Virtual Law Practice

Category: Unbundling – Limited Scope

  • Ethics Reminder for Unbundling Legal Services Online

    If you are providing unbundled legal services online — whether you are providing pro bono unbundled assistance or charging a fee for your services, you might want to read through this opinion (Thigpen v. Banas) that was issued in the Northern District of Illinios in February.

    The case is related to ghostwriting/unbundling of legal services.  Mr. Thigpen, a pro se litigant, filed a proposed second amended complaint which appeared to be drafted by an attorney and upon inquiry the plaintiff admitted that it was.  However, the attorney had not signed his or her name to the document or made an appearance before the court.  The opinion discusses the dangers of ghostwriting to both parties in the case and discusses the rules of professional responsibility that the attorney who drafted the document breached by not making an appearance before the court. 

    This opinion provides a good reminder for those of us unbundling legal services online that we need to 1) determine from the beginning of our contact with the prospective client if the matter may be unbundled or needs full-service representation and 2) that we are clear when we intiate any online representation what services we will provide for the client and which services we will not provide.  In the above opinion, the attorney who drafted this proposed second amended complaint should not have jumped into the middle of a matter where full-service, in-person representation was required without making appearance before the court.  (more…)

  • Technology at Techshow to Enable Online Delivery of Legal Services

    Exhibitor Hall at this year’s ABA Techshow has a number of different web-based technologies that allow  for attorneys to take all or portions of their practice online.  Most of them seem to be practice management applications, and not so much geared towards working online securely with clients. However, there are a few new developments that assist virtual law practice that warrant mention.  

    DirectLaw and VLOTech are again this year the two products intended for the online delivery of legal services. (By way of disclaimer, and as most of my readers know, my husband and I co-founded VLOTech which was acquired by Total Attorneys this past fall).  Both products are SaaS, but with different features and focuses so they will appeal to different types of law practices.  Both products facilitate the unbundling of legal services online and from my exploration of the exhibitors’ booths there are not any other products at the show this year that focus on unbundling legal services for online clients.  DirectLaw has recently launched a new site for members of the public to locate a virtual law firm, MyLawyer.com.  If you operate a virtual law practice, you should see about getting a listing in their directory.  (more…)

  • Contributing to the Lawyerist

    I’m happy to announce that I will be a contributor to the Lawyerist.com blog. Here’s my intro post. An article on unbundling legal services with a virtual law practice should post sometime next week. If anyone has requests for topics related to virtual law practice that they would like for me to cover on this blog or as a contributor to Lawyerist, please drop me a line.

  • Susskind Predicts: “Disaster Ahead for Lawyers Unwilling to Change”

    Richard Susskind, author of The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, has written a guest post for the Legal Rebels blog entitled “Disaster Ahead for Lawyers Unwilling to Change.”

    Susskind looks at changes in the profession as well as the impact that the economic recession has had on our clients.  He mentions disruptive technologies as another factor that will force legal professionals to find more innovative ways to provide legal services or face the consequences of losing their practices to the competition who will find ways to embrace the circumstances.  

    In my opinion, his arguments are supportive of virtual law practices.  A virtual law practice is a practical way for attorneys to meet the demands of the public for the online delivery of legal services while finding creative ways to collaborate with other attorneys, pool resources and streamline the delivery of legal services online. 

    Here is the comment that I posted to the article:  The changes are going to be consumer-driven. As the owner of a web-based virtual law office for going on almost four years, I have gotten significant feedback from the public indicating that they expect more affordable and accessible legal services from attorneys. The technology is available to allow legal professionals to step up and meet this consumer demand in a way that is ethical, avoids malpractice risks and provides quality legal services similar to what has been provided in a traditional brick & mortar practice. 

    I agree that in order to remain competitive attorneys will need to find ways to provide services to the public that acknowledges that most clients now have access to a wealth of legal information online.  We have to find responsible methods of educating the public that our services are important and that cutting and pasting sample online legal forms or going with cheap online forms without attorney review is not in their best interest.

    Attorneys should seize these changes as a great opportunity to revive the respect for the profession through innovation and entrepreneurship that serves the public as well as the legal professional. 

    If you are considering virtual law practice, whether as a solo or working with other attorneys to form a virtual law firm, you should read this article.  It’s definitely motivational.

  • Three Years into My Virtual Law Practice

     

    I’ve been preparing materials to teach a course on virtual law practice for Solo Practice University (SPU).  Lawyers USA just published an article about SPU here.  I hope some of my blog readers will join me for the virtual law practice course. 

    One of the topics I’m covering at the beginning of the course has to do with taking the leap from a traditional law practice management method into a virtual law practice.   In helping others make the decision to go completely web-based with their solo or small firm or to add some virtual component to their law practice, I’ve been thinking about why I left my position as an associate in a small, traditional law firm to go solo with a VLO. 

