Effectively Manage Law Firm Business Development
By establishing credibility, building your brand, and
creating a buzz, your firm will effectively retain current
clients and attract new prospects.
By: Gina F. Rubel, Esq.
President
Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
Phone: 215-340-0480
www.FuriaRubel.com
Gina@furiarubelPR.com
In today’s legal market, most attorneys are fighting for the same piece of the
client pie. Whether you are a solo personal injury practitioner or a partner at a
multi-million dollar defense firm, client acquisition and retention is the key to
success. This article touches on some long-standing techniques for developing
your client portfolio without breaking the bank or crossing the line of the ABA
Model Code of Professional Conduct.
Know the Limits
Being mindful of ethical considerations in legal marketing and public relations
communications is important for every attorney. It is equally important for law
school curriculums to teach students the dos and don’ts for business marketing
communications. Once you know the limits, then you can execute productive
business development techniques without worry.
The ABA Model Rules
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are meant to serve as a
guide to legal marketing communications. Each state’s Bar has adopted
either the ABA Model Rules or its own version – oftentimes more
restrictive. All reflect the attitude that lawyer advertising must be tasteful,
honest, and objective, must not compare services with those of others
unless the comparison is substantiated, and may not express superiority.
Thus, never call yourself an expert!
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Since each state’s rules vary, you should become familiar with the rules
that apply to you. A good source is the American Bar Association’s Web
site that tracks state rules, updates and changes. The site URL is
www.abanet.org/adrules.
Establish Credibility
Much of today’s business comes from direct referrals by other attorneys or
clients. By positioning yourself as an expert (not calling yourself an “expert”) in a
particular area of the law, your peers and clients will identify you as an expert
and refer you business. Here are some tactics you can use to establish yourself
with both the legal and consumer markets.
Write articles and white papers. Writing articles and white papers is a
premier way to establish yourself and/or your firm as expert in a particular
practice area without calling yourself an “expert.” Such documents should
be sent to appropriate trade or consumer magazines and newspapers for
publication. Once published, you should obtain permission to post the
article or a link to it on your Web site. Then, purchase reprints to send to
targeted clients, prospects and referring counsel.
Speak at industry conferences / present continuing legal education.
From the American Bar Association to state bar associations, industry
conferences provide a forum for attorneys to showcase their expertise and
establish themselves among their peers. Few attorneys are well versed in
every area of the law. Attorneys often look to their colleagues for direction
and education when presented with potential claims in practice areas they
are unfamiliar with. By effectively presenting at conferences and teaching
continuing legal education courses, you not only establish credibility
among your peers, you open the door to many new sources of referrals.
Author Op-Eds. Opinion Editorial (Op-Ed) articles contribute significantly
to increasing visibility, name recognition and credibility. They are a cost-
effective and underutilized way to reach newspaper and Web site
readership, especially when responding to topics that are controversial,
legislatively motivated, or public policy-based. This will often lead to
telephone queries by the readership with potential cases and clients.
Create a series of tip sheets or newsletters for your target audience.
Create newsletters or tip sheets that are relevant to your client base. Send
the tip sheet to clients and prospects via mail, fax or e-mail (if your
clients/prospects opt-in) to keep your law firm’s name in their mind and to
build name recognition. Make the newsletters or tip sheets available on
your Web site and factor them into your Web site marketing. These
communications position you as knowledgeable in your field of practice
and will often generate calls from current and prospective clients.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Be an active member of industry associations and local
organizations. Active membership and participation in your local bar
association is extremely important. Members and leaders look for places
to refer business. They know who is considered the best in the industry.
Such participation builds credibility and name recognition in the legal
industry.
It is also important to participate in the activities of professional
associations that share a like interest with your line of practice. For
example, if your firm is handles criminal defense work, members of your
firm should be actively involved with community rehabilitation programs.
What better place to give something back to the community and to
establish yourself as caring about the issues. Inevitably, you will be
referred to a member of that community in need of counsel. Remember,
word-of-mouth is a key factor to the success of many law firms.
Build Your Brand
Your firm name is a brand just like Coca-Cola, Ford, Microsoft, and Disney.
Therefore, your firm name should send a message. Think to yourself for a
moment – if you have a client interested in pursuing a consumer class action
(assuming your firm does not handle these matters), where would you refer the
client? What firm is the first to pop into your mind? The firm that has branded
itself as a consumer class action law firm – of course – with a name that is easy
to recognize and remember.
Your name is your brand. Effective firm naming is likely the single most
important tactic to achieve effective corporate branding. From small
boutique shops to century-old organizations, law firms across the country
are changing their names to better brand their organizations and draw
greater name recognition to their services. These shorter names are more
memorable, catchy and distinctive and do not necessarily abandon the
long-standing professional codes and traditions of using partners’ names.
The company name, logo and tagline should all convey a consistent
message. That message should then follow through with a uniform look
and feel on your business cards, Web site, newsletters, marketing
materials, etc. In whatever area of the law you practice, you want
attorneys and consumers in your geographic area to say, “I know a firm
that can handle this matter. That’s their specialty.”
Create a great Web site. In today’s day and age, if a company does not
have a Web site, they are considered “small potatoes.” A great Web site
can give you the look and feel of a large company with contact information
at the fingertips of millions of people. The size and budget of your law firm
should determine the breadth and depth of your Web site. But regardless
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
of the budget, your Web site should convey your corporate brand and tell
viewers who you are, how you can be contacted, and that you specialize
in a particular area of the law.
It is equally important to employ an expert in Web site marketing (search
engine optimization). If your Web site is not listed in search engine
databases, you will likely never be found on the World Wide Web. Just like
a book has to be in the library to be in the index, your Web site must be
registered properly to be located when searching the Internet.
Identify on and off-line business listing opportunities. Update your
company’s business listings yearly. Make sure you are listed in your local
directory of lawyers, the White Pages and others. In addition, many on-line
listings are free and the more places your firm is listed, the more hits you
will get on your Web site.
Be cautious when paying for listing your business on Web sites that
guarantee hits. Ask for trend reports, references from other firms listed on
the Web site, Web site marketing tactics, return on investment (ROI)
analysis, etc. It is important for the listing Web site to get hits but it is
equally important for those hits to translate into targeted and appropriate
traffic for your firm’s Web site.
Advertise in the Yellow Pages. According to the Yellow Pages
Publishers Association’s estimates for 2000, lawyer-advertising
expenditures in domestic printed Yellow Pages were estimated at $809
million. The “attorneys” category is the highest revenue category for
Yellow Page directory publishers.
But to be successful, a firm’s Yellow Page ad must be well thought out,
command attention, convey a single focus, be eye-captivating,
differentiate itself, look professional and address the need of the audience.
Remember, if someone is searching for a lawyer in the Yellow Pages, he
already needs an attorney. It’s much different than trying to advertise
something a consumer might want but is not particularly in the market to
buy. An excellent guide to creating winning Yellow Page ads is, Effective
Yellow Pages Advertising for Lawyers, by Kerry Randall, published by the
Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association.
Create a Buzz
To create a buzz means to keep your firm name in the media positively and
consistently. The more consumers and industry peers hear your name, the more
likely they will remember you when searching for counsel or referring cases.
Creating a buzz requires constant attention to what is happening in your law firm.
Often, attorneys are so focused on client acquisition, retention, and satisfaction
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
that they forget to tell the world what’s happening internally. Today, many large
firms across the country employ a chief marketing officer or a director of
corporate communications. Small firms tend to outsource their communications
programs. Nonetheless, small and large firms hire these individuals to focus
solely on telling the world what is happening at the firm via strategically planned
marketing and communications programs. Here are some tactics used to create
a buzz.
Announce new business wins. Oftentimes, local newspapers, business
journals and industry publications print articles about new business wins. It
is as simple as sending a press release to the target audience. This
should especially be used in the case of class actions, public interest
cases, union representation, large corporation representation, etc. Make it
part of your practice to get the permission of the client first. Often the client
will request anonymity but many will permit your firm to announce
representation.
Announce substantial verdicts, non-confidential settlements and
precedent setting cases. There are many local, regional, national and
trade publications that report substantial verdicts, non-confidential
settlements and precedent setting cases. The area of practice should
determine if a verdict or settlement is substantial. In addition, if a case has
helped to establish precedent, let the legal world know. This not only
creates a buzz about your firm, it also establishes your credibility among
your peers. Some national publications/publishers that you should target
are National Law Journal, Lawyers Weekly USA, Mealeys Publications
and American Lawyer (American Lawyer Media), among others.
Announce new hires, promotions, appointments and successful
election outcomes. Local newspapers, business journals and industry
publications will print stories about new hires, promotions, appointments
and successful election outcomes. When writing the press release, focus
on something exciting about the person (awards, accomplishments, civic
involvement, etc.). Send the press release via mail with a 5” x 7” black and
white photo or via e-mail with the photo attached. (Be sure that the editor
will accept photo attachments first.) This type of press release keeps your
company name in the media and has the added benefit of creating good
will among your employees.
Sponsor events and programs. No matter what your law firm practice
area or interest, sponsorship opportunities abound. From sporting events
to ethnic festivals, bar foundation functions to nonprofit needs,
sponsorships generate quality direct exposure with your target audience.
