State of Minnesota

In supreme court
C2-84-2163

In re: Proposed Amendments to the Rules of the Minnesota Supreme Court and State Board for Continuing Legal Education of Members of the Bar		Comments and Suggestions of the Minnesota State Bar Association Practice Management & Marketing Section	

Request to Make Oral Presentation

In accordance with the Court’s Order for Hearing, the Minnesota State Bar Association Practice Management & Marketing Section requests the opportunity to appear at the hearing concerning the Proposed Amendments to the Rules to supplement these Comments and Suggestions and respond to questions about them.

I. Comments and Suggestions Overview

The Section welcomes this Court’s initiative to bring about a more holistic concept of subjects appropriate for continuing legal education accreditation. Accordingly, the Section welcomes accreditation for "professional development and performance" courses in their own right.

The Section believes that such courses, along with all other elective continuing legal education courses, including specifically those pertaining to law practice management, should receive “standard” credits.

The Petition of the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for a rules change proposes instead to create a new category of  "professional development and performance" courses. Courses in this new, expanded category would include “law office management” courses. Under existing rules, lawyers may only count up to a maximum of six hours per reporting period for courses characterized as “law office management.” No other courses offered to Minnesota lawyers are subject to such a cap.

The proposed rules change would expand the range of courses thrown into the new category, even though they are dissimilar, for the purpose of making them all subject to a six hours per reporting period cap.

The effect would be to further diminish Minnesota lawyers’ opportunities to take the full range of continuing education courses they need to be able to cost-effectively deliver legal services to clients. 
Lawyers need more, not less, education about law practice management topics. Currently, such topics appear to be disfavored with respect to CLE credits. That is not true in any other state. 

We sincerely hope that it is not controversial to say that, just as lawyers need to know the law, lawyers need to know how to manage their legal work and their law practice to serve clients competently and cost-effectively. 

Eleven years ago, in 1992, the authoritative MacCrate Commission, appointed by then Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Wahl, recognized organization and management of legal work as one of ten fundamental skills every lawyer must possess before assuming responsibility for client matters. 

Follow up surveys of Minnesota lawyers in the late 1990s revealed that neither law schools nor continuing legal education courses are providing Minnesota lawyers the law practice management education they believe they need. Instead, lawyers mostly fend for themselves or learn from other lawyers when it comes to practice management.

Many malpractice and ethical lapses arise from law practice management failings. We believe restricting lawyers from receiving credits in this vital area harms both lawyers and clients. The Rules reasonably repose trust in lawyers to make wise decisions about every type of continuing legal education course except one type – “law office management” courses – even though they may be needed much more than legal refreshers and may have far greater impact by improving a lawyer’s practices across the board. 

To remedy this problem, we urge the Court to reject the proposed Rule amendment insofar as it proposes to alter the “law office management” category to address the Court’s interest in expanding the scope of courses eligible for continuing legal education credit and instead abolish “law office management” as a special, restricted category entirely. 

It is time to confirm that law practice management courses are indeed an integral part of the overall tapestry of continuing legal education lawyers should be free to take for credit. 

Accordingly, we suggest that there should be two basic categories of continuing legal education courses: “required” courses (currently, ethics and elimination of bias) and “elective” courses (all others).

As in law school, lawyers should be free to choose their elective courses according to their own individualized educational and practice needs. 

We respectfully suggest that implementing this suggestion will strengthen continuing legal education in Minnesota and recognize the profession’s best thinking about skills needed to effectively deliver legal services to clients. 

The days when lawyers did not need to know how to manage are gone, if they ever existed. CLE Rules that restrict educational opportunities about law practice management topics should likewise recede into the past.

II. About the MSBA Practice Management & Marketing Section

The Minnesota State Bar Association Practice Management & Marketing Section came into being in 2002 as a result of the merger of the former MSBA Law Practice Management Committee with the former MSBA Marketing and Client Service Section. Section bylaws identify the reason why a distinct section for practice management and marketing exists:

“The purpose of the Practice Management & Marketing Section shall be to inquire into the ways and means of ethical and effective law practice management, law practice marketing and promotion, and to explore how changes in the legal profession, society and technology may affect law practice management and marketing now and in the future.  The Section's primary concern shall be the assurance of appropriate and effective practice management and practice development techniques within the bounds set by ethical constraints and the education of Section members and others about law practice management and marketing.  The Section shall operate as a clearinghouse for all matters and information relative to law practice management and marketing for the MSBA, and as a source of information to the bar.” 

