Comments on: State Bar Regulation of Online Lawyer Communication

By: Top Ten 2008 Developments in Virtual Law Practice « Virtual Law Practice

Top Ten 2008 Developments in Virtual Law Practice « Virtual Law Practice — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:49:12 +0000

[...] attorney blogging, social networking and other forms of online attorney communication causing some concern and originating in a lawsuit from attorneys in that [...]

By: Stephanie Kimbro

Stephanie Kimbro — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:39:49 +0000

John, you raise some great questions regarding avoiding the unauthorized practice of law when providing legal services online. UPL is one of the main ethics concerns that comes up when state bars are evaluating a virtual law office website or online attorney advertising in general. UPL issues deserve their own separate post. I’ve addressed many of these questions in my ebook, but it would be great to lay them out again in this blog and get other readers to chime in.

By: John Kindley

John Kindley — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:30:50 +0000

Stephanie, I brought the issue of legalzoom.com up in a recent solosez discussion, and your take on the issue concerned pointing out that in your virtual law practice you work with clients and do much more than fill out forms for them. But one thing that is very interesting about virtual law practice is its interjurisdictional implications. I’m assuming that in promoting this type of law practice you emphasize that you steer clear of UPL problems, but are the lines that clear, and perhaps don’t they deserve to be tested? The question naturally presents itself, because if you’re going to spend the time and effort to market a website, websites by their very nature are nationwide and indeed worldwide. Is it UPL to draft a will for a client from another state who contacts you through your website? It seems by hypothesis they’ve contacted you in the state where you’re licensed, you’ve communicated with them by email or telephone while being in the state where you’re licensed, and you’ve given them legal advice while being in the state where you’re licensed. A related question is whether it becomes more of a problem if you state on your website your availability for drafting wills for people out of state, because then someone might say that you are actually advertising in states where you’re not licensed. I’d be interested to know your thoughts on these issues. I’ve copied below an excerpt from my email on solosez, which I posted after your post.

My interest in this issue is only partly the idea of being able to compete with places like legalzoom by offering similar prices for unbundled services…. If I were to do this kind of thing, I’m sure my tendency would be to want to talk with the client and verify their circumstances and ensure that a simple will is really appropriate for their circumstances and that they are aware of other options…. But that would probably constitute legal advice, which brings me to the other aspect of this issue that intrigues me even more, which is that legalzoom is able to get away with providing wills and other documents interjurisdictionally. I for one think we would all be better off as a profession if the strict and arguably artificial obstaces prohibiting trained lawyers from practicing in each others’ jurisdictions were loosened. I don’t have a problem with an attorney from out of state providing will documents to clients in Indiana, so long as he does it right. In the age of internet marketing, the question of why we can’t provide such documents to clients who might have contacted us from out of state naturally and inevitably presents itself, and is made more prominent by the existence of places like legalzoom.

So it seems that so long as you don’t render legal advice, you could potentially offer these unbundled legal services interjurisdictionally. But to do that you’d almost kind of have to muzzle yourself and be careful of saying things you’d normally say in communications with clients, and thereby artificially lessen the value of the service you could provide them. It’s kind of a catch22.

By: Josh King

Josh King — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:13:35 +0000

None of these rules are being blown out of proportion. Here’s what happens: A committee, often composed of lawyers and laypeople, is appointed to interpret the rules. They do so with great gusto, often without rhyme or reason, and almost never taking into account the proper legal tests for advertising restrictions (a la Central Hudson). Interpretations will change without any rationale, and attorneys are subject to all sorts of uncertainty and added cost. This has been going on in FL for years, but a lawsuit (of which Greg Beck is part) is working its way through the courts and will hopefully strike down most, if not all, of FL’s restricitons. Taking an aggressive stance now – as Wolfe law has done – is a good way to prevent these unconstitutional rules from taking hold in Louisiana.

By: dougcornelius

dougcornelius — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:50:09 +0000

State bars have barely figured out static Web 1.0 so it is no surprise that they have not gotten around to addressing Web2.0.

There is lots of uncertainty around what lawyers can and cannot do in Web 2.0 and I have seen many different approaches in different platforms.

I agree with Kevin that the rules do prohibit blogging and do not require submission of each blog post. The rules are odd that you need to identify your office location in your profile. Something strange must have happened down there.

It is too bad that in the process of updating their rules, Louisiana is acting like its 1998 instead of 2008 when it comes to the internet. I understand states not going through the process of updating their rules to address web 2.0. But why not address the issues if you are already revising your rules?