you before you’ve finished. But that often happens when people don’t even realize that they’re cutting off the other person. If you’re speaking with someone who keeps interrupting, you have to point it out to them. Also, remember to keep it short and sweet. If you talk extensively about something whether out of nerves or wanting to explain yourself—you end up saying too much. Don’t chatter just to fill the dead air. Speak your piece, then stop and listen.
The price you pay for being outspoken is that you often gain some enemies along the way. But at least you stand by what you believe in and aren’t afraid to speak your mind. Stop worrying that what you say may hurt someone’s feelings, or that your opinion will make people think badly of you. Never let anyone walk all over you. NO ONE. NEVER
Fortunately, I have been introduced to people who told me things without unnecessary sugar-coating. They stood by their beliefs, they didn’t take anyone’s nonsense, and they told me the inevitable truth. At first, their bluntness was a shock, but I quickly learned and really started to admire straight-forward people. The world needs bold people. There are many reasons for my appreciation and understanding of importance regarding honest people. Straight-forward people are reliable. They are trustworthy and dependable for the truth. A bold person wouldn’t waste their time speaking about a friend behind their back. If they had a problem with a particular friend, they would come right out and tell that person. Bold personalities are genuine. They are the kind of people who stand up for what they believe in and are not afraid to rationalize with others.
Have the courage to say what everyone else is thinking. Don’t dance around the truth or continually seek approval from others as it is a big waste of time. Speaking the truth requires bravery and acceptance of criticism. I always say go for it, because people who are okay with honesty are likely the people that should be in your life. I am outspoken and proud of it. If you don’t like my brutal honesty, then change the channel.
Another Uber Lawsuit Against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission
While Uber recently filed a new lawsuit against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission seeking the Court to declare the cap on new for-hire vehicle licenses null and void, I have read their moving papers and they seem woefully inadequate. I have reviewed the NYS electronic case folder and there is no memo of law in support of their position and no arguments in their affidavit in support indicating why the cap should be deemed to be invalid. This is rather unusual. The City will undoubtedly file a motion to dismiss and then Uber will file their Memo of Law at that time. In either event, I would expect more form a firm like Boies, Swiller Flexner.
On a related note, back in February, 2019, Uber filed it initial lawsuit arguing that the cap was illegal as it involves the improper delegation of legislative powers, it violated the home rule provision and the state law pre-empts the ability of the City to cap FHVs. Uber has some decent arguments in this case, but ultimately they are not going to win the unlawful delegation of powers argument. While the seminal Court of Appeals case of Boraeli v. Axelrod is still alive and well, the only time it was actually use to successfully defeat the enactment of a regulation is under the sugary soda ban that was nullified by Judge Milton Tingling, who is now the Clerk of the county of New York. That case involved a regulatory agency making legislative decisions. I the FHV cap case, the city council is the legislative body and they gave the TLC the power to cap. While I dont agree with the City’s position from a business perspective and from the perspective of what is best for the FHV industry, I do think the City will ultimately prevail.
But dont take my word for it, read the City’s motion to dismiss, the City’s memo of law in support, Uber’s memo of law in opposition and the City’s memo of law in reply. All are attached here fo your review. I have my own opinions based upon my review of the law, but you can review and see if you agree to disagree and determine who you think will ultimately prevail.
Click Here to Read Uber’s Complaint
Click Here to Read the City’s Motion to dismiss
Click Here to Read the City’s Memo of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
Law Firms That Don’t Invest in Technology Will Be Left Behind
For almost 20 years, my law firm and I have utilized the most advanced technology and continue to upgrade our systems as technology advances. I do this partially because I love technology and how it has revolutionized society. I also do this because it enables my firm and I to provide the best and fastest service possible to all of our clients. Other law firms refuse to embrace technology. I can find no legitimate reason refusing to utilize the most advanced technology. Of course, there are reasons to fail to do so, but none of them are good reasons and none justify the failure to invest in the firm and thus, invest in the best interests of the client.
I remember the days when there was virtually no law firm technology. 20 years ago, a lawyer had to find the hard file, review the paper documents in the file, which were typically a mess and out of order, hope notes from other lawyer who worked on the case were contained therein and if so, try to decipher the handwriting of each lawyer and then figure out the status of a case and what needed to be done. This was time consuming and a huge waste of time. At the time, most lawyers didn’t care because when they bill by the hour, all this wasted time is still billable. I hated it because I always hated billable hours and always knew there had to be a better way to maximize my time for my benefit and the benefit of my clients. 20 years ago, I used to think that technology was not embraced by law firm management because it was simply not part of their culture. When someone practices law and runs a law office a certain way for 40 years, change does not come easily.