III. Lawyers Are Expected to Represent Clients Competently,
 Diligently, and at Reasonable Cost. 
Doing So Requires Practice Management Knowledge and Skills.

In its submission for the State’s 2004-05 Biennial Budget, this Court identified the following as one of its goals: 

"To regulate the admission to and practice of law in Minnesota so that each citizen seeking legal counsel is assured of competent representation." (Emphasis supplied.)

http://www.budget.state.mn.us/budget/operating/200405/prelim/193113.pdf (December 2, 2002).

This same principle is codified into Rule 1.1 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct:

“A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The Comment to Rule 1.1 recognizes that lawyer competence and lawyer education are related:

Competent handling of a particular matter includes… use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. … To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education. (Emphasis supplied.)

Id.

Rule 1.3 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct addresses a lawyer’s responsibility to be diligent:
“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”
And Rule 1.5 (a) provides the framework for compensating lawyers in private practice:
“A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
(1)	the time and labor required, ...
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services[.]” (Emphasis supplied.)
A lawyer’s fee is therefore connected to the quality and efficiency of the law firm’s systems and procedures for delivering legal services. 

Rule 5 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct imposes managerial responsibility upon lawyers who are partners and lawyers who supervise others. 

This Court’s recently adopted Professionalism Aspirations recognize that lawyers are not oracles who opine about the law but workers who provide skilled services to clients, usually for a price: 

A lawyer owes allegiance, learning, skill, and industry to a client. … We will endeavor to achieve our clients' legitimate objectives in our office practice work and in litigation as expeditiously and economically as possible.

Professionalism Aspirations, II.B. Proper Conduct on Behalf of Clients, http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/profasp.html (adopted January 11, 2001). (Emphasis supplied.)

Meeting the expectations of these Rules and Aspirations requires lawyers to understand the fundamentals of how legal services can be delivered. 

Increasingly, teams of lawyers and assistants, aided by other service providers, technologies, and tools, deliver legal services. Sole practitioners and small firms are not immune to these trends. In fact, they need and use law practice management techniques suited to their practices just as much as or more than attorneys in larger firms do. The situation is likewise in government and corporate law offices, in legal aid offices, and indeed in the courts themselves. 

Management is an integral, inseparable part of modern law practice, regardless of setting. That makes Minnesota’s current restriction on “law office management” credits an anomaly.

Indeed, in our research, we could not find any other mandatory continuing education state that has such a restriction. 

Many of those states take the opposite approach, requiring some or a minimum number of law practice management courses, or making it one permissible way to satisfy credit requirements (along with ethics, professionalism, anti-bias, and/or substance abuse or mental illness training). See generally ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education, Summary of MCLE State Requirements, http://www.abanet.org/cle/mcleview.html (summarizing 40 states’ requirements). 

IV. The Current Rule 7B Already Unreasonably Restricts Law Practice Management Educational Opportunities for Minnesota Lawyers.

The Rules of the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal Education do not limit the purpose of continuing legal education to “substantive” legal topics. 

If they did cover only “substantive” law, they would omit much that is vital to know about how to actually practice law.

Rule 1 articulates a broad, eminently practical, client-focused purpose for continuing legal education: 

The purpose of these Rules is … to improve lawyers’ knowledge of the law; and through continuing legal education courses, to address the special responsibilities that lawyers as officers of the court have to improve … the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.

Rules of the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal Education, Rule 1, http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us/clerules_7_0.htm. (Emphasis supplied.)

Quality of service is dependent in part on effective law practice management.

