Can Entrepreneurial Principles Make You a Better Lawyer? Part 2, 0220 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 2 Pg. 14

AuthorBY RONALD M. SANDGRUND, ESQ., INQ.
PositionVol. 49, 2 [Page 14]

49 Colo.Law. 14

Can Entrepreneurial Principles Make You a Better Lawyer? Part 2

Vol. 49, No. 2 [Page 14]

Colorado Lawyer

February, 2020

The InQuiring Lawyer

BY RONALD M. SANDGRUND, ESQ., INQ.

THE INQUIRING LAWYER

Believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart.

Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful, that's what matters to me.[1]

This is the seventh article series by The InQuiring Lawyer addressing a topic that Colorado lawyers may discuss privately but rarely talk about publicly. The topics in this column are explored through dialogues with lawyers, judges, law professors, law students, and law school deans, as well as entrepreneurs, journalists, business leaders, politicians, economists, sociologists, mental health professionals, academics, children, gadflies, and know-it-alls (myself included). If you have an idea for a future column, I hope you will share it with me via email at rms.sandgrund@gmail.com.

This month's article is the second of a three-part conversation about whether entrepreneurial principles can make better lawyers. In Part 1, we explored a "philosophy of entrepreneurship" with Professor Brad Bernthal of Colorado Law, director of the Entrepreneurship Initiative for the Silicon Flatirons Center; former law dean Marty Katz of Denver Law and now chief innovation officer at Denver University; and Lisa Neal-Graves, former chief innovation officer at the Colorado Attorney General's office. Through this dialogue, we learned that an entrepreneurial approach involves a growth mind-set, empathy, and a polished interpersonal skillset, combined with a human-centered, trial-and-error tool set that allows for creative thinking, calculated risk-taking, and learning through failure. Parts 2 and 3 expand on this topic, focusing on how a philosophy of entrepreneurship translates to building a more effective law practice.

Thanks to my friends Phil Weiser, Sue Heilbronner of MergeLane, and Dave DuPont of TeamSnap, without whose inspiration I would not have been able to put this piece together. And many thanks to Vincent Dimichele, a Colorado Law 2L, for his help with die dialogue and die thoughtful questions he raised during the editing process.

Introduction to Part 2

In my Philosophy of Entrepreneurship inter-disciplinary class at Colorado Law, we separate die course into six topics for our law, business, and engineering students. First, we examine how adopting an entrepreneurial mind-set can help serve one's core values and lead to a fulfilling life. Second, we look at how building, using, and serving a networked, rather than hierarchal, community help one succeed at both a personal and career level. The class posits that die "lone wolf" view of successful entrepreneurs is a myth, and that no one goes it alone—collaboration and mentors are key.

In die third and fourth units, we address two entrepreneurial methodologies: design-centered thinking (DCT) and Lean. In DCT, also known as human-centered thinking, one tries to experience die world from die "other's" perspective, through empathy, where the other is usually a client, customer or co-worker, but can also be a judge, a jury, opposing counsel—any-one.2 At both Colorado and Denver Law, DCT has been applied also to try to solve societal problems through social entrepreneurship, often channeled through government and nonprofit organizations. The next methodology, Lean, focuses on formulating a description of a problem (a "problem statement"), testing a solution, measuring and learning from die result, refining die problem statement and/or the test in light of what you have learned, and then rapidly iterating this process using small test batches or bare-bones prototypes ("All right folks, let's start it up and see why it doesn't work"). In other words, "failing fast and failing often." While this might sound like a disastrous recipe for a successful law practice, I invite you to read die lawyer's stories here and in Part 3 and draw your own conclusions.

Fifth, die class explores two related topics: (1) our unconscious cognitive biases, not just involving race, gender, and the like, but also regarding flaws in our reasoning and logical assumptions;[3] and (2) how to relate to different personality types (e.g., extrovert versus introvert). We look at how effective leaders navigate these biases and interpersonal issues and find that collaborative problem-solving and empathy help mitigate biases, enhance teamwork, and improve outcomes.