When I started my own firm, law office technology was starting to develop. A colleague of mine gave me a tip and said invest in technology at an early stage. He guaranteed that I would not regret it. Since that day I have always invested in the latest technology. It has made me work more efficiently and made my law firm more productive. It allows coordination and collaboration with other lawyers and support staff in an easier and time efficient manner. In essence, why would a lawyer perform legal research in an antiquated manner by going to the law library and using hardcover books when you can use Westlaw at your desk. I know Westlaw can be expensive, but it will enable legal research to be performed at a fraction of the time. Why use paper files when scanners are cheap, and a paperless office is a better way to organize files and documents? The reasons for the lack of some law firms to utilize 21stcentury technology is the billable hour disincentive to increase productivity, the cost of technology or simply the fear of change/desire to adhere to antiquated methods of running a law firm. All reasons are not acceptable. Unless a law firm uses modern day technology, it is the clients that suffer. If the lawyer bills by the hour, then the lack of technology means the client pays more. If a client pays a flat fee or blended fee, the lack of technology prevents a lawyer from being most effective to meet the needs of the client. If a client calls me, they want an answer ASAP. If I had to find a file, comb through it and figure out what the status is, I would be wasting my own time and delaying answering a question for a client. No client wants to wait around for hours or days to her answers to questions that can and should be answered very easily and quickly.
It’s estimated that up to 40 percent of small law firms don’t use practice management software.I find this to be an astounding percent as well as an unacceptable practice. While cost can be a consideration, any law firm that does not utilize up to date practice management software is not doing a service to themselves or their clients. The right practice management program can save you as much as 40-50 percent of the time you presently waste doing manual menial tasks. That’s 40-50 percent of your time that could be used working on existing cases, seeking out new clients, or even getting home earlier.
Additionally, it is important for law firms to put productivity on the top of their docket not just to save time but so you can be more productive for the client. Billable hours provide a disincentive to be productive. I have been advocating alternate fee arrangements for years. Many of my clients have agreed and love them. What my clients love the most is the fact that when they call and have a question or issue, their case, documents, internal notes, billing and all necessary case information is at my fingertips. We have been paperless for years and I love it. My clients don’t know what software we utilize, and they really don’t care because they know I know all of their cases like the back of my hand and can address their legal issues sometimes on the spot. Technology has enabled me to do this.
The speed of the legal business today is unprecedented. The pace of change, demands on lawyers’ time, and breadth of knowledge that you need to access, process and manage are reaching new levels. Technology is constantly changing. But in most respects, the basic practice of law hasn’t. While the pace of work is accelerating, the law firm with the newest technology can and will allow them to handle the oldest tasks more efficiently. Law firms that do not utilize the most up to date technologies are doing their clients a disservice because they are putting their own profits above the needs and interests of their clients and because they are encouraging wasted time. It can take the average lawyer 1-2 hours to review the documents in a hard file, review handwritten notes to get up to date on the status of a case and then create a simple letter from scratch. With technology, I have been able to easily cut the time to do such tasks by 70%. Since I typically do not bill by the hour, or prefer not to, my incentive is to get the job done as fast as possible, without sacrificing quality. Technology enables me to do the work of 5 lawyers. When you will bill by the hour you have no incentive to invest in technology because if it takes a lawyer 2 hours to perform a task that could have been done in 45 minutes, it does not matter to them because they will bill for their time. This does a total disservice not only to the client but is a blight on the legal profession. Sometimes it embarrasses me that law firms still use billable hours as a benchmark because it is those same law firms that refuse to embrace technology because it will seemingly hurt their bottom line. What client wants to use a firm like this?
No matter what size the firm, lawyers face an increasing demand on their time from billable hours, client satisfaction, and maintaining compliance — combined with everyday administrative tasks, it can seem like there’s never enough time in the day. Using available technology is the key to getting the most out of your resources, getting back time to devote to client matters, and maximizing your law firm’s profits
Leveraging technology and implementing changes to improve efficiency should not be a difficult task in your law firm.Although full-fledged robot lawyers are still a thing of the future, there is real technology available today to help your law firm grow. The recent boom in legal tech means more solutions for improving efficiency, communication, and profit margins.
Attorneys and staff can do their jobs more effectively with the right equipment. Internet speeds alone are an important expense for any business. A slow connection means time and energy wasted.If you’re creating documents manually, document management software should be added to your technology arsenal.
It probably goes without saying that you’re using a smartphone and at least one other mobile device such as a tablet. But as these devices are now just part of our personal and professional lives, and the options for boosting your productivity keep increasing at surprising rates. The most advanced practice management programs allow you to remotely access practically anything on your office server, or in the cloud (e.g., matter information, documents, calendars, notes, tasks, etc.) without having to get in touch with someone back at the office to send them to you.
Technology advances quickly and it’s not easy to keep up with it while also trying to practice law. But the reality is thattechnology can help lawyers in the following way:
· improve client service;
· solve problems faster;
· organize case information;
· manage your practice more efficiently;
· help you protect client confidentiality;
· improve profitability;
· and make life easier.
Law Firms must use technology to:
· electronically organize and store all documents (including electronic documents created in-house, documents your office has received, faxes, e-mail, and attachments) in a client/matter-centric manner.
· Enable access to all your documents at anytime, whether they are in or out of your office;
· Enable searching your files by any imaginable criteria and therefore, not lose anything and not waste time.