    It’s been three years since I opened my web-based virtual law office, Kimbro Legal Services.   In 2006, I hung my virtual shingle using the beta release of the VLOTech virtual law office software.  As with any business, after a couple years you realize that your goals and expectations have changed from when you launched, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the support I’ve had from other attorneys and from the great public response over the past three years.

    Reasons why I initially formed my virtual law practice:

    1. The birth of my first child.  I wanted to work from home and spend as much time with her and my family as I could.  Childhood is a short time and I didn’t want to miss it.

    2.  From my experience in the small firm, I noticed that there was a clear market need for individuals of middle income and moderate means to be able to conveniently access and afford legal services.  Yet many of them were going to their office supply store and buying legal kits or purchasing LegalZoom documents online.  They weren’t consulting an attorney for the guidance they needed because they were 1) afraid they couldn’t afford it, or 2) were just too intimidated to sign a traditional engagement letter with an attorney and put up a sizeable retainer.

    Those were my main reasons for opening my VLO.  Three years later my reasons for practicing with a virtual law practice are the same, but I have some added observations and experiences that reinforce my decision.

    1.  Clients want this.  The general public response to the VLO in the past three years has been amazing.  My clients appreciate the convenience and accessibility to legal services.  They have their own homepages on my secure VLO where they can drop me a note at any time, upload and download documents, fill out online forms, pay their invoices, review their invoices, etc.  I think the ability for them to access their own case files and review our work together helps them to feel more in charge of their legal needs and more connected with me as their legal representation. 

    2. Client revenue has come in from across the state.  I have not had the collection problems that I was warned about by other attorneys when I first opened my solo practice.  I expected it to be a big hassle and in three years I’ve been limited to two or three small collection issues that were not that difficult to resolve.  Clients receive their invoices online.  They pay me online.  We set up recurring billing or payment plans.  Maybe it’s the convenience of the invoice being online or maybe it’s being able to pay by credit card.  Whatever the reason, ease of collections has been a pleasant surprise.

    3.  Attention to customer service results in client loyalty  They don’t really teach you this in law school, but running a law practice requires business skills.  I stopped trying to act like an attorney and instead focused more on being a good business owner.  This has made all the difference in the world.  I relate to my clients on personal levels through our dialogue on the VLO.  I take the time to address all of their concerns and questions with patience and it has resulted in a growing client base for my virtual law practice. 

    4.  Virtual law practice in some form is the way our profession is headed.   If you haven’t already, read Richard Susskind”s End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services.  The traditional law office will not cease to exist, but it may find ways to incorporate a virutal law practice component to address the needs of its clients and to facilitate attorney online collaboration.  In the past three years, I’ve been overwhelmed with the number of attorneys who support web-based virtual law practice and who see it’s benefits for the public as well as the legal profession.  It’s a growing trend in our profession that would be foolish to ignore. 

    As I’m working more with other attorneys through VLOTech to set up other virtual law practices, I’m spending less time on my own VLO.   Fortunately, we just opened up a new VLO in North Carolina where I can refer some of my online clients and we are in the process of launching another VLO, a multi-attorney firm in NC, this week.  

    Three years may not seem like a long time to have been in business, but considering the novelty of the concept when I started and how popular virtual law practice is becoming now, I’ll give myself a birthday pat on the back for taking the leap.

  • Congrats to the Virtual Courthouse

    Congratulations goes out to the Virtual Courthouse for receiving the 2009 ABA Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access.  Each year the ABA gives out the Brown Award to recognize projects or programs that have addressed the need for legal services to members of the public who are in the middle class or of moderate means.  The project must not only have exhibited an innovative solution to delivering legal services to the public but also be replicable for others in the legal profession.  Since this year’s winner provides an unique virtual solution to a specific area of law practice, I thought I’d share it with this blog’s readers.

    The Virtual Courthouse provides an online method of dispute resolution. According to its website the Virtual Courthouse “enables parties to submit disputed claims, responses and supporting material in digital form for resolution by a neutral provider of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. These ADR services can include arbitration, mediation, neutral case evaluation or a settlement conference by members of a panel of neutrals.”  There are screenshots of the technology on the website, but not many details regarding data security or the actual technology behind the solution.

    This company is a good example of how attorneys are finding ways to integrate different forms of virtual law practice into their traditional practice methods to provide the public with access to more affordable and convenient legal services.  If your practice includes ADR and you have considered adding a virtual component to your practice, then you may want to check this out.

    The ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services also recognized Heisler, Feldman, McCormick & Garrow, PC and Have Justice Will Travel for their law practice methods.