"The primary requirement [for course approval] is that the course relate primarily to the practice of law or the lawyer's professional responsibility. ... If the subject matter covered is designed to make the participant a better lawyer -- that is, better able to represent clients -- the course is likely to be approved." Heidenreich, Douglas R. (then Director, State Board Continuing Legal Education), Questions and Answers Concerning Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rules, The Bench and Bar of Minnesota, October 1975 at 11, 12. (Emphasis supplied.)

“CLE focuses on imparting current knowledge and skills needed by lawyers already engaged in practice.”  Harris, Frank V., Mandatory CLE: Uncommon Excess or Common Sense?, The Bench and Bar of Minnesota, April 1987 19, 21. (Emphasis supplied.)
One such essential skill, as explored in greater depth in a subsequent section, is the ability to manage one’s law practice.

Nonetheless, and despite the breadth of Rule 1, the Rules, as currently in effect, contain an anomalous limitation for any "course on law office management."  Lawyers may receive credit only for a maximum of six credits per reporting period for any course characterized as “law office management.” Rules of the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal Education, Rule 7B “Law Office Management.” http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us/clerules_7_0.htm

But nowhere do the Rules define “law office management" or where its boundaries may lie. Exactly what may be included or excluded is uncertain. Moreover, the boundary between this category and courses approved for general credit is nowhere articulated in the Rules. No comment provides any rationale for why “law office management” is such a disfavored subject, warranting strict limitation lest lawyers learn too much about it.

The climate may be said to tend to deter providers from offering “law office management” courses and lawyers from taking them. 

Indeed, an examination of courses approved for continuing legal education credit from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 revealed that 11,165 total hours of CLE credit was delivered within Minnesota borders, and only 165 hours of that was designated “law office management,” far and away the smallest percentage of any category. Fewer providers offered credit in this category than in any other.

We believe even the existing rule unnaturally restricts the size of the “market” for such courses.
 
No other subject is so constrained. While a lawyer would not do so for obvious reasons, under the Rules, that lawyer might well take 40 hours of accounting (a course accredited for standard credits several times in the last year) without restriction. Alternatively, the lawyer might take 45 hours of legal research (even if others actually perform research for the lawyer), 45 hours about litigation discovery (even if the lawyer never handles any discovery and has no intention to do so), etc.

Because lawyers have limited budgets and actually need to know more all the time, these examples are extremely unlikely to be found in fact (just as has been reported with respect to law and literature courses). 

But in every case save one – “law office management” – the Rules reasonably repose trust in lawyers to make wise decisions about their own selection of elective courses. 

In the case of “law office management,” the Rules distrust lawyers and thereby impede learning about the important bundle of skills contained in that category, no matter the quality of the instructor, the nature of the course, or the importance clients might place on their lawyer’s having the knowledge or skills in question.

Right now, if a lawyer starting out in practice needs to know more about law practice management (a term we suggest in preference to the more archaic, limited concept of “law office management”) and has to carefully spend his or her continuing legal education-budgeted dollars for that purpose, that young lawyer could earn a maximum of six CLE credits in “law office management” in his or her first three years of practice, six more over the next three years, and six more in the next three years. That is a total of   just eighteen credit hours – approximately three days of training – over the entire first nine years of his or her legal career.

Certainly there could be courses in the law office administration field that are not sufficiently related to the practice of law as such as to warrant not accrediting them as CLE. But any course that deals with subjects affecting clients, work performed for clients, overall competence and effectiveness of the lawyer and the lawyer’s service team, the ability to complete legal work in a diligent and efficient manner, and the ability to provide services at reasonable cost to the client, should receive credits as sufficiently related to the practice of law to make it worthwhile for lawyers to learn about.

V. The Proposed Amendments Would Further Diminish Law Practice Management Educational Opportunities for Minnesota Lawyers.

Let us restate that we welcome the addition of approval of courses the Court has sought to bring within the realm of the recognized, accredited universe of CLE offerings.

We object only to the method by which the proposed Amendments would accomplish that. 

Proposed Rule 2P creates a new definition:

"Professional Development Course" means a course or session within any course designed to enhance the development and performance of lawyers by addressing issues such as stress management, mental or emotional health, substance abuse, gambling addiction, career satisfaction and renewal, time management, law office management, technology in the law office, mentoring, or staff development.  Professional development courses do not include individual or group therapy sessions.”

