In this episode, Jim and Tyson interview Michael Whelan. Michael runs his own law firm, organizes a lawyer conference and is writing a book about running a law business. They will go over his background, the conference and the book; it’s main principles about being a solo practitioner, deep expertise and legal supply chain.
“Law is not a business plan, it’s a product, it’s a monetization strategy. It’s how we turn knowledge in to cash so that we can live. How we do that is really up to us.”
The conference: http://www.lawyerforward.com/
The Book:
You can sign up to be on a mailing list where Michael talks about what’s going on with the book: http://www.lawyerforward.com/bookupdates/
3 main ideas:
1. Financial capital is not a good play for specially solo attorneys, but social capital is highly available, and should be the leverage point for people trying to run their own law firms.
2. The 2 most valuable pieces of any transaction are the relationship and deep expertise.
3. People should connect on a legal supply chain. A different way to structure human capital.
Hacking’s hack: Jim’s been listening to James Schramko (https://www.superfastbusiness.com/about/) and he said something that really struck a nerve with him.
“I create content when I have something to say.”
Michael’s tip: A daily task app that is fantastic and it’s gamified. Great to use with your kids.
https://habitica.com/static/home
Tyson’s tip: A tool to manage social media.
https://www.agorapulse.com/
//
Thanks so much for listening to the show! If you want to know more about this and keep on maximizing your firm, please join our Facebook Group or like us on Facebook and comment!
You can also go to MaximumLawyer.com or, if you’d prefer, email us at: info@maximumlawyer.com
Do you want to get on the show? Shoot us an email or message us!
The Maximum Lawyer Podcast. Partner up, and maximize your firm.
Resources:
- Join the Guild Membership
- Subscribe to the Maximum Lawyer YouTube Channel
- Follow us on Instagram
- Join the Facebook Group
- Follow the Facebook Page
- Follow us on LinkedIn
Transcripts: Becoming a Deep Expert of Law and Running a Business ft. Michael Whelan
Michael Whelan
You build the social capital by giving it all away, right? Some of that means you’re not going to be for everyone. You’re going to express strong opinions, and it’s going to chase some people away. But if you can get to the true fans who do trust you, you’re not being discounted anymore. People are willing to give you whatever it takes, because they are fans of you. And your practice personally.
Unknown Speaker
Run your law firm the right way. This is the maximum liar, podcast, podcast, your hosts, Jim hacking, and Tyson Meatrix. Let’s partner up and maximize your firm. Welcome to the show.
Jim Hacking
Welcome back to the maximum lawyer Podcast. I’m Jim hacking. Tyson mutex. What’s up, Jimmy? Oh, after some technical glitches, we finally got on the air about 14 minutes late. So we’re all here. The audio is working. The video is working. It’s better than the time we did with Johnny Finch when I was out in the park that didn’t work out so well. So we’re here. It’s good. And I’m really excited about our guest today.
Tyson Mutrux
Yeah, I am, too. I think it’s gonna be a really good topic. I think it’s someone that we probably should have had on a long time ago. So you would introduce Michael?
Jim Hacking
Yeah. So I think Michael needs his own podcast. He has lots of opinions. You know, it’s funny, because I followed him on Twitter for a long time before actually done mclr invited him to our conference. And the best debriefing of all after the conference was with Michael because, you know, sometimes our podcasts and our time with our friends is, oh, Mitch, you’re the greatest Oh, no, Jim, you’re the greatest Oh, Tyson, you’re the greatest Oh, no, John Fisher, you’re the greatest. And Michael’s always there to bring it
Michael Whelan
as a bunch of dummies, I don’t know what any of you are doing. Bring you back down
Jim Hacking
to earth. I remember he wrote a little blog post during the conference. And I’m putting him on the spot right out of the box, because he paid me a compliment. And he said that I think he thought coming in and this was gonna be like a bros session. And he was glad that it wasn’t a bros session. But he did say that he took issue a little bit with our name maximum lawyer. So I’d love to hear his thoughts. Because I don’t know if I’ve ever explained to Michael, where we came up with the name maximum.