Your firm should pursue sponsorship opportunities as a marketing
expenditure. Look at opportunities presented to the firm and create
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
potential sponsorships on your own. For example, if there is a local
nonprofit organization whose membership and audience are the type of
clients that you want to reach, offer to sponsor an educational page on
their Web site or an educational brochure. Be sure to include non-biased,
educational messages in the content with your firm’s name and contact
information should the reader have questions.
Sponsorships can be extremely rewarding to your firm. They need to be
strategically planned and creatively executed to be successful.
Taking Your Piece of the Pie
There are many tactics you can employ to create credibility for yourself as a legal
practitioner and for your law firm in general. Be creative and think about how you
can effectively reach your target audience without spending exorbitant amounts
of money on broadcast advertising.
Think about where your customers eat, what they read, how they process
information, and where they go for advice or help. Once you can answer these
questions, execute tactics designed to increase awareness, build your brand,
create an ongoing buzz, and position your leadership as “experts” in your
industry. Test new ways to reach your target audience without being offensive or
violating the Model Rules of professional conduct that apply to you.
But always remember, by consistently and effectively executing the tactics
outlined here, you can increase your bottom line for years to come.
Author Biography: Founder and president of Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
(www.furiarubel.com), Gina Furia Rubel, Esq., is a Philadelphia lawyer with more
than a decade of integrated communications experience in the legal industry.
After practicing law for several years, Gina focused on her passion for proactive,
integrated communication for the legal, healthcare, and nonprofit industries. Gina
has developed and executed integrated strategic communications plans for large
and small firms; supervised crisis communications, risk management and media
relations for internationally publicized death penalty trials, planned events for
major corporate, nonprofit, and philanthropic gatherings; and implemented
programs that include corporate branding, publicity, special events, Web site
development, and association relations.
Gina is an active member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Justinian
Society, the Philadelphia Public Relations Association, the Public Relations
Society of America, justCommunity, Inc., and the American Heart Association,
among others. She served on a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary
Board Hearing Committee for six years, acting as the chairperson for three years.
She has published articles in Lawyers Weekly USA, The Legal Intelligencer,
Philadelphia Lawyers Magazine and MediaMap.com and is a frequent lecturer at
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
area universities and high schools. She is a 1991 graduate of Drexel University
and a 1994 graduate of Widener University School of Law. Her current clients
include Sheller Ludwig & Badey, Anapol Schwartz, DeMarco & DeMarco, Furia &
Turner, and Kenneth Kitay & Associates, among others.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights
วันพุธที่ 15 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553
Are Law Firms Manageable?
After spending 25 years saying that all professions are similar and can learn from each other, I’m now ready to make a concession: Law firms are different.
The ways of thinking and behaving that help lawyers excel in their profession may be the very things that limit what they can achieve as firms. Management challenges occur not in spite of lawyers’ intelligence and training, but because of them.
Among the ways that legal training and practice keep lawyers from effectively functioning in groups are
“Most partners were recognized and rewarded for being the smartest person in the class or the most accomplished. They have rarely experienced or understood the power of succeeding as part of a larger group or team. Their focus tends to be selfish and self-serving, even narcissistic. The result is that the firm resources are squandered and poorly used, clients don’t get the best lawyers assigned to their files, and firms are less profitable. This selfishness also leads to a shortsighted approach to decision making that inhibits long-range success because investments of time or money that don’t yield immediate results are rarely made.”
It is important to note that commercial benefits do not come simply from believing in or encouraging these principles but from actually achieving an organization where partner behavior is always consistent with them. When this is the case, less time is wasted in internal negotiations and posturing, strategies are implemented, and true teamwork results. Partners allow others to make decisions on their behalf or refer work to each other across the boundaries of practice groups and location because they can be confident that the other person will make decisions using the same values and principles that they would themselves use.
Law firms appear unable to achieve this level of ideological consistency. They will buy into principles—firms can have very high ideals as long as they remain ideals—but they have difficulty with the concept of enforcement. Firms are seemingly willing to adopt strategies and statements of values and mission, but are usually unwilling to specify what the penalty would be for noncompliance. Not surprisingly, that rarely results in effective implementation.
There is a reason for this. As a partner in an eminent U.S. firm points out, “Lawyers raised in the common-law tradition are trained to have a deep suspicion of overarching principles. The essence of the common-law approach is that decisions are made incrementally, always leaving open the possibility that the next case could be treated completely differently.”
In my consulting work I have repeatedly advocated a system of help and coaching for partners who fail to meet the firm’s standards. If coaching fails to bring a partner up to the firm’s standards after a fair and reasonable amount of time, the partner is asked to leave. This is, in fact, close to the system that firms employ with respect to partners who fail to hit financial targets such as billable hours.
However, the point I keep trying to make is that if a firm wishes to excel in other areas, such as client service, collaboration, or associate supervision, the same process should apply. The response is predictable. Most law firms say that the idea of tackling a rainmaker on these “soft” issues is unrealistic, idealistic, uncommercial, and suicidal. In vain I point out that these standards are what firms already preach in their client and recruiting brochures and claim as their values.
While a majority of firms will vote to proclaim standards, they will usually not vote to enforce them. Indeed, the signs are that they vigorously prefer the opposite: Law firms have a proliferating plethora of rules, not functioning principles, because they don’t or won’t trust that their partners will adhere to the values, standards, and principles that they agreed upon. So firms end up with a mishmash of bureaucratic red tape in the hope that mandatory processes will achieve compliance when adherence to common values does not.
As many researchers have shown, lawyers score very low in the areas of intimacy skills and sociability. They tend to prefer role-to-role interactions with people, inside and outside the firm, rather than eagerly seeking out person-to-person connections. This doesn’t mean they don’t like people. It just means that, statistically speaking, lawyers prefer focusing on the job at hand rather than investing in relationships with those they are working with (other partners or associates) or for (clients).
This can have unfortunate, if unintended, consequences. Consider this e-mail, which I recently received from Marein Smits, a Dutch lawyer:
“At your recent seminar you made fun of me because I laughed at the idea of being genuinely interested in the industry and business of the people who are my clients. Rightly so: My laughing was cynical… The first thing you learn when you become a lawyer is not to care. The legally sound judgment, the intellectual sparkle, that is what counts. The personal, the emotional, what is right: Throw it away, because it will taint your professionalism. ‘Do not get involved’ is the credo.”
A major rainmaker once pointed out to me, “I can’t convince my partners that this is all about human beings, that you market most successfully by showing an interest in the client as a person. My partners really don’t want to express that level of intimacy with anyone at work.” This lack of intimacy affects not only marketing and client relations, but also the way in which partners deal with each other and how firms are managed.
Rather than describing a highly interpersonal approach to coaching and helping each other succeed, the term “management” has come in many firms to mean a cold, detached, analytical approach to business. Financial scorecards are put in place, and everyone is told (implicitly or explicitly), “Here’s what you will be measured on; see you at the end of the year!” They are not helped to achieve, merely rewarded if they do, and they live in fear of what might happen if they do not. This can achieve the goal of getting everyone to work harder, but it comes at a significant price in terms of partner morale and cohesion. Help, teamwork, and mutual support are often absent, since they depend on personal interactions. Instead, there is a system of measures and rewards.
While this approach is the one preferred by many partners (and many firms) it inherently limits creation of a strategically responsive organization. In these days of ever-accelerating partner and associate mobility, a firm tied together only by measures and rewards will be inherently unstable.
There are signs that a few firms are recognizing the importance of this issue. Says one managing partner: “The idea has slowly taken hold in our firm that one should deal with people as people, show warmth and empathy, and build personal relationships with others in the firm … My leadership style has evolved over the years from trying to be comprehensive and logical to relying more on developing personal rapport and trying to motivate people.” This insight might be gaining ground. But the behavior inside many law firms has yet to catch up.
In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.
Frequently, this leads managing partners, committee chairs, and practice group leaders to substantially overinvest in decision making. They want to be armed in advance with a lengthy memo about every decision so they can dump it in the lap of the complainer as part of fending off the attack.
Another common management strategy is to keep all proposals ambiguous, so that there is nothing specific to be attacked. As a result, law firms have a remarkable propensity for half measures, launching poorly specified programs with minimal chances of success. A common law firm dialogue is as follows: Let’s have client service teams! (All agree.) What do we mean by such teams? (We don’t want to say yet.) What shall their responsibilities be? (That’s to be worked out.) What are the obligations of team members to each other? (We’ll let them figure it out.) Combine all this with the obligation to resolve issues through committees, and you have a recipe for business constipation.
This is not necessarily a problem for lawyers. My own attorney pointed out, “You are taught in law school that there are no right answers. We are actively trained to be nondecisive and are comfortable with a lack of closure.”
When lawyers reason with each other, the primary objectives are not necessarily logic, consistency, reasonableness, or fairness. In their professional practice, whether in trial or deal-making, many lawyers are more frequently rewarded for persuasiveness, rhetoric, verbal agility, and point scoring. These habits of a professional lifetime readily spill over into internal firm discussions.
Lawyers also have a strange view of the concept of risk. In any other business, an idea that was likely to work much of the time would be eagerly explored. This is not necessarily the case with lawyers. If one partner says, “This works in the vast majority of cases,” you can be sure that another will say, “Maybe, but I can construct a hypothetical scenario where it will fail to work. That makes it risky.” Probabilities do not seem to influence the discussion, only possibilities. There is no greater condemnation in legal discourse than to describe something as risky. Contracts, deals, and court cases must be bulletproof, not risky.