  • Assisting a Pro Se Litigant Online – Proposed NC State Bar 2008 Formal Ethics Op. 3

    The winter issue of the North Carolina State Bar’s Journal came out this week.  Of interest to attorneys practicing online with a virtual law practice, the Journal published the Proposed 2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 3, Assisting a Pro Se Litigant.  The proposed opinion had come out earlier this year but was only recently printed in the state bar’s publication.

    The Bar’s summarized its ethics decision:

    Proposed opinion rules a lawyer may assist a pro se litigant by drafting pleadings and giving advice without making an appearance in the proceeding and without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of his assistance to the court unless required to do so by law or court order.

    How does this relate to a virtual law practice?

    Several virtual law office owners that I have worked with are planning on providing pro se litigants with unbundled legal services.  This would help to lessen the burden on the court systems in their state that are swamped with pro se litigants and at the same time allow the attorneys to tap into a different client base with a large need for legal services. 

    The technology of a web-based virtual law office would allow these attorneys to efficiently assist a large number of pro set litigants in any number of areas of law.  They could charge fees for legal services that are perhaps less than their traditional billable hour rates, but which make economic sense because the client is doing all of the footwork and the technology streamlines the process. 

    Of interest in this NC ethics opinion, the state bar specifically recognizes the public’s need for legal services to be delivered in less traditional ways. The ethics opinion references the NC 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 which permits an internet based law practice to offer to work with and provide clients with online legal services, including providing services to pro se litigants. 

    The key to this new proposed ethics opinion is similar to the NC 2005 FEO Opinion 10 because it requires that the online client provide “informed consent” to the limited online representation.  Through a VLO, the client is given adequate notice of the terms and scope of the online representation multiple times and is asked to accept these terms through two separate clickwrap agreements. 

    The ethics opinion also requires that the attorney make the independent judgment as to whether the services he or she offers can be competently provided to the client based on that client’s unique legal needs.  This is similar to the process any attorney should go through in a traditional law practice and is not different with a virtual law office.

    To summarize, this opinion is another nod from another state bar that a virtual law practice may provide services to pro se litigants, provided that the virtual law practice is handled properly by the attorney practicing law online.

  • Unbundling Legal Services in a Virtual Law Practice Benefits the Public

    More middle income Americans are choosing to handle their legal matters themselves because they cannot afford to hire a traditional attorney.  The International Herald Tribune reported this growing trend in an article last week.  The downturn of the economy has made the cost of traditional full-service law firms unavailable for many Americans.  In order to resolve their legal matters, many middle income individuals are turning to self representation.  

    What does this mean for the justice system?

    The increase in numbers of pro se litigants has begun to burden court administrations on different levels.  While court clerks and other assistants are not permitted to provide legal advice to pro se litigants who come to the courthouse seeking free legal guidance, these administrators are obligated to provide pro se litigants with the necessary legal forms and procedures that they will need to proceed with their case.  When the instructions on these legal forms are not followed, court administrators must then go through additional work contacting the pro se litigants to rework the legal forms or assist them with scheduling court dates. 

    Once inside the courtroom, judges are burdened by the increased number of unassisted pro se litigants when they are obliged to provide basic directions to the pro se litigants regarding standard courtroom procedures.  Attorneys who find themselves standing opposite a pro se litigant when presenting a matter to the court must exercise patience.  They may find themselves rewording their statements so that the pro se litigant will understand the issues.  Overall, the case may take more time and become more expensive than it would have been if handled by legal professionals. 

    Unbundling Legal Services Provides A Practical Solution

    There is a high demand for affordable and accessible legal services to fill in the gap between full, traditional legal representation and unassisted, pro se representation.  Unbundled legal services may provide individuals with an affordable option.  By retaining an attorney for assistance in filling out legal forms and for basic guidance on the legal process, the individual who would otherwise be a pro se litigant is assisted to the level where he or she is not as much of a burden on the court administration and other legal professionals he or she encounters in the legal system. 

    Many Americans who are searching for an affordable solution to legal services are turning to online companies like LegalZoom for form-generated legal documents. However, these legal documents and kits for sale are not actually reviewed by an attorney nor is the individual legal situation of the online consumer evaluated by a legal professional before he or she purchases the legal product.  A worse trend is that many members of the public are finding samples of legal documents online and attempting to revise these documents on their own without any legal guidance. 

    Web-Based VLOs Provide a Higher Quality of Unbundled Legal Services

    Web-based virtual law practices can provide the public with unbundled legal services that include more personalized attention to individual legal matters.  Attorneys operating a VLO communicate directly with their clients securely online.  Because of the low overhead associated with running a VLO, the attorney may pass on his or her savings to provide unbundled legal services at a more affordable price than traditional legal services.  Clients may acquire the quality legal assistance they can afford so that they may perform the footwork at the courthouse themselves.  

