Blog Posts

THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT IN LAW PRACTICE RISKS – CLAIMS

11/2/2016

     People regularly get injured in their own homes, so you well know that there is risk in anything as simple as getting out of bed. The well-advised person always takes reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of harm. Lawyers likely need either a carrier or someone in house to regularly remind them to do the extra things to protect themselves in their law practice as they bolt about in the normally hectic practice day. If they do not, claims abound.

     Over the last twenty years, firms have recognized the value of loss prevention of those claims in firms and often designate one or more lawyers to serve in the capacity of General Counsel, as a lawyer to the firm. Aon, a carrier in the errors and omissions field for lawyers, did a survey of various General Counsel to see what was waking them up at night. “The Aon General Counsel Survey” Summer 2016. Their top ten list included:

                        Conflicts of Interest
                        Data Security
                        New Business Intake
                        Mistakes
                        Outside Counsel Guidelines
                        Issues arising with Lateral Hires
                        Client Pressures
                        Malpractice Claims
                        Aging Lawyer Issues
                        Document Storage and Retention

     That listing alone shows how many different areas of a practice presents risks in the modern law firm. Some did not even exist a few years ago, but now can rise to a potential firm ending event. So, lawyers need to do excellent work, in accordance with all ethical rules, and likewise do risk control in every phase of their own work. It is now more than just good quality control of your legal product – it is self-protection.

     Chuck Lundberg in his recent “Quandaries and Quagmires: The Hottest Law Firm Exposure Issues” points to two issues rising to the top in concerns for firms:

          • Cyberliability/data breach and the view that firms will have to deal with a data breach emergency.

          • Client imposed retainer agreements and the trend to impose far more duties upon the lawyer relationship than the rules required.

     Claims against lawyers trend with social and economic events, but it takes time to study them. Another carrier for large firm lawyers, ALAS, looked at trailing claims, from 2011 to 2015. They noted how volatile lawyer liability could be and saw how much the value of claims, and the needed resources to deal with them, had increased in recent years. Mistakes of all types were leading causes followed by stinky clients, conflicts of interest and lawyer misconduct.

     Areas of law come and go as hot areas for claims. Litigation claims, often driven by mistakes like missing deadlines, have blossomed in recent years. Corporate, securities and real estate have started to trend down somewhat in a big picture view.

     The thing ALAS noted was that long-standing, high-performing and usually claim-free firms were getting big claims, despite their good history. It proves the point that loss prevention in law firms must never sleep. A strong program with enforceable teeth in it and a culture of doing the right thing is required. Claims will happen but a firm of any size that is educating its staff and lawyers, coupled with good checks and balances, stands a much better chance than others. For the non-interested lawyers, I always describe it as keeping the post-tax income rather than seeing it slide off the table with a claim. They need to work as hard to preserve firm income as they did to earn it.

0 Comments

WHAT IMPRESSION DO YOU MAKE WITH CLIENTS?

10/3/2016

1 Comment

     From summer clerkship to my switch to “Of Counsel”, I always wore a coat and tie to the office. I readily admit I now like my business casual attire, unless I am in court or at a lawyerly function. Despite that, I still suggest to young lawyers that they are making first impressions every day, and they matter.
     As my office approaches 50/50 female to male lawyers, I note that the females tend to dress and appear more professional than the male lawyers. I suggest this “impression” you are creating matters not only with other lawyers, but significantly with clients. Dressing and acting professionally makes a difference. You never know when you are making that first impression.
     You will find this odd, but back in the day we were encouraged to wear coats and ties to law school classes and that was six days a week the first year. They were conditioning us to the transition to a professional school. Times change and by my third year that standard eased. In the 1990’s baseball hat era, a law school professor friend had to remind students to take their hats off in class by saying: “There is a good trade school at the bottom of High Street if that is what you want.” My late mother-in-law could not believe that people ate dinner out wearing hats. In the days when women sometimes wore hair curlers in public, she was known to say: “I wonder where she is going that is more important than where she is.”
     Since I generally write about law firms and loss prevention, I do not want you to think I am now just being fashion conscious. It goes beyond that to first and other impressions that get you business and, believe it or not, keep you from getting sued. I recall two new files and when I asked the source, the management types said they had been left on hold by the receptionist at the XYZ law firm. Reception and telephone staff are key figures in a lawyer’s good impression with clients. Lawyers who answer their telephones and promptly return calls and electronic messages are part of that impression. Think of all the things that irritate you and do not do those yourself. Work with your staff on first impressions and client relations and you will have happier clients who will refer you to others and repeat their business with you. It really is basic and about impressions by both you and your staff.
     An older article on the subject by the loss prevention staff at ALPS (https://t.co/WqMNLpuXmr) made me revisit this subject. It fit with my talks to law firm staff over the years about the importance of their role. It also points out that we lawyers can benefit by learning good “customer” service by using good sense and making good impressions.
     “Impression: An idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, often formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.” Dictionary definition. Sometimes we lawyers need to stop our daily rush and think about these little things like this that distinguish successful lawyers from those that do not bother.