Finally, we confront risk. We look at how law school inadvertently cultivates and rewards risk aversion in its graduates, ignoring die fact that opportunity is often die flip side of die risk coin, and that failing means learning.[4]

While die ultimate focus in class is for a team of students to apply these principles to help a local startup solve a pressing business problem, die principles described above can be applied to starting a legal or other career, hanging a shingle, exploring a new practice area, and understanding and advising business and other clients more effectively.

Each of die lawyers interviewed here and in Part 3 will tell you that often the riskiest thing to do is to play it safe. In addition to looking for evidence of entrepreneurial thinking among this article's interviewees, we explore whether entrepreneurship is part of one's DNA or something that can be learned and passed a long to others, or some combination of die two.

Participants

Rex O'Neal is a founder of and partner in The Sage Law Group. His practice focuses on supporting technology companies and their investors on every variety of financing and commercial strategy and transaction. He previously worked at Faegre Baker Daniels, Fischer Imaging Corporation, Radiant Data Corporation, and Cooley Godward.

Christina Saunders is a founder of and partner with SK&S Law Group, maintaining a practice emphasis in corporate law and intellectual property matters, including copyright, trademark, and trade secret issues.

Rex O'Neal's Entrepreneurial Journey

InQ: Before we talk about how you went from social worker to lawyer to startup CEO and then back to lawyer, could you describe what you think are some of the more important traits of a successful business entrepreneur?

Rex: It requires a single-mindedness and a fierceness, especially under difficult circumstances. I've worked with 23-year-olds who've started companies. They were frictionless raising money and then selling for $200 to $300 million. But I've learned that those are the outliers. For most CEOs and founders, it's much more hand-to-mouth and robbing Peter to pay Paul. At times, they have to disregard the collateral damage from the decisions they're making— something I'm not good at.

InQ: Are there other characteristics that you've seen common to entrepreneurs?

Rex: Suspension of disbelief. The ability to look at a situation and see an angle or an opportunity and say to yourself, "it's possible," even if there are significant challenges. Another way to describe it is that they can undervalue risk. Some of the serial entrepreneurs I work with are on their fourth or fifth business. No business goes from A to B without a redirection, pivot, or turnaround. So there is this unhesitant confidence, coupled with periodic reassessment.

InQ: Anything else?

Rex: The capability to question assumptions. I think this is what kills some of our clients. About 30% of our clients who seem very promising either significantly under per form or fail. Why do they fail? Because they fall in love with their initial concept and cannot adjust their frame of reference when circumstances change. We work with some entrepreneurs who are incredibly skilled at making that adjustment: they see opportunity or market changes before anyone else. It comes through the feedback they're getting from customers, or suddenly they have a different appreciation of the competitive landscape and they see a vacuum where there is a more promising opportunity to go in a different direction. Still, they have to first convince themselves they're right; then they have to convince their team; then they have to convince their external stakeholders—who were highly invested in the first plan—that the second plan is better. It's an exciting skill set to have. It's really a form of evangelism—some people are just completely gifted in this way.

Origins

InQ: Rex, let's go back to the beginning—can you sum up your family and work background?

Rex: My dad ran a mill workshop at a local lumber yard in Indiana. Eventually, he went to work as a general manager for a small lumber yard in Florida. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. I'm the youngest of three kids. My brother and sister are quite a bit older. I grew up with very little direction or feedback. I view that as a benefit in that nothing was out of bounds for me. As long as I was getting good grades my parents didn't really care what I was doing. I was really lucky that while in high school I got a job as a copy boy at the major St. Petersburg newspaper. I got to work with reporters, some of whom are now lead byline at The Washington Post and one of whom runs the Pew Charitable Trust. Very bright people. That really opened up my view of what was possible. I grew up in a kind of a lower-middle class family. I never was deprived of anything, but looking back and just thinking about the circumstances that my parents were in, they didn't really have very many alternatives available to them.

Social Worker (1980-88)

InQ: Why don't you take us on a quick tour of your professional life?

Rex: I was a pretty good student. I wanted to leave Florida...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT