May 21, 2013

Coach’s Corner: Q&A Law Firm Sale Transactions

I can attest from personal experience that interest in the sale of law practices continues strong and unabated. This may reflect continued economic stress, the aging of the profession or simply greater desire to look for greener pastures outside the law. No matter what the reason, lawyers regularly contact me for help in selling their practices, given that I have helped hundreds of lawyers sell and buy a law practice through my book Selling Your Law Practice: The Profitable Exit Strategy, my articles, my presentations and my hands-on consulting. The questions that I’m asked about practice sales often reflect how little even experienced lawyers know about such transactions. Here are some typical ones from recent conversations.

  • Do I need a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before holding discussions with a buyer? While circumstances may vary, my general answer is no, because an NDA does not become an issue until later in the process, if at all. However, if a lawyer is more comfortable having one, taking a general version from texts typically found in any law library should suffice.

  • What kind of information would a buyer require? Financial information on the practice is of course essential, and lawyers selling a practice should be fully prepared to provide it. A list of current and past clients is also a necessity for conflicts checks. And remember that selling your practice is no time to be modest or reticent. If you have kept technology up to date, invested in new office space with modern infrastructure, maintained strong referral relationships, be sure to communicate those facts up front. Their value may not be easily quantifiable, but they definitely support the firm’s goodwill: its reputation, client base and client loyalty.

  • What type of contract should I have? Contract is really a misnomer. Typically an attorney for either the buyer or the seller will draft a buy/sell agreement, which both parties will review. Some negotiation occurs, but the agreement must follow the deal memorandum drafted earlier in the process – something that I do whenever I’m asked to advise on the sale.

  • How do I set the selling price? This can literally be the million dollar question. The value to you in selling your practice must be significant, or you would not be interested in selling your goodwill and a buyer would not be interested in buying your practice. Price is normally based on expected future earnings, but may also be affected by revenues that will be earned from the buyer’s talents. Many buyers want to pay a percentage of revenues collected rather than a fixed sum for the practice. However, it is generally preferable to sell (and buy) on a fixed, set sum. Setting that sum is where an experienced negotiator assists both sides in the deal. I have found that I can help buyer and seller reach their mutual objectives better than they could have on their own, simply because of how many transactions I have seen, and my unique approach to the negotiating process.

Ed Poll is a nationally recognized coach, law firm management consultant, and author who has coached and consulted with lawyers and law firms in strategic planning, profitability analysis, and practice development for over twenty years. Ed has practiced law on all sides of the table and he now helps attorneys and law firms increase their profitability and peace of mind. He writes the LawBiz® Tips E-zine, where this post originally appeared on March 13, 2012.

Attorneys to Be Surveyed About Colorado Bankruptcy Court Judges

The Bankruptcy Judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado have asked the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to survey attorneys who have practiced in the district to assess the performance of each of the Bankruptcy Judges. The surveys are a part of the court’s ongoing commitment to provide the highest level of public service possible. The FJC is the research and education organization for the federal courts.

The start-date of the surveys will be staggered over the next eleven weeks. Click here to view the schedule for each judge.

On the start date for each survey, the FJC will send an email to attorneys who have practiced before the particular Bankruptcy Judge. The email will explain how to access and complete an online questionnaire.

The FJC will compile and analyze the survey responses and will provide each judge a report, including a statistical summary and a compilation of the comments that are received. No identifying information about survey respondents will be given to the judges. The results are exclusively for the judge’s use in improving his or her performance; they will not be provided to anyone other than the judge and will not be used in the reappointment process.

If you do not receive an email from the FJC and want to participate, please contact Ms. Beth Wiggins of the FJC at (410) 308-3751 or (202) 502-4076 or by email at fjc_survey@fjc.gov.

Click here for more information about the survey process.

State Judicial Issues Revised List of Statewide Parenting Classes

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has issued a new list of Colorado parenting seminar providers for family law consideration. Practitioners should begin using the new list immediately.

