Virtual Law Practice

Tag: ABA

  • ABA Annual: Delivering “Unbundled Legal Services” Over the Internet

    If you are attending ABA Annual in Chicago in a few weeks, please join myself, Richard Granat and Will Hornsby, for our CLE panel discussion about delivering unbundled legal services online. The program is sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services and will be held on Friday, August 3rd from 3-4:30pm. Additional educational materials will be provided to attendees. Here is the program description:

    The concept of delivering “unbundled” or “limited legal services” is not a new idea, but the idea becomes much more powerful when these legal services are delivered over the Internet as an online legal service. This program will help all law firms, but especially solos and small law firms, learn how to design an “online limited legal service”. Issues discussed include: designing and pricing the legal service; Internet applications that support online delivery; marketing “unbundled legal services online” ; ethical issues that need to be considered, including the creation and termination of the attorney/client relationship, the limited legal service retainer agreement, and confidentiality of client data. Existing models for delivering “unbundled legal services” online will also be discussed as well as the economics of this approach to online legal service delivery.

  • What Constitutes Virtual Presence?

    The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has released a new issues paper entitled “Issues Paper Concerning Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 and the Limits of Virtual Presence in a Jurisdiction.”

    The Commission’s previous issues paper regarding systemic and continuous presence under 5.5 came out last September and raised some of the same questions. I posted my summary of that here.  The Commission’s newest request for feedback on the issue of presence has a deadline of July 31st and they specifically request to hear from virtual practitioners who would be affected by any changes to Model Rule 5.5, in particular Comment [4] to Rule 5.5(b). The proposed change to this would state:

    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 be come systematic and continuous within the meaning of Rule 5.5(b)(1).

    Check out the hypothetical of a virtual law practice posted by Andy Perlman on the Legal Ethics Forum blog. I’m attending a LSC Tech Summit this week so a longer response from me to this new call for comments will have to wait. There are so many potential and emerging business models that incorporate virtual practice. I hope the Commission receives a variety of comments from practitioners.

  • Launch of Unbundling Book at ABA Techshow

    Last week at the ABA Techshow in Chicago, I was pleased to launch the publication of my new book on unbundling.

    Writing a book on limited scope services seemed like a logical next step in the process of reevaluating how the legal profession can adapt to the changes it faces as a result of disruptive technology, economic recession, Internet-empowered consumers and other factors that I discuss in the book. In my opinion, unbundling is a concept that underlies and works with all of the changes that legal visionaries like Richard Susskind, Jordan Furlong and others have been preaching to us for the past several years. I was grateful to Jordan Furlong for writing a wonderful Foreward for the book.

    The goal of this book is to educate lawyers and law firms on the processes they should to go through to responsibly add limited scope services as part of restructuring their delivery methods to adapt to changes in our legal marketplace. Whereas my other book on virtual law practice was geared more towards solos and firms that were interested primarily in online delivery methods, this book on unbundling is applicable to almost every firm structure from traditional to a hybrid virtual law firm, from solos to large firms and in-house counsel.

    It is not only individuals of lower to moderate means who are seeking limited scope services from law firms, but many more sophisticated client bases are keen on finding law firms that provide this. Accordingly, there is a great potential here for increased revenue for law firms as well as for the public to receive alternative forms of legal service delivery, increasing access to justice across the board. Naturally, the book covers the many ethics rules, best practices, and sometimes complex process of determining when unbundling is appropriate and when full-service is necessary. (more…)

  • Factors Determining “Reasonableness”

    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.” Comment [16] states:

    Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include the sensitivity of the information, the
    likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely  affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). (more…)

  • Standing Committee Recommends Deletion of Problematic Advertising Rule

    Remember how I wrote that virtual practitioners may need to collaborate with “branded network concepts” when updating their marketing strategies?  I also argue that this is necessary in the conclusion of my new book on unbundling because it’s a major component in increasing overall access to justice. Apparently I’m not the only one who sees the potential benefits to the public and the profession from the availability of newer online lawyer advertising methods.

