Virtual Law Practice

Category: Ethics

  • Commission on Future of Legal Services Seeks Feedback

    Commission on Future of Legal Services Seeks Feedback

    I was honored to be asked to participate in the ABA President’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services this year and next. This Commission is calling for Issues Paper feedback now through December 10th. For my legal tech friends and colleagues, if you have something to say, now is a good time to get it on the table. Details below.

    I like the ABA President this time around. I’ve heard President William Hubbard speak several times by now. I’ve heard him address some difficult criticisms of the ABA with grace at a conference on disruptive innovation in the market for legal services at Harvard Law School. Most importantly, I think he is making an effort to listen and take seriously the fact that technology can be used to increase access to justice in a variety of ways. Whether or not he or any future leader has the ability to actually sway the more traditional (and often tech-averse) mindsets of the lawyers who actually hold up the HOD and prevent progress…..well, I’ll retain my healthy skepticism. That said, President Hubbard is making solid headway with this Commission. The initiative seems like a good follow-up to the initial research and rule changes that the Commission on Ethics 20/20 underwent.

    From the Commission’s site:

    …technology, globalization, and other forces are transforming the ways legal services are accessed and delivered. Familiar practice structures are giving way in a marketplace that continues to evolve. New providers are emerging, online and offline, to offer a range of services in dramatically different ways.

    I joined up with the BlueSky Working Group that formed out of the Commission. The working groups are interesting because they are made up of such a diverse group of people from across the legal profession. I can tell already that a large part of the work process for the group is just going to be educating each other about our different perspectives whether its from practicing in BigLaw, working in legal services, in legal academia, or with legal tech startups.

    The goal of the Commission is to propose new approaches that are not constrained by traditional models for delivering legal services and that are rooted in the essential values of protecting the public.

    To focus these working groups and the entire Commission, the Chair has issued a call for comments on an Issues Paper. I’ve posted the Issues Paper below. The issues are related to the delivery and access of legal services by the public.

     

     IssuesPaperFeedback

     

     

     

     

  • Online Legal Services Gets a Boost from ABA & Rocket Lawyer Partnership

    connectedI was thrilled to hear the news today from the Wall Street Journal Law Blog that the ABA announced its partnership with Rocket Lawyer on a pilot project to help match up ABA members with online clients.

    I’ve been researching and writing about lawyer collaboration with branded networks like Rocket Lawyer for the past couple of years with a focus on ethics issues and best practices. I wrote a book about the best practices for lawyers who wanted to work with these companies and make connections with clients through them. I think this partnership integrates wonderfully with virtual law practice and unbundling of legal services. However, I didn’t see this announcement coming because of the resistance I’ve heard from state bars for the past several years to any form of online delivery, even completely lawyer-owned and controlled, that might threaten the traditional lawyer business model. This announcement is huge because it steps back from the usual protectionist stance of the ABA and looks at what the public is asking for from the profession and at what lawyers need in order to connect with them. It is an acknowledgement from the ABA that consumers are going online looking for legal services and that not having licensed lawyers on board with the public’s need for online legal services puts both the lawyer and the public at a disadvantage.

    One of the key themes that came out of the Legal Services Corporation’s Tech Summit Report was the need for mobile access. Rocket Lawyer has developed a mobile app as a part of its online services offerings. Getting lawyers used to using mobile apps and online tools is going to increase the profession’s ability to provide greater access to legal services, especially in rural areas. It’s also going to lead to greater acceptance and use of unbundling as a legal service delivery model. It will be interesting to see how these pilot projects role out. Here is a link to my free ebook with best practices for collaboration by lawyers and companies like Rocket Lawyer.

  • Video – Disruptive Innovation in Legal Services at Harvard

    Last week I attended a conference hosted by Harvard Law School’s Program on the Legal Profession, entitled “Disruptive Innovation in the Market for Legal Services.”

