values

109 – Malorie Peacock – Practical Procedures: Creation, Education & Implementation

On this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael is joined once again by his partner Malorie Peacock to discuss their firm’s procedures and how they implemented them. They’ll cover their firm’s journey with procedures, what to create procedures on, how to create, implement, and train on your procedures, how to achieve buy-in, and Patrick Lencioni’s Working Genius Model.

Michael and Malorie begin the episode with a look at their firm’s journey with procedures and why they felt the need to share it on the podcast. Michael shares that he drew inspiration from the book “The E-Myth Revisited” by Michael Gerber, which asserts that every business should be run like a McDonalds, and everything that can be systematized, should be. Having systems and training (and re-training) on them serves to empower your employees, ensures everyone is doing things the way you want them done, and creates a safety net so if someone leaves the firm, someone else can step in and take over where that employee left off.

Malorie then asks Michael a follow-up question- What kinds of things should you have procedures on, and what kinds of things should be left to the discretion of the person doing the job? Michaels answers simply that you need to be realistic. While he would love having a procedure for every little task, there isn’t’ enough time in the day and you need to prioritize 1-3 things that what will “give you the best bang for the buck.” Once you implement those 1-3 procedures, you can move on to a different 1-3.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed at the thought of having to practice law, run a business, and write and implement all these procedures, Michael has some good news for you- it doesn’t all have to be done by you. He’s learned that hiring and delegating things like creating, implementing, and training on new procedures to someone he trusts in his office frees him up to do other, more pressing items. Malorie agrees and adds that this is WHY you have these systems in the first place. It allows the owner to be able to take a step back and trust that things still get done the way he or she wants.

Malorie then asks Michael to share an interesting statistic that they discussed over coffee- that only 5% of employees can just figure new things out themselves. The other 95% need to be thoroughly trained and reminded continuously on how to do things the way you want. Your business systems should be designed for the 95%, NOT the 5%. While it can be frustrating to constantly remind your team of how you want things done, Malorie explains how it’s absolutely necessary to do, and if you go into it with the right mindset it takes a lot of the frustration out of it.

Regarding how detailed your procedures need to be, Michael says it really depends on what the job is. The procedure for someone in a filing or scanning role, a typically lower skilled job, will have step-by-step instructions; but the procedure for lawyers to set depos by a certain time will simply have guidelines to follow. Malorie adds that their firm procedures’ level of detail has fluctuated quite a bit, and the key to success is adapting to your firm’s current needs.

Malorie and Michael then take a deeper look at one of their procedures, for each lit team to have a monthly File Review on each case at the firm. They discuss why they have them and how they benefit Michael, then move on to how they hold teams accountable and achieve buy-in.

Achieving buy-in is the tough part. Looking at the big picture, Michael shares his firm’s “mantra” which they recite at the beginning of each meeting. If a team member buys into this mantra, he will do everything in his power to develop and support them. It’s something they look for in the hiring process and are up front on from the beginning, but if someone doesn’t want to buy into this mantra, it doesn’t mean they’re a bad lawyer, but his firm isn’t the right place for them.

Malorie then digs into the micro-level buy-in for each procedure, where they encourage feedback and brainstorm how to make the procedure better. They’ll get some great suggestions from their team, which they sometimes implement into the final procedure. They also make sure to explain the “why” behind each procedure, to make it clear they’re not trying to micro-manage the team or create unnecessary work.

After discussing some things they’ve learned from implementing procedures over the years, Michael brings up an upcoming Patrick Lencioni book on the concept of “The Working Genius Model” with the acronym “WIDGET”- Wonder, Idea, Discernment, Galvanizing, Enablement, and Tenacity. They elaborate on each of these working genius types, share the ones they each have and don’t have, and explain how they filled their team with the other types. The result has been a trusting, high-performing, complete team.

Michael and Malorie end the episode by encouraging listeners to work on building their ideal team and to start creating procedures for their firms. The result will be more joy and a better-performing law firm.

This episode also covers how to create procedures that leave room for creative lawyering, when to get rid of ineffective procedures, why perfection is the enemy of good work, how to incorporate Patrick Lencioni’s Working Genius Model into your firm, and so much more.

22 – Paul Byrd – Understanding Conservative Jurors

1 Stars2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with author, speaker, and seasoned trial lawyer, Paul Byrd from Arkansas for a deep dive into the minds of conservatives and what we can do to better communicate with them on juries. Kicking things right off, Michael and Paul agree that the likelihood of having a jury panel made up of only liberals is not only low, but likely not preferential either as Paul points out and sets the tone for the conversation.

