As the economy continues to sputter and the pressure of succeeding at large law firms ratchets even higher, many attorneys may begin to consider alternatives. One option? Striking out on your own.

There are many advantages to migrating from a large law firm to a solo practice—jumping off the crowded partnership track, becoming your own boss and setting your own hours, just to name a few. But there are also many adjustments that attorneys must make when they hang out their own shingles. At large law firms, there are entire departments dedicated to many of the logistical and administrative aspects of running a law firm. These include managing office space, conducting conflict checks, overseeing HR matters, even making sure the coffee break room is stocked with half-and-half. As sole practitioners, attorneys are responsible for all of these activities, and many others. Having your own practice can be a wonderful thing, but it also brings a great deal of responsibility, including critical tasks such as managing risk and overseeing an error-free court calendar.

Carefully considering the ins and outs of the court calendar can be a new experience for attorneys who have spent their careers at big firms. At large law firms, attorneys generally do not have sole responsibility for researching court rules, updating the court calendar, and checking/double-checking court deadlines for changes. At many large firms, legal assistants and paralegals share these types of duties, and the largest firms employ an entire staff dedicated to docketing.

While attorneys at these large law firms are responsible for aspects of their individual court calendars, such firms often utilize rules-based calendaring programs to supplement and complement their efforts. These types of programs can include comprehensive and reliable rules databases that are capable of automatically and accurately calculating court deadlines for jurisdictions around the country. With such systems, attorneys and staff can be spared hours of time double and triple checking the rules and the rule changes. These programs automatically determine court deadlines and convey all of the relevant information to everyone involved in a matter, eliminating much of the error prone manual process. These programs may also be able to automatically check for updates, eliminating the need to check/re-check court dates.

Rules-based systems boost efficiencies and help minimize a major source of risk for law firms—errors in the court calendar. For many attorneys, the rules-based calendaring programs they enjoy at large law firms may be a thing of the past when they strike out on their own. Such programs make sense for large firms or for attorneys who do a great deal of litigation work. However, since these programs are often expensive and require a great deal of training and technical support, they tend to be out of reach of newly minted solo practitioners.

At the same time, solo practitioners cannot afford to ignore the importance of the court calendar. A poorly managed calendar can also be costly, in terms of time and the potential risk of malpractice lawsuits. According to the most recent American Bar Association survey “Profile of Malpractice Claims,” calendar/deadline-related errors

constitute 16.63 percent of all malpractice claims, making them the leading cause of such lawsuits.

Before you walk away from a large law firm, you need to think very carefully about the dynamics of the court calendar. Fortunately, it is now possible for solo practitioners to lessen the burden of calendaring. With best practices and the latest technology, solo practitioners can manage the court calendar efficiently, effectively and in ways that can minimize risk.

Consider the Right Type of Calendar For You

As a solo practitioner, attorneys can determine their own rules and processes and not have to adapt to the ones that have been determined by firm management. Of course, that means that attorneys must carefully develop their own way of doing things.

When it comes to the court calendar, you should consider which calendaring methods will work for your own unique situation. Some attorneys may prefer the latest cutting-edge technology, with personal digital assistants that include the newest applications and can be updated constantly. Others may prefer more basic technology—some may be most comfortable with something as simple as a paper calendar. But while a paper calendar may seem like an inexpensive way to track court deadlines, it is an invitation to disaster. With a paper calendar, attorneys or their staff must manually track and record every single matter. Once a court deadline has been determined, someone at the firm must count backwards from the due date while factoring in every weekend and holiday. Every time a court date changes, deadlines must be erased and then written down again--an approach that is ripe for error. And in case of a fire or natural disaster, a paper calendar can be easily destroyed or, at best, inaccessible for days.

Instead of a paper version, you should consider an electronic calendar that can be easily updated, transmitted and backed-up. This helps to minimize errors while increasing redundancies. A standardized method for maintaining the court calendar is also critical. If a paralegal or assistant is involved in any aspect of the calendaring process, duties and timelines should be carefully spelled out. That way, everyone understands his or her role and important information does not fall through the cracks.

The Latest Technologies

Once you have selected the right calendar and outlined steps for maintaining it, the process of calendaring can still be time-consuming, frustrating and nerve-wracking. When relying on manual date calculations, the chance of errors remains extremely high.

However, technology has been a great equalizer when it comes to the court calendar, making it possible for even the smallest firms to afford to automate some of the calendaring process. With the latest date calculation services, solo practitioners can gain many of the advantages of rules-based calendaring without the extensive investment in software or training. Some legal deadline calculation services are available online and operate on a pay-per-use basis. By entering only a few pieces of information, these types of technologies can automatically calculate court deadlines. Relevant court dates can then be downloaded onto the firm’s electronic court calendar, and then synced to a PDA.

Updating the court calendar is another area of concern. When exploring different types of technology, you should consider how each program handles court rule updates—since court deadlines change so frequently, it is important to stay on top of any changes. Some services can automatically generate notices when deadlines change on a matter previously researched, which eliminates the need to check/double-check information. Sophisticated services can also link to common matter management and billing systems, helping to remove one more administrative aspect that solo practitioners must grapple with. Some of these technologies have such good track records for eliminating errors that malpractice insurance carriers offer a discount to solo practitioners and small firms who utilize them.

There are many advantages to becoming a solo practitioner: the ability to focus less on the billable hour and more on proactively serving clients; freedom to select hours of operation and cases; and the ability to be your own boss. But at the same time, solo practitioners must consider many different types of headaches and risks that attorneys at large firms do not need to fret over.

The court calendar can cause a great deal of concern for solo practitioners, but it does not need to be. With the right processes and technology, attorneys practicing on their own can improve efficiencies, minimize risk, immunize their clients from the chance of missing key court deadlines, and protect themselves from potential malpractice lawsuits. Solo practitioners can then focus on growing their businesses, not double-checking dates on the court calendar.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]