    The ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services has written a letter to the Commission on Ethics 20/20 providing its recommendations regarding lawyer advertising rules. In an interesting move, the Committee has recommended the deletion of Model Rule 7.2(b).

    For those of us in virtual practices who depend on online advertising methods perhaps moreso than traditional law firms, this would be a potentially revolutionary change to the rules. Model Rule 7.2(b) is the rule that prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value for recommendation for his or her services with four exceptions. It is these exceptions and the speed at which online advertising methods have developed that has caused confusion and controversy over the past few years.

    The Committee’s letter provides a background on how changes in online advertising methods have impacted the options available to the public seeking legal services. Because one of the primary goals of the Committee is to increase access to justice for individuals of moderate income levels, they are quick to point out that these new online methods actually allow for individuals of all income levels to find both the lawyers that they could work with as well as other resources that empower them to make educated decisions about the legal services they might need. (more…)

  • Accepting Nominations for Excellence in eLawyering Award

    The ABA eLawyering Task Force is accepting nomination forms for the annual James I. Keane Memorial Award for Excellence in eLawyering.

    The award is given to a lawyer who has developed innovative legal service delivery over the Internet. The focus of the award is on the delivery of personal legal services, especially those that serve individuals of moderate to middle class means. Nominees may be individual lawyers, a law firm, or any other organization that delivers legal services to individuals.

    Last year’s Keane Award recipient was Orange County California Legal Aid Society for their development of Legal Genie. The year before that, Lee Rosen, owner of Rosen Law Firm, was the recipient. The award is presented at a special ceremony at the ABA TECHSHOW in Chicago on March 30, 2012 and comes with other perks such as publication about the award recipient in Law Practice magazine and other LPM Publications.

    Do you know of a lawyer, law firm or other organization that deserves nomination? Self-nomination is accepted as well. The deadline is February 15. The criteria for nomination and the form for submission may be found on the elawyering task force website.

  • December ezine on elawyering

     

    The December issue of Law Practice Today is focused on elawyering with articles from myself and fellow ABA elawyering Task Force members discussing different forms of elawyering.

    My article is a basic “get started with elawyering” introduction.  Here is an excerpt:

    It is not necessary to convert to a completely paperless law office in the clouds in order to benefit from different methods of elawyering. Most lawyers would prefer to get their feet wet first and then gradually find ways to take portions of their practice digital – whether that means moving to cloud-based applications for certain tasks or something smaller in scope, such as the use of a virtual paralegal or virtual assistant. There are a few simple first steps that a lawyer might take to getting started with elawyering…..read more

    Other articles in this issue include:

    Expand Your Solo or Small Firm Practice Using Client Portals, by Donna Seyle

    Document Assembly Over the Internet, by Richard S. Granat

    Dancing in the Cloud, by Marc Lauritsen

    An Update on Governing Cloud Computing, by Will Hornsby and Joseph Duffy

    The Potentials and Perils of a Virtual Law Practice, by Ed Poll

  • ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

    I was pleased to find out last week that this blog has made the list of the ABA Journal’s top 100 law blogs for this year. Thank you for reading!

    You can vote for your favorite blogs in different categories on the ABA Journal website, but they do require registration. This blog is listed under the LPM category, but they also have Technology, Opinion, Trial Practice, News, IP Law, and several other categories of blogs. It’s a great resource for finding or rediscovering new law blogs.

    I’m honored to have been nominated to the list along with some of my fellow bloggers that I read regularly. I just finished writing a new book for the ABA LPM section about limited scope representation, the future of legal services and how law firms can adjust to the changing legal marketplace by incorporating unbundling into their law practices. Now that the book is finished, I’ll have more time to devote to keeping this blog updated with current information on virtual law practice and elawyering. Again, thank you for reading!

  • 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

     

MENU