Last month, I spoke at the annual conference for the IP Paralegal Institute in Cary, NC. The topic of my presentation was about how to create an “eOffice” – to move away from paper and go digital. I started the talk with an overview of the legal marketplace for unbundled and online legal services and ended it with a look at where the profession will be in the next five years. I discussed decision-making systems like Neota Logic and document assembly and automation technologies as well as online case and client managegment systems that automate many of the functions of a law office. The final question from the attendees afterwards was a new one for me, probably because it was the first time I had spoken to a room of paralegals rather than lawyers: “With all this technology, how many human bodies do you think it will replace in the law firm?”

Last week I gave a presentation at Stanford Law School entitled “Unbundling and the Future of Legal Service Delivery.” We had some great questions from the attendees at the end of the talk. Thanks again to Stanford CodeX and the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession for inviting me out there. I am introduced by Tony Lai, one of the founders of LawGives who I also had the pleasure of spending time with while in Palo Alto. Below is the video from my talk.

Today, the Apple Apps Store has released the Total Attorneys practice management platform’s iPad and iPhone app. This clean app allows a lawyer to operate a law practice from the iPad and/or iPhone with secure access to the virtual law office platform. Case and client management features are all integrated into the app, and it syncs with the full browser version of the software.

The March issue of the South Carolina Lawyer features an article I co-wrote with Courtney Kennaday entitled “Ethics of Virtual Law Practice.”

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 published its revised draft resolutions for comment regarding Technology and Confidentiality at the end of last month. Under Comment [16] to Rule 1.6 “Confidentiality of Information”, the revised draft contains a list of factors that determine whether the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent “unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, confidential information.”

Please take a minute to fill out this brief survey. It will help out a great team of law students that are doing some research into how people use online services to fill their legal needs.This law student team is part of the Law Without Walls program. I’m serving as an Entrepreneur Advisor this year and have been really encouraged by the participants and their eagerness to think outside of the box to come up with their “project of worth.”

Most lawyers who have researched ethics opinions related to online advertising are familiar with the Total Attorneys ethics matter, which began in April, 2009 when a single Connecticut lawyer filed an ethics complaint with the state bar disciplinary counsel in 47 states. The complaints targeted not just the company, but also more than 500 of its bankruptcy law firm customers. Here’s the final update on how this played out along with my thoughts on the significance of this process.

At its meeting on January 27, the NC State Bar Council adopted and published the last version of 2011 Formal Ethics 6 “Subscribing to Software as a Service While Fulfilling the Duties of Confidentiality and Preservation of Client Property”. The last version of this opinion was sent to subcommittee in July 2011, but the discussion over the structure of the opinion has been almost a year and a half-long process.

CALI is hosting a MOOC (massively open online course) called Topics in Digital Law Practice. I gave a presentation for them today. Below are the slides. There is a homework assignment posted on the blog for this session and students are encouraged to create homework wikis. Looking forward to reading some of those.

The New Jersey State Supreme Court Professional Responsibility Rules Committee has recommended an amendment to the bona fide office rule, Rule 1:21-1(a). The proposed changes would no longer require that the lawyer provide a physical office location as long as the lawyer was accessible by his or her clients, the courts and other lawyers, including for purposes of service of process.