June 7, 2007  

Our sponsor

Improve Law Firm Productivity. BlumbergExcelsior offers products, services and knowledge of the legal industry that enable you to support the lawyers in your firm and increase your firm’s productivity. Engraved stationery and announcements, logo and stationery design services, promotional items and will covers imprinted with your firm’s name, laser checks and mailing labels. Garnet binders personalized for clients with gold lettering. Get our new 64-page catalog and discover legal supplies that improve law office administration.

ALA Currents is a free newsletter about management trends and innovations provided exclusively upon request to members of the Association of Legal Administrators.

News & Views

PARALEGAL COMPENSATION SURVEY SHOWS SOLID INCREASES

This article was developed especially for this issue of ALA Currents and is copyrighted by Altman Weil Inc. For more information, visit Altman Weil’s Web site.

The recently released 2007 Annual Compensation Survey for Paralegals / Legal Assistants and Managers, which reports on 11 distinct paralegal positions in law firms and corporate law departments, reveals that paralegal compensation continues to increase.

The survey – conducted by Altman Weil Publications Inc. in partnership with the International Paralegal Management Association (IPMA) – shows “solid increases in median total cash compensation for most paralegal positions,” said Altman Weil Principal James Wilber. “These numbers not only reflect solid economic growth in the legal industry, especially among law firms, but also the growth and increasing sophistication of the paralegal profession. Legal organizations that want to attract and retain talented paralegals must compensate them competitively.”

Paralegal Compensation
The median salary for paralegals in the United States is $53,500, according to the survey. An annual bonus adds $2,500 to cash compensation. Median overtime compensation is reported at $4,177 per year. In law firms, 82.9 percent of paralegals receive overtime compensation, as do 28.3 percent of paralegals in corporate law departments. Total cash compensation in the United States for the paralegal position is $59,973, up 9 percent from 2006.

Paralegal Managers
Paralegal/legal assistant managers (full-time managers of paralegal programs) take home a median $102,000 in salary in the United States, plus an additional cash bonus of $8,500. Only 10 percent of paralegal managers report receiving overtime, and those who do earn just $1,936 in overtime pay. Median total cash compensation for the paralegal manager position in 2007 is $109,303, up 7.2 percent from last year.

Specialists
Paralegals with specialized training or expertise, such as nurse consultants, environmental technicians, or CPAs, earn $77,940 in salary, $4,484 cash bonus, and $7,824 in overtime. Median total cash compensation for the paralegal specialist position in 2007 is $84,000, up 6.5 percent.

Law Firms vs. Law Departments
In the United States, paralegals in law firms earn 9.5 percent more in median total cash compensation than paralegals in law departments. Legal assistant managers in law firms earn 29.4 percent more; and, specialists take home 24.6 percent more in total cash compensation than their law department counterparts.

Practice Areas
In law firms, paralegals working in an IP/patent/trademark practice earn the highest total cash compensation, $69,675. That’s 16.2 percent higher than total cash compensation in the United States, and 46 percent higher than the lowest paid law firm practice area for paralegals – family law. In law departments, paralegals in corporate practice earn top dollar, $70,098, while those in a government/legislative practice earn least at $41,523 in total cash compensation.

Billing Rates and Billable Hours
The survey reports median billing rates for paralegals at $160 per hour, up 6.7 percent. Paralegals billed a median 1,490 hours per year in 2006, up 4.5 percent from the previous year. Insurance paralegals in law firms logged the highest number of hours at 1,638 hours per year, followed by litigation paralegals at 1,562 hours per year.

Data Collection and Reporting
The 2007 Annual Compensation Survey for Paralegals / Legal Assistants and Managers is based on data collected in spring 2007 from 274 law firms and 78 law departments and reports on 14,052 paralegal positions.

For more information, visit the Web sites of IPMA and Altman Weil.

PAY GAP STILL EXISTS FOR MEN, WOMEN

New research by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation shows that just one year out of college, women working full time already earn less than their male colleagues, even when they work in the same field. Ten years after graduation, the pay gap widens.

In the report, Behind the Pay Gap, the AAUW Educational Foundation found that just one year after college graduation, women earn only 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall further behind, earning only 69 percent of what men earn. Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the research indicates that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained and is likely due to gender discrimination. Over time, the unexplained portion of the pay gap grows.