    My primary reason for attending was to hear Clayton Christensen, a Professor at Harvard’s Business School and author of The Innovator’s Dilemma, speak about disruption in the legal profession. Unfortunately, he admitted to not really having analyzed our profession from the perspective of disruptive innovation so his talk was a bit of a rehash of both Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovative University. It was still really worth it to hear from the man himself, and following his presentation, the Senior VP of IBM Watson, Mike Rhodin, the CEO of Legal Zoom, John Suh, and GC of Charles River Ventures, Sarah Reed, weighed in on what they think disruptive innovation of legal services looks like.

    Chris Kenny, Chief Exec of the UK Legal Services Board, also spoke via video conferencing about how alternative business structures (ABS) are working out across the pond. According to Kenny, ABS is working great in the UK, increasing access to justice and creating healthy competition in the marketplace without risk to consumers or disciplinary issues in the profession. I found his presentation to be informative and encouraging in terms of looking forward towards real structural change in our profession. The ABA President-Elect, William Hubbard, weighed in after Kenny spoke to explain that the ABA was not on board with ABS, but he said he would like to see the gap bridged between main-street lawyers and the innovators and academics pushing for change in the profession. Of course the real reasons why we can’t move forward with ABS have to do with protectionism and the interests of the lawyers who sit at the helm of the Bar. Progress here will come slowly, and I still believe it will be consumers who push the change in the market forward, not the ABA House of Delegates.

    Bob Ambrogi wrote a good run-down of the morning’s presentations. (Note: it’s hidden behind a required registration wall.)

    After a very interesting morning session, the conference broke out into working groups. I attended one called “Lawyers and Technology.” There were also working groups on access, big data and analytics, and corporate pricing and matching. Several legal technology startups spoke briefly at each working group, but the discussions among the attendees was the most stimulating. Below is the video of the Working Group Report to the conference summarizing the key points from each breakout discussion.
    )

  • Slides: Engagement and Consumer Law

    This is a slide deck from a presentation I gave this morning as part of a panel for the South Carolina Law Review Symposium entitled, On Task?: Expanding the Boundaries of Legal Education. In it, I look at why increasing online engagement is critical for lawyers to think about, what methods of engagement might work, assessing engagement, and then the transfer that happens after engagement.

    There’s a good balance that must happen here between lawyers pulling in “leads” for new business and at the same time using these engagement methods to educate and empower the public to 1) know when they might have a legal need in the first place and to prevent issues before they happen, and 2) if they do have a legal need, having access to where to go for help (ie, intelligent matching systems). Another piece of the puzzle to explore.

  • 15 Questions Before Unbundling Legal Services

    legosI was thrilled to read that unbundling was mentioned several times at Reinvent Law in NYC last Friday. Unbundling, or limited scope representation, is the primary delivery method used by many of the newer, online methods of legal service delivery. Of course, not all lawyers have been trained in how to unbundle legal services ethically. Unbundling tends to get only a footnote in most law schools when and if they cover law practice management.

    In order to compete in a changed legal marketplace it will be imperative for lawyers to learn how to unbundle their services for clients, but also for other lawyers and law firms if they are solo or small firm practitioners. I wrote a book on this topic a couple years ago so I’ll start sharing more of those tips on here for those who are interested in staying competitive. For a virtual law practitioner, this is even more critical because of how much easier it is to deliver unbundled services online than full-service.

    Here are 15 questions that may be added to the client intake process to help a lawyer determine whether the client is a good candidate for unbundling. They may also help the client understand the nature of the limited scope representation and how it differs from full-service assistance.

    1. Have you worked with a lawyer on any issues surrounding this matter before?
    2. Have you personally researched the law and legal issues involved in this matter?
    3. How much is financially at stake?
    4. How much is emotionally at stake?
    5. What do you see as a positive outcome for this case?
    6. What would you be willing to settle for if that exact outcome is not achievable?
    7. What aspects of this process are you willing and able to handle yourself?
    8. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit or have any experience in the legal system?
    9. What resources are available to you in terms of time to devote to this matter, such as time away from work, arranging for childcare, etc.?
    10. What resources are available to you in terms of assistance from family members, paralegals, nonlawyer professionals, etc.?
    11. What tasks do you know that you want the lawyer to provide?
    12. How do you expect for us to collaborate to create a strategy for your case?
    13. How do you expect to communicate with the law firm?
    14. Are you comfortable using technology to communicate, such as web conferences, secure real-time chat or encrypted email?
    15. How much are you able to budget for unbundled legal services?