Michael Whelan
All right, there was some bro stuff. Okay, let’s not pretend that a conference with a bunch of personal injury attorneys is not going to have some bro stuff happen. But yeah, maximum lawyer, I kind of I want like an opening to this to be more like maximum lawyer and then likes to win laser sounds. That’s what I want from that. Yes.
Jim Hacking
That’d be awesome. Michael, we’re really glad to have you on the show. And I really do mean that I do think you need your own podcast, because you do have a unique way of looking at things. And you’re not afraid to be a contrarian. And I really got a lot out of our breakfast that we had a couple weeks after Max law. So I’m really glad to have you on the show.
Michael Whelan
Thanks. Yeah, I did have my own podcast for a little while. And when I figured out that it was just me and my mom, and that my mom’s listening time ended at three minutes, I got some of those advanced metrics that after three minutes, my mom’s like, I’m out of here. I figured maybe I should change that. But But actually, I have lawyer forward, the podcast will relaunch fairly soon, with a bunch of audio that I’ve gotten with this book, I want to have a very different format. So because we’re doing it with a very different approach a much more highly edited, course based approach. It’ll it’ll relaunch soon, but it’ll be pretty different from what it was before.
Tyson Mutrux
Like, I’m pretty sure that our podcast was just us and our moms and friends listening to it at first, too. So that’s how it starts. But so I mean, we know who you are, but not everybody knows who you are. So talk a little bit about yourself what you do things like that.
Michael Whelan
Yeah, briefly, I went to law school at the age of 30, with four kids in tow, which I would recommend to no one, I had worked for almost a decade before that in logistics and supply chain management, transportation. And, you know, I was one of those smart kids that you go to law school because you have to. And so I felt like I really needed to go I went to the University of Texas School of Law. I knew it was one of those highly ranked schools. So if you get in you go kind of things. And when I went in, about half the class at UT was getting big, firm jobs. But I went in in 2008. So right before the banks collapsed, and caused the economy to break down. So our group was really the last group that didn’t know what the economy was about to do. I had decided while I was in law school to have my own firm, I had enough business background before that, I felt comfortable doing it. And that was blasphemy at Texas. You don’t you don’t go to the University of Texas School of Law to then go open your own practice and, and I started a group while I was there for future solos. And nobody showed up. I would do these great sessions for a school with 1200 kids, and with practicing lawyers to come talk about what it is to really practice law, and no one would show and so it took a little while but after all my friends left law school, now they all show up, they all call me and so after a while I started their conference. It’s called Lawyer forward conference. And it happens in Austin, Texas every year. And again, we’re going to have some changes to that this year. But I’ve had a practice in Texas, but most of my time now is spent consulting and writing. I’m in the midst of writing a book right now. So pretty busy with that. But most of what I’m doing now as consulting about practice and future law stuff, I guess,
Jim Hacking
Michael, we want to dive into a little bit about your conference and definitely about your book. But what do you think it was about you? Or what did you spot back in 2008, when you were in law school, when either you thought that being a solo was going to be the path for you, or that there was going to be the seismic shift in the legal field, so that there’d be more and more lawyers going out on their own?
Michael Whelan
Yeah, I can’t have a boss, just as a personality, that’s just a fundamental problem that I have, I’ve never done well, with bosses. And I’m not saying that is an awesome thing. It’s probably a character flaw, but I just know myself well enough to know, and I was old enough, you know, but by the time I was 30, I had a pretty good sense of what I wanted to do with my day to day life. And, and I find, you know, especially with law, law is not a business plan. It’s the product, it’s a monetization strategy. It’s how we turn knowledge into cash so that we can live, how we do that is really up to us. And I knew that playing was kind of a requirement for me. And so I tried to set up a business where I could do that. And eventually, it got to the point where the ideas that I was experimenting with and playing with, they just got more interesting than the practice. And so I’ve since really shifted out of practice, and I deal mostly with the ideas.