The research also shows that 10 years after graduation, college-educated men working full time have more authority in the workplace than do their female counterparts. Men are more likely to be involved in hiring and firing, supervising others, and setting pay.

“By looking at earnings just one year out of college, you have as level a playing field as possible,” said AAUW Director of Research Catherine Hill. “These employees don’t have a lot of experience and, for the most part, don’t have care-giving obligations, so you would expect there to be very little difference in the wages of men and women. But surprisingly, and unfortunately, we find that women already earn less – even when they have the same major and occupation as their male counterparts.”

The AAUW research also shows that this pay gap exists despite the fact that women often outperform men in school – earning slightly higher GPAs than men in every college major, including science and mathematics.

“The persistence of the pay gap among young, college-educated, full-time workers suggests that educational achievement alone will not close the pay gap,” Hill said. “We need to make workplaces more family-friendly, reduce sex segregation in education and in the workplace, and combat discrimination that continues to hold women back in the workplace.”

“AAUW has worked successfully to create educational opportunities for women and girls,” said Lisa Maatz, AAUW Director of Public Policy and Government Relations. “It’s clear that barriers beyond schooling have prevented true pay equity, and AAUW continues to be a strong advocate for legislative efforts to address this discrimination.”

The report also found:

• Women who attended highly selective colleges earn less than men from either highly or moderately selective colleges and about the same as men from minimally selective colleges.
• Ten years after graduation, women are more likely than men to complete some graduate education.
• Men and women remain segregated by college major, with women making up 79 percent of education majors and men making up 82 percent of engineering majors. This segregation is found in the workplace as well, where women make up 74 percent of the education field and men make up 84 percent of the engineering and architecture fields.

“AAUW is dedicated to improving gender equity in the workplace as well as in education,” said AAUW Educational Foundation President Barbara O’Connor. “The findings from Behind the Pay Gap are telling and disturbing. They show that equity remains an issue for women today.”

For more information, visit the AAUW Web site.

Management Innovations

SMALL SCREENS, BIG BUCKS

Using a mobile phone to search the Web today is slow, tedious, and frustrating. Typing on tiny buttons, squinting at links, and seeking pages that won’t display properly are enough to test anyone’s patience. But that’s changing. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo all see cell phones as the next great battleground in the search wars. They’ve thrown tens of millions of dollars and armies of programmers at the problem, seeking to develop tools that people can actually use. Each has recently introduced new search services that emphasize quick answers to urgent questions: What’s the fastest way to get to the airport? How did the Yankees do against the Red Sox? Where can I get a decent pizza? The answers, not surprisingly, carry small text ads like those that have made Google a gold mine. Between the search giants and users, however, stand some powerful gatekeepers: Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, and other cell phone carriers. Unlike on a PC, phone users can’t always access their preferred search engines easily. Cell carriers have the power to dictate which ones are easy to access – and which are not – through placement in their phones’ menus. And after spending billions of dollars building wireless networks, building relationships with consumers, and subsidizing the cost of phones, carriers don’t want to miss out on profits from the mobile search business.

The New York Times, April 20, 2007

STALLING TACTIC STYMIES SPAMMERS

Spammers hate to wait, so Canadian firm MailChannels is capitalizing on their impatience in a new approach toward stemming the tide of unwanted e-mail. By forcing e-mail programs to slow down their digital handshakes – the exchange of information required before Internet servers will handle the recipients’ incoming mail – MailChannels has found that many spammers just decide to give up and move on to more promising pastures. The program, called Traffic Control, allows e-mail administrators to extend the handshake time – normally around two seconds – to anywhere between 10 seconds to a couple of minutes. MailChannels founder Ken Simpson says that unlike legitimate senders, 90 percent of spammers give up after 10 seconds of being “on hold.”

“Even after eight minutes, 60 percent of legitimate e-mail senders are still hanging on trying to get their messages delivered. This is the technique spammers are really only going to get hurt by, because if we just build a better spam filter, the spammers will respond by increasing the amount of junk mail they’re blasting out. But if you throttle them, there really is nothing they can do except persist like legitimate senders, but if they do that then the economics of spamming goes out the window,” said Simpson.