In other businesses, innovative thinking and action are considered a primary requirement for success. Companies eagerly search for strategic ideas and initiatives that their competitors have not discovered.
Lawyers are usually different. Presented with a new business idea, the first thing they ask is, “Which other law firms are doing this?” Unless it can be shown that the idea has been implemented by other law firms, lawyers are skeptical about whether the idea applies to their world. If everyone has these problems, they can’t be so bad, the thinking goes. As long as we are no worse than anyone else, we don’t need to change! It’s hardly a recipe for a strategic advantage.
A persuasive case can be made that lawyers will not change, because times are good and partners (and associates, for that matter) earn a lot of money. However, the question always arises as to how the money is being made. Many law firms have discovered that you can truly make a lot of money if you work everybody very, very hard and really slash your costs and don’t care about how people—partners, associates, or staff—feel about their work lives.
While that’s one approach to riches, it can be shown (as in my book Practice What You Preach) that it is not the best or most sustainable approach to riches. “Let’s succeed by working more hours with ever-decreasing amounts of support” is not the most sophisticated piece of business thinking I have ever heard. The answer, for firms that choose to pursue it, lies not in ever-more-sophisticated (and tough) business management tools, but in a head-on confrontation with the issues of trust, values, interpersonal behavior, and decision-making logic that I have explored here.
If firms are to deliver on the visions they have set for themselves, they must address such issues as what behavior partners have a right to expect from each other, what the real minimum standards and values are, and how common values and standards can actually be attained, not just preached.
I have written about these topics extensively before and will not repeat either the arguments or the advice here. (My past writings are available on my website, davidmaister.com.) Suffice it to say that unless law firms undergo a cultural revolution, not just minor changes, most will not be able to achieve their ambitions. Dysfunctional behavior by partners, currently not only tolerated but vigorously celebrated, will prevent firms from functioning as they desire.
There is some hope, because what has been reported here are common tendencies, not ironclad laws. There are firms that are exceptional, singular counterexamples to the propositions explored here, and they are tackling head-on the core issues of culture, trust, and partner behavior. On the other hand, many other firms are doing the very things that will prevent them from creating the truly collaborative organizations their lawyers say that they want.
One of the central things we know about trust and collaboration is that they come mostly from repeated interactions between people who have not only a history together, but also the certainty of a future together. Trust comes from relationships and the expectation of continuing relationships. Over time, as they interact with each other, they as partners, practice groups, and offices may actually come to trust each other.
Unfortunately, in many of today’s firms that have been cobbled together from lateral hires and newly merged practices, the personal history that forms the basis of trust is often missing, as is the confidence that everyone will be practicing together for a long time. In many firms, even solidly successful partners live in fear that they will be among the next group of partners to be “let go.”
In such an environment, the natural evolution of trust may be difficult, if not impossible. Instead, what firms need, literally, is a constitutional convention where their lawyers draft the explicit, basic law that is going to govern their firms—the precise behaviors, rules, and principles that will determine what partners have a right to expect from each other.
When thought of as aspirations (which is usually the case), firms’ values are usually explicitly articulated and remarkably similar. However, if a value is seen as a minimum standard of behavior that all members agree to live by, then the true values remain ambiguous in most firms and vary immensely among firms.
Firms have historically flourished without constitutions that spell out minimum partner behaviors. For many, profits and revenues keep rising. What then will be the force that might create the need for change? Most likely, it will be client pressure on firms to act as firms—delivering seamless service, practice areas that have depth (and not just a collection of individualistic stars), and true, cross-boundary teamwork.
Many firms have collections of great lawyers. The time may be coming when clients will expect them to go beyond this and become effective organizations. Without a prior, explicit agreement on minimum standards, and the resolve to enforce them, many law firms will not function well as firms but will remain what they are today: bands of warlords, each with his or her followers, ruling over a group of cowed citizens and acting in temporary alliance—until a better opportunity comes along.
The ways of thinking and behaving that help lawyers excel in their profession may be the very things that limit what they can achieve as firms. Management challenges occur not in spite of lawyers’ intelligence and training, but because of them.
Among the ways that legal training and practice keep lawyers from effectively functioning in groups are
- problems with trust;
- difficulties with ideology, values, and principles;
- professional detachment;
- and unusual approaches to decision making. If firms cannot overcome these inherent tendencies, they may not be able to deliver on the goals and strategies they say they pursue.
The problem of trust
Much current practice in firm governance, organization, and (not least) compensation comes from the fact that partners vigorously defend their rights to autonomy and individualism, well beyond what is common in other professions. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, as major corporations consolidate their work among a smaller number of firms, domestically and internationally, they expect that firms will serve them with effective cross-office and cross-disciplinary teams. Firms are vigorously responding to this with a stampede of lateral hires, mergers, and acquisitions. Their goal is to create big organizations offering many disciplines, locations, and cultures.
The unanswered—actually, barely asked—question is whether these firms can shift from a managerial approach, based on partner autonomy, to new approaches that can create a well-coordinated set of team players. Is the tradition of autonomy at the heart of a partner’s identity, or can it change?
In addition to fighting vigorously to preserve their autonomy, lawyers are professional skeptics: They are selected, trained, and hired to be pessimistic and to spot flaws. To protect their clients, they place the worst possible construction on the outcome of any idea or proposal, and on the motives, intentions, and likely behaviors of those they are dealing with. As Tony Sacker, my kind and gentle brother-in-law and a solicitor in the United Kingdom, says: “I am paid to have a nasty, suspicious mind.”
Lawyers carry this view into their dealings with their own partners. It is hard to unbundle which is the cause and which is the effect, but the combination of a desire for autonomy and high levels of skepticism make most law firms low-trust environments.
Recently, I was advising a firm on its compensation system. They didn’t like my recommendations. Finally, one of the partners said, “David, all your recommendations are based on the assumption that we trust each other and trust our executive or compensation committees. We don’t. Give us a system that doesn’t require us to trust each other!”
A former managing partner with whom I have discussed this says, “It’s not that I don’t trust my partners. They’re good people, mostly. It’s that I don’t want to have to trust them. Why give up any degree of control over your own affairs if you don’t have to?”
Actually, a low-trust environment has plenty of unfortunate consequences—and they are readily observable in many law firms: - Initiatives that depend on teamwork and joint efforts will rarely be implemented well, if at all. People may show up to a practice group meeting and help develop a joint plan, but they rarely feel mutually committed to or accountable for the group’s decisions. When lawyers cannot depend on their colleagues to live up to commitments made in these meetings, they give themselves permission to have a similar attitude, and the situation spirals downward.
- When a firm’s prevailing atmosphere is one of competition, not collaboration, partners rarely make sacrifices for the good of the firm. For example, they will be reluctant to take on managerial roles that might require them to limit their full-time practices, for fear that their partners will not treat them equitably when the time comes for them to reenter full-time practice.
- There is low tolerance for ceding power or influence to practice group or firm leadership. The result is that even in the largest firms, executive authority can be so severely limited as to be meaningless. Decisions are made slowly, if not avoided altogether.
- Committees proliferate to address all topics, large and small. They are designed not only to ensure extensive participation, but also to put in place checks and balances intended to circumscribe the ability of any individual (or group) to decide anything on behalf of the firm. This may have the virtue of being democratic, but it is a primitive form of democracy that requires everyone to be involved in every decision. It both slows down decision making and unnecessarily distracts from other, more productive tasks.
- There is a drive to seemingly objective formula-based compensation systems. These serve only to entice partners into gaming the system through hoarding work and bickering over origination credits in order to look good in the official statistics. Partners constantly ask, “What’s in the compensation formula?” and they do only those things that are. As a result, many behaviors necessary for the firm’s success cannot be enforced, because they are not in the formula. Firm leaders have bemoaned this situation for decades, but few have found a way to solve it.
“Most partners were recognized and rewarded for being the smartest person in the class or the most accomplished. They have rarely experienced or understood the power of succeeding as part of a larger group or team. Their focus tends to be selfish and self-serving, even narcissistic. The result is that the firm resources are squandered and poorly used, clients don’t get the best lawyers assigned to their files, and firms are less profitable. This selfishness also leads to a shortsighted approach to decision making that inhibits long-range success because investments of time or money that don’t yield immediate results are rarely made.”
Skepticism about ideology, values, and principles
The single biggest source of trust in an organization occurs when everyone can be depended upon to act in accordance with a commonly held, strictly observed set of principles. Examples of such principles are “Our clients’ interests always come first; if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow” and “We have no room for those who put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the firm and its clients.” (Both of these, by the way, are from Goldman Sachs.)It is important to note that commercial benefits do not come simply from believing in or encouraging these principles but from actually achieving an organization where partner behavior is always consistent with them. When this is the case, less time is wasted in internal negotiations and posturing, strategies are implemented, and true teamwork results. Partners allow others to make decisions on their behalf or refer work to each other across the boundaries of practice groups and location because they can be confident that the other person will make decisions using the same values and principles that they would themselves use.
Law firms appear unable to achieve this level of ideological consistency. They will buy into principles—firms can have very high ideals as long as they remain ideals—but they have difficulty with the concept of enforcement. Firms are seemingly willing to adopt strategies and statements of values and mission, but are usually unwilling to specify what the penalty would be for noncompliance. Not surprisingly, that rarely results in effective implementation.