Tyson Mutrux
Mike, let’s talk a little bit about your book that you’re putting together. Now, what’s the basic setup of the book? And what are you trying to accomplish with it?
Michael Whelan
Sure. Well, what I’ll do is I’ll tell you guys, the three main arguments in the book, and I laid these out in the introduction. So these are, these are the big ideas handed out for free people can use them and run and never buy the book. And they’ll have a pretty good sense. But then the book goes on to kind of explain the how and the why behind it. But there are three main ideas in the book. The first is that financial capital is not a good play for especially solo attorneys. But social capital is highly available and should be the leverage point for people trying to run their own firm. The second thing is that the two most valuable pieces of any transaction are their relationship, and deep expertise. And because of that, I believe that even though lawyers are told we are entrepreneurs, and we are experts, I don’t think either of those is true for most lawyers. But I believe that lawyers should focus on one of those or the other, either focus on building an audience, or focus on building deep expertise. And then the third thing is from my logistics background, I believe that those people should connect and what I call a legal supply chain, it’s a, it’s a different way to structure human capital to structure labor in a way that it matches demand law has a big problem of not doing a very good job of matching demand with people with labor. And so this legal supply chain is just a different approach for how we should organize law firms.
Jim Hacking
So with the first one talking about financial capital not being a good play, but rather we should be focusing on Social Capital One in layman’s terms. What do you mean by that? Michael,
Michael Whelan
I thought you might ask me that question. So I actually pulled it up in a section in the book, The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is an organization in Paris, they define social capital as networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups, which is a really nerdy way to say it’s connections, it’s people connected together, and the things that they share the things that they all believe are true. And so when I talk about making a social capital play, what I’m talking about is connections with humans and establishing shared values. So So to give an example, my wife and I were considering moving to Guatemala, we were going to move to Antigua, Guatemala, up in the mountains. And we knew when we moved that we’d have help unloading a truck that we didn’t have to worry about showing up and get getting help unloaded. And the reason is because of our church group were LDS or Mormon and we, we refer to it as the Mormon mafia, you can seriously move anywhere, and there’ll be a bunch of dudes who show up and help you unload a truck. That’s social capital. And what’s interesting about social capital is it delivers things that you would otherwise have to pay for. So think about me moving to Guatemala and feeling totally comfortable that I can plug in to that network with shared values that social capital I would otherwise have to pay for financially for lawyers. We don’t have most of those don’t have a lot of money. Most of us don’t have a lot of money saved up we don’t have access to loans are very difficult for us to get, we can’t get outside financing. So when we’re talking about levers to pull for particularly new solo firms, but solo friends in general, social capital is so much more available and in this age, it’s just easier and more important to develop. Social Capital will give you the other stuff. The other stuff will not give you social capital, you can’t buy respect networks authority. You can’t you can’t go pay for that. But all of those things can generate money for you. So it’s just a better focus for a business owner, in my opinion.
Tyson Mutrux
So my would be God, there’s a lot of books out there. The business of law, what made you want to write a book about it? And I guess, everyone talks about everything in that when it comes to running a business. So what made you think that you should get into that? And also write a book?
Michael Whelan
Because I wanted my wife to hate me and question all of my life choices. That was primarily what moved me? No. So my background, like I said, is in logistics. And so when I talk about the legal supply chain, it’s a very, kind of different view, a different structure for, for law. And so it took me a while, frankly, for a while I thought, I don’t really have much to add, I don’t have many strong opinions, I don’t have much authority. And eventually I figured out that my I call when I talked to my kids, I talked about the Olajuwon principle I don’t know if you guys know who Hakeem the dream was, but or is Hakeem the dream Elijah one played for the rockets. And he was he’s a big man and had amazing footwork. And everybody tried to figure out why does he have this great footwork was because he grew up playing soccer. And so he overlap the skill of the soccer and the skill of the basketball, I call to my kids, I call this the Olajuwon principle. For me, I’m overlapping my logistics background and my law, education and experience, and putting them in with a new model that I hope is tried. I was reading Ken Grady at one point, and he said, one of the things that law’s really lacking is theories, we don’t do a good job of playing, of testing, and of presenting theories and then going and trying them. Instead, we’re all we’re doing some iteration of the caravan path model, which was, we could talk about that. But that was a theory, we all adopted it. And nobody’s really tried to change that much sense. And this, this represents a very different approach to labor to connection to how we interact with society, and how we do our best work. So frankly, I’m writing it because it’s different.