Petition for Rule Amendment at 8. 

This definition throws some strange bedfellows together, apparently for the sole purpose of making them subject to the same six-hour cap currently applied to “law office management.” 

Courses about gambling addiction and technology in the law office, for example, have absolutely no points of commonality.  Yet they uncomfortably are to be lumped under the miscellaneous umbrella label: "Professional Development Course." 

Since courses about legal developments, procedural rules, and many other subjects could just as well have also been called "professional development courses,” the new category confuses more than it clarifies.  We submit it is more of a result-oriented definition than a logical one.

The Petition says nothing about the wisdom of treating “law office management,” a current, if disfavored, category recognized as a basis for credits for the last seventeen years, in a new and even more restrictive fashion. 

Yet, in effect this is what would happen under the proposed technique for recognizing the new types of courses for approval.

But why should the Rules force any lawyer to choose whether to have to take a course on law practice management or career satisfaction? One deals with systems and procedures. The other deals with personal intangibles, values, and lifestyles. Both may be needed, and both may be needed more so than updates on fields of law. (These days there are virtually limitless ways to keep current in legal developments, but far fewer ways to learn about other aspects of how to practice law.)   

We suggest instead that the simple addition of the words "and professional development" to Rule 1 should be sufficient to accommodate the type of courses which the court wishes to add to the mix of CLE programming in Minnesota. 

A comment could be added, describing the sorts of subjects that may typically be accredited. Nothing, however, should categorically preclude the offering of new and innovative courses by legitimate providers that may be valuable for lawyers in practice, designed to make them better lawyers, or help them evolve their practice to keep pace with a broader world that is changing far faster than lawyers are changing the way they practice. 

We do endorse paragraph Nine of the Petition, which states that accreditation of law office management courses "encourages education of lawyers about office management systems in order to prevent or reduce the likelihood of errors arising from lack of knowledge about such systems." 

We agree. That is why we submit these Comments and Suggestions. 

We can see no clear boundary between “substantive CLE” and “law practice management” CLE. Entire graduate schools and programs are devoted solely to the subject of management in general. There is abundant substance in management. Management, like law practice itself, is an eminently practical art. 

It is not sufficient to say that courses about law practice management may be packaged to qualify in certain instances for ethics or elimination of bias credits. 

Any subject matter might be so packaged, but we do not believe the spirit of the Rules contemplates the necessity of doing so, even if significant ethical rules are also present.
No other subject matter has to fit through the eye of the ethics or elimination of bias needle to avoid limitation on the number of credits awarded to it.

The Petition states at page 11 that:

"It is anticipated that the broader definition of CLE will encourage sponsors develop programming in new areas relevant to legal practice and to the problems and concerns that affect lawyers today."

While this is undoubtedly true for the new course subject matter that will now be recognized as eligible for continuing legal education, we are aware of no evidence or basis for belief that the proposed amendments will encourage sponsors to develop more law practice management programming than already offered.  

VI. The Seminal MacCrate Report Demonstrates that Law Practice Management Skills Are Fundamental to Good Lawyering.

The MacCrate Report documents fundamental skills and values of lawyering. The MacCrate Report is formally known as Legal Education and Professional Development -- An Educational Continuum, Report of The Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap, published by the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (1992).

Justice Rosalie Wahl appointed the initial members of the Commission in 1989 and served on the Task Force following her term as chairperson of the Section. MacCrate Report at xi. The MacCrate Report Conference was held in Minneapolis in the fall of 1993, ten years ago. Attendees included “judges, practicing attorneys, bar examiners, law clinic professors, legal writing instructors, and law librarians.”  Sanderson, Rosalie M., AALL Newsletter, December 1993, pp. 188-189.

The Task Force Chair, Robert MacCrate, was a former American Bar Association President. The Report itself focused across the continuum of law school, law practice, and continuing legal education. 

The Report explored the largely uncharted waters: “Surprisingly … there has been no in-depth study of the full range of skills and values that are necessary in order for a lawyer to assume the professional responsibility of handling a legal matter.” MacCrate Report at 7.  