There is a reason for this. As a partner in an eminent U.S. firm points out, “Lawyers raised in the common-law tradition are trained to have a deep suspicion of overarching principles. The essence of the common-law approach is that decisions are made incrementally, always leaving open the possibility that the next case could be treated completely differently.”
In my consulting work I have repeatedly advocated a system of help and coaching for partners who fail to meet the firm’s standards. If coaching fails to bring a partner up to the firm’s standards after a fair and reasonable amount of time, the partner is asked to leave. This is, in fact, close to the system that firms employ with respect to partners who fail to hit financial targets such as billable hours.
However, the point I keep trying to make is that if a firm wishes to excel in other areas, such as client service, collaboration, or associate supervision, the same process should apply. The response is predictable. Most law firms say that the idea of tackling a rainmaker on these “soft” issues is unrealistic, idealistic, uncommercial, and suicidal. In vain I point out that these standards are what firms already preach in their client and recruiting brochures and claim as their values.
While a majority of firms will vote to proclaim standards, they will usually not vote to enforce them. Indeed, the signs are that they vigorously prefer the opposite: Law firms have a proliferating plethora of rules, not functioning principles, because they don’t or won’t trust that their partners will adhere to the values, standards, and principles that they agreed upon. So firms end up with a mishmash of bureaucratic red tape in the hope that mandatory processes will achieve compliance when adherence to common values does not.
Professional detachment
In their legal training, lawyers are encouraged to be dispassionate. They have been schooled to leave their personal feelings at home. One lawyer told a consultant friend of mine that when he hung up his jacket on the back of his door in the morning, with it went his personality, both of which he put on at the end of the day as he left the office.As many researchers have shown, lawyers score very low in the areas of intimacy skills and sociability. They tend to prefer role-to-role interactions with people, inside and outside the firm, rather than eagerly seeking out person-to-person connections. This doesn’t mean they don’t like people. It just means that, statistically speaking, lawyers prefer focusing on the job at hand rather than investing in relationships with those they are working with (other partners or associates) or for (clients).
This can have unfortunate, if unintended, consequences. Consider this e-mail, which I recently received from Marein Smits, a Dutch lawyer:
“At your recent seminar you made fun of me because I laughed at the idea of being genuinely interested in the industry and business of the people who are my clients. Rightly so: My laughing was cynical… The first thing you learn when you become a lawyer is not to care. The legally sound judgment, the intellectual sparkle, that is what counts. The personal, the emotional, what is right: Throw it away, because it will taint your professionalism. ‘Do not get involved’ is the credo.”
A major rainmaker once pointed out to me, “I can’t convince my partners that this is all about human beings, that you market most successfully by showing an interest in the client as a person. My partners really don’t want to express that level of intimacy with anyone at work.” This lack of intimacy affects not only marketing and client relations, but also the way in which partners deal with each other and how firms are managed.
Rather than describing a highly interpersonal approach to coaching and helping each other succeed, the term “management” has come in many firms to mean a cold, detached, analytical approach to business. Financial scorecards are put in place, and everyone is told (implicitly or explicitly), “Here’s what you will be measured on; see you at the end of the year!” They are not helped to achieve, merely rewarded if they do, and they live in fear of what might happen if they do not. This can achieve the goal of getting everyone to work harder, but it comes at a significant price in terms of partner morale and cohesion. Help, teamwork, and mutual support are often absent, since they depend on personal interactions. Instead, there is a system of measures and rewards.
While this approach is the one preferred by many partners (and many firms) it inherently limits creation of a strategically responsive organization. In these days of ever-accelerating partner and associate mobility, a firm tied together only by measures and rewards will be inherently unstable.
There are signs that a few firms are recognizing the importance of this issue. Says one managing partner: “The idea has slowly taken hold in our firm that one should deal with people as people, show warmth and empathy, and build personal relationships with others in the firm … My leadership style has evolved over the years from trying to be comprehensive and logical to relying more on developing personal rapport and trying to motivate people.” This insight might be gaining ground. But the behavior inside many law firms has yet to catch up.
Approaches to decision making
When it comes to discussing their firms’ affairs, lawyers have peculiar ways of conducting discussions and arriving (or not arriving) at decisions. The essence of lawyers’ training and daily practice is to contest with other lawyers. While winning arguments against nonlawyers (such as consultants like me) is mere sport, winning them against other lawyers is a deadly serious business—a challenge to their core ability.In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.
Frequently, this leads managing partners, committee chairs, and practice group leaders to substantially overinvest in decision making. They want to be armed in advance with a lengthy memo about every decision so they can dump it in the lap of the complainer as part of fending off the attack.
Another common management strategy is to keep all proposals ambiguous, so that there is nothing specific to be attacked. As a result, law firms have a remarkable propensity for half measures, launching poorly specified programs with minimal chances of success. A common law firm dialogue is as follows: Let’s have client service teams! (All agree.) What do we mean by such teams? (We don’t want to say yet.) What shall their responsibilities be? (That’s to be worked out.) What are the obligations of team members to each other? (We’ll let them figure it out.) Combine all this with the obligation to resolve issues through committees, and you have a recipe for business constipation.
This is not necessarily a problem for lawyers. My own attorney pointed out, “You are taught in law school that there are no right answers. We are actively trained to be nondecisive and are comfortable with a lack of closure.”
When lawyers reason with each other, the primary objectives are not necessarily logic, consistency, reasonableness, or fairness. In their professional practice, whether in trial or deal-making, many lawyers are more frequently rewarded for persuasiveness, rhetoric, verbal agility, and point scoring. These habits of a professional lifetime readily spill over into internal firm discussions.
Lawyers also have a strange view of the concept of risk. In any other business, an idea that was likely to work much of the time would be eagerly explored. This is not necessarily the case with lawyers. If one partner says, “This works in the vast majority of cases,” you can be sure that another will say, “Maybe, but I can construct a hypothetical scenario where it will fail to work. That makes it risky.” Probabilities do not seem to influence the discussion, only possibilities. There is no greater condemnation in legal discourse than to describe something as risky. Contracts, deals, and court cases must be bulletproof, not risky.
In other businesses, innovative thinking and action are considered a primary requirement for success. Companies eagerly search for strategic ideas and initiatives that their competitors have not discovered.
Lawyers are usually different. Presented with a new business idea, the first thing they ask is, “Which other law firms are doing this?” Unless it can be shown that the idea has been implemented by other law firms, lawyers are skeptical about whether the idea applies to their world. If everyone has these problems, they can’t be so bad, the thinking goes. As long as we are no worse than anyone else, we don’t need to change! It’s hardly a recipe for a strategic advantage.
What can be done?
If lawyers deal with each other so poorly, why do they do so well financially? My answer is only partly humorous: The greatest advantage lawyers have is that they compete only with other lawyers. If everyone else does things equally poorly, and clients and recruits find little variation between firms, even the most egregious behavior will not lead to a competitive disadvantage.A persuasive case can be made that lawyers will not change, because times are good and partners (and associates, for that matter) earn a lot of money. However, the question always arises as to how the money is being made. Many law firms have discovered that you can truly make a lot of money if you work everybody very, very hard and really slash your costs and don’t care about how people—partners, associates, or staff—feel about their work lives.
While that’s one approach to riches, it can be shown (as in my book Practice What You Preach) that it is not the best or most sustainable approach to riches. “Let’s succeed by working more hours with ever-decreasing amounts of support” is not the most sophisticated piece of business thinking I have ever heard. The answer, for firms that choose to pursue it, lies not in ever-more-sophisticated (and tough) business management tools, but in a head-on confrontation with the issues of trust, values, interpersonal behavior, and decision-making logic that I have explored here.
If firms are to deliver on the visions they have set for themselves, they must address such issues as what behavior partners have a right to expect from each other, what the real minimum standards and values are, and how common values and standards can actually be attained, not just preached.
I have written about these topics extensively before and will not repeat either the arguments or the advice here. (My past writings are available on my website, davidmaister.com.) Suffice it to say that unless law firms undergo a cultural revolution, not just minor changes, most will not be able to achieve their ambitions. Dysfunctional behavior by partners, currently not only tolerated but vigorously celebrated, will prevent firms from functioning as they desire.
There is some hope, because what has been reported here are common tendencies, not ironclad laws. There are firms that are exceptional, singular counterexamples to the propositions explored here, and they are tackling head-on the core issues of culture, trust, and partner behavior. On the other hand, many other firms are doing the very things that will prevent them from creating the truly collaborative organizations their lawyers say that they want.
One of the central things we know about trust and collaboration is that they come mostly from repeated interactions between people who have not only a history together, but also the certainty of a future together. Trust comes from relationships and the expectation of continuing relationships. Over time, as they interact with each other, they as partners, practice groups, and offices may actually come to trust each other.
Unfortunately, in many of today’s firms that have been cobbled together from lateral hires and newly merged practices, the personal history that forms the basis of trust is often missing, as is the confidence that everyone will be practicing together for a long time. In many firms, even solidly successful partners live in fear that they will be among the next group of partners to be “let go.”
In such an environment, the natural evolution of trust may be difficult, if not impossible. Instead, what firms need, literally, is a constitutional convention where their lawyers draft the explicit, basic law that is going to govern their firms—the precise behaviors, rules, and principles that will determine what partners have a right to expect from each other.
