I recently read a guest article penned by an in-house general counsel, providing law firms with tips on the GC’s perspective. It was a practical and useful review, beginning with the suggestion that outside counsel should “stay in touch.”

The most cost-effective business development strategy for any firm is to expand current services with existing clients. Current clients are already in hand and don’t have to be identified and wooed. They offer great potential for leverage, as new services can be provided without significant startup costs.

Some while back I heard a comment, spoken in regard to the passage of such high-impact national legislation as the health reform law and the Dodd-Frank Act, that “there have been more causes of legal action created in the last six months than in all of recorded history.”

Those in non-lawyer positions – administrators and administrative professionals at all levels – traditionally were thought to have little or no direct influence on the outcome of firm revenue and expenses.

Recently a lawyer in his late 60s called me to discuss his future. At one point he had considered selling his practice and retiring. But, he said, he enjoys what he does and financially cannot see his way to retiring. In the end, because of his tax situation, he declined to sell his practice.

Last year, a group of large national and international law firms petitioned the American Bar Association with a complaint about state bar regulation, contending that, given their multi-state corporate practices, such firms are restricted by the separate state bar admission requirements on issues like conflicts of interest, liability and lawyer mobility.

In the United States, American Rule requires that people pay for their own attorney’s fees regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit.

The cost of malpractice insurance is an issue for every lawyer.

Large, international law firms like Howrey and Heller Erhman that went under in the Great Recession became the targets of personnel raids before their demise.

In light of the recent story about the ABA’s proposal regarding firm ownership, it is both timely and prudent to examine the question of whether non-lawyers may be better suited to run law firms.

Clifford Winston, a senior analyst at Brookings, recently expounded on a truly subversive thought: By requiring lawyers to have a law degree and pass the bar exam, the profession seeks to restrict the supply of new lawyers and thus perpetuates a monopoly.

It is well demonstrated that paralegals improve a firm's bottom line.

During the Great Recession, many previously successful business organizations with detailed and elaborate planning processes failed. Some pundits concluded that planning is not possible in these volatile times.

It's easy to contend that "law firm leadership," like "jumbo shrimp," is a contradiction in terms for the larger organizations.