Domestic/Family

Governor Hickenlooper Signs Several More Bills into Law

Many bills have reached the Governor’s desk this legislative session, and on Thursday, March 22 and Saturday, March 24, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed several more bills into law.

Eighteen bills were signed into law on Saturday, March 24; five are highlighted below. A complete list of the legislation signed into law Saturday can be found here.

  • SB 12-011: Concerning the Differential Response Pilot Program for Child Abuse or Neglect Cases of  low or Moderate Risk.
  • Sponsored by Sen. Nancy Spence and Rep. Ken Summers. The bill extends the Differential Response Pilot Program beyond the five counties that were originally designated and allows families with low or moderate risk to engage in voluntary programs rather than involuntary and expensive court intervention.
  • SB 12-064: Concerning the Colorado Children’s Trust Fund.
  • Sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Nicholson and Rep. Tom Massey. The bill extends the sunset of the Colorado Children’s Trust Fund until July 1, 2022, and clarifies that the moneys in the fund are to be used for child abuse/neglect prevention, not intervention.
  • HB 12-1029: Concerning an Economic Stimulus Through a Property Tax Exemption for Business Personal Property and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Save Colorado Jobs Act.”
  • Sponsored by Rep. Chris Holbert and Sen. Mark Scheffel. The bill changes the caps for statutory business incentive agreements for counties, municipalities, and special districts.
  • HB 12-1169: Concerning a Clarification of the Circumstances Under Which Voting to Elect Leadership of a Public Body May be Held by Secret Ballot in Accordance with the State Open Meetings Law.
  • Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Greg Brophy. The bill amends the state’s open meetings law to prohibit public bodies from taking certain actions by secret ballot unless they are in full compliance with the State Open Meetings Law.
  • HB 12-1249: Concerning the Manner in Which Tobacco Litigation Settlement Monies are Allocated to the State Auditor’s Office for the Costs of Conducting Program Reviews and Evaluations of the Performance of Tobacco Settlement Programs.
  • Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou and Sen. Pat Steadman. The bill, which was recommended by the Joint Budget Committee, changes the funding allocations for tobacco Master Settlement Agreement funds.

For a full list of bills signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper on March 24, click here.

Governor Hickenlooper also signed seventeen bills into law on Thursday, March 22, 2012. Five of those bills are summarized here; for a complete list, click here.

  • HB 12-1033: Concerning Conditions on the Authority of the Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation to Impose Administrative Fines as a Result of Compliance Audits Finding Instances of Late Reporting of Injuries Under the “Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado.”
  • Sponsored by Rep. Spencer Swalm and Sen. Linda Newell. The bill restricts the circumstances in which the Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation can inpose a fine for non-reporting or late reporting of industrial injuries.
  • HB 12-1047: Concerning the Waiver of Non-Safety Licensing Standards for Kinship Foster Care.
  • Sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas and Sen. Linda Newell. The bill allows county departments of social services to waive certain non-safety licensing requirements for kinship foster care. Previously, the state Department of Human Services had this waiver power, but it was rarely exercised due to the fact that most children are removed under emergency circumstances and there generally is not time to obtain a state waiver prior to placement.
  • HB 12-1074: Concerning Access to Data to Assist the Courts in Overseeing Persons Appointed to Manage the Affairs of Persons Under Disability.
  • Sponsored by Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Steve King. The bill allows a court to access data maintained by state agencies in order to contact guardians and conservators who have failed to file reports, as long as the courts keep the personal information private.
  • SB 12-024: Concerning the Obligations of a Residential Nonprofit Corporation to its Residential Members and, In Connection Therewith, Clarifying Open Meeting Provisions and Limiting the Conditions Under Which the Corporation Must Refund Moneys Paid by a Residential Member.
  • Sponsored by Sen. Ted Harvey and Rep. Chris Holbert. The bill specifies that residential membership fees for nonprofit corporations must only be refunded when the membership is transferred, and clarifies that all members must receive notice and be allowed to attend meetings whenever final action will be taken on the board’s behalf.
  • SB 12-097: Concerning a Simplified Procedure for the Adjudication of Certain Changes of the Points of Diversion of Water Rights.
  • Sponsored by Sen. Mary Hodge and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg. The bill sets forth a simplified procedure for applications to change a point of diversion of water rights. The bill creates a presumption that there will not be a change in the amount of decreed water rights, which may be challenged in court.