When thought of as aspirations (which is usually the case), firms’ values are usually explicitly articulated and remarkably similar. However, if a value is seen as a minimum standard of behavior that all members agree to live by, then the true values remain ambiguous in most firms and vary immensely among firms.
Firms have historically flourished without constitutions that spell out minimum partner behaviors. For many, profits and revenues keep rising. What then will be the force that might create the need for change? Most likely, it will be client pressure on firms to act as firms—delivering seamless service, practice areas that have depth (and not just a collection of individualistic stars), and true, cross-boundary teamwork.
Many firms have collections of great lawyers. The time may be coming when clients will expect them to go beyond this and become effective organizations. Without a prior, explicit agreement on minimum standards, and the resolve to enforce them, many law firms will not function well as firms but will remain what they are today: bands of warlords, each with his or her followers, ruling over a group of cowed citizens and acting in temporary alliance—until a better opportunity comes along.
Managing a Law Firm
Running a law firm successfully is often a matter of clever management. The author tells you how to look for your cheese.
James Dallas, Chairman of the firm Denton Wilde Sapte, in the publication Managing Partner in July 2001 highlighted four key elements for a law firm’s success:
Having technically competent and motivated lawyers is important but it is no longer sufficient to guarantee success.
Success today has a lot to do with the way a firm is run and structured, where the markets it serves are going, and where the firm is positioned in all these developments.
Take, for example, the dedicated niche conveyancing practices of the 1980s and 1990s now facing low turnover and the abolition of scale fees in the 21st century. The lawyers may be very technically competent conveyancers but that alone will not guarantee them success in the current environment.
Equally important is the way your firm is structured and run, as well as the ability to lead and motivate fellow partners.
The truth is, lawyers generally have not had the training to manage people and many lawyers find this difficult. Good management, however, is not complicated. Most of us can often learn the necessary skills and learn to recognise our own limitations to better appreciate the strength and abilities of others.
Management therefore should be as uncomplicated as possible, and the structure should be to deliver a solution that is: (a) simple; (b) appropriate to the firm; and (c) able to draw on the strengths and talents of the partners and staff. It is important not to loose sight of what the staff can contribute. Equity partners are not the only ones with ideas.
Time is one thing most partners lack and it must be used carefully. Partners should be more concerned with strategic issues and with driving the business forward. The starting point will be the management structure and the role of the partner in that management structure. The problem is, because of pressures on time, partners simply undertake their fee earning work and pay lip service to management.
It is important in the management of the firm to:
Similarly, management should not be difficult in very small, two or three-partner firms.
The problem is in mid size firms of between, say, five to 15 partners, where management is typically undertaken by partners who have high workloads. The areas where they have difficulty include:
The overall aim and purpose of your firm’s management structure should be to:
Often, when partners consider the issues of management and leadership, they begin by visualising military or political role models. However, the style of leadership characterised by people like Margaret Thatcher is rarely successful with a law firm. It is seldom an effective way of motivating professional people — especially partners. Many partners, particularly in larger firms, will tell you of the demotivating effect this style of leadership can have. There are more appropriate styles that I will discuss at a later date.
In summary, here are some of the key elements in managing a law firm:
James Dallas, Chairman of the firm Denton Wilde Sapte, in the publication Managing Partner in July 2001 highlighted four key elements for a law firm’s success:
- being clear about your chosen area of business;
- finding and keeping good people;
- delivering an excellent service to clients; and
- securing a financial return that enables the firm to reward its people and invest in the continuing development of the business.
Having technically competent and motivated lawyers is important but it is no longer sufficient to guarantee success.
Success today has a lot to do with the way a firm is run and structured, where the markets it serves are going, and where the firm is positioned in all these developments.
Take, for example, the dedicated niche conveyancing practices of the 1980s and 1990s now facing low turnover and the abolition of scale fees in the 21st century. The lawyers may be very technically competent conveyancers but that alone will not guarantee them success in the current environment.
Equally important is the way your firm is structured and run, as well as the ability to lead and motivate fellow partners.
The truth is, lawyers generally have not had the training to manage people and many lawyers find this difficult. Good management, however, is not complicated. Most of us can often learn the necessary skills and learn to recognise our own limitations to better appreciate the strength and abilities of others.
Management therefore should be as uncomplicated as possible, and the structure should be to deliver a solution that is: (a) simple; (b) appropriate to the firm; and (c) able to draw on the strengths and talents of the partners and staff. It is important not to loose sight of what the staff can contribute. Equity partners are not the only ones with ideas.
Management not Administration
There is often a confusion about what we actually mean by ‘management’ and the distribution between management and administration. Partners can easily confuse administration with management and get involved with things that need to be done, but not necessarily by them. For example, being the person that secretaries go to when their printer is not working, changing the paper in the photocopier, fixing minor staff problems. While a partner may need to take overall responsibility for the administration, they rarely need to do it themselves. If you assume a partner charge out rate of $500 per hour, then two hours used in unnecessary administration a day amounts to $240,000 of lost revenue annually!Time is one thing most partners lack and it must be used carefully. Partners should be more concerned with strategic issues and with driving the business forward. The starting point will be the management structure and the role of the partner in that management structure. The problem is, because of pressures on time, partners simply undertake their fee earning work and pay lip service to management.
It is important in the management of the firm to:
- assess the operational structure of the firm;
- define the roles appropriate to the operational structure and to identify the best people to fill these roles;
- prepare business and marketing plans and budgets for each team or business unit;
- translate team plans into individual objectives and an action plan for each fee earner and member of the staff; and
- ensure effective financial management controls and establish a simple reporting system, so that progress can be monitored and the plans reviewed and modified on an on-going basis.
The Problem
When a law firm is of a size where it is obvious that one of the partners needs to do the managing with little or no fee earning work and/or employ professional managers, which is usually the case where there are at least 20 or 30 equity partners, there isn’t too much of a problem.Similarly, management should not be difficult in very small, two or three-partner firms.
The problem is in mid size firms of between, say, five to 15 partners, where management is typically undertaken by partners who have high workloads. The areas where they have difficulty include:
- lack of time;
- structuring a balance between management and fee earning;
- getting their partners to accept innovation and change;
- communication; and
- achieving a reasonable level of profitability.
Management Structure
It is important that firms have an effective management structure and an appropriate form of leadership. The challenge is to find a style and structure that is appropriate to your firm and that suits its culture.The overall aim and purpose of your firm’s management structure should be to:
- help the partners realise their aspirations for the firm, in particular with regard to profitability, both in the short term and also in the longer term;
- enable the partners to concentrate on the important issues facing the firm rather than on day-to-day matters;
- provide leadership and a sense of direction;
- use partner time effectively; and
- get things done.
- to ensure the smooth running of the firm; and
- to enable the firm to move forward and develop.
Often, when partners consider the issues of management and leadership, they begin by visualising military or political role models. However, the style of leadership characterised by people like Margaret Thatcher is rarely successful with a law firm. It is seldom an effective way of motivating professional people — especially partners. Many partners, particularly in larger firms, will tell you of the demotivating effect this style of leadership can have. There are more appropriate styles that I will discuss at a later date.
In summary, here are some of the key elements in managing a law firm:
- The key factors for success are: (a) a sense of focus on the markets you serve; (b) recruiting and retaining good people; (c) providing excellent client services; and (d) generating sufficient profit.
- Constantly reminding the partners that they should be engaged in management, not administration.
- Reviewing your operational and management structure every three to five years to ensure that they are appropriate for the future and are innovative.
- Defining the roles and ensuring that the right people are running your firm.
Linux to Enter Law Office Through Netbooks?
I have posted several times before about how I see Linux entering the law office market, whether through big firms or through the back office (i.e. the servers). However, it has become apparent in the past few months that there is another inroad developing that may fast-track the OS into the legal market. This is the introduction and rise of the netbook.
More and more laptop users (and road warrior lawyers) have been discovering that they use their portable computers mainly for e-mail and web based applications. Thus people have been buying netbooks as secondary machines in order to have lightweight, highly portable computers for travel (here is a great post on the development of the netbook that explains this phenomenon). These netbooks often come with 512Mb to 1Gb of RAM, slower, more energy efficient microprocessors (Intel’s Atom for the most part), which means that the OS that runs on it must be lean and mean, a term seldom, if ever, applied to a Microsoft product. In fact, Vista, if it does run on a netbook, runs poorly, and Redmond has, as a result, made XP available to hardware companies for another two years.
Linux, on the other hand, because it can do more with fewer resources, is really the better OS candidate for netbooks. Also, because the machines are designed (and intended) to be used with web-based applications, they are more platform-independent, and thus do not run into the problems that Linux presents on the lawyer desktop (e.g. the lack of compatible verticle market apps like case management and bankruptcy software). The lack of cost for Linux also keeps the overall price down for netbooks and can make them more attractive.
I have been using the open source Mozilla Firefox web browser for years now and have found it easy to learn and use, which also goes for their e-mail client, Thunderbird. Google Docs and other web-based apps are already being used by many lawyers, and even if you need an offline solution, OpoenOffice is a great alternative that is easily downloaded and installed on the netbook (at least in the Ubuntu distribution, which is what is being installed on most Linux netbooks). The learning curve is not steep at all, and the increasing usage of Linux netbooks by lawyers may well overcome the phobia to change and encourage them at least to consider using Linux on their office systems. We can only hope.