Jim Hacking
It sounds different. And when you get to the next point, your second idea about how lawyers need to be focusing on relationships, or deep expertise. I love your tweets and your commentary on deep expertise. Is that more than niching? Down? Is that more than developing a specialty, what do you mean, when you say, deep expertise,
Michael Whelan
right? There’s a great book on this called the business of expertise by David Becker that I would recommend anybody go read, it’s fantastic. But specifically, the way Baker talks about it. In his book, he says that deep expertise is pattern recognition, and analogies. And what he means by that is, basically, you’re playing with case studies, you go in experience enough, you get into these cases, you evaluate what’s real about them, what’s not, you look for what’s common, and you develop strong opinions, and you take those strong opinions. And now you analogize them to another environment. Another case, whatever that means, for us case means something specific, but in the business of expertise, he’s saying, take the crude knowledge of patterns, and apply that to something new. And in the publishing in the teaching in the writing and speaking and taking strong opinions. You’ve added something to society that can be tested, that can be tried, it’s that ability to think deeply to think originally to have strong opinions, and then to analogize to other experiences. That’s deep expertise.
Tyson Mutrux
Or, Mike, I want your deep expertise. And I want you to strong opinion on this. There’s a variety opinions on this. But I’ve heard two major opinions. One is that we’re going to more of a small attorney kind of model where that’s what people want is that one attorney for everything kind of thing. Or I want a big major firm that takes on a bunch of cases that is highly specialized for kind of arguments for both sides. Where’s the law headed?
Michael Whelan
Yes. And so in the book, the second thing that I’m arguing is one of the main principles of the book is that access and expertise are not compatible. You can’t text a lawyer and deep get deep expertise, you’re going to get knowledge, but you’re not going to get deep, thoughtful expertise applied to your particular situation. But consumers expect both they expect both law and order and Amazon. And those two conflicting, that’s what you’re talking about it are those two conflicting expectations from consumers. And what we do as lawyers now if you look at like kleos legal trend report that says lawyers are billing 1.7 hours a day, that’s expressing to me that we’re trying to do both at the same time, and that’s a problem because they’re not compatible. So the argument that I’m making in that second point is that you should pick one of those models. The business models are very different. I give the example of marketing if you are an access focus Business, the big firm, transactional take in a lot of cases, you are trying to be where the consumer is you care about things like SEO and advertising and things that the expert doesn’t care about the expert markets by developing and demonstrating deep expertise. So the example that I give for that is Alan Dershowitz So, and I give him not because he’s gone off the rails recently, but because my dad said to me once, doesn’t Alan Dershowitz get to charge so much because he’s old? And I’m like, Dude, no, that’s not why dirt, there are plenty of old lawyers I know, who are grinding cases in the middle of nowhere, Texas, because they didn’t develop deep expertise. Alan Dershowitz can charge what the freaky wants to charge. And you don’t get to call him like, you have to work hard to get to him. And so because the marketing is so different between those two, I advise that you pick one. And then after you pick one, you connect via that legal supply chain. So that’s the third principle that answers your question of, if I choose to be one, or I choose to be the other, then what I’m agreeing to is either the client is not getting really helpful service, if I’m an expert business and not trying to be right in front of them, or they’re not getting deep expertise, if I’m being an audience focused business, the problem is they expect both. And the way to solve that is to have that intentionally manage supply chain that connects them. So you, as somebody who wants to build a big, you know, I’m assuming something about you, that may not be true Tyson. But if you want to build a larger solopreneur, kind of scaled business you want to grow, you want to sell to the masses, and whatever that means for you, then, that doesn’t mean that you always only have to do what I call good enough law, where you’re just giving people just enough to get them past that you might deliver that. And frankly, as an access business, you have to be willing to accept that you might deliver just good enough. But because you’re a solutions engineer, just trying to get people solutions to their problems, however that comes. But you can still get people deep expertise, if you connect them in the right moments, to the deep experts. So it’s a, what I’m arguing for is a collaboration model. That’s based on the supply chain. So again, getting back to your question, the answer is yes, it’s going both directions, or a better, or we’re screwed. I guess that’s how I would put it.