    As with any prospective client that walks through a physical law office, it is the responsibility of the attorney running the VLO to evaluate each online client on a case by case basis.  If the prospective client’s unique situation requires full-service representation, then the attorney must either meet with the client in person for additional legal assistance or refer the client to another attorney. 

    Given the continuing rise of pro se litigants across the country, an attorney operating a VLO and offering unbundled legal services provides a much needed option in the delivery of legal services to the public.  He or she may provide unbundled legal services online through a VLO either as the sole form of legal services offered or as an addition to a full-service law firm.  In addition, an attorney launching a VLO taps into a vast and growing consumer market that can be served using secure technology that does not raise the attorney’s law practice overhead.

    As more state bars continue to revise their rules of professional conduct and ethics decisions to address the use of technology in the practice of law, legal professionals who understand the importance of using technology to deliver legal services online will need to step forward to educate and defend the critical need for this as an option to provide affordable and convenient legal services to lower and middle income Americans.  A VLO providing unbundled legal services is a practical solution that serves both the public and the legal profession.

  • Notice & Understanding: Setting the Scope of Representation for Online Clients

    While each state’s bar has different rules governing their attorneys, I suspect that many of the rules of professional conduct and ethics opinions are similar. The NC State Bar was one of the first to address virtual law practice. On January 20, 2006, the NC State Bar adopted the 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 (Ethics Opinion 10) providing advice regarding virtual law practice and online unbundled legal services.

    The comments in the opinion focus more on email communication and do not envision a web-based application that provides for detailed attorney/client interaction. However, it is still nice to have a standard opinion to work with.

    The nature of unbundled legal services and the requirement that prospective clients understand the scope and nature of the legal representation being offered online was one of the topics addressed by the Ethics Opinion 10. The Bar stated that the virtual attorney must be careful to comply with Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule states “[a] lawyer may limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances.”

    Accordingly, the attorney must continue to provide competent and thorough representation to the client regardless of the limited nature of the legal services being conducted. Rule 1.2(c) allows for the limited legal services to be provided to the public as long as the attorney complies with Rule 1.1 regarding competence of legal services provided.

    A well-designed VLO provides notice to prospective clients as well as assurances that these notices have been read and accepted by the client. (See my Clickwrap Agreement post) Additionally, the scope of representation may be again communicated through a secure online message from attorney to the client and a traditional limited scope of representation agreement may be uploaded for the client to sign and return to the attorney, either by scanning and uploading to the VLO or by traditional mail or fax methods.

    Before offering unbundled legal services, the virtual attorney has the responsibility to explain exactly what services will be provided at what cost to the client. A well-designed VLO operates with this specific process as the foundation for the transactions by requiring multiple steps where the client must read and acknowledge the terms and/or provide information to the attorney which lets the attorney know that the client has moved forward with accepting the scope of representation.

    With each VLO, an attorney has the ability to tailor his or her virtual practice to encompass a variety of limited legal services, including the combination of using the VLO in conjunction with a full-service law office. Because each practice will differ in the areas of law practiced by the attorney(s) and by the chosen design and use of the VLOTech application, the responsibility to ensure compliance with Ethics Opinion 10 and Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct will remain with the individual practitioner or law firm.

    Here are a couple examples: An attorney whose practice centers on litigation may use a VLO to generate additional client revenue on the side by answering basic traffic ticket questions while maintaining a full-service litigation practice. The same attorney might use the VLOTech application to provide homepages to existing clients that he or she meets with in person and allow those clients to pay bills online, communicate in a more secure method than through email and basically to use the VLO as an amenity to the full-service firm.

    As a different example, another attorney may decide to enter retirement from a full-service law firm by creating a VLO that handles only transactional legal services, such as drafting estate planning, contracts or setting up business entities for clients who do not want or need to meet with the attorney in-person. The VLO allows this attorney to work remotely or from home allowing him or her to ease into retirement or create a completely new online law practice that allows for greater work/life balance.

    There are a variety of different situations where a VLO may be used to provide unbundled legal services and with each it is possible to provide quality legal services and comply with Rules 1.2(c) and 1.1 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.

    Similar to a traditional law office, a virtual law attorney must use his or her judgment on a case by case basis when deciding whether he or she may competently and ethically handle a particular matter. If the client’s needs would be better suited if handled by a full-service attorney and the virtual law attorney does not provide this services, then it is his or her responsibility to refer the client out. This is no different from the responsibility of every attorney — whether practicing virtually or with a traditional, brick and mortar law office.

MENU