Linux in the Law Office
It seems that every year there are claims by some industry pundits that this is the “Year of Linux.” Obviously, they have been wrong to date. However, a couple things have happened recently that have led me to believe that, even if not in 2007, then by the end of the decade, Linux will have its year.
The first event was the rise of the Linux distribution Ubuntu. This is a truly amazing product, and I have been trying it out on an old machine at home for the last couple of weeks. What is great about it, as compared to Linux distributions in the past, is that it contains a complete system of OS and applications that would be enough for most users, and installs with a few clicks of the mouse; no geeks needed. You get OpenOffice, an open source answer to Microsoft Office that reads and writes the format (although not that of Office 2007 yet), FireFox web browser, an e-mail client and Outlook clone, media player, CD/DVD player/burner, lots of games, and the like. You are ready to go “right out of the box,” so to speak.
The second event was Dell’s decision to sell Ubuntu systems (desktops and laptops) to the home user. This is a major move by a major PC vendor (one often used by lawyers and the ABA) away from exclusively Windows platforms, and is the first crack in the ice. If other vendors get on board, more peripheral makers will write Linux drivers for their devices, and we will all be closer to a “Linux Year.” The questions still is, though, is Linux an option in the law office?
Despite the “out of the box” nature of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, today’s lawyer needs to do more than create an Office document, send e-mail, or surf the net. He or she needs to use case management, litigation support, and billing/accounting software as well. QuickBooks and Quicken are available for Windows and the Mac, but not Linux, unless it is an enterprise solution on a Linux server. The same is true Time/Billing Matters from Lexis/Nexus, Abacus Law, Timeslips, and the like. Just go to your software vendor’s web site and click on System Requirements to see for yourself. There is some good news for those who use Lotus Notes for everything. That will run on Linux, but how many solo and small firms have made that investment? Unless all you do on your office computer is use Office, Outlook, e-mail, and web browsing (or have the money for Lotus Notes), I just do not see where Linux is ready for the law office desktop. The only exception may be servers, as you can save money on hardware (Linux is not nearly as resource hungry as Windows, so it doesn’t need the latest, speedy processor and lots of RAM), but I would not recommend installing and configuring the Linux server software yourself; once you hire a consultant, the savings evaporate.
One possible use would be in the recycling of old office computers by bringing one home and putting Ubuntu Linux on it. Unless you or your kids are heavily into gaming, it should be of good use there, and there are thousands of software packages that can be downloaded and installed automatically by the system if there is something you need that is not on the desktop initially. I would suggest printing to a device on your home network, rather to one plugged into the Linux box, as printer drivers can also be scarce.
I expect that Linux will be ready for us once it becomes a great enough force in the market to be reckoned with, and then our software budgets will shrink dramatically. In the meantime, stick to your Windows PCs. If something changes, I will let you know. For a spirited discussion of whether this is the “Year of Linux,”
วันอังคารที่ 14 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553
ตัวอย่างคำฟ้องรับรองบุตร
คำฟ้องขอให้รับรองบุตร
ข้อ ๑.โจทก์กับจำเลยในคดีนี้รู้จักกันมานาน เพราะมีภูมิลำเนาอยู่ใกล้กัน แต่เพิ่งสนิทสนมกันเมื่อประมาณเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ ๒๕๔๖ จากความสนิทสนมกันและจำเลยทำตัวเป็นคนดี รวมทั้งสร้างความเชื่อมั่นให้แก่โจทก์ว่าถ้าได้แต่งงานเป็นสามีภริยากัน จำเลยจะเป็นสามีที่ดีของโจทก์ได้ ซึ่งจำเลยเองก็เอ่ยปากขอให้โจทก์ยินยอมเป็นภริยาจำเลยหลายครั้งหลายหน โดยให้คำมั่นว่าจะรับผิดชอบเลี้ยงดูเป็นภริยาต่อไป และเพราะโจทก์เชื่อว่าจำเลยเป็นคนดีและจะรับผิดชอบดังที่พูดไว้ และจากการไปมาหาสู่ใกล้ชิดกันอยู่ประจำ ในที่สุดโจทก์ได้ยินยอมเป็นภริยาจำเลยโดยได้เสียกันหลายครั้งหลายหน ได้เสียครั้งแรกเมื่อประมาณต้นเดือนเมษายน ๒๕๔๘ ซึ่งการร่วมหลับนอนได้เสียกันนั้นอยู่ในระยะที่โจทก์อาจตั้งครรภ์ได้ และภายหลังจากนั้นโจทก์และจำเลยก็ร่วมหลับนอนได้เสียกันตลอดมา โจทก์ไม่เคยคบหาสมาคมกับชายใด ไม่เคยมีเพศสัมพันธ์กับชายใดนอกจากจำเลยเพียงผู้เดียว ต่อมาทราบว่าโจทก์ตั้งครรภ์เมื่อประมาณปลายเดือนเมษายน ๒๕๔๘ ซึ่งโจทก์ได้แจ้งให้จำเลยทราบ จำเลยได้พูดขอร้องให้โจทก์ไปพบแพทย์เพื่อตรวจสอบการตั้งครรภ์ และยังบอกอีกว่าถ้าปรากฎการตั้งครรภ์ให้ทำลายเด็กในครรภ์ โจทก์มิได้ยินยอมกระทำตามคำขอร้องของจำเลย เพราะเห็นว่าการได้เสียกับจำเลยที่ผ่านมาเป็นการกระทำที่ผิดศีลธรรมแล้ว หากทำลายเด็กในครรภ์จะเป็นการกระทำที่ผิดกฎหมาย จำเลยไม่พอใจแต่ก็ยังขอร่วมหลับนอนกับโจทก์อีกหลายครั้งจนถึงสิ้นเดือน มกราคม ๒๕๔๘ จำเลยก็หลบหน้าไม่ยอมพบปะพูดจากับโจทก์ และไม่ยอมรับผิดชอบต่อการกระทำดังที่เคยพูดเอาไว้ข้อ
๒. จากการที่โจทก์ประทานกราบเรียนต่อศาลที่เคารพว่าโจทก์ทราบถึงการตั้งครรภ์ เมื่อประมาณเดือนเมษายน ๒๕๔๖ แต่เพื่อให้เกิดความั่นใจว่าโจทก์ได้ตั้งครรภ์ ดังนั้นในเดือนกรกฎาคม ๒๕๔๖ โจทก์จึงได้ไปพบแพทย์เพื่อตรวจสอบการตั้งครรภ์ จากการตรวจสอบของแพทย์ดังกล่าวทำให้โจทก์ทราบถึงการตั้งครรภ์ดังที่โจทก์ เข้าใจมาแต่แรก เมื่อโจทก์ทราบแน่นอนว่าตั้งครรภ์จึงได้พยายามติดต่อจำเลยอีกเพื่อให้ รับผิดชอบต่อการกระทำที่เกิดขึ้น แต่จำเลยก็บ่ายเบี่ยง ต่อมาเมื่อวันที่ ๑ มกราคม ๒๕๔๗ โจทก์ได้คลอดบุตรที่โรงพยาบาลกล้วยน้ำไท เขตสวนหลวง กรุงเทพมหานคร ซึ่งอยู่ในช่วงเวลา ๑๘๐ วัน ถึง ๓๑๐ วัน นับแต่โจทก์และจำเลยมีความสัมพันธ์ทางเพศกัน ต่อมาโจทก์ตั้งชื่อบุตรว่า เด็กชายน่ารัก น่าชัง ขณะนี้มีอายุ ๒ ปี รายละเอียดปรากฎตามสำเนาภาพถ่ายใบสูติบัตร เอกสารท้ายฟ้องหมายเลข ๑ ขณะโจทก์คลอดบุตรและนอนรักษาตัวอยู่ในโรงพยาบาลโจทก์ได้มอบหมายให้เพื่อนๆ ซึ่งรู้เรื่องความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างโจทก์จำเลยไปบอกกล่าวให้จำเลยไปดูแลโจทก์ และบุตรที่โรงพยาบาล และดำเนินการทำหลักฐานเพื่อรับรองว่าเด็กชายน่ารัก น่าชัง เป็นบุตรที่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายของจำเลย แต่จำเลยก็เพิกเฉยทั้งโจทก์ได้พยายามติดต่อจำเลยให้รับผิดชอบเรื่องการ อุปการะเลี้ยงดูบุตรแต่จำเลยก็เพิกเฉยอีกเช่นกัน