Jim Hacking
Michael, I’ll be interested to read this part of the book, especially about the deep expertise. But how do lawyers develop that deep expertise? And how do they make money while they’re trying to become deep experts? And then, I mean, I would imagine that there are very few lawyers with deep expertise.
Michael Whelan
Maybe I think it’s really difficult to quantify because I was talking to a professor from Texas a&m, Milan Markiewicz. And he was talking about lawyer satisfaction. And he, he gave me this data that showed that solos are unusually satisfied, it was some 85% of lawyers feel successful, solo lawyers feel successful, which I just think is asinine. I, I really wanted to dig into that data. And the only way they were identifying whether someone was a solo or not, was by how many lawyers were in the firm. If you have one lawyer, you are a solo. But as you guys both know, there’s a huge difference between what I would call a huge solo or a true solo, right? Somebody who’s literally old guy turning cases and B County, Texas, trying to do it. All right, there’s a big difference between that person and a scaled expert who has a lot of connections to a lot of people. So there’s not very good data out there about how many lawyers one might call a true expert or is trying to develop that business model. In the book, I actually reference and would defer to David Baker’s point on this, he uses a process called Getting to know kn O W, it’s a play on getting to yes, that that classic book. And he says basically list off all the things if you were a true expert in that subject that you’ve niched down to, right if you’ve he calls it positioning, if you’ve positioned down to an important problem, list, all of the things you would have a strong opinion about, if you were an expert in that area, and then tied to that a medium, something you like to do to create 3000 words on it. So if you’d like to give talks, but say for this particular thing, I’m going to give a talk for this particular thing. I’m going to do a podcast, or a book or a blog post, whatever it is, whatever medium you like to use, and then set a deadline, put a date on there that says by that date, I’m going to write something, say something teach something very publicly about that issue that I want to have a deep opinion on. In the writing. There’s that old cliche, I write so I know what I know in the writing in the creating, you will formulate these opinions you’ll do the legwork to to develop the deep expertise and the then you test it, you put it out to the world, you’ll be questioned, you’ll be beat up. And then you can make adaptations as as you get new data. There’s a book, Tom Nichols, he writes about the death of expertise, it’s called. And he says, the difference between you and me and regular Joe’s and deep experts, is experts know that expertise is a process of being wrong. It’s a scientific process of developing these deep opinions, putting them out there, and then by peer review, correcting them. So I really like Baker’s process of getting to know because it forces you to do that work.
Tyson Mutrux
Alright, Mike’s Nick rish Wan has a question. He says, big law or solo law, are we still going to experience the commoditization of the practice of law?
Michael Whelan
Again, yes, and no. So when I’m thinking, it’s funny, because I got in big trouble because at one point I said big law firms, their most valuable asset is their social awareness is their is their brand, and that they should get rid of all the lawyers and their firms that they should leverage with totally different types of employees, and just cash in on the social capital and connect with deep experts outside the firm. But anyway, yes, there will be commoditization, and it’s fine. In fact, commoditization is great, because commoditization is referring to things that can be repeated. That’s, that’s what a commodity is, it’s something that that can be repeated. And when we’re delivering good enough solutions to the majority of people who are good enough solution is sufficient, then you can really start to charge for the deep expertise. We see this all the time, I worked in logistics, I worked in freight forwarding, and I’ll give the example of a motorcycle. We had this motorcycle that some guy in Dubai spent a bajillion dollars to purchase this antique motorcycle, we as the freight forwarder had special ability to package and handle that thing. And so we charged the heck out of that guy to do that highly detailed process of packaging it. But once it got onto the plane, that was a commoditized step in the process. The airline knows how to make money. But that’s a commoditized step. And then when it was delivered to the guy in Dubai, there was another high service point. The point is, if you look at a supply chain, some of the pieces are highly commoditized. And some of them are not the problem with the idea of the commoditization of law is that we’re acting as if that’s the whole process, the whole process is not commoditized. If you think about it properly, and design it properly, properly. There are pieces that are commoditized. The other piece is you’re developing social capital and doing deep expertise, and you can never commoditize that you’ll never commoditize Alan Dershowitz.
