Virtual Law Practice

Tag: ABA

  • 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.

  • Setting Guidelines for Virtual Law Best Practices

    A small group of companies providing software as a service (SaaS) products to legal professionals will begin meeting to discuss the use of SaaS technology in law practice management.  The group also hopes to discuss among other things a set of minimum security requirements for SaaS products used by attorneys.  As a co-owner of VLOTech, I am excited to be included in this group of innovators and entrepreneurs when they meet for the first time next week. 

    Last week, the ABA’s eLawyering Task Force held a conference call which I was able to join in on.  Over the next several months the Task Force will be working to establish a set of malpractice standards or guidelines for attorneys using technology to deliver legal services.  The Task Force plans to meet at least once a month to discuss these malpractice standards among other issues.  The goal would be to establish a set of guidelines that could be approved by the ABA’s Law Practice Management Section and posted on the ABA’s website.  Attorneys interested in establishing virtual law practices or in using technology to practice law in any form would be able to refer to these standards and present them to their state bars in support of their virtual practice methods.  

    Hopefully input from both the SaaS group and the Task Force will be combined in the final version of any guidelines, and that these guidelines will address both the needs of the legal professional as well as the general public’s need for more affordable and convenient legal services.

  • ABA eLawyering Task Force Conference Call

    The ABA’s eLawyering Task Force will hold a conference call next week on January 9th at 10:00am Eastern time.  The website has an incorrect date on it as the meeting had to be rescheduled for the first of the new year.  If anyone is interested in discussing the delivery of legal services using technology, you might want to consider joining the group’s listserv and taking part in the conference call.  Participants must also be a member of the ABA’s Law Practice Management Section in order to join the Task Force.

    One of the eLawyering Task Force’s goals will be to discuss setting standards for the use of technology to deliver legal services.  This will be my first conference call with the group so I’m looking forward to speaking with some of the individuals I’ve been reading about and emailing over the past year or so.  Anyone operating a virtual law office or considering hanging a virtual shingle should take an interest in this group’s activities. 

    If you are reading Richard Susskind’s new book, The End of Lawyers?, you will know why I think this group is going to have growing relevance for the ABA and the legal profession in general.  For anyone who can’t join in on the conference call, I’ll try to post a summary of the meeting in the near future.

  • Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) in other Jurisdictions with a Virtual Law Office (Part One)

    Frequently I am asked about the unauthorized practice of law in other jurisdictions and how a virtual law practice can avoid this malpractice risk.  In a two-part post, I’ll address some of these ethics questions.  As more VLOs open and collaboration among attorneys creates VLOs operated by attorneys licensed in multiple states, the issue grows more complex.  For the most part, I’m addressing UPL in other jurisdictions as it pertains to a solo or small firm operating a virtual law practice.

    How does a virtual law practice avoid UPL in other jurisdictions?

    First, the attorney practicing law on a web-based VLO needs to state in their VLO website or blog that he or she is only registered to practice law in whatever state or states he or she is licensed to practice law in.  If the VLO handles federal law, such as patent applications or immigration law, then this is less of an issue because the attorney can work with online clients across state jurisdictions as long as the work pertains to federal law.

    Second, the VLO software should have a jurisdiction check built into it to protect both the client and the attorney from UPL in other jurisdictions.  Before a prospective client may register for a secure homepage on the VLO and even pose his or her legal question, he or she must provide a valid address.  The system will then run a check on the prospective client’s zip code with the jurisdiction(s) in which the attorney is licensed to practice law.  If the client is located in a state where the attorney is not licensed, a notice will appear to the client to remind them that the attorney only handles X state’s law.  The attorney will also receive a red flag notice that tells him or her that the client is located in X state and the legal matter may not be within the attorney’s ability to handle without risking malpractice.  

    This jurisdiction check in the technology does not prevent the attorney from taking the case.  For example, if the prospective client lives in Ohio and his or her legal needs pertain to real estate law for property owned in the state in which the attorney is licensed, then the attorney may accept that case because it pertains to law that he is licensed to practice.  The attorney on the VLO must determine on a case by case basis with the assistance of the jurisdiction check and based on the client’s request for legal services whether accepting the legal case would be UPL in another jurisdiction. 

    If a website is accessible internationally, then how can a VLO be limited to provide legal services only in the state(s) in which the attorney is licensed?  Doesn’t the nature of a website itself make the VLO in violation of advertising for legal services in multiple jurisdictions?

    Here are the basics:

    ABA Model Code Rule 5.5(b) states that

    A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:

    (1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or

    (2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.

