Virtual Law Practice

Month: March 2009

Virtual Law Office Listed as a “Law Firm Website That Works”

The April edition of the ABA Journal published an article entitled Law Firm Websites That Work. Under the category “Virtuality”, my virtual law practice is described along with illinoisdivorce.com.

The article consulted a list of panelists to provide suggestions for law firm websites that are productive in the categories of branding, solo, innovation, virtuality, all business, and youth appeal. Take a look at these websites and the marketing techniques and services they offer their clients. There may be ways to integrate aspects of several into your own ideas for a virtual law practice website.

March 25, 2009
Guest Post – The Rural Lawyer’s Technology Choices

In this guest post, I asked Bruce Cameron, Esq., author of The Rural Lawyer, to share how he uses technology in his law practice. He makes a great point that the type of technology we choose as attorneys should depend on what will work best to serve our clients.

On Being a Deliberate Luddite

Law is my second career and I come to it after 20 years of designing computer hardware and software systems for virtual reality applications. When I opened my solo practice in 2008 I envisioned a completely virtual practice. I would leverage the Internet to reduce costs and improve customer service. No more 9-5 in-the-office grind for me, I’d work from home and meet with my clients in their homes, at their place of business, over the Internet, or in a conference room rented by the hour. I would be the highest-tech lawyer in the county. I’d have a great marketing hook and a practice niche all to myself. Life would be great.

Well, it’s a year into my career as a solo practitioner and I have a terrible secret to confess: I use very little technology to practice law and I’m looking for actual brick-and-mortar office space. The sum total of my law office technology consists of a computer, a black and white laser printer, a sheet-fed scanner, and two RAID-5 NAS drives. While I do have the luxury of a DSL line, there is no pressing business need for it. At present I have no firm website; I make no use of SaaS applications or cloud-computing, I have no on-line bill-paying capability. I am, as far as the year 2009 is concerned, a Luddite.

The path from my high-tech vision to my lower-tech reality was a deliberate one. My first tentative step down the path toward technological simplicity came with the realization that the Internet has not truly arrived in rural Minnesota. I practice in an area where less than 60% of households have any form of Internet access and of those that do have access, less than 40% have a reliable high-speed connection, and less than 30% of households used the Internet regularly (the predominate users are under 18). However it was not until I surveyed my potential client base that the value of simplicity became clear.

I practice in a community that still places value on tradition. This is a community that still operates on hand-shakes, believes that one’s word is one’s bond, and trusts in business done face-to-face. This is a community that trusts and values permanence. For them, the virtual office concept falls flat simply because it cannot compete with the immediacy and permanency of bricks and mortar. My clients place more value in engraved letterhead and wax-sealed wills, in the formality of a wood paneled office and a heavy oak desk, and in a three piece suit and a good firm handshake than they do in a snazzy website, a great blog or 24/7 access to a virtual office.

Because my technology enables me to give my clients what they want, when they want it, and in the way they want it, I get satisfied clients and additional referrals. And this, I think, is the definitive reason d’être for anyone’s technology choices. So I continue on, completely out of step with my computer geek roots, being the deliberate Luddite.

Bruce Cameron, Esq. operates a solo general law practice in a small town in Minnesota. His sporadic ramblings about rural law practice can be found on his blog at rurallawyer.com.

March 25, 2009
Metadata – NC Bar Proposed Ethics Opinion

A proposed ethics opinion by the NC State Bar covers the review and use of metadata. The proposed opinion dated January 22, 2009 states the following conclusion,

…a lawyer must use reasonable care to prevent the disclosure of confidential client information hidden in metadata when transmitting an electronic communication and a lawyer who receives an electronic communication from another party or another party’s lawyer must refrain from searching for and using confidential information found in the metadata embedded in the document.

The concern with metadata is that it may reveal privileged or confidential client information. With even basic computer skills, if you know how to look for metadata, it’s easy to obtain information about who wrote a document and when and to find detailed notes and information embedded in the document.  Attorneys must observe “reasonable care” to protect and preserve confidential information when they are using forms of electronic communication.

Likewise, when receiving an electronic communication, the opinion states that the attorney should not actively seek out metadata. This is in line with ethics opinions issued in recent years by the NY State Bar followed by other state bars and backed up by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.  Visit the ABA’s Legal Tech Resource Center for a complete list of Metadata Ethics Opinions in each state.

How does metadata relate to a virtual law practice?