Jim Hacking
It’s not gonna happen. The people that I follow aren’t nearly as intellectual as you, the people you follow Michael, but Dean Jackson always talks about the last 10 yards, or the last 10 yards of drive, you know, you always are gonna have to have that expert to sort of do the hand holding or do the thing that a computer can’t do. You were kind enough to send us a chapter of your book. And I want to sort of wrap up the Talk or our conversation with a topic that you raised in there. And that is sort of this fundamental problem that we have in 2018, that basically, the consumers don’t trust us that lawyers have lost that trust of the public. And you know, it’s just so easy to talk about lawyer jokes, but it’s much deeper than that about how people would rather just not hire an attorney if they could ever avoid it.
Michael Whelan
Right? Yeah. There’s a great study from 1970 by George Akerlof called the market for lemons. And at the time that this study came out, people mocked him and said that this is a terrible, terrible article. What he did was he predicted that if, if there’s information asymmetry as the term we used to call it, the expert gap, I cite a couple of books that used to tell lawyers and and consultants to use this expert gap and the expert gap is basically, I’m going to make you so scared that you feel like you need me that nobody understands this thing but me, so I’m going to scare the heck out of you. So you need me. What he talked about in this market for lemons was the used car market. And basically, he showed that if there’s big information disparity, if the seller knows way more than the buyer, the buyer has no good way to discern between one car and another in this case, and doesn’t have the information and know how broken that car is, what the buyer will do is discount the value of the car. So what that means is, if you’re selling me for a car for $10,000 My brain if I don’t know anything about that car is saying, Well, I’m I’m only gonna pay 9000 Because it could be a lemon. And if it’s a lemon, I gotta factor in that risk, and I’m going to pay less for it. The problem is that the seller then only sells lemons because he can’t make money on the peaches anymore. If you if you’re going to discount the value of that vehicle no matter what he does. Why in the world would he ever sell the real good stuff? So he gets to the point that he only sells the bad stuff and, and this is adverse market selection, Akerlof calls it and what he argues in there is eventually that kills that market. Because you’ll only have low quality providers, you’ll only have distrust. And when you look at the factors that he mentioned, law is at that point, people don’t trust us people because of that expert gap because people don’t know us. And don’t trust us, they’re discounting the value. And the reason is that they really don’t have any way to gauge the value of what we’re doing. And so I know this is preaching to the choir on this, one of the things that I talked about in the book is you build the social capital by giving it all away, right? Some of that means you’re not going to be for everyone, you’re going to express strong opinions, and it’s going to chase some people away. But if you can get to the true fans who do trust you now you’re not in the lemon market anymore. You’re not being discounted anymore. People are willing to give you whatever it takes, because they are fans of you. And your practice. Personally.
Tyson Mutrux
I love it, Mike. Alright, so we’re gonna start to wrap things up. But before I do, tell people what the name of the book is going to be how they’re going to be able to get it.