1 Comment

YOUR LEGAL MALPRACTICE COVERAGE

9/1/2016

0 Comments

     “The cobbler’s children have no shoes” and other such proverbs in different cultures highlight the phenomena that people successful in a field often do not demonstrate that skill set in their personal lives or business. Coupled with the average lawyer’s desire to “just practice law”, many practitioners just do not pay enough attention to the need for errors and omissions coverage for their practice. Yet most of these same good lawyers will properly advise their clients to obtain needed coverages, and even call their own automobile insurance agent from the dealership when they acquire a new vehicle. But, a client asserts a claim sometimes the lawyers don’t handle the notice correctly, or yikes — they do not have any coverage at all.

     Sure, you do not have to have such coverage to practice in most all states, but why would you not? It is a cost of the practice of law and if you cannot afford it, perhaps a new personal mission statement is in order. If you are not making enough income to cover needed expenses, perhaps a change is needed. You will get claims in any practice, and some will result in losses. No one is immune from these. It may also be difficult to build any practice if business clients and referring law firms know you have no malpractice coverage.

     At the 2016 National Legal Malpractice Conference, they reported that small law firms were seeing an uptick in claims. Practice pressures arising from competition and client demands for efficiency to just survive in practice likely contributed to more claims. They report larger firms are seeing stabilization of the number of claims, but the bad news for larger firms is that the damage numbers per claim are spiking upwards. The dreaded mistake, that simple error, continues to plague all firms. Panelists pointed to practice pressures causing practice teams to be leaner, along with client restrictions on legal work allowed, are causing basic “fail safes” such as proofreading to be skipped, leading to losses. Small slips, but big falls as they say.

     If you are reading this and do not have coverage, jump up and go call someone for quotes and coverages. If you have it, how about educating yourself a bit about your policy and its requirements. It does not help to have it, and then fail to notify the carrier immediately when you know of a claim. It does not help to omit key information on your application, leading to a later denial. Can you acquire prior acts coverage when you place your insurance? Does the policy cover you for the costs of ethics complaints? Are you covered if you are acting as an arbitrator, mediator, or in a fiduciary capacity? See Tami K. Meyer, “Does Having Malpractice Insurance Decrease Malpractice?”) (http://goo.gl/iO7BpX).

     We all know about overhead. Yes, errors and omissions coverage costs real money and falls into that category. I argue you cannot afford to be without the coverage on a gap free basis. Then, when you cease to practice, buy a “tail coverage” policy and sleep well.