With a web-based virtual law practice, the attorney may be transmitting documents to clients and other attorneys in digital format by uploading documents for review or in allowing uploads to the virtual law office from another attorney or client. Depending on the file format being transferred online and the circumstances, metadata may be embedded in those files.

Accordingly, the virtual law practitioner should use metadata removal programs on their applications immediately before uploading them to the VLO.  Microsoft and even Open Office have metadata removal programs and techniques available for their software suites. Another option is to convert the files, such as Word, Excel, OpenOffice, and PowerPoint, to PDF before uploading them to the VLO. However, some online clients may not be able to edit the application on their computers as a PDF. So if the purpose of the transfer is to allow your clients to add anything to the document, then conversion to PDF may not be the best method of avoiding metadata. Another free option would be to convert the document to Rich Text Format (RTF) but this would most likely create layout and formatting problems and not be worth it.

There are metadata removal applications from a number of companies, including Workshare, Payne Consulting Group, Esquire Innovations, Inc. or iScrub. Depending on the virtual practice, an attorney may want to invest in an annual license for these programs just to avoid any malpractice risks.  Given the availability of these programs and methods, it is clearly the responsibility of the attorney to ensure that he or she has removed any metadata from a file before uploading it to the VLO and sharing it with clients and other attorneys.

How a virtual law practice may help prevent malpractice risks from metadata

If an attorney is required to use reasonable care to protect their client’s confidential, then should attorneys be using unencrypted email to communicate with clients and to transfer documents as attachments? The risks involved in using email are well-known and the attachments sent through email may contain metadata if not carefully cleaned.

Even more of a security risk are the use of public email accounts, such as those provided by gmail, hotmail and yahoo.  If there is a safer option that is easily available to transfer information securely, then doesn’t this proposed NC State Bar ethics opinion and others like it require that the attorney use “reasonable care” to seek out a safer method?

With a virtual law practice, the attorney can tell their client that the attorney is acting in the best interest of the client by refusing to communicate and transfer legal documents via email. The attorney can explain that using the web-based VLO is the safer way for the client to interact with the attorney and that even more communication tools are available to the parties through this method.

I have done this with my online clients and once they understand that the technology is no more complicated than email, and safer to protect their confidential legal matters, they are excited to have 24/7 access to their own homepage and legal case files. Rather than emailing me their private legal issues on unsecure email or attaching documents for me to review, they are able to post on the discussion thread to me their legal issues and all of it is contained in their case file for future reference. Likewise, if I’m working with another attorney on a case file, he or she may send me a private note using the same method which will show up on the case file rather than being sent through unencrypted email.

The risks of malpractice from metadata embedded in documents may be limited by the use the secure online communication inside a VLO. The attorney and client may conduct all of their legal work securely online. Rather than having multiple folders containing draft documents in email attachments, the client’s online case file after drafts have been completed may be limited to the single legal document controlled by the attorney who may then use a method of removing metadata when transferring it back and forth to the client or another attorney for review.

While a VLO may not remove all of the malpractice risks associated with metadata, it can help legal professionals comply with ethics opinions requiring “reasonable care” and to help them protect their client’s confidential information when using electronic communication.

March 16, 2009
BigLaw Attorneys Taking to Virtual Law Practice

The ABA Journal published an online article today about the progress that Virtual Law Partners (VLP) has made in recruiting attorneys from large law firms. One of the reasons for the growth is the downturn in the economy and large law firm layoffs. The beneficial reasons cited for the move to a virtual law firm by the former BigLaw attorney include having to put in fewer billable hours for the same return in client revenue and he was able to take with him the majority of his clients and continue to work with them remotely.

VLP has an interesting structure for a virtual law practice because each attorney in the virtual firm works independently, but all of the attorneys pool resources as a single network. I’m not clear on the actual technology and security they use to work remotely with each other or with their clients. However, it will be interesting to see how their network holds up as it continues to grow and add attorneys.

From their example, solos and small firms can see the benefits of practicing law online and how this option can be available for an attorney who may never have been interested in working for a large large firm. It does not take the infrastructure of a brick and mortar law office with a huge staff and a fortune in marketing and advertising to be able to provide quality legal services to the public online. As the way of the future, virtual law practice will allow the solo practitioner and small firm to really compete on the same level and to form the same online and social networks as attorneys who formerly worked for BigLaw. It’s already happening on a small level and will continue to grow as the technology remains affordable and allows for increased attorney collaboration. The playing field is leveling off.

March 9, 2009

MENU