Over time, law firms that don’t invest in technology will be left behind.
Data is King!!!
Data is King
In the early days, people though Uber and Lyft were crazy to think people would ride in each other’s personal vehicles. In NYC the number of FHV’s rose dramatically since 2013. Uber and Lyft need massive supply of vehicles and driver to provide on demand service. The increase in the supply lead to an increase in demand which led to a need for more supply of vehicles. The 8.6 Million residents and over 60 million visitors are always seeking to go from point A to point B. All these vehicles are being driven primarily in the 22 square smiles of Manhattan (302 square smiles of all 5 boroughs). Manhattan has a famous grid system that dates back to 1811. What was known to be the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811, which planned Manhattan’s famous grid system, was completed at the end of the 19th century and produced 11 major avenues and 155 cross-town streets still used today. The grid begins north of Houston Street, since the area to its south was well established when the grid came to be in 1811. Broadway, one of Manhattan’s oldest thoroughfares (and the world’s longest) runs perpendicularly as it progresses north from the tip of Manhattan up into the Bronx. As it crisscrosses the straight avenues, it creates large, open intersections (Union Square, Madison Square, Herald Square, Times Square, Columbus Circle, etc.).
Lyft and Uber seem to have a mission of improving people’s lives with the world’s best transportation. But this is more than just about technology or moving into adjacent categories like bikes and scooters. Lyft and Uber seem to see ride-hailing as a way to upend the negative aspects of automobiles. Keep in mind that they are the second highest household expense and a typical car is used only about 5% of the time. Despite all the success, Lyft and Uber are still in the early phases of its market opportunity, as rideshare networks account for roughly 1% of the miles traveled in the US. But to truly achieve the vision of transforming the transportation industry, the company will need to be aggressive with AI (Artificial Intelligence).
By embedding machine learning into its technology stack, Lyft and Uber have the advantage of data on over one billion rides and more than ten billion miles – which allows for training of models to improve the experience, such as by reducing arrival times and maximizing the available number of riders and creating sophisticated pricing models. But when it comes to AI, the holy grail is autonomous driving. Part One is creating the network. The nature of the Manhattan grid and the rise of Uber and Lyft created the network. The path to Autonomous vehicles is largely tied to the continued success of Uber and Lyft. This is because Autonomous vehicles will likely be most effective when managed through sophisticated routing systems which ridesharing networks have. As such, they can manage the network. Part three is autonomous vehicles. Most accident are caused by human error. Take the human partially out and then fully out of the equation and you are left with less and less accidents. The level 5 autonomous vehicle is supposed to be in operation within the next 10 years. Even if you push the timeline out further, the reality is that with partially autonomous vehicles there will be less accidents.
A company must have resources and scale to effectively pursue to collection of data and AI. Data is the “cash cow” of the digital age. Like gold and oil in decades past, there is a rush to accumulate as much data about consumers as quickly as possible. Companies like Facebook and Google are acquiring and making a fortune off the sale of said data. The current environment surrounding data acquisition and the proliferation of sensory technology in our vehicles is astounding. The increased presence of sensors and cameras within modern cars yield greater ability to monitor performance and surroundings. Today’s vehicles can identify which part of the car’s interior needs maintenance or if there are obstacles around us as we drive. These sensors generate data that is analyzed in the hopes of creating self-driving vehicles. Self-driving cars would generate immense amounts of data (1 gigabyte per second). The possibilities created by these acquisitions are equally immense. Vehicles will potentially be able to relay the location of specific landmarks like parking spaces in a crowded lot, for instance. While the ability to locate a parking space from a single application on your phone is beneficial, it is only one positive change self-driving vehicles could bring about.
So how does that affect the workforce. First, self-driving vehicles would remove driver necessity in the transport industry. Taxis, cargo trucks, etc. would find their once human-operated vehicles controlled by a computer receiving incredible amounts of data as it travels. There would not be payroll discrepancies about overtime wages. Gone would be the days of driver error resulting in accidents (which result in $242 billion a year in the United States). Like the invention of the mechanized assembly line, the widespread implementation of self-driving vehicles would make the use of anything else obsolete.
The presence of affordable autonomous travel would exponentially expand the travel market. Transportation companies would be able to enter and reach people in the developing world who are unable to afford vehicles of their own or transport services operated by human drivers. The presence of vehicles always connected to the internet opens up the avenue for location and time-based advertisements. Companies could not only generate revenue from the use of vehicles and the sale of vehicle data, but also from advertisers trying to reach constituents in a particular region.
Self-driving vehicles can potentially streamline the route optimization and dispatching processes of your fleet – new orders will no longer have to be communicated from headquarters, as the car nearest a request would immediately get the request. Traffic congesting routes would be circumvented as the car receives data on the various paths towards its destination. The advent of the self-driving vehicle will be disruptive to various industries. Companies will have to adjust their processes, but the benefits should outweigh the costs. On the ever-growing hill to cutting-edge technology, there is one item to always keep in mind: Data is King.