For a complete list of legislation signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper on March 22, click here.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2012 legislative decisions, click here.

 

 

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/27/12

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

United States v. Andrews

United States v. Lake

United States v. Rutherford

Rockefeller v. Chu

United States v. Cano

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Finalists Selected to Fill Judgeship on Eighteenth Judicial District Court

The Eighteenth Judicial District Nominating Commission has nominated three candidates for a district court judgeship created by the retirement of the Honorable Robert H. Russell, II, effective May 31, 2012.

The nominees for the bench are Michelle Amico of Littleton, Gary Fleming of Centennial, and Theresa Slade of Elizabeth. All finalists were selected by the commission on March 26.

Under the Colorado Constitution, Governor Hickenlooper has until April 11 to appoint one of the nominees as District Court Judge for the Eighteenth Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties).

Comments regarding any of the nominees can be emailed to the Governor’s Office.

Colorado Supreme Court: Permitting Narcotics Dogs to Sniff Around Vehicle Did Not Infringe Any Reasonable Privacy Interest

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Esparza on March 26, 2012.

Search and Seizure—Dog Sniffs—Colo. Const., Art. II, § 7.

The People brought an interlocutory appeal assigning error to the district court’s suppression of contraband seized from defendant’s vehicle on two occasions. In each case, after defendant was arrested for driving under suspension, a police narcotics detection canine was brought to the scene and led around defendant’s truck, which had been parked and left at the location of her arrest. Also in each case, after the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, a search of the truck’s cab revealed drug paraphernalia and suspected methamphetamine. The district court found that under these circumstances, the state constitution barred the police from bringing a trained narcotics detection dog within detection range of defendant’s vehicle without first having reasonable suspicion to believe it contained contraband, which the court found to be lacking in both cases.

The Supreme Court held that an interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate under the state constitution any more than under the federal constitution, and that official conduct failing to compromise any legitimate interest in privacy cannot be deemed a search under the state constitution any more than under the federal constitution. Because narcotics dogs could not communicate anything more than reason to believe defendant’s truck either contained or did not contain contraband, permitting narcotics dogs to sniff around the vehicle did not infringe on any reasonable privacy interest. The Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Proposed Expert Testimony of a Learning Disability Admissible with Notice and Court-Ordered Mental Examination; Not Required to Plead Insanity to Challenge whether Possessed Mens Rea for the Offense

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In Re People v. Wilburn on March 26, 2012.

Expert Testimony on Defendant’s Mental Condition—Learning Disability—Mistake of Fact Defense on “Knowingly” Element—Court-Ordered Mental Examination.

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court held that CRS § 16-8-107(3)(b) allows a defendant to introduce expert testimony concerning a mental condition in the absence of an insanity plea, providing that the defendant gives adequate notice and agrees to undergo a court-ordered mental health examination pursuant to CRS § 16-8-106. Here, defendant Tyler Wilburn announced his intent to introduce expert testimony of a learning disability to challenge whether he “knowingly” violated his bail bond condition, a mistake-of-fact defense under CRS § 18-1-504(1)(a). Wilburn missed his court date after he allegedly wrote down the wrong date. The prosecution maintained that, to introduce expert testimony of his mental condition, Wilburn must plead not guilty by reason of insanity, a plea that requires a “commitment” to a state mental health facility. The trial court agreed and ordered Wilburn committed to a state facility for forty-five days to undergo a court-ordered mental examination. The Court issued a rule to show cause.

The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and made the rule absolute. The Court held that Wilburn’s proposed expert testimony of a learning disability is admissible under the procedures of CRS § 16-8-107(3)(b), which requires notice and a court-ordered mental examination. Wilburn is not required to plead insanity to challenge whether he possessed the mens rea for the offense with expert testimony concerning his learning disability. Under CRS § 16-8-106, the trial court has discretion to consider the circumstances and the nature of Wilburn’s defense to set a reasonable time, place, and length for a court-ordered mental health examination.

