Virtual Law Practice

Category: ABA

  • Accepting Nominations for Excellence in eLawyering Award

    The ABA eLawyering Task Force is accepting nomination forms for the annual James I. Keane Memorial Award for Excellence in eLawyering.

    The award is given to a lawyer who has developed innovative legal service delivery over the Internet. The focus of the award is on the delivery of personal legal services, especially those that serve individuals of moderate to middle class means. Nominees may be individual lawyers, a law firm, or any other organization that delivers legal services to individuals.

    Last year’s Keane Award recipient was Orange County California Legal Aid Society for their development of Legal Genie. The year before that, Lee Rosen, owner of Rosen Law Firm, was the recipient. The award is presented at a special ceremony at the ABA TECHSHOW in Chicago on March 30, 2012 and comes with other perks such as publication about the award recipient in Law Practice magazine and other LPM Publications.

    Do you know of a lawyer, law firm or other organization that deserves nomination? Self-nomination is accepted as well. The deadline is February 15. The criteria for nomination and the form for submission may be found on the elawyering task force website.

  • December ezine on elawyering

     

    The December issue of Law Practice Today is focused on elawyering with articles from myself and fellow ABA elawyering Task Force members discussing different forms of elawyering.

    My article is a basic “get started with elawyering” introduction.  Here is an excerpt:

    It is not necessary to convert to a completely paperless law office in the clouds in order to benefit from different methods of elawyering. Most lawyers would prefer to get their feet wet first and then gradually find ways to take portions of their practice digital – whether that means moving to cloud-based applications for certain tasks or something smaller in scope, such as the use of a virtual paralegal or virtual assistant. There are a few simple first steps that a lawyer might take to getting started with elawyering…..read more

    Other articles in this issue include:

    Expand Your Solo or Small Firm Practice Using Client Portals, by Donna Seyle

    Document Assembly Over the Internet, by Richard S. Granat

    Dancing in the Cloud, by Marc Lauritsen

    An Update on Governing Cloud Computing, by Will Hornsby and Joseph Duffy

    The Potentials and Perils of a Virtual Law Practice, by Ed Poll

  • ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

    I was pleased to find out last week that this blog has made the list of the ABA Journal’s top 100 law blogs for this year. Thank you for reading!

    You can vote for your favorite blogs in different categories on the ABA Journal website, but they do require registration. This blog is listed under the LPM category, but they also have Technology, Opinion, Trial Practice, News, IP Law, and several other categories of blogs. It’s a great resource for finding or rediscovering new law blogs.

    I’m honored to have been nominated to the list along with some of my fellow bloggers that I read regularly. I just finished writing a new book for the ABA LPM section about limited scope representation, the future of legal services and how law firms can adjust to the changing legal marketplace by incorporating unbundling into their law practices. Now that the book is finished, I’ll have more time to devote to keeping this blog updated with current information on virtual law practice and elawyering. Again, thank you for reading!

  • Ethics 20/20 Commission Clarifies Rule 5.5; Acknowledges Potential of Virtual Practice to Improve Access to Justice

    One of the more recent initial resolutions published by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 clarifies Model Rule 5.5 as it relates to systematic and continous presence and shows the Commission’s acceptance of the growth of alternative law practice structures, such as virtual law practice.

    Comment [4] of Rule 5.5 covers when systematic and continues presence is established in a jurisdiction by a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in that jurisdiction.  The question for virtual law practitioners is whether or not their physical presence in one state while they practice the law of another state online constitutes the authorized practice of law in another jurisdiction in violation of Rule 5.5.

    The Commission’s changes to the comment are intended to help lawyers determine when their “non-physical” presence might be classified as “systematic and continuous.”  And more importantly, to make it clear that virtual law practice is still subject to the restrictions of the Rule 5.5(b). The comment also clarifies that legal services may be delivered online to clients in other jurisdictions occasionally as long as it is in compliance with Rule 5.5(c).

    The previous version of the comment stated simply that “[p]resence may be systematic and continuous even if the lawyer is not physically present here.”  The revised version of Comment [4] provides this additional language and restructuring of the last paragraph:

    For example, a lawyer may direct electronic or other forms of communications to potential clients in this jurisdiction and consequently establish a substantial practice representing clients in this jurisdiction, but without a physical presence here.  At some point, such a virtual presence in this jurisdiction may become systematic and continuous within the meaning of Rule 5.5(b)(1).  Moreover, a lawyer violates paragraph (b)(2) if the lawyer is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and holds out to the public or otherwise represents that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.