ข้อ๓. แม้โจทก์กับจำเลยจะมิได้จดทะเบียนสมรสกันโดยถูกต้องตามกฎหมายแต่ก็มี พฤติการณ์หลายอย่างที่แสดงว่าจำเลยมีความสัมพันธ์ใกล้ชิดกับโจทก์เป็นที่ ประจักษ์ญาติ พี่น้อง เพื่อนฝูงถึงขั้นได้เสียเป็นสามีภริยากัน ซึ่งขณะได้เสียกันนั้นทั้งโจทก์และจำเลยก็ต่างทราบดีว่าระยะเวลาที่ได้เสีย มีเพศสัมพันธ์กันนั้นโจทก์อาจตั้งครรภ์ และจำเลยยังรู้ดีว่านอกจากจำเลยแล้วโจทก์ไม่เคยคบหาสมาคมหรือมีเพศสัมพันธ์ กับชายอื่น ในที่สุดโจทก์ได้มอบหมายให้ทนายความมีหนังสือบอกกล่าวถึงจำเลย เพื่อให้จำเลยแสดงความรับผิดชอบในค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูและให้จดทะเบียนรับรอง เด็กชายน่ารักน่าชัง เป็นบุตรที่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายของจำเลย โดยส่งหนังสือบอกกล่าวไปยังภูมิลำเนาของจำเลย แต่บุคคลในครัวเรือนจำเลยไม่ยอมรับไว้ อ้างว่าจำเลยไม่อยู่ กรณีดังกล่าวถือได้ว่าจำเลยทราบถึงหนังสือบอกกล่าวของโจทก์แล้ว รายละเอียดปรากฎตามสำเนาภาพถ่ายหนังสือบอกกล่าวทวงถาม และใบตอบรับของบริษัทไปรษณีย์ไทย เอกสารท้ายฟ้องหมายเลข ๒ และ ๓
โจทก์ไม่มีทางอื่นใดบังคับจำเลยได้ จึงต้องนำคดีมาสู่ศาล เพื่อขอบารมีศาลเป็นที่พึ่งให้มีคำพิพากษาแสดงว่าเด็กชายน่ารัก น่าชัง เป็นบุตรโดยชอบด้วยกฎหมายของจำเลยต่อไป และให้จำเลยจ่ายค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูเด็กชายน่ารัก น่าชัง เป็นรายเดือน เดือนละ ๒๕,๐๐๐ บาท นับแต่วันที่ศาลมีคำพิพาษาถึงที่สุดไปจนกว่าเด็กชายน่ารัก น่าชัง จะเรียนจบการศึกษาชั้นอุดมศึกษา
ควรมิควรแล้วแต่จะโปรด
การรับรองบุตร
การรับรองบุตร
๑.หลักกฎหมาย
ปพพ.ม.1548 บิดาจะจดทะเบียนเด็กเป็นบุตรชอบด้วยกฎหมายได้ต่อเมื่อได้รับความยินยอมของ เด็กและมารดาเด็ก นั่นหมายถึงบิดาต้องตามควมเป้นจริงแต่ไม่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายจะชอบต่อเมื่อตาม 1557 กรณีรับรองบุตรต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากเด็กและแม่เด้กที่จะรับรอง(ไม่ใช่ ภรรยาที่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายของบิดา)เด็กรู้เดียงสาไม่มีปัญหาเรื่องยินยอม ถ้าแม่เด้กยินยอมด้วยก็นำหลักฐานบัตรประจำตัวประชาชน สำเนาทะเบียนบ้านของพ่อแม่ สูติบัตรของเด็ก หลักฐานการเปลี่ยนชื่อตัว สกุล(ถ้ามี)ติดต่อนายทะเบียนอำเภอไหนก็ได้จดทะเบียนได้ในระบบคอมพิวเตอร์ ออนไลน์ จากนั้นขอคัดสำเนาหลักฐานการจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตรใช้แสดงขอใช้สิทธิได้ทันที ตาม1557 หากไม่ได้รับความยินยอมหรือไม่อาจให้ความยินยอมได้ก็จำเป้นต้องใช้สิทธิทาง ศาลเยาวชนฯต่อไป ยืนยันว่าไม่ต้องให้ภรรยาตัวจริงยินยอมต่อนายทะเบียน แต่จะให้รู้หรือไม่เป็นเรื่องเฉพาะตัว
๒.การจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร ข้อมูลจาก สำนักบริหารการทะเบียน กรมการปกครอง
หลักเกณฑ์ / คุณสมบัติ
เอกสารที่ใช้
- บัตรประจำตัวประชาชนผู้เกี่ยวข้อง
- ทะเบียนบ้านฉบับเจ้าบ้าน ผู้เกี่ยวข้อง
- สูติบัตรของบุตร
- หนังสือแสดงความยินยอมของบุตร
- หนังสือแสดงความยินยอมของมารดาของบุตร
- พยานบุคคล 2 คน
ขั้นตอนการดำเนินงาน
* บิดายื่นคำร้องขอจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร ต่อนายทะเบียน ณ สำนักทะเบียนอำเภอ กิ่งอำเภอหรือสำนักทะเบียนเขต
*เด็ก และมารดาเด็ก ต้องให้ความยินยอมในการจดทะเบียนทั้งสองคน ถ้าเด็กหรือมารดาเด็กคนใดคนหนึ่งไม่ให้ความยินยอมหรือไม่อาจให้ความยินยอม ได้ เช่น เด็กเป็นผู้เยาว์ไร้เดียงสา มารดาเด็กถึงแก่กรรม เป็นต้น การจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตรต้องมีคำพิพากษาของศาล
อื่น ๆ
แบบฟอร์ม
แบบฟอร์มคำร้องขอจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร
๓.การฟ้องคดีต่อศาล
๓.๑ หลักกฎหมาย
(๑) ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์
มาตรา 1555 การฟ้องคดีขอให้รับเด็กเป็นบุตรชอบด้วยกฎหมาย ให้มีได้แต่ในกรณีต่อไปนี้
(1) เมื่อมีการข่มขืนกระทำชำเรา ฉุดคร่า หรือหน่วงเหนี่ยวกักขัง หญิงมารดาโดยมิชอบด้วยกฎหมายในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิงนั้นอาจตั้ง ครรภ์ได้
(2) เมื่อมีการลักพาหญิงมารดาไปในทางชู้สาว หรือมีการล่อลวง ร่วมประเวณีกับหญิงมารดาในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิงนั้นอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้
(3) เมื่อมีเอกสารของบิดาแสดงว่าเด็กนั้นเป็นบุตรของตน
(4) เมื่อปรากฏในทะเบียนคนเกิดว่าเด็กเป็นบุตรโดยมีหลักฐาน ว่าบิดาเป็นผู้แจ้งเกิดหรือรู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งนั้น
(5) เมื่อบิดาได้อยู่กินด้วยกันอย่างเปิดเผยในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิง มารดาอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้
(6) เมื่อได้มีการร่วมประเวณีกับหญิงมารดาในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิง นั้นอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้และมีเหตุอันควรเชื่อได้ว่าเด็กนั้นมิได้เป็นบุตรของ ชายอื่น
(7) เมื่อมีพฤติการณ์ที่รู้กันทั่วไปตลอดมาว่าเป็นบุตร
(๒) การฟ้องขอให้รับเด็กเป็นบุตร จะฟ้องได้เมื่อเด็กได้คลอดจากครรภ์มารดาแล้ว( คำพิพากษาฎีกาที่ 1053/2480 การฟ้องรับรองบุตรนั้น จะฟ้องได้ต่อเมื่อเด็กนั้นได้คลอดจากครรภ์มารดาแล้ว และมีชีวิตรอดอยู่เป็นสภาพบุคคล) จะฟ้องในขณะที่ทารกยังอยู่ในครรภ์มารดาไม่ได้และมีชีวิตอยู่เป็นสภาพบุคคลก่อน นั่นคือเด็กคนนั้น จะต้องมีชีวิตอยู่ไม่ใช่แท้งหรือตาย สำหรับลูกของคุณที่อยู่ในท้องจะดำเนินการได้ ต้องรอให้เด็กคลอดมาเป็นทารกก่อนครับ
๓.๒ หลักฐานในคดี
สิ่งที่คุณควรทำในตอนนี้คือพยายามสะสมเอกสารของบิดาที่ได้แสดงไว้ว่า เด็กนั้นเป็นบุตร ก็สามารถร้องต่อศาล เพื่อให้ศาลพิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตรได้ ซึ่งอาจเป็นหนังสือที่แสดงไว้โดยตรง หรือโดยปริยายก็ได้ จะทำให้ไว้กับมารดาเด็กหรือบุคคลอื่นก็ได้ ไม่ว่าจะทำโดยสมัครใจ หรือถูกบังคับก็ตาม เช่น ทำให้ไว้กับผู้บังคับบัญชาในขณะที่มารดาเด็กได้ร้องเรียนทางวินัย ว่าจะรับผิดชอบ ค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงเด็กเพราะตนเป็นบิดา เป็นต้น หรือพยายามให้บิดาเป็นผู้แจ้งการเกิด หรือรู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งนั้น ก็เป็นเงื่อนไขอันหนึ่งที่บิดายอมรับว่าเด็กคนนี้ เป็นบุตรที่ใช้เป็นหลักฐานขอให้ศาลพิพากษาว่า เด็กเป็นบุตรได้ ข้อควรระวัง...โดยปกติเด็กคลอดที่โรงพยาบาล เจ้าหน้าที่มักจะสอบถามชื่อบิดาเด็กจากมารดา และมารดาเป็นผู้แจ้งชือบิดาโดยตัวบิดาไม่ได้แจ้งเองจึงอาจมีการโต้แย้งได้ว่า บิดาไม่ได้รู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งเกิดเด็กก็ได้ครับ