Summary and full case available here.

e-Legislative Report: Week Eleven, March 26, 2012

In this week’s Legislative Video Update, Michael discusses discusses how the Colorado Bar Association’s Legislative Policy Committee played King Solomon with the juvenile direct file bill, improvements to the Secretary of State’s business filing system, and the state’s projected increased revenues for its budget.

From the CBA Legislative Policy Committee

After a well deserved break from the action on March 16, the Legislative Policy Committee met on Friday, March 23 and took up two bills:

HB 12-1271 – the Juvenile Direct File bill
The LPC played King Solomon and developed a measured position for the Bar Association on HB 1271 – the Juvenile Direct File bill. (See full description of the bill here.) The LPC voted to authorize the Juvenile Law Section to support the bill in the name of the Juvenile Law Section only. This is permitted within the guidelines for the Legislative Policy Committee. This position was developed to respect the natural divide within the Criminal Law section where prosecutors and defense attorneys are divided on the bill. The bill is scheduled to be heard by the Judiciary Committee on Monday at 1:30 p.m. in the big committee room at the Capitol – the Old Supreme Court Chamber.

SB 12-123 – Enhance Secretary of State On-Line Filing System
The LPC also voted to support SB 123 – Enhance Secretary of State On-Line Filing System. The bill contemplates improvements to the Business Filing System including enhancements to user accounts, registered agents, record management, certifications, and better search functionality. The Business Law Section sought the approval for support. The bill is caught up in the Appropriations Committee as the Joint Budget Committee moves closer to introducing a balanced budget.

Click here to read the full e-Legislative Report.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/26/12

On Monday, March 26, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. v. C.D. Brown Construction, Inc.

Guy v. Wilson

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

SB 12-158: Consolidation of Two Public Housing Agencies Within the Division of Housing and Adding Homeless Prevention Activities to Division of Housing

On March 9, 2012, Sen. Betty Boyd and Rep. Laura Bradford introduced SB 12-158 – Concerning the Consolidation of Two Public Housing Agencies Within the Division of Housing in the Department of Local Affairs. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The Division of Housing in the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) is a public housing agency that provides financial and other assistance to individuals in low- and moderate-income households. The division also administers various state housing programs and the supportive housing program, a public housing agency that provides financial and other assistance to persons with disabilities. The bill provides for consolidation of public housing agencies in such a manner that the Division of Housing in DOLA will be the only public housing agency and serve as the sole state agency for the purpose of administering and distributing financial housing assistance to persons in low- and moderate-income households and to persons with disabilities.

The homeless prevention activities program is currently administered by a nongovernmental agency selected by the executive director of the department of human services. The bill would require the division of housing in DOLA to administer the program. The Local Government Committee will consider the bill on Tuesday, March 20 at 2 p.m.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

SB 12-157: Making Changes to Regulation of Telecommunications Services Under the Public Utilities Commission and Enacting the “Telecommunications Modernization Act of 2012″

On March 8, 2012, Sen. Mark Scheffel and Rep. Angela Williams introduced SB 12-157 – Concerning the Regulation of Telecommunications Service and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Telecommunications Modernization Act of 2012.” This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

In 1987, article 15 of title 40, Colorado Revised Statutes, governing intrastate telecommunications services, was repealed and reenacted. Since then, the statutes have been amended to accommodate technological changes and increased competition in many segments of the communications industry but, for the most part, retain the regulatory structure that developed in an era of traditional voice-centric wireline service.

The bill makes substantial revisions to the statutes governing intrastate telecommunications services (title 40 article 15) to reflect current conditions and in anticipation of future evolution of the market. The bill is assigned to the Business, Labor and Technology Committee; committee review is scheduled for Monday, March 19 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill passed out of the Business, Labor, and Technology Committee with amendments and was referred to the Appropriations Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Protected

2013-05-22 05:06:49