    You can review a state by state comparative analysis of the code here.

    This issue is going to relate to any law firm website, not just a virtual law practice.  However, because clients will be able to work with and purchase legal services from the web-based VLO, the virtual law office website or blog needs to be even clearer to the public about the services that are provided and the nature of unbundled legal services in general. 

    In order to comply with the ABA Model Rule and the rules of most state bars, the attorney setting up a virtual law office needs pay close attention to the website content and advertising rules established by the state bar(s) in which he or she is licensed.  The ABA’s Law Practice Management Section also has a Best Practice Guidelines for Legal Information Web Site Providers which is an excellent resource to follow when setting up a VLO website or blog. 

    The key is to provide the prospective online client with adequate notice that the attorney is only able to provide legal services pertaining to a certain state’s laws.  Updated contact information for the attorney should be posted on the site as well as terms and conditions for website use and a privacy policy. 

    With a VLO, these terms and conditions will be presented to the online client who registers not only on the main VLO website but also in the form of a clickwrap agreement ensuring that the prospective client understands the nature of the services to be provided.  Once the online client has proceeded with opening a case on the VLO and the attorney has agreed to take the case, the online client will for a second time be presented with the terms and conditions for the delivery of legal services through the VLO and be asked to accept the VLO’s terms and conditions for use along with the specific terms and scope of representation from the attorney for that individual case. 

    With multiple opportunities for the client to review this information along with the ability of the attorney to provide additional explanation to the client online through discussion, it seems unlikely that the client could be deemed to have inadequate notice of the nature of the online legal services to be delivered.

    Again, it will be the responsibility of the attorney practicing law online to make the determination, even with the jurisdiction check in the software, that he or she is able to handle the requested legal services without committing UPL in another jurisdiction.  In many respects, this does not differ greatly from the process that an attorney in a traditional law office would have to go through to prevent UPL.  The primary difference is that the notification to the prospective client is handled online rather than in person or through a mailed letter.

    Part II will address the following questions:  How is the attorney/client relationship established on a VLO as to avoid UPL?  Is it UPL in another jurisdiction to draft a legal document, such as a Will, for an online client who is a resident in another state?  How does the issue of UPL in other jurisdictions relate to legal document automation software?

    BTW:  By no means do I claim to be a legal ethics expert.  I practice law online from my VLO and work with other attorneys nationwide to set up VLOs.  These issues interest me and I love hearing and learning from other’s experiences.  If anyone has specific ethics decisions from their state bar pertaining to UPL in other jurisdictions and online law practice, I’d love to hear about it.  Please share!

  • ABA’s Excellence in Elawyering Award Accepting Nominations

    The ABA’s eLawyering Task Force has announced that it is accepting nominations for The James I. Keane Memorial Award.  This annual award gives recognition to law offices or legal organizations that have developed legal service innovations delivered over the Internet.  According to the Task Force, the focus of the award is the innovative delivery of personal legal services, with special attention given to firms and entities that serve both moderate income individuals and the broad middle class.

    From the Task Force’s website:

    “The Jim Keane Award is named for James I. Keane, the founding Chair of the ABA eLawyering Task Force. The Task Force was created in 2000, when ABA President William G. Paul, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, took the unusual and creative step of asking a Section to assume responsibility for one of his presidential initiatives, namely an examination of ways that lawyers could use the Internet and other electronic resources to deliver legal services to people of moderate means more efficiently and effectively.”

    To learn more about eligibility requirements for the award or to submit a nomination, click here.

  • ABA to Review the Delivery of Legal Services Through Technology

    Yesterday I received an email from a member of the ABA Division for Legal Services regarding the upcoming hearings to be held by the Standing Committee on The Delivery of Legal Services.  The Committee plans to examine the use of technology to deliver legal services online and will listen to presentations by technology providers and attorneys regarding the technologies used and any policies that governs its use. The Committee will then determine from the hearings whether the creation of policies is needed to assist practitioners in providing online legal services. 

    It’s during opportunities such as these when I sincerely wish I had a gift for public speaking and at least an ounce of charisma with which to transmit my ideas in front of a live group of people.  Unfortunately, I am a writer and more comfortable with a keyboard than a video camera and microphone.  I am going to submit to the committee my ebook which I have just finished entitled “Practicing Law Online: Creating a Web-Based Virtual Law Office.”  The ebook discusses the Web 2.0 technology used to practice law online and also looks at ethics considerations and malpractice risks while making best practice recommendations for operating a virtual law office.  