0 Comments

LAWYERS — GET OUT AND ABOUT

8/2/2016

0 Comments

            I recently attended a meeting where they discussed using voluntary bar associations to build your law practice. I sat there thinking it was like telling Noah about floods. The attendees were all members of such an association and were there listening. They were the believers, and those not there were the ones who really needed to hear this.
            As the law practice changes constantly, we now see law firm managers saying no to paying for any such association meetings. “How does that help the bottom line when you go to meetings with other lawyers?” is what you may hear. In the litigation part of my practice, almost all of my referrals come from other lawyers. It is all about relationships. I know them – they know me and feel comfortable sending their client to me. The end result is new business which I never would have gotten sitting comfortably in my office just billing time.
            So just from the economics of the practice, you need to get out and about to develop your practice. Think through this with me – Have you ever gotten a new client from the internet, or from an email? I say to the new economy law managers, free your lawyers and get them out. If you still do not believe in associations with lawyers, make sure they are out in their communities doing something to develop personal relationships. There is a rich tradition in American jurisprudence of the lawyer citizen. For hundreds of years, lawyers in America have been involved in every aspect of their communities and their government. This has been the case through many difficult economies.
            Forgive me if I say it is not always about the dollar. If you wanted a job, you could have gone to the local technical school with a lot less effort. You chose a profession instead of just a job, and I suggest you owe a non-compensated return of your time. In the process you can help your community and your profession.
            You cannot do any of this from your billing cubby. You cannot do this by simply going home, rather than stopping at a community event on the way home. So I am preaching to you younger lawyers and to you lawyer managers to get out and forget a bit about the short-term billing. There are dividends for you and to your clients. You know people and they know you and it can benefit your client considerably, in addition to getting new business for you over time.
            My goal here is to convince you being active and involved outside your office will make you a better lawyer and will increase your business. As one of the speakers quoted: “Dogs do not bark at parked cars.”

0 Comments

THE MECHANICS OF A CONFLICTS CHECK

7/5/2016

3 Comments

            I regularly stress to lawyers the importance of avoiding conflicts. There is no such thing as a small conflict. It is either/or. As they say, if you think it is a small issue, you have never been in a dark room with a mosquito.
            Having stressed the likely results with a conflict in a claim against a lawyer, I recently gave a conflicts presentation which highlighted the need to first develop a solid conflict checking procedure. We often forget that the later conflicts check comes directly from the initial file opening, done perhaps years before. In that presentation, I decided I could do them more good with conflicts by helping them develop a good procedure to open files.
            As the law practice has changed, clearing conflicts now has to be both nimble and effective at the same time. The time of getting back to the client next week is over. The reasonable man standard, as applied to lawyers, requires you to use computer-assisted technology to do conflicts, in my opinion. A study by HBR Consulting in 2016 showed that lawyers reported 58% lost business due to delays in clearing conflicts while 75% reported new business because they cleared conflicts promptly. So, your system needs to be reliable and needs to work quickly.
            First of all, the contacted lawyer needs to stop the prospective client from revealing facts or confidences until after the conflicts are cleared. If you are conflicted out on the new case because you are already representing the opposing party, you could be then conflicted out of both if you heard the facts and defenses of the proposed new client, before you cleared the case. Most often, the lawyer must actively stop the proposed client from revealing these facts at the initial call.
            Most professional rules require conflict checks at these times (e.g. NY Bar Assoc. Comm. On Professional Ethics Opinion 1085):
                        • When the firm agrees to represent a new client;
                        • When the firm agrees to represent an existing client in a new matter;
                        • When the firm brings in lawyers who have practiced before;
                        • When an additional party is named or appears in a pending matter.

So, all this stresses that you are not done with just the original check. It is a moving target and that requires the lawyer to initiate later checks during the handling of the matter. For this reason, your process needs to be solid, highly accurate, and functional.
            The file opening procedure therefore is the ground work for the later computer-assisted checks. The opening system should force the lawyer to determine exactly who the client is and to so state that along with the scope of the engagement (both should be upfront in the engagement letter). In claims you sometimes see lawyers who were not clear that they were representing the corporation and not the CEO or the Board, as an example. Occasionally, they also lose sight of their client during the representation. The basic issue for the conflicts check thereafter always starts with checking against clients.
            Secondly, to whom will this new client be adverse? That is also a fundamental element in later checks. Adverse before, and adverse now, would not be a problem in the conflicts check. Another block in the opening process should include a listing of “other parties” in the litigation or the transaction. This becomes relevant if a new party enters, or some other claim is made. So long as you are neither adverse to them, nor have relevant confidential information from them on the issue, you could have current clients in a case you are handling for a new client as “other parties”.
            While not necessarily a conflict (see ABA Opinion 95-390 (1995)) being adverse to a client’s affiliate or subsidiary can cause you some issues unless resolved with the current client. Accordingly, it is helpful to list all known affiliates when opening a new matter. Watch out for client guidelines that seek to impose “one equals all” rules upon you when these do not necessarily exist under the professional rules. Likewise, a listing of the principal contact for the file may present an embarrassing moment years later when another partner sues the CEO of your current client. Not a true conflict if you only represented the company, but it sure presents a political and practical conflict.
            These basics should all go into your normal file openings, followed by an engagement letter. Later when a search is made, your system should give you back a full report that allows “wild card” or “expander” type searches of various spellings of the name. Your conflicts report then would show prior clients with that name, the matter, and when opened and when closed, if so. I suggest a line for the attorney to sign and date showing he or she checked all the disclosed information against the new parties. It sure makes a good exhibit in any claim against the lawyer alleging a conflict of interest.

