Virtual Law Practice

Month: September 2011

  • D.C. Virtual Law Firm – How the Tech Works

    Here is a blatant redirect to another blog post written by Ron Friedmann who interviewed Bryce Arrowood, co-founder of Clearspire in D.C.

    When I read about this virtual law firm, my first question was about the technology it used and whether it was solely for in-house communication and collaboration or whether the firm members were going to provide their clients with access and deliver a portion of their services online.  Nothing I read gave me enough details to understand how the technology behind their virtual law practice was structured.

    Thankfully, Mr. Friedmann has done the hard work for us and provides a teaser at the end that he may get a demo of the tech and report back at a later point. Let’s hope so.  Here is the meat I was looking for from his post:

    The firm created its own information technology stack to support efficient and collaborative work. The bottom layer consists of several practice management applications, a combination of highly-customized, third-party products and proprietary systems. The custom-built middle layer integrates and aggregates data from the bottom layer. And the proprietary top layer is the user interface. This was an ambitious project and required top talent (see the IT team credentials). Bryce reports the platform can scale to an unlimited number of users.

    The stack runs in secure, hardened data centers with real-time mirroring to a back-up center for disaster recovery. Lawyers and staff can access the system securely anywhere in the world on both notebook computers and multiple brands of mobile devices. Access to data and software features depends on device security and configuration. Users with Clearspire-provided and -configured equipment have maximum access and can use the most features.

    The firm has already successfully used this platform with lawyers and clients around the world. It was built from the ground up to respect varying global data privacy requirements.

    As with some of the other larger firms I’ve spoken with about setting up a virtual law firm, the tech is a balance of proprietary systems with third-party products.  A solo or small firm would never have the funds to build a customized virtual law firm structure such as this.  But that is the benefit of cloud computing – a larger number of users can benefit from pooling their resources into the development of software and keep the costs down.

    Hopefully we will get more details about how the Clearspire system is structured and how they intend to scale with it.  I’d love to know if they use any form of doc assembly and automation, if web or video conferencing tools are added in to the case and client management features, and whether they unbundle any of their services to clients and deliver online.

    Many thanks to Ron Friedmann for sharing.

  • 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

     

  • NY’s Lawyer Residency Requirements Held Unconstitutional

    A couple weeks ago, I wrote a post for the NC Law Blog entitled “What Contact Information Must a Non-Traditional Law Firm Provide?“. The post discussed how more non-traditional law offices are opening up, many of them delivering legal services online, and how this is raising the question of how to comply with residency requirements, bona fide office rules and providing accessible contact information for a firm that may not have a physical office location in the jurisdiction to which the legal matter pertains. In the past, I’ve written about how residency requirements can be a barrier to entry for a virtual law practice: “Residency Requirements and the Virtual Law Practice.”

    Last week brought good news on this front.  A U.S. District Court Judge in the North District of New York issued an opinion finding that New York’s Judicial Code Section 470 (which creates a residency requirement for members of the NY Bar) infringed on an attorney’s right to practice NY law.  Section 470 was last reenacted in 1945 and hasn’t been changed since then. An overhaul was long overdue.

    In a nutshell, the court found New York’s residency requirement to be unconstitutional.  For a great summary of the opinion read Carolyn Elefant’s post and follow the link out to the full opinion. This decision comes down from the interesting case of Attorney Ekaterina Schoenefeld who filed a lawsuit against the State of New York claiming that by requiring an attorney to maintain a physical law office in the state, New York law discriminates unconstitutionally against attorneys who are out-of-state.

    What I most enjoyed about this opinion was the judge’s willingness to reconsider how we define accessibility in an age when almost all of us are connected online.  As long as the attorney is transparent about where he or she is actually located and working on the client’s legal matter, the question of the need for physical location within the jurisdiction should be based on the needs of the client, the case, and the surrounding circumstances.  As the opinion notes, it would have been more physically convenient for an attorney working in NJ to drive over to courthouse in NY City than it would be for an attorney in Buffalo to drive down. (page 18 of the opinion)

    Even if it is appealed to the Second Circuit, the fact that this issue has been brought to the forefront and reconsidered as a requirement for members of the NY Bar may prompt other states to revisit the effectiveness of their existing residency requirements. As more virtual law offices spring up across the country, it will continue to be a question they will need to address.

     

  • 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…)

MENU