As a self-proclaimed “Republican trial lawyer,” Paul talks about the juxtaposition of not being felt trusted in trial lawyer arenas because he is a Republican, while also not feeling trusted in Republican arenas because he is a trial lawyer. This is something he never really understood in terms of why they didn’t seem to fit together as he feels strongly there are many values that cross over between the two and has led to his study of conservatism in the courtroom.

Like many trial lawyers, Paul’s desire to reach jurors, and to reach voters who wanted to vote in the courtroom forum, has always been met with some resistance from those who are fiercely independent. Paul’s in-depth understanding of the interesting history of the Scotch/Irish in America, and how it paved the way for conservative thinking, helps to lay the foundation of working with conservatives in the courtroom. When asked how trial lawyers might learn from and relate to people who may have a more conservative value system than themselves, Paul suggests talking to experts in the field as well as using solid focus groups. Michael adds, from his own experience, that they can also take an introspective approach and work on themselves, learning to talk to people, listen nonjudgmentally,  and understand that conservatives are still good people by and large. In other words, take the time to listen to people, even if it’s not what you want to hear, in order to gain perspective.

In this day and age, it is hard NOT to bring up the topic of social media, given the politically charged climate on social platforms, to which Paul brings up a great point that although they tell jurors not to look on social media to find lawyers involved, they commonly still do. He goes on to describe how people will typecast you as much as you typecast them with the posts they may find in your social accounts, so it is likely best to stay away from partisan posts in today’s world. Michael adds how he tends to avoid posting political things to his feed as some juror could potentially be immediately turned off by it regardless of which side of the issues he’s on. He also goes on to say if you can start the conversation with an open mind, you may be able to convince someone one way or the other, but if they are turned off before you begin the conversation (perhaps by seeing a politically-charged post), the likelihood of there being any movement is slim.

Paul points out how some of the biggest verdicts have come from the most conservative juries and sometimes it simply becomes a matter of helping your jury understand what the rules are. He gives a great example regarding a case which involved horseplay around a pool where a man was pushed in, broke his neck, and drowned. His focus groups were leaning one way with the understanding that the man who was pushed in was the jokester; but once the rules were laid out by way of the pool manufacturer’s safety warnings and revealing the pusher was the homeowner, the case became much easier to solidify because the group understood what they were defining as the rules.

Michael asks Paul if there are any buzz words or behaviors which can alienate a conservative jury. To which Paul expresses how it can actually work against you if you focus too much on trying to make jurors feel sorry for a client because it was a horrific injury. He goes on to say that jurors have become hardened over the years having been exposed to so much that empathy or sorrow will not carry a case alone anymore. You really have to find the rule or the “why” moment in a case of how the wrongdoer should be held responsible.

The conversation culminates in a discussion about how “non-economic damages” are viewed by jurors and the conservative spin which has likely brought us to where we are today. Paul first directs his attention to the argument regarding the caps placed on non-economic damages in some states and how some view these decisions as unfair toward particular sets of people (ex: stay at home parents) where there is no pattern of lost wages or income. He then digs deeper in a couple of examples to really make you think a little harder about what’s “real” to those who have been catastrophically injured while using plain English to cut through partisan lines and strike the core of most every human. It’s truly fascinating how Paul thinks about these things and we were glad he was willing to share his thoughts and insights with us and the rest of the Trial Lawyer Nation.

Background on Paul Byrd

Paul Byrd has been representing deserving injured victims for almost 30 years.   After clerking for a trial court, Paul went into private practice in 1988. Paul’s practice has focused on civil litigation with an emphasis on representing consumers in product liability actions, both individually and in Mass Tort Litigation. He is the Immediate Past Chair of the AAJ Product Liability Section and on the Board of Governors of AAJ.   He has spoken on “How to Talk to Conservatives” all over the United States and has a current video on the topic published by Trial Guides.

In November of 2000, he was featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal due to his work in the case of Brownlee/Whitaker vs. Cooper Tire and Rubber Company.  He also appeared in a Dateline NBC documentary regarding the same case in January of 2001.

Paul has also represented farmers in agricultural litigation regarding genetically modified crop contamination that had global as well as national and local implications.

Paul is a past President of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association. His message to his fellow members as President was “You went to law school to make a difference!”.

In 2012, Paul was a co-recipient of the Outstanding Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association.

He is the managing member of the Little Rock, Arkansas office of Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC.

He has an “AV” rating in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Directory, has been recognized by the Mid-South Super Lawyers, and is also a life member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Affiliations

  • Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association
  • American Association for Justice
  • American Bar Association
  • Arkansas Bar Association
  • Pulaski County Bar Association
  • St. Thomas More Society
Scroll to top