We've dealt with decluttering our desks (Monday) and our minds (Tuesday and Wednesday). Today we're turning our attention to downsizing digital clutter, starting with the inbox. Achieving Inbox Zero (or Close to It) Go take a look at the number of emails currently in your inbox. (We'll wait.) Is it zero? If so, congrats, you've already reached the mythical Inbox Zero. Go celebrate. For the rest of us (festivus!), is it 50? 500? 5,000? Does your number stress you out? What would be your ideal number? Knowing your comfort level will help you manage your inbox. For many of us, Inbox Zero is not realistic, but Inbox 100 just might be. Here's how we can get there... Delete, Repeat. This one is simple, and you're probably already doing it to some degree. But if your inbox number is upwards of 3 figures, you're a prime candidate for a batch delete. To batch delete, sort your inbox by sender. Twenty emails sitting around from J.Crew? Delete them as a batch by clicking on the sender then delete. Repeat for all unwanted emails/senders. Another helpful tip is to sort your inbox by subject. If you've got a long thread of emails using the same subject line, and the last one contains all of the earlier replies, consider just holding on to that last one and getting rid of the rest. (Tip courtesy of our Membership Coordinator Ann Boucher!)

All attorneys have opinions about judges. Those opinions are sometimes negative and are often shared around the office, or when talking shop with a colleague. But lawyers should beware of voicing those opinions in a more public forum. Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits attorneys from knowingly making false statements concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. So when do opinions become lies? The First Amendment protects people who are stating opinions. It doesn't protect defamatory speech. And the issue gets even more complicated when that speech is part of a document filed with the court. Some years back, the seventh circuit considered the nexus between the First Amendment and ethical rules in In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 1995). There, the court reviewed a rule to show cause why an attorney who had been disbarred in Illinois should not be disbarred by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as well.

Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. I am the sole owner of a two-attorney firm in Atlanta. I have been in practice for 13 years. I have one associate who has been with me for one year, one full-time paralegal, and two part-time assistants. I have a general practice. Revenues have stagnated and I need to identify strategies for getting to the next level. My practice is struggling. I have been thinking about narrowing my practice and focusing on five or six practice areas. I am ready to invest in marketing. I would appreciate your thoughts. A. This is the age of specialization – less often results in more. Many attorneys in small general practice firms are afraid to specialize and focus on three areas of practice or fewer. The concern is that by specializing, there simply will not be enough business of keep the attorneys busy generating sufficient revenues. I have worked with several firms that have shifted their practices from general practices to practices limited to estate planning and elder law and they have performed far better as specialized practices than they did as general practices. I suggest that you consider focusing your practice on on no more than two or three key practice areas in which you can differentiate yourself. Here are a few thoughts:

Don't throw away your shot! Register today. You've listened (obsessively) to the musical soundtrack, now explore the life of Hamilton: An American Lawyer. Join us Tuesday, May 23 from 10-11AM for this free live webcast — including 1 MCLE | 1* PMCLE — for the first 1,000 registrants (ISBA members only). Learn about the law practice of Alexander Hamilton, founding father extraordinaire and practicing lawyer in the early days of American jurisprudence. Recollections of his legal cases, letters, publications, and stories — as well as their historical context — are provided by John Lupton, executive director at the Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission. The program concludes with our panel presenters discussing how these issues would be addressed in the 21st century practice and how some of Hamilton's characteristics are applicable to a successful practitioner today. Topics include competency, zealous advocacy, representing the unpopular cause, civility, succession planning, and more! Program 'Singing' Moderator: John T. D. Bathke, Attorney at Law, Peoria and Chicago