The Task Force did just that, assembling its research and insights into a comprehensive “Statement of Fundamental Lawyering Skills and Professional Values.” According to the Task Force, these are the skills and values lawyers should acquire “before assuming ultimate responsibility for a client.” Id. at 125. The Statement is concerned with what it takes to practice law competently and professionally.” Id. 

The Task Force expressly hoped to influence continuing legal education programs through its work and findings:

“The Statement of Skills and Values can serve as a guide to commercial and non-profit organizations for continuing legal education -- as well as to local, state, and national bar associations -- in developing appropriate programs.  It also can serve as a reference source for state bars, state supreme courts, and other entities responsible for overseeing the bar, and assessing the need for mandatory continuing legal education and evaluating the adequacy of existing programs of continuing legal education.”

Id. at 129.

The Report sets out ten major skills, among them Problem Solving, Legal Analysis and Reasoning, Legal Research, Factual Investigation, Communication, Counseling, Negotiation, Organization and Management of Legal Work, and Recognizing and Resolving Ethical Dilemmas.

The Report identifies several specific aspects of Organization and Management of Legal Work as fundamental, including:

•	formulating goals and principles for effective practice management, 

•	developing systems and procedures to ensure that time, effort, and resources are allocated efficiently, 

•	developing systems and procedures to ensure that work is performed and competed at the appropriate time, 

•	developing systems and procedures for effectively working with other people, and 

•	developing systems and procedures for efficiently administering a law office.

See id. at 199-202.

The Commentary explains the importance of these practice management skills to effective law practice itself:

“As studies have recognized, efficient organization and management of legal work is an essential precondition for competent practice.  See, e.g., American Bar Association, Final Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Professional Competence 17-18 22, 31 (1983); American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, a Practical Guide to Achieving Excellence in the Practice of Law: Standards, Methods, and the Self-evaluation 241 (1992) ("[a]ll too often, a lawyer's incompetence can be traced to poor management skills and practices"). Lawyering ability and experience are of little avail if a lawyer misses a deadline or fails to detect a conflict of interest as a result of inadequate office procedures.

This Statement's formulation of the skill focuses on central aspects of practice management -- efficient allocation of time, compliance with deadlines, and effective collaboration with others -- which are applicable regardless of whether a lawyer is a solo practitioner, a partner or associate in a firm, or a lawyer in public service practice.  The Statement also calls for some understanding of systems for administering a law office because even though new lawyers will rarely serve in the role of administrator, a certain degree of familiarity with such procedures is useful for effective functioning within a law office.

As with other skills analyzed in this Statement, this section's analysis of practice management rests upon a certain vision of professional values.  It assumes a lawyer who is committed not only to competent representation but also to pro bono work; improving the profession; and professional self-development.”

Id. at 202-203. 

The MacCrate Report concludes with various recommendations for implementation, including this one concerning mandatory continuing legal education:

“The Task Force recommends that all states, including those that have yet to adopt an MCLE requirement, give serious consideration to imposing upon all attorneys subject to their jurisdiction a requirement for periodic instruction in fundamental lawyering skills and professional values.”

Id. at 312.

While our Section does not propose making law practice management education mandatory for Minnesota lawyers, the Section does respectfully note that Minnesota’s active restriction on law practice management education stands in stark contrast to the regime envisioned by the authors of the MacCrate Report, included among them a former Justice of this Court.

The wisdom of the MacCrate Report was unavailable to Minnesota CLE rulemakers when the restriction on “law office management” credits was added in the late 1980’s. 

But it is available today. No apparent reason suggests itself to us why this Court would find it advantageous to depart from its teachings or why clients of Minnesota law firms, if given a voice in the matter, would want it to do so. 

To us, Minnesota’s current approach to “law office management” appears out of alignment with the profession’s best effort to date to define the range of skills lawyers need to be competent lawyers capable of serving clients effectively. The proposed Rule amendments simply make the issue come to the surface.

VII. Minnesota Lawyers Believe Law Practice Management Skills Are Important. They Are Not Learning Them in Law School, and They Are Not Learning Them Through Continuing Legal Education.

A few years after the publication of the MacCrate Report, Professor John Sonsteng of William Mitchell College of Law surveyed Minnesota lawyers about the skills the MacCrate Report had identified as important for lawyers to possess. See Sonsteng, John, Minnesota Lawyers Evaluate Law Schools, Training and Job Satisfaction, 26 William Mitchell Law Review 327-484 (2000). 

Uniquely, in Minnesota, we have not only the wisdom of the MacCrate Report itself but also 1997 – 1999 survey responses from Minnesota lawyers about what they think they need to know to practice law, whether law school prepares them for law practice, and other sources they turn to for skills important to their law practices.

According to Professor Sonsteng:

In the areas to which [law schools] address their attention, graduates perceive themselves to be well prepared and perceive the law school curriculum to be a significant source of training.  These skill areas are: (1) ability in legal analysis and legal reasoning; and (2) written communication.  In the other legal practice skill areas and in all of the management skill areas, law school training does not provide a significant source of training.  In these areas experience seems to be the main source of training without the former apprenticeship system's actual requirement that attorneys learn at the knee of an experienced attorney. The training is left up to the individual lawyer, for better or worse. 

Sonsteng at 329-330. 

In response to Professor Sonsteng’s survey, eighty-five percent (85%) of participating Minnesota lawyers said organization and management of legal work is important.  

Only twenty and one-half percent (20.5%) of them said law school prepared them to have that skill.  Id. at 337. 

Across the board, Minnesota attorneys validated the MacCrate Report’s fundamental lawyering skills as important:

 All of the lawyering skill areas defined by MacCrate were perceived by attorneys as important to their practice of the law[.] 

Id. at 340.

Professor Sonsteng’s survey also asked Minnesota lawyers about the source or sources through which they acquired various law practice skills. 

Fewer than five percent of Minnesota lawyer respondents cited continuing legal education courses as the source of their skill in the area of organization and management of legal work.  Id. at 367. So there is work to be done. 

Professor Sonsteng’s Conclusion serves as a cogent reminder that there is much more to knowing how to practice law than the substantive subjects students learn in law school:

The results of the survey indicate that, although attorneys perceive themselves to be better prepared today than they were in the past, there are many skills attorneys perceived to be important for which they did not feel well-prepared after graduating from law school.  The predominant source of training for most of the skills is the attorney's own experience, observing other lawyers, law-related work while in law school and advice from other lawyers.  These sources of training are strikingly similar to the apprenticeship system that the three-year law school system was intended to replace.  This survey confirmed a dissatisfaction that prompted the MacCrate Report.  Law schools do not do an adequate job in training lawyers in the majority of legal practice and management skills that lawyers believe are important to their practice of law. Law schools are doing a disservice to clients and the lawyers who represent them by failing to train graduates adequately in these legal practice and management skills.

The Bar has long recognized that legal training should occur throughout a lawyer's career, but our results suggest that lawyers do not receive the directed on-going training they need to practice and manage effectively. ... The skills that are not being taught are the skills that are necessary to make an office run effectively.  The skills would reduce stress and increase efficiency and productivity. 

Id. at 447.

VIII. In Conclusion, the Section Favors Two Classes of Credits: Required Courses and Electives. Artificial Constraints on Selecting Electives Should Be Abolished.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Section respectfully suggests that the Court authorize credit for newer forms of continuing legal education but reject the proposed Rule amendment insofar as it proposes to lump them in with “law office management” courses.

More importantly, we believe that the time has come to abolish “law office management” as a special, restricted category and integrate law practice management courses into the mainstream of continuing legal education.

We suggest there should be two categories of continuing legal education courses:

1.	“required” courses (currently, ethics and elimination of bias), and

2.	 “elective” courses (all other courses).

Lawyers should be free to choose their elective courses according to their own individualized educational and practice needs. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 12, 2003			______________________
            LaVern A. Pritchard
						Tel: 612-332-0102
						#88444

						______________________
						Michael Vitt
						Tel: 612-722-3449
						#147234
						
Co-Chairs,
						Minnesota State Bar
Practice Management and Marketing Section
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402