หลักฐานอื่นๆ เกี่ยวกับบิดามารดาได้อยู่กันอย่างเปิดเผย ในระยะเวลาที่หญิงมารดาอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้ เช่น บิดาเป็นผู้ไปจ่ายค่าห้องเช่าที่อาศัยอยู่ด้วยกันในช่วงเวลาที่ตั้งครรภ์โดยมีพยานรู้เห็นทั่วไป รวมทั้งพฤติกรรมอื่นๆ ที่เป็นที่รู้โดยทั่วไปตลอดมาว่าเป็นบุตร เช่น บิดาให้เด็กใช้นามสกุลของตน บิดาแสดงต่อบุคคลอื่น ว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร เป็นต้น การฟ้องค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูบุตร สามารถฟ้องรวมกันไปเป็นคดีเดียวกันกับการฟ้องให้ศาล พิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร เพราะถ้าศาลพิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร ศาลก็จะกำหนด ค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูบุตรในคดีนั้นไปด้วยกันเลยครับ
๔.คำถามที่เกี่ยวข้อง
๑.หลักกฎหมาย
ปพพ.ม.1548 บิดาจะจดทะเบียนเด็กเป็นบุตรชอบด้วยกฎหมายได้ต่อเมื่อได้รับความยินยอมของ เด็กและมารดาเด็ก นั่นหมายถึงบิดาต้องตามควมเป้นจริงแต่ไม่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายจะชอบต่อเมื่อตาม 1557 กรณีรับรองบุตรต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากเด็กและแม่เด้กที่จะรับรอง(ไม่ใช่ ภรรยาที่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายของบิดา)เด็กรู้เดียงสาไม่มีปัญหาเรื่องยินยอม ถ้าแม่เด้กยินยอมด้วยก็นำหลักฐานบัตรประจำตัวประชาชน สำเนาทะเบียนบ้านของพ่อแม่ สูติบัตรของเด็ก หลักฐานการเปลี่ยนชื่อตัว สกุล(ถ้ามี)ติดต่อนายทะเบียนอำเภอไหนก็ได้จดทะเบียนได้ในระบบคอมพิวเตอร์ ออนไลน์ จากนั้นขอคัดสำเนาหลักฐานการจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตรใช้แสดงขอใช้สิทธิได้ทันที ตาม1557 หากไม่ได้รับความยินยอมหรือไม่อาจให้ความยินยอมได้ก็จำเป้นต้องใช้สิทธิทาง ศาลเยาวชนฯต่อไป ยืนยันว่าไม่ต้องให้ภรรยาตัวจริงยินยอมต่อนายทะเบียน แต่จะให้รู้หรือไม่เป็นเรื่องเฉพาะตัว
๒.การจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร ข้อมูลจาก สำนักบริหารการทะเบียน กรมการปกครอง
หลักเกณฑ์ / คุณสมบัติ
เอกสารที่ใช้
- บัตรประจำตัวประชาชนผู้เกี่ยวข้อง
- ทะเบียนบ้านฉบับเจ้าบ้าน ผู้เกี่ยวข้อง
- สูติบัตรของบุตร
- หนังสือแสดงความยินยอมของบุตร
- หนังสือแสดงความยินยอมของมารดาของบุตร
- พยานบุคคล 2 คน
ขั้นตอนการดำเนินงาน
* บิดายื่นคำร้องขอจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร ต่อนายทะเบียน ณ สำนักทะเบียนอำเภอ กิ่งอำเภอหรือสำนักทะเบียนเขต
*เด็ก และมารดาเด็ก ต้องให้ความยินยอมในการจดทะเบียนทั้งสองคน ถ้าเด็กหรือมารดาเด็กคนใดคนหนึ่งไม่ให้ความยินยอมหรือไม่อาจให้ความยินยอม ได้ เช่น เด็กเป็นผู้เยาว์ไร้เดียงสา มารดาเด็กถึงแก่กรรม เป็นต้น การจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตรต้องมีคำพิพากษาของศาล
อื่น ๆ
แบบฟอร์ม
แบบฟอร์มคำร้องขอจดทะเบียนรับรองบุตร
๓.การฟ้องคดีต่อศาล
๓.๑ หลักกฎหมาย
(๑) ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์
มาตรา 1555 การฟ้องคดีขอให้รับเด็กเป็นบุตรชอบด้วยกฎหมาย ให้มีได้แต่ในกรณีต่อไปนี้
(1) เมื่อมีการข่มขืนกระทำชำเรา ฉุดคร่า หรือหน่วงเหนี่ยวกักขัง หญิงมารดาโดยมิชอบด้วยกฎหมายในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิงนั้นอาจตั้ง ครรภ์ได้
(2) เมื่อมีการลักพาหญิงมารดาไปในทางชู้สาว หรือมีการล่อลวง ร่วมประเวณีกับหญิงมารดาในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิงนั้นอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้
(3) เมื่อมีเอกสารของบิดาแสดงว่าเด็กนั้นเป็นบุตรของตน
(4) เมื่อปรากฏในทะเบียนคนเกิดว่าเด็กเป็นบุตรโดยมีหลักฐาน ว่าบิดาเป็นผู้แจ้งเกิดหรือรู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งนั้น
(5) เมื่อบิดาได้อยู่กินด้วยกันอย่างเปิดเผยในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิง มารดาอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้
(6) เมื่อได้มีการร่วมประเวณีกับหญิงมารดาในระยะเวลาซึ่งหญิง นั้นอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้และมีเหตุอันควรเชื่อได้ว่าเด็กนั้นมิได้เป็นบุตรของ ชายอื่น
(7) เมื่อมีพฤติการณ์ที่รู้กันทั่วไปตลอดมาว่าเป็นบุตร
(๒) การฟ้องขอให้รับเด็กเป็นบุตร จะฟ้องได้เมื่อเด็กได้คลอดจากครรภ์มารดาแล้ว( คำพิพากษาฎีกาที่ 1053/2480 การฟ้องรับรองบุตรนั้น จะฟ้องได้ต่อเมื่อเด็กนั้นได้คลอดจากครรภ์มารดาแล้ว และมีชีวิตรอดอยู่เป็นสภาพบุคคล) จะฟ้องในขณะที่ทารกยังอยู่ในครรภ์มารดาไม่ได้และมีชีวิตอยู่เป็นสภาพบุคคลก่อน นั่นคือเด็กคนนั้น จะต้องมีชีวิตอยู่ไม่ใช่แท้งหรือตาย สำหรับลูกของคุณที่อยู่ในท้องจะดำเนินการได้ ต้องรอให้เด็กคลอดมาเป็นทารกก่อนครับ
๓.๒ หลักฐานในคดี
สิ่งที่คุณควรทำในตอนนี้คือพยายามสะสมเอกสารของบิดาที่ได้แสดงไว้ว่า เด็กนั้นเป็นบุตร ก็สามารถร้องต่อศาล เพื่อให้ศาลพิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตรได้ ซึ่งอาจเป็นหนังสือที่แสดงไว้โดยตรง หรือโดยปริยายก็ได้ จะทำให้ไว้กับมารดาเด็กหรือบุคคลอื่นก็ได้ ไม่ว่าจะทำโดยสมัครใจ หรือถูกบังคับก็ตาม เช่น ทำให้ไว้กับผู้บังคับบัญชาในขณะที่มารดาเด็กได้ร้องเรียนทางวินัย ว่าจะรับผิดชอบ ค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงเด็กเพราะตนเป็นบิดา เป็นต้น หรือพยายามให้บิดาเป็นผู้แจ้งการเกิด หรือรู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งนั้น ก็เป็นเงื่อนไขอันหนึ่งที่บิดายอมรับว่าเด็กคนนี้ เป็นบุตรที่ใช้เป็นหลักฐานขอให้ศาลพิพากษาว่า เด็กเป็นบุตรได้ ข้อควรระวัง...โดยปกติเด็กคลอดที่โรงพยาบาล เจ้าหน้าที่มักจะสอบถามชื่อบิดาเด็กจากมารดา และมารดาเป็นผู้แจ้งชือบิดาโดยตัวบิดาไม่ได้แจ้งเองจึงอาจมีการโต้แย้งได้ว่า บิดาไม่ได้รู้เห็นยินยอมในการแจ้งเกิดเด็กก็ได้ครับ
หลักฐานอื่นๆ เกี่ยวกับบิดามารดาได้อยู่กันอย่างเปิดเผย ในระยะเวลาที่หญิงมารดาอาจตั้งครรภ์ได้ เช่น บิดาเป็นผู้ไปจ่ายค่าห้องเช่าที่อาศัยอยู่ด้วยกันในช่วงเวลาที่ตั้งครรภ์โดยมีพยานรู้เห็นทั่วไป รวมทั้งพฤติกรรมอื่นๆ ที่เป็นที่รู้โดยทั่วไปตลอดมาว่าเป็นบุตร เช่น บิดาให้เด็กใช้นามสกุลของตน บิดาแสดงต่อบุคคลอื่น ว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร เป็นต้น การฟ้องค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูบุตร สามารถฟ้องรวมกันไปเป็นคดีเดียวกันกับการฟ้องให้ศาล พิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร เพราะถ้าศาลพิพากษาว่าเด็กเป็นบุตร ศาลก็จะกำหนด ค่าอุปการะเลี้ยงดูบุตรในคดีนั้นไปด้วยกันเลยครับ
๔.คำถามที่เกี่ยวข้อง
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)