  • Bona Fide Office Rule In the News Again

    delawareThe Bona Fide Office Rule has reappeared in the news again. This time it’s an Opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court.

    I’ve written about the Bona Fide Office rule here several times, mostly with regard to New Jersey’s joint ethics opinion on the subject. Other states have been revisiting surrounding issues in terms of the lawyer’s requirements to provide certain contact information on his or her website or other advertising and in that requirement calling for some physical office address.

    Bona Fide Office rules discourage lawyers from finding alternative and often more affordable methods of delivering legal services to clients. Requiring that a member of the bar provide contact information to the regulatory body is obviously necessary. Requiring that a lawyer provide his or her clients with a reliable method of contacting the lawyer is also necessary.

    However, a lawyer does not need to maintain a traditional, physical law office seven days a week during 9-5 business hours in order to accomplish either of these. He or she does not have to retain the services of an employee to work at that law office in order to answer the phone when the lawyer is not present to accomplish adequate and reliable communication with his or her clients.

    The Supreme Court of Delaware recently issued an Opinion that suspended a lawyer who worked from his home office in Pennsylvania while practicing Delaware law. The lawyer’s violation of their Bona Fide Office Rule 12 was not the only item at issue in this opinion which is why I will not go into it in detail except for their discussion of the Bona Fide Office Rule. Why? Because that part of the Opinion will mostly like be read by other lawyers in Delaware and potentially discourage them from considering virtual law practice and delivering legal services online to clients.

    According to the Court:

    “[t]he Rule requires that the office “be a place where the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person or by telephone,” and have “the customary facilities for engaging in the practice of law.”

    Delaware Supreme Court Rule 12(d) (the Bona Fide Office Rule) states:

    “(d) Office for the practice of law. As used in these rules, an “office for the practice of law” means a  bona fide office maintained in this State for the practice of law in which the attorney practices by being  there a substantial and scheduled portion of time during ordinary business hours in the traditional work  week. An attorney is deemed to be in an office even if temporarily absent from it if the duties of the law  practice are actively conducted by the attorney from that office. An office must be a place where the  attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person or by telephone  during normal business hours and which has the customary facilities for engaging in the practice of law.  A bona fide office is more than a mail drop, a summer home which is unattended during a substantial portion of the year or an answering, telephone forwarding, secretarial or similar service.”

    There is no mention of the possibility of the lawyer working from home and delivering legal services in unbundled fashion to his or her clients online. There is no mention of the use of temporary/as needed renting of office space so that the lawyer can meet with the clients for full service representation, but continue to conduct the majority of their work with clients online. This is an outdated rule.

    There is technology available to securely work with clients online. This technology decreases the cost of overhead of a traditional law office which in turn decreases the cost of legal fees.  There is NO EXCUSE why States should not consider alternative forms of legal service delivery. People need more access to lawyers, not less!

    The lawyer that was suspended in this case was only using the phone to call his clients. There was no mention of any secure client portal or other virtual law office technology. But it’s the way that the Court addressed this Rule in their Opinion that disturbs me. They must start thinking outside of the Bona Fide Office Rule. It does not make sense anymore on so many levels to restrict how lawyers communicate with clients to in-person visits. Supporting an outdated Bona Fide Office Rule is a barrier that is going to continue to discourage lawyers from finding innovative and cost-effective ways to serve the public and increase access.

    See these other posts about the Delaware Opinion from Niki Black and in the ABA Journal.

  • Regulating Lawyer Online Advertising? Welcome to the Party.

    As many of my readers know, I have strong opinions about the regulation of lawyer advertising and it goes back to the unfounded assumptions about consumers that the advertising rules were originally built upon, and the fact that they have not been updated much since then to account for online methods of advertising and the way the public actually finds lawyers online.