To get around the prospect of a legitimate e-mail traffic jam, Traffic Control offers an additional feature that helps e-mail servers perform more efficiently. Spam researcher Bill Stearns says the volume of spam that is filtered out by this technique is impressive, and that unlike conventional filters, spammers can’t just circumvent the barricade. “It’s going to take a long time before a technique like this becomes useless.”

The Washington Post, April 10, 2007

Building Buy-In

PARALYSIS CATHARSIS
By Paul Trout

Decision-making paralysis is as dangerous a place for a legal administrator to be in as for a writer to have writer’s block. The ability to definitively move forward with action is paramount to improving overall productivity, let alone the positive mental states of you and your staff.

When you’re unable to make a decision, and you need to sell yourself on a plan of action (or inaction) for your law firm or legal department, consider the following “Paralysis Recovery Framework” to guide your decisions:

1. Understand the problem and the solution.
2. Chart the logical reasoning of the idea.
3. Uncover the emotional elements at play.
4. Decide whether to move forward or not (“sail or bail”).

Step 1: Understand the Problem & Solution
Answer the following 10 questions to help get to the root of any issue:

1. What is the real problem?
2. What is the desired solution?
3. How will you solve the problem?
4. Why do you believe you can solve the problem?
5. Do you have access to others you will need to solve the problem?
6. Is there shared mutual confidence and trust between you and others?
7. What is the urgency to solve this problem?
8. Do you have the resources to solve the problem?
9. What’s in it for you if you solve it?
10. What’s at risk if you don’t?

Answering these questions can help you understand whether there is actually a problem that can be solved or not. If you still believe it can be solved, move on to Step 2.

Step 2: Logical Reasoning
Humans are largely creatures of reason, but they are driven by emotion. Reasoning entails building a path of ideas or actions built upon one another to arrive at a point called “truth.” “Truth,” however, is elusive, because we all have our own “truths” depending on the situations and our perspectives. Asking many questions to understand your own version of “truth” is important to building buy-in with yourself.

There are three situations that you may find yourself in while debating whether or not to act. While my last column addressed each of these categories, this time ask yourself the questions associated with each category.

• Railing
  If you’re undecided about an idea because you’ve never done it before and are unsure of the outcome, you are “railing” against yourself. Ask:

  • What is the biggest reason that you haven’t done anything yet?
  • How can you get the knowledge of how others have done it before?
  • Are there benchmarks available to compare your results to others?

• Flailing
  If you’re undecided about an idea because you made a decision in the past that might not be working out the way you expected, you are “flailing” while trying to understand what to do. Ask:

  • Why did you value executing this idea in the first place?
  • What expectations for an outcome did you have when you originally made this decision?
  • Have your values changed or has the situation changed, or both?
  • Why has that put you into uncertainty?
  • What would happen if you pulled the plug?
  • What would happen if you didn’t?

• Failing
  If you’re undecided about an idea because you made a decision in the past that did not work out well, but are considering revisiting the concept one more time by doing it differently, you are in “failing” mode. Ask:

  • What measurement told you that this decision was a failure?
  • Why are you reconsidering resurrecting it?
  • How is your approach different (and better) than last time?
  • What were the results of failing?
  • What would happen if you failed again?
  • What would happen if you succeeded this time?

Step 3: Emotional Elements
Inside each of us resides an “inner seller” and an “inner buyer.” The inner seller likes to tempt us with new ideas and possibilities. The inner buyer likes to maintain the status quo because change is often risky and difficult.

Good decisions are made when the inner buyer “buys” what the inner seller is “selling.” Often, though, emotion can cloud a logical judgment. The inner seller can overrule the inner buyer, causing risky situations. Or the inner buyer can hold off the inner seller, preventing growth and new vistas. Humans feel five major emotions: love, happiness, anger, sadness, and fear.

What major emotion would you feel if…

• …you solved the problem? Why?
• …nothing was done? Why?
• …the problem was ignored? Why?

And, finally:

• Who will judge you if you succeed? Fail? Do nothing?
• What major emotion would they feel about you in these circumstances?

Step 4: Sail or Bail
After answering these questions, you should be more oriented in one of the following two directions: “sailing” or “bailing.”