Michael Whelan
Yeah. So right now, if you go to lawyer for a.com/book updates, you can sign up to be on a mailing list where I talk about what’s going on with the book, I’m trying to be very public about writing this. So if you go there, you’ll get updates, it’ll also give you a broader overview of what the book is about, I’m going to pull BETA readers from that group. So there’s going to be a number of people who will get the book for free as well. So if that’s of interest to you go to lawyer forward.com/book updates, it will launch this year at the lawyer forward conference in Austin, which is January 24, to 26th. So you can also look at lawyer forward.com, for tickets to that if you’d like or more information on it. But the point is, at that event, the physical copy, I’ll deliver it then. And then I’ll also be available on Amazon.
Tyson Mutrux
Excellent. All right. So before we get to our tips and hacks of the week, I do want to remind everyone to go to the Facebook group, or some of you watching this now. So obviously, you don’t need to go there. But those of you that have not gone to it, make sure you join up there just because get people like Mike there that are sharing a lot of great information. Also go to iTunes or wherever you get your podcast, give us five star review there. Jimmy, what’s your hack of the week.
Jim Hacking
So I’ve been listening to a guy named James Schramko. He’s a marketing guy from Australia. And he said something that really struck a nerve with me, which is, you know, a lot of people talk about having a content calendar, and I always put my head against the content calendar. And sometimes they feel guilty for not having regular times where I create content. And you know what he said, he said, I create content when I have something to say. And talking to Michael and watching him write his book I’ve been he’s been kind enough to share his book with me. I’ve been trying to edit parts of it. Michael clearly has something to say. So I think that as lawyers, especially busy lawyers, with an active practice, that we should not beat ourselves up over not being able to stick to a content calendar, if that doesn’t work for us. And more importantly, we shouldn’t be creating content when we don’t have anything to say where we just feel like oh, it’s that time to do a video. I better do a video and I think that that having that mindset of well, because I know the best the best videos I’ve made are the ones where I really was sort of passionate about it and really had something to say at that moment.
Tyson Mutrux
I mean, but doesn’t that I’m gonna push back a little bit. Maybe I just don’t understand what you’re talking about. Jimmy like, I mean, that kind of gets away from like Gary Vee talks about right because Gary Vee doesn’t wait till like Gary Vee is always talking and is always putting stuff out there. And that’s what he said you should do. Are you saying that that’s not true?
Jim Hacking
I’m saying that it doesn’t have to necessarily be true that it can be true. I think Gary Vee is such a spasm and such a hyperactive guy that he’s always he just in he records everything you know. So I think that’s just him. But I think for me, having this mandatory schedule of when I have to create something, sometimes I put out stuff that isn’t as good as the stuff that when I wake up in the morning and I’m upset about something or I have something I want to say that content is always 10 times better.
Michael Whelan
Can I just say by the way, the internet thrives as a cult of uninformed opinions. Lawyers should not do that. So if we’re talking about creating content, for the purpose of just putting something out there, please do not do that. We don’t need your your your Periscope videos of your your barely touched opinion, develop ideas, develop opinions. People want real expertise.
Tyson Mutrux
I love it. All right. So Mike, you know the routine What is your tip or hack of the week?
Michael Whelan
I am a big fan of Habitica. This question was raised on the group recently, a bedika is a daily task app. That is fantastic. And also it’s gamified. So you can do it with your kids and fight dragons and stuff. And I find that my kids are a better reminder for how poorly I’m doing with my life than any alarm on my phone. My kids are real open about my failure. So involve your kids use Habitica and Uh, let them shame you as publicly as they can
Tyson Mutrux
love it. Alright, so I’m going to share one that Mitch Jackson has shared in his legal minds group and just so you know, if you do have not joined legal minds, it may be something that may interest you. So definitely check out legal minds. He’s got some pretty good deals out there for maximal users. So, but he’s recommended a Gora polls. I hope I’m saying that right it’s a G O R A P UL S II think it’s agora polls but it’s apparently a replacement for buffer and HootSuite things like that, and he swears by it. So I’m gonna check that out. See if I like it or not. I’m gonna try to find a solution because I find it sweet. Odd to use seems weird and I’ve never really used buffer but my checkout and Whirlpool so that is my tip of the week. Thank you, Mike for coming on. It’s been great. We really appreciate it.