3 Comments

SELECTING CLIENTS

6/3/2016

0 Comments

            I am not above revisiting a topic. It can be like jury work where you need to tell them three times and then show them the visual of the same. So, I say again you should be selecting which clients you will represent with conscious aforethought. See, April 2016 at http://goo.gl/lGKoWi
            When you started to elementary school, you needed basic instruction which always included: “Stop – Look – Listen” before you crossed the street. That single admonition will serve you well as a lawyer taking on new business. Even lawyers fell for some version of the early Nigerian email scams. Any such scheme preys on the human frailties and the failure to use conscious aforethought.
            A new and previously unknown client presents what appears to be a nice piece of business. You properly limit the factual information so you can first do a conflicts check and then advise the new client if you can proceed. How about some old-fashioned checking of this prospective client to see if you deserve to be their lawyer? Public information is readily available using the internet. The reasonable attorney standard should now include vetting of the prospective company and its individuals. Thereafter, more in-depth questioning of the new client should also allow you to use the old-fashioned smell tests with regard to any shell entities or money-raising schemes they may be proposing.
            Lawyers, in their zeal for new work, can easily get pulled into financial schemes which leave them as the only solvent payor where the enterprise goes bust. Before lending your name and reputation to an unknown client, shouldn’t you know why they want you to do work for some other geographical area, or if the structure they seek to use is overly complex? See, Law360, April 8, 2016.
            Further, in the modern practice there are many areas where you will just lack the required technical experience. I often advise lawyers not to “dabble” or engage in areas beyond their experience. There is nothing wrong with learning new areas, but it is easy to misstep without training and guidance. Like going through a buffet line, do not take on a new case beyond your current capacity and be very wary of the last-minute new client who needs you tomorrow.
            Truth to tell, no startling or novel advice is offered here. However, there is a reason that we often tell jurors something three times and then show them a visual to make the point. Don’t be a defendant because you failed to do what the modern “reasonable attorney” would have done.

0 Comments

Lawyer Problems

5/2/2016

0 Comments

            The ABA and most all state bar groups have for many years offered assistance programs for lawyers with dependency issues. As a lawyer, you must wonder why we have more of these issues than other professions.
            The ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs recently released its study showing 21% of licensed and employed lawyers qualify as problem drinkers; 28% struggle with some form of depression; and 19% demonstrate symptoms of anxiety. Surprisingly younger lawyers in their first ten (10) years of practice exhibited the highest incidence of these issues. This was in sharp contrast to prior studies that older lawyers were more at risk.
            What is it in our profession that makes us have these higher rates? While all professions have the same issues, as does society at large, few are as competitive as the practice of law. Here there are winners or losers in every case, unlike other professions. So we have a high stress environment, coupled with aggressive behavior, with all sides always trying to win cases for clients. Many who become lawyers are competitive by nature and are entering a high stress field which requires long hours to be successful. You do not hear dentists say: “We are in it – to win it.”
            None of this is surprising, but instead it is fully documented and shown in this extensive study published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine (February 2016 – Volume 10 – Issue 1 at pp. 46-52). All of us have seen and experienced lawyers with issues. In my early practice, it seemed to be mostly the trial lawyers with alcohol problems and then later we saw other substance issues starting to affect younger lawyers. We have also become more aware of depression or other mental health issues in the workplace in current times.
            I have written of this before (http://goo.gl/tvHPC9 and http://goo.gl/ZFpDSt). The point of all this discussion is that we must be aware of these issues in our offices. First of all, we need to do so to assist our colleagues. Significantly, we must also guard any client issues from this as a matter of loss prevention. It is a variation of “See Something – Say Something”. Ignoring or covering up a lawyer’s problem will only lead to bad things for both of you. In many legal malpractice cases and ethics charges, some variations of these problems cause those losses. They can be prevented with an active loss prevention program.
            It is absolutely necessary for you to be aware of who is not coming in; who is missing deadlines or not doing proper work. It is possible that there is some issue going on that needs to be addressed. You must promote the awareness culture with staff so they do not “cover” for their lawyers. They do not do them any favors by doing so. Now we need to proactively get lawyers aware and additionally now focus upon the younger generation of lawyers.

