Tag: attorney-client relationship

  • Call for Comments – ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission Reviews Cloud Computing and Client Confidentiality

    This afternoon the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 sent an email through the listserv announcing a public hearing in mid-October in Chicago.  The Commission is looking for comments on two topics: 1) “Client Confidentiality and Lawyers’ Use of Technology” and 2)  “Lawyers’ Use of Internet Based Client Development Tools.”  I’ve uploaded the first of these issues papers which you can review here: 


    ABA Ethics Commission 20/20: For Comment: Issues Paper Concerning Client Confidentiality and Lawyers’ Use of Technology

    Most of the issues discussed in this paper have some impact on virtual law practice.  One of the Commission’s suggested options for action is to “propose amendments to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, such as Model Rules 1.1 (competency), 1.6 (duty of confidentiality), 1.15 (safeguarding client property), or the comments to those Rules.”  

    Therefore, it’s important that those of us interested in the delivery of legal service online take the time to read this paper, and if there is a perspective that is missing, to submit a comment before the deadline of December 15, 2010.   I contributed Chapter Three of my book and may submit a comment as well after I’ve had time to review and digest the two issues papers again.

  • Article Notes Rise in Virtual Law Firms

    Today’s Legal Technology section over at Law.com has an article about the increasing number of solo practitioners who are profiting from going virtual.  As I’ve blogged about in the fall of last year, operating a virtual law office is a great way for a solo or small law firm to compete in this difficult economy.  The general public, our clients, are seeking more affordable legal services and they want the convenience of using technology to acquire those services.  After all, being able to take care of your legal needs at 1am without having to take time off of work or arrange for child care saves money as much as a reduced legal fee.

    I have noticed an increase in my virtual law practice since last October and many of my online clients are forthright about why they decided to come to my VLO instead of going to a traditional law firm.  My clients are scattered across the state so at the same time that I am helping my clients, I am also helping my law practice by being able to expand my client base and compete with traditional solo practices in my state.

    Working with VLOTech to set up other attorneys with virtual law practices and seeing the increase in interest in the web-based technology assures me this is a trend that is not going anywhere anytime soon.  Check out some of the newest VLOs in my links to the right.

    The Law.com article talks about virtual law practices that communicate through email (usually unencrypted and not secure), phone and Internet but does not really give us the details on what technologies these virtual law practices are using.  The focus is also on collaboration virtually between attorneys rather than online attorney and client communication.  Let’s hope data security is a primary concern for these practices with whatever technologies they are using to deliver legal services.  Expect to see future articles that focus more on attorney/client online communication to deliver legal services online.

  • Twitter and the Virtual Law Office

    I’ve been using Twitter on almost a daily basis since last summer as @StephKimbro.  I started using it out of curiosity and am at over 1400 updates.  I have met many new people both in the legal profession and in other industries through Twitter.  Like anything else online, it requires savvy filtering skills.  I use TweetDeck to help search and filter tweets. 

    Many blog posts have gone up about attorneys using Twitter for networking, marketing and client development.  I’ll list a few below for reference.  Since my virtual law office clients are online and more likely to be using Twitter themselves I wanted to give the application more time before blogging about it to see how it could have an impact on a virtual law practice.

    So far, no new online clients as a direct result of using Twitter.  The difficulty is in narrowing in on my online client base here in North Carolina.  My Twitter network knows no jurisdictional boundaries which I am held to by my law license.  While I have a good number of North Carolina followers, the number of Twitter users is still not touching the general public enough that my posts about my law practice are reaching potential consumers of the online legal services that I provide.  Of course, I am not directly advertising my services through tweets, just posting about what I am working on at the time on my VLO.  I use other forms of online advertising that are targeted more towards my NC client base, but Twitter is just not able to tap into that base as easily— not yet.  