• “Sailing” is when you’ve decided to execute on an idea and are sailing ahead. If you choose to “sail,” ask yourself the following questions:
  • What are the specific steps and actions from now to “truth?”
  • What is the first step forward?
• “Bailing” is when you’ve decided to NOT move forward, and are abandoning the idea.
  • If you’re “bailing,” what is the first step forward to eliminate the option of doing anything?

Using the “Paralysis Recovery Framework” ensures your strength will begin to come back after having been stunted for a period of time. Just ask the formerly paralyzed: being able to move again is freedom.

Paul Trout is a Partner with Akina – a firm that helps clients improve their sales, marketing, and leadership effectiveness. This column is an excerpt from a book he is writing on Building Buy-In. He encourages readers to submit case studies, learnings, or questions about Building Buy-In, which may become part of the book and appear in a future column. Contact him via e-mail or by phone at (312) 224-8028.

Peer Points

ALA Management Solutions^SM is a free service provided as an ALA membership benefit. The professionals who staff this help desk explore resources and share information about hot law-office management topics like the one addressed here. If you have a question, call ALA Management Solutions^SM at (847) 267-1252 or e-mail infocentral@alanet.org.

RELIGION IN THE WORKPLACE
What is considered reasonable usage of prayer in work e-mail or the offering of peace prayers?

For a brief overview of the religious issues in the workplace, read “Religion in the Workplace: What are Your Religious Rights at Work?” posted by the Minnesota Family Council.

See the information regarding developing e-mail policies, what information those policies should contain, and the inclusion of policies in employee handbooks at HR Hero.

Pacific Business Journal published “Does Religion Belong in the Workplace?” in May 2004.

The New York law firm Epstein Becker Green published in March/April 2001 “An Employer’s Checklist for Determining Reasonable Accommodation to Religion in the Workplace.”

ALA Management Solutions further consulted Karen Snyder at Personnel Policy Service Inc. who stated the following:

• 1. An employer needs to consider whether any "tag line" or message is in good taste, and whether it may be offensive or potentially so; and
• 2. An employer can require the removal of such a message from e-mail, voicemail, etc., because – so far as Ms. Snyder is aware – posting such an e-mail message has nothing to do with religious accommodation since there is no faith, that she knows of, that requires such activity.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) published in August 2002 a white paper “Sex, Religion and Politics: Practical Tips for Handling Workplace Discussion about the ‘Forbidden Three’ ” – available to SHRM members. Author Rebecca Hastings states:

• While reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs is appropriate, what could seem reasonable to some could run the risk of offending others with opposite religious beliefs. Without proper communication and control, employers may find that e-mail and voicemail systems and employee workspaces are taken over by religious messages and images. These, combined with the possibility of direct communication among employees, may result in perceived offense by others.

• Freedom of speech and religion are arguably concepts that most hold dear. But when an employee takes these perceived freedoms to such an extent that he or she uses company equipment or systems to promote personal beliefs or interfere with the ability of the organization to conduct business, an employer should feel safe in taking action. Establishing boundaries for employees indicating which tools are for business use only (i.e. electronic systems) is one starting point. Religious messages on voicemail and e-mail systems do not have to be permitted where consistently applied policies and practices state that such systems are for business use only.

Special Note: ALA members have free access to the ALA Reference Desk. Send any question on legal management here. Staff will conduct personal research on each question.

ALA Currents is copyrighted, 2007, by the Association of Legal Administrators. All rights reserved. ALA Currents is a subscription-only electronic newsletter. Reproduction in whole is strictly prohibited. Individual news items may be reproduced solely for internal distribution within the subscriber's organization.

If lines of text of ALA Currents appear broken or irregular, please try resizing your e-mail window. The newsletter can also be printed and read as hard copy.

CREDITS

The content of ALA Currents is drawn from many sources, including Innovation Weekly, an online management subscription newsletter copyrighted by NewsScan Inc. Materials excerpted from Innovation Weekly are reprinted under the authority of a site license granted to ALA for the benefit of its members.

ALA Currents is edited by Amy Dvorak, who can be reached at ALA Headquarters via e-mail to advorak@alanet.org. Send technical questions ( subscription problems, delivery options) to webmaster@alanet.org.

To unsubscribe from ALA Currents, click here.

The opinions expressed in articles and releases included in ALA Currents are solely those of the contributors and are not necessarily those of ALA or its members.