0 Comments

DO NOT TAKE SOME CLIENTS

4/6/2016

3 Comments

            There are many lawyers. The legal market is constricting. So, lawyers are out aggressively seeking new clients and new areas of law to represent. Yet here I stand telling you not so fast – some clients just do not deserve you. In February 2016, I advocated firing some of your problem clients (http://goo.gl/gpcH4t) in order to do a better job for your good clients. Yes, I advocate pruning your client base.
            Perhaps you think me daft, but there is a solid business plan here. This pruning of vexatious problem clients was to allow you to better serve your good clients, and to better develop new business from them. My new sermon today is to prevent you from taking these problem clients in the first place. A little front-end time and the old-fashioned “sniff test” can save you lost time, anxiety, and lost deductibles later.
            A few minutes, just as a matter of routine file opening procedure, checking the individual or company in various databases might just keep your name from being associated with an undesirable person or entity. It also might reveal how often the prospective client has been in litigation, as in repeated vexatious rather than legitimate business or personal litigation.
            I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask and know who has represented the proposed client before. If they have used many different lawyers before, a reasonable person might want to know why. Certainly if they are substituting counsel in the course of a representation, I would want leave to inquire of former counsel to learn of issues or impending deadlines. A just before a statute of limitations deadline, or the like, should justify further inquiry by you. Why are they requesting your counsel at the last minute, and do you have adequate time to assess the proposed case and client?
            What does the representation require and do you have the skill set or resources to handle it? Regardless of the timeliness of hiring, can the proposed client pay for the services they request and do they know the extent of legal work required. Reasonable questions and required due diligence I suggest are in order. We routinely advise our clients to conduct due diligence before proceeding, yet do you as an attorney do the same common sense due diligence before taking in a new client? A common theme I encounter in defending legal malpractice cases is a statement by the lawyer client along the lines of: “I never should have taken this client.”
            So unlike the previous withdrawals from problem clients, I am actively trying to get you to do preventative loss prevention by not taking stinky unworthy clients. You will eliminate some work for me and other defense counsel, but you will be a happier and more solvent lawyer for using your good judgment on the front end of a non-representation. Protect yourself further by turning them away in writing and reminding them of all impending deadlines.
            Trust me when I say the problem, stinky, non-paying, or unworthy clients are likely to file a legal malpractice action against you. Document well and even send “I am not your lawyer” letters. You need to do these things even in the face of declining business opportunities so you are working smarter, not just harder.

3 Comments

THE CLIENT WANTS THEIR FILE

3/2/2016

3 Comments

          There are many issues in loss prevention in law firms and in law practice management. Those of us who write or consult in the area often find ourselves writing again on the same issue. Or, we’ll see a post by another in the field and it will generate an idea or a desire to add to that subject.
          A January 2016 post by Megan Zavieh (Daily Dispatch) appearing in AttorneyatWork reminded me to address this very practical issue of what is “the file”. It is a common problem that is not always clear to lawyers. Perhaps it was easier when everything related to a client’s work was actually in a paper file folder. You picked it up and went through it.
          The general rule remains that the file belongs to the client, but it was not always clear what that was. The American Bar Association (ABA) stepped over the issue in its opinions from 1977 (Informal Opinion 1376) until it issued ABA Formal Opinion 471 (7/1/2015); see at http://bit.ly/1fsDriP.
          So, the ABA considers these items to belong to the client:

• all property of the client supplied by the client to the lawyer, including original documents supplied by the client;

• end product items (like – reports or discovery for which the client paid; pleadings and papers filed with tribunal);

• copies of contracts, wills, corporate documents, etc., prepared by the lawyer for the clients (and considered end product);

• orders or other records of a tribunal;

• correspondence received or issued on relevant issues, including e-mail and other electronic correspondence that has been retained under the firm’s document retention policy;

• discovery or evidentiary exhibits (like transcripts, statements, reports, etc.);

• legal opinions issued;

• third-party assessments, evaluations or records paid for by the client.