    I wish there were a way to share with the Committee the positive responses that I have received over the past two and half years from my online VLO clients and from the public in general to the delivery of legal services online.  I have formed close relationships with my clients and all of our communications were conducted through my VLO, never face to face. 

    If you can please allow a moment of bragging, recently, a first-time client of mine was so pleased with the online services I provided that she emailed a referral to her 100+ person mother’s group recommending my services and providing all of my online VLO information.  I have small business clients that come back repeatedly and refer their other small business friends.  They tell me that my online services are efficient, fairly priced and most important to them, convenient for the entrepreneur starting a new business who is often working a 9-5 job while getting off the ground.  They enjoy the ability to pay online, set up payment plans through the system and check on their legal matters 24/7 whenever it best suits them. 

    I hope that whatever policies the Committee comes up with will respect the fact that each individual virtual attorney may operate his or her VLO using different technologies and combinations of technology.  It should be the responsbility of the virtual attorney, as I have written in previous posts, to make sure that they understand the security and technology used by the VLO hosting company.  As with traditional law practices, I believe it is the resonsibility of the individual virtual attorney to create policies and standards for their virtual law practice that compy with his or her state bar’s rules and regulations for ethics and professional conduct. 

    My fear is that the delivery of legal services online may be restricted through any policies created by the Committee due to a lack of understanding regarding the security of the technology.  They may not be aware of the ability of features to be created within the VLO system that can provide safe and ethical communications between attorneys and the public, such as the conflict of interest checks, establishing the attorney/client relationship, jurisdiction checks, notice of unbundled services, etc. 

    VLOTech is a small, family-owned company.  We are growing quickly and forming new relationships with other attorneys interested in virtual law practice every day.  It’s an exciting time.  It’s clear to us from the responses we receive that a revolution is quietly happening in the area of the delivery of online legal services.  It’s driven primarily by the public’s desire for these services and secondarily by attorneys, largely solos and small firm practitioners, who want to use the flexibility of the technology to practice law for a variety of reasons.  There is no way VLOTech can pull together for a presentation in two weeks all of the research and positive feedback that we have assembled over the past three years and about which we are so excited to share with VLOTech attorneys and their clients. 

    Instead, I will be submitting my ebook which covers a lot of our research and hopefully this will be accepted for consideration by the Committee.   If you would like a free copy of my ebook, please feel free to contact me at skimbro@vlotech.net.  I will also write a post about the hearings following the presentations and let my readers know what happens as far as any statements or policies issued by the Committee that may affect virtual law practice.   If you would like to view the online hearing, details about the presenters and schedule will be posted on The Standing Committee on The Delivery of Legal Services’ website.

  • Online Law Office Receives Local Press

    The Wilmington Star News ran an article in the Business Section regarding my online law practice and the VLO software. (You may have to register to view the article.) The article neglected to mention all of the ABA or North Carolina Bar resources supporting virtual law offices. So, I’m posting that information below just to supplement the article.

    “The highest leadership of the ABA knows we need a catalyst for lawyers to adapt and flourish in the new technology-driven economic order. The Internet presents us with unparalleled opportunities and powerful new tools to provide legal services. Innovative law firms and web-based companies (many run by lawyers) have already cast off — successfully — into these uncharted waters. They have set up web sites that go far beyond a list of partners, practice areas and a map to the law firm.”

    —American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section: E-Lawyering Task Force

    According to the American Bar Association’s E-Lawyering Task Force,

    “[l]awyers… are exploring the new Internet landscape. These lawyers have the vision to see a wholly new market of un-met legal needs.”

    —American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section: E-Lawyering Task Force

    A 2003 American Bar Association’s Report of the Modest Means Task Force stated that

    One method by which attorneys may improve the fairness of the American legal system is to provide limited legal services “to people who cannot afford ‘full-service’ representation.” The North Carolina Bar Association and other state bars, including Maine, California, New Mexico and Maryland, support attorneys who provide “unbundled” legal services.

    —Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance, A Report of the Modest Means Task Force, American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, 2003 and “Unbundled – A New Way to Practice,” North Carolina Bar Association, CLE Manuscript, May 24, 2002, featuring Alice Neece Mine, Assistant Executive Director of the North Carolina Bar Association responsible for Professional Responsibility and Ethics matters.

    As detailed in the findings of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee for the Delivery of Legal Services:

    “The unmet legal needs of consumers are well documented and dramatic.”

    —“Improving the Delivery of Affordable Legal Services Through the Internet: A Blueprint for the Shift to a Digital Paradigm”, Hornsby, William, American Bar Association’s Standing Committee for the Delivery of Legal Services, November 30, 2006

MENU