    I’m preparing for a panel presentation at the Univ. of San Francisco where we will be discussing lawyer advertising and regulation. The event is entitled Legal Ethics in the 21st Century: Technology, Speech, and Money. I‘m going back through some of my materials on this topic. Below is a sidebar from my book about lawyer online advertising. With the Florida Bar going crazy with restrictions on lawyer blogs, it’s time to start pushing this matter forward starting with education about the marketplace for legal services.  In the meantime, people looking for access to lawyers who are the right match for their legal needs are still out there looking for help and they don’t really care about First Amendment or lawyer protectionist arguments. (#A2J)

    internet-marketing-abcRestructuring Lawyer Marketing Vocabulary to Adapt to eCommerce

    A 2010 BIA/Kelsey report found that 97 percent of all consumers use online methods of researching and selecting services in their local area.  Even those law firms that claim their practice is “only local-based” or that they meet with all their clients in-person, in the office and at the courthouse, have no excuse to continue to ignore the Internet as a marketing tool. Online marketing methods are impacting all law firms. Below are some suggestions for redefining the legal profession’s marketing vocabulary.

    • The term “market” should not be used as a verb, but as a noun. Marketing is not something a lawyer does “to” or “at” prospective clients. A market is a place where individuals come together to discuss common interests and to create relationships based on supply and demand. The focus in lawyer marketing should be on engagement and conversation.
    • Separate the concepts of the lawyer’s “duty” to the public in advertising from “etiquette” or not being “tacky” in advertising online. Lacking good taste is subjective. Being misleading or false is another matter.  Lawyer regulations should not attempt to dictate taste.
    • The Internet is not a tool; it is a place. We don’t do things through it or on it; we do them “in” it.  Welcome to the party.
    • Commercialism and professionalism: these two concepts do not have to be at odds with each other. Does maintaining an attitude of sitting up on a high-horse of education and presumed privilege hinder the ability to interact with the average client? Of course it does. Intimidation may be useful in the courtroom or during negotiations, but it should not completely define the professional image of lawyers. The legal profession should refocus on the respect, trust, and expertise that falls under professionally rendered services, but present it in a way that is not condescending or intimidating to the average American citizen. Movies and television shows with negative or hostile images of lawyers will be difficult to supplant, but if lawyers start engaging more in open, online dialogue with the public, this can change.
    • Customer service is a concept most law firms do not think about, but it is a basic best practice for business owners in every industry. There are online methods of providing consumer service. For example, sending a simple “thank you for being a client” email  or providing free, basic legal education and content on a firm website or in an online marketing tool. These provide a platform for delivery of educational legal material. Content controls the Internet. Sharing is both good online consumer service and a method of starting conversations with prospective clients and other lawyers.
    • Lawyers should not rely too strongly on the term “consumer” when thinking about marketing strategies for client development. Consumption implies a swallowing up of something in return for monetary value. We do not want our clients consuming legal services because in many cases the relationship between the attorney and client is what is so valuable to them and what makes our work meaningful beyond the financial rewards. Let’s remember they are our clients, but balance this with the knowledge that they are also our customers which implies another level of care beyond the attorney/client privilege; one that includes their satisfaction with our work and their overall experience with the delivery of legal services and the legal profession.

  • Five Tips for Lawyers Purchasing Online Lead Gen Services

    Lead-Generation-ROIFive Tips for Lawyers Purchasing Online Lead Generation Services

    1.   Find out how much traffic the branded network’s site generates. Check with a company like Quantcast, which provides an estimate of the traffic generated to a single website.

    2.   Find out where the company pulls in the leads. An unscrupulous company might be purchasing low-quality leads to funnel to their lawyer network.

    3.  Find out how the service operates. For example, does it focus on generating the traffic by purchasing Google AdWords? What is the strategy for generating leads to push to the lawyer network? The cost of the service to your firm is going to depend on its costs to generate the leads to forward to you.

    4.   Note how tailored the lead generation service is to your specific practice area and jurisdiction. Some companies may restrict their own marketing to particular states or regions to generate leads for the areas where they have the most lawyer members in their network.