          The ABA opinion considered these items not to belong to the client file:

• papers and property that the lawyer generated for the lawyer’s own purpose in working on the client’s matter (unless certain of those needed to protect the former client’s interests);

• administrative materials related to the representation (e.g., conflicts checks, client worthiness, time and expense records, personal notes, drafts, research, and internal memorandums);

• drafts or mark-ups (except as above);

• notes regarding an ethics consultation;

• documents that might reveal the confidences of another.

          Other common exceptions in various jurisdictions from the client file that are to be returned seem to be:

• materials that would violate a duty of non-disclosure to another person;

• materials concerning the lawyer’s assessment of the client;

• materials of only internal firm communications or welfare of client or of others;

• materials to which an attorney’s lien may apply when not paid.

          Of course, each jurisdiction will have unique interpretations and those rules that need to be consulted first, e.g., file may not be withheld until paid (W. Va. L.E.I. 89-02) and Attorney Retaining Liens for unpaid attorney fees and expenses extends the right to withhold work product prepared for litigation by or for the attorney (i.e., WV L.E.I. 92-02 noting that some jurisdictions allow only the withholding of opinion work product). Also, lawyers need to think about what is electronic and is required as a part of the modern “file” whether on the firm servers and hard drives or even on your personal device that you no doubt used while working on the file. See ABA Model Rule 1.0(n).
          While we have more guidance, you must always look to the state at issue and actively research the opinions. You must act reasonably and under the basic guidance that you are to protect the client’s interests. A failure to do so could result in more than just a dispute with an ex-client.

3 Comments

LETTING SOME CLIENTS GO

2/2/2016

1 Comment

                  “I do not deserve to be your lawyer” is one of my favorite double entendres. It says a lot. Relationships of any type are rarely perfect and in some occasions it just would be better if you and a legal client parted ways. Perhaps it is a client who refuses to listen to your advice, one who turns out to be less than truthful, and even one who refuses to timely pay you. Often these same characteristics appear in that group known as Plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases.
                  In an October 2013 post (http://goo.gl/UqauVu) I wrote about The Pareto Principle, commonly used to refer to the 80/20 Rule now, but often used in math and business situations. For example, it could be used to say that 80% of your problems come from just 20% of your clients, or 80% of your profits came from just 20% of your clients. So, I advocated there that you should spend your time doing quality service for your good clients and just fire the bad ones. Instead of always chasing the future “Apple” type client, spend your time giving very good service to your good clients. In other words, go fire some clients you do not deserve to represent.
                  If you are going to do that, you need to do it right. Never let it happen right up against deadlines. Look at your professional rules and follow them closely. You likely need court approval for withdrawal in matters in litigation and need to follow any trial court rules. Likewise, you need to do a good end-of-representation closing letter that spells out client duties and all deadlines so the client is fully advised and protected.
                  We all know that sometimes you discharge the client and sometimes the client fires you. As I say, relationships do not always work. The closing letter should address the same issues in both cases. Here however is a most surprising fact. At this stage, when the relationship has really soured, many lawyers just tell the client to stop at their office and get their file. They want to be done with them. Later when a claim is made against them, that lawyer has little in the way of a file. What were they thinking?
                  Most states hold that the file, excluding work product for unpaid work in some states, belongs to the client and cannot be withheld, even when not paid. Just like any record in any type of proceeding, you better take the time to make a copy of the file before it leaves your possession. For an ethics claim, or a legal malpractice claim, you better have proof of what you did or did not do. The subject of the file could be addressed in the engagement letter stating your policy to copy all, and at whose expense. Regardless of the cost factor, you better make a copy of the file, or devise some way to have complete access to any file of a client leaving your representation. It makes the later claim just a little hard to defend without it.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT IN LAW PRACTICE RISKS – CLAIMS

WHAT IMPRESSION DO YOU MAKE WITH CLIENTS?

YOUR LEGAL MALPRACTICE COVERAGE

LAWYERS — GET OUT AND ABOUT

THE MECHANICS OF A CONFLICTS CHECK

SELECTING CLIENTS

Lawyer Problems

DO NOT TAKE SOME CLIENTS

THE CLIENT WANTS THEIR FILE

LETTING SOME CLIENTS GO

Author

Archives

Categories