    Let’s place that into a virtual law practice scenario: (more…)

  • Law Practice Magazine Covers Virtual Practice

    The September/October issue of the ABA Law Practice Magazine is devoted to virtual practice.  I co-authored an article in the publication entitled Popular Cloud Computing Services for Lawyers: Practice Management Online with Tom Mighell.  Other topics in this issue contain discussions of a variety of virtual practice structures and technologies for online delivery and practice management.  Here are titles and links to some of the other articles in the issue which would be instructive to any attorney or law firm considering adding a virtual law office or other virtual component to its practice management structure:

    Moving to a Virtual Practice Model – Do You Have the Right Stuff? By Jim Calloway

    The Next Five Years – Predictions for the Future of eLawyering By Richard S. Granat and Marc Lauritsen

    The Untethered Law Office – Tools and Tips for Getting It Done By Jay S. Fleischman

    Alternative Fee Arrangements By Mark A. Robertson

    The Virtual Pulse Highlights from the 2011 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report

     

  • New ABA Ethics Opinion on Electronic Communication

    The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Prof. Responsibility has published a new ethics opinion, Formal Opinion 11-459 “Duty to Protect the Confidentiality  of E-mail Communications with One’s Client”. I didn’t see this one coming, but I think it’s a move in the right direction.

    The situation described in the opinion relates to when an attorney has reason to believe that his or her client  is sending the attorney or anyone else confidential information via email and the client’s employer has keystroke logging on their system or some other way of monitoring the employee’s activities where there is a risk that the employer  could access that confidential information.

    However, the opinion is worded broadly and might expand to more than just email and to more than just these workplace situations. Check out the last paragraph of the opinion: (more…)

  • No New Restrictions On Use of Tech & Client Development

    The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has published for comment its draft proposals on Lawyer’s Use of Technology and Client Development.   Proposed changes relate to Model Rules 1.18 (duty to prospective clients), 7.2 (advertising) and 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients).

    Overall, the Commission concludes that no new restrictions need to be added to a lawyer’s use of technology for client development.  The proposed changes adequately reflect two major impacts of the Internet on our profession: 1) public accessibility to lawyers online, and 2) the immediacy of communication with prospective and future clients over the Internet.  Below is a brief look at each rule’s proposed changes.

    “Communicating” with Prospective Clients Online

    Proposed changes to this rule include switching out the word “discusses” with “communicates.”  “Communicate” is a much broader term and is probably something we do online with prospective clients far more than actually “discussing” a potential attorney/client relationship.  Communicating could be anything from having them fill out a “contact us” form to sending you a tweet asking if your firm handles their specific legal need.  Something as simple as “Liking” your law firm’s Facebook page is a bit of a stretch because it’s not specifically “about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship.”

    This would be a dangerous rewording if not for other new lines added to clarify the definition of a prospective client: “A person who discusses communicates with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship and has a reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to consider forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.” [proposed additions in italics] (more…)

  • Legal Tech Geeks Convene

    This week I’m attending the ABA TECHSHOW in Chicago. I’m looking forward to learning from the many legal tech geeks that show up to this event every year and to see what new products or services are being launched that might facilitate the online delivery of legal services.  I’m also expecting some challenging questions from the attendees which should make it fun.  Here’s where I’ll be:

    – April 11, 10:30-11:30am, “Expanding Your Practice with an Online Office”, co-presented with Catherine Sanders Reach

    –  1:30, keynote to hear Laurence Lessig speak.  (I’m a big fan, but never have been in same geographic location.  Super excited! Probably can’t top live talks I’ve seen by Richard Stallman or Larry Wall since we’ll be in a room full of lawyers and not programmers.  I’ll let you guess which one gave his presentation barefoot while eating a footlong sub. But hey, I’ll take inspiration wherever I can get it.)

    –   2:30-4:30pm, will attempt to make myself useful by standing at the concierge booth

    – April 12, 8:00- 9:00am, Meet the Author, “Virtual Law Practice: How to Deliver Legal Services Online”

    –   10:00 – 11:00am, “Popular Cloud Services for Lawyers”, co-presented with Tom Mighell

    –   luncheon, eLawyering Task Force will give out the 2011 James Keane Award to Legal Genie

    – 7:00pm, Hosting Taste of Techshow Dinner with an “elawyering theme”

    If you are attending and want to chat about virtual law practice or delivering legal services online, please feel free to come find me.

  • Choice of Law in Cross-Border Practice

    Below is the comment I submitted this morning to the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission Working Group on Uniformity, Choice of Law, and Conflicts of Interest in response to their request for feedback on the issues paper on Choice of Law in Cross-Border Practice.  One of the fact patterns in the issues paper specifically referrred to a virtual law office and several of the other fact patterns might also apply to a multijurisdictional virtual law firm.

    Virtual Law Practice and Choice of Law in Cross-Border Practice

  • ABA Ethics 20/20 Addresses Choice of Law Issue in Virtual Law Practice

    Virtual lawyers and multijurisdictional virtual law firms take note: The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has released yet another issues paper proposing changes to ethics rules that could affect the delivery of legal services online.  This newest paper comes from the Working Group on Uniformity, Choice of Law, and Conflicts of Interest and is entitled “Choice of Law in Cross-Border Practice.”  It even includes a sample scenario for the virtual law practice which I’ve posted below.

    With lawyers and clients more frequently not located in the same geographic location and many of them communicating and receiving legal services online, this raises the question of which jurisdiction’s ethics laws apply.  The Commission recognizes the need for guidance and greater clarity for a growing number of lawyer and law firms faced with questions about choice of ethics law. (more…)

MENU