    • If the service is attempting to generate leads from landing pages that are too broad, this is going to mean fewer warm leads for you.
    • Are you in a jurisdiction where the company has focused its marketing to the public, or will you be one of only a handful of lawyers in your jurisdiction using the service?

    5.   Do a cost/benefit analysis based on the return you would get from each lead and how much the company is charging for leads.

    • If the service is performance based, then find out if you must pay for leads even if they are not warm leads or if you are unable to convert a lead to a paying client. Most performance-based services will define a qualifying lead as any individual sent to you with a legal need that you have told the company you will handle.
    • Factor in the amount that you would charge that client for services and make sure the cost to acquire the client in the first place is the most effective use of that money.
    • Some companies with these services offer lead monitoring and tracking tools as well as other forms of support to help the lawyer with lead conversion.

    What Is Online Lawyer Lead Generation? (more…)

  • Digital Lawyer Legal Ed Project

    CLPTNewOption1I’m heading down to Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, Florida next week to record sessions for the courses I will be co-teaching for the Center for Law Practice Technology. I’ll be teaching the core course in law practice management with Richard Granat, teaching a social media for lawyers course by myself and assisting Will Hornsby in his course on Ethics of Practicing Law in a Digital World. We will be adding more courses as the project gets underway.

    For the past several months we have been crafting the syllabi for these courses, compiling the materials for the students, and setting up the distance learning platform to facilitate the synchronous and asynchronous lessons for each course. It is an enormous amount of work, but something I’m finding really valuable because I’m having to pull from the past several years of teaching law students online for a variety of different schools that each use different platforms for their students. All of the course material we teach has to be updated regularly because the topics are related to technology and new ethics opinions and rule changes are coming out all the time that pertain to the use of technology in law practice management. It’s keeping me on my toes.

    I believe once we have many of these courses pre-recorded, the materials and discussion forums set up, and the quizzes and assignments online, this project will be an awesome resource for law students and practitioners who want to dive into it. It will be useful both for those who want that basic legal tech knowledge and skill base that they didn’t get in law school, but also for those who have more of that background and want to obtain more specific knowledge on a more detailed subject in one of the one credit courses, such as my social media course or the ones we are developing for future semesters, such as the e-discovery course, expert systems, document automation, or entrepreneurship in law practice.

    As with most of my projects, this one also ties back to improving access to legal services for the public. If we can educate lawyers about how to use technology to be more efficient and to make legal services more affordable and accessible, then in the long-term going forward, that is going to impact the way that services are delivered and the public is able to work with lawyers to have their legal needs met. It’s one piece of the puzzle, but it’s as critical to bring the profession up to speed with the changes in the legal marketplace as it is to be innovative creating new technology solutions for delivery.

    Want to keep up with the courses we are teaching and the materials? I’ll probably be posting snippets from the classes on the Center for Law Practice Tech blog throughout the term.

  • State of Online Delivery – Pre-Report Overview

    Last week I finished the first draft of a report for The Ark Group tentatively titled “Online Legal Services for the Client-Centric Law Firm.” This report gave me the opportunity to review the current state of online delivery internationally by private practitioners and law firms. It was a great way to update the material I had written in my earlier book on virtual law practice.

    To set some reasonable parameters for this report, I limited it to a review of only private practitioners and law firms. I did not include the many other forms of online delivery that we are seeing by for-profit companies, branded networks, and other exciting new ventures around the globe. I also excluded firms that only provide clients with online self-help tech tools, such as those for compliance, online libraries of articles, or web calculators or advisers that clients would use on their own. The focus here was on the engagement online between the lawyer and the clients to solve their specific legal need.

    Overall, I was a little surprised and disappointed by the slow growth of online delivery since I started operating my virtual law office back in 2006 and wrote the book on the topic in 2010 – not just the lack of adoption by practitioners but also by the lack of truly new innovative technology solutions for delivery. This strikes me as odd given the fast pace of change in delivery of legal services from the consumer perspective. (more…)

MENU