    That said, if I were able to connect with a prospective client through Twitter, I would immediately have to send them to my VLO to continue online communication.  Even the use of direct messages through Twitter conveys via unencrypted email and would not be a secure method of conveying sensitive attorney/client communications.  I would worry that a less sophisticated client might send a tweet with confidential information to me and the rest of the online world before I would have the chance to warn them.  I know other attorneys have written about these concerns and some refuse to use Twitter at all for that reason, but I still think the benefits for the legal professional outweigh any risks.  I’m keeping my eye out for a state bar ethics or advisory opinion to specifically discuss the use of Twitter.  Clue me in if you’ve read one.

    The value of Twitter for the virtual law practice is obvious — connecting with a network of other legal professionals on a closer level.  I have gotten to know many attorneys, virtual assistants, legal software providers and law practice management advisers through Twitter. Sure, I have a LinkedIn, Facebook and other social and legal networking accounts, but Twitter lets me get a glimpse into the daily lives of these people and likewise, they occasionally see tweets about my family and my daily musings.  Tweets help to humanize the online networking process.  

    For some attorneys operating a virtual law practice may seem isolating if they are working from a home office or other remote location on their VLO.  Twitter helps them stay connected to legal news and the opinions of other legal professionals across the world.  I have asked my Twitter followers for general advice on law practice management in the past and received useful insights.  Likewise, I have been able to share tips about VLOs and virtual law practice with others. 

    The network of virtual attorneys and virtual law firms on Twitter is growing which is helping to spread the word about VLOs and the delivery of legal services online.  Here are some VLOs on Twitter:

    @Olea_LLP

    @TimFerraris

    @FrameLegal

    @PattiSpencer

    @Debrina

    In conclusion, I don’t think using Twitter has much of a benefit of pulling in clients directly to a VLO.  However, it is a great tool to use for networking and learning from other legal professionals and a way to continue to grow the online presence of a virtual law practice.  As more of the general public joins Twitter, it is possible that the general advertising of a VLO website and services through tweets will over time help an attorney to grow his or her online client base.  

    Here are a list of some popular blog posts that have gone up about the use of Twitter by legal professionals:

    Twitter 101 For Lawyers, Nicole Black (@nikiblack)

    145 Lawyers (and Legal Professionals) to Follow on Twitter, Adrian Lurssen (@jdtwitt)

    Lawyer Marketing with Twitter, Steve Mathews (@stevematthews)

    Lawyer Marketing with Twitter has Arrived, Kevin O’Keefe (@kevinokeefe)

    How to Use Twitter as a Lawyer, Grant Griffiths (@grantgriffiths)

  • Attorneys Discuss Virtual Law Practice

    Check out two blog posts discussing virtual law practice from Chuck Newton and Jay Fleischman, both attorneys who use technology to practice law outside a traditional law office.  Newton’s post Is Virtual Virtually Impossible? prompted Fleischman’s post An Open Response to ‘Is Virtual Virtually Impossible?’

    As I commented on Newton’s blog, I believe there is room in our profession for many different law practice methods, including virtual law offices, whether they are completely web-based or integrated into a traditional law office setting.

    Fleischman’s post discusses the definition of the word “virtual” and whether it is the appropriate term to use.  When I was considering what to call my own web-based law office and we were evaluating the name for VLOTech, we looked at all of the existing terms that came close to describing the method of practicing law securely over the Internet, such as elawyering, online law practice, online legal services, web-based law office, online unbundled legal services, etc.

    The term “virtual” and the connotations it brings may depend on an attorney’s concept of how the Internet can be used to recreate real world environments.  Virtual can also mean a software representation of something physical. A virtual reality world is a software representation of the 3D physics of the real world.  Virtual machines, such as VMWare or Virtual PC, are software representations of physical hardware.  Virtual law offices are software representations of a physical law office, including front office, backend office and even secretary.

    What we intended to convey by the term VLO or virtual law practice was that this method was a way of recreating an entire law office environment on the Internet.  Second Life, for example, is a virtual reality world; a digital world accessed completely online.  Likewise, my VLO is a complete virtual law office accessed online.  My waiting room, my conference room, my filing cabinets, my copy machine, my law library, etc. are all in one place online.

    Since I started my own web-based practice I’ve worked with other attorneys who are using technology to run both a traditional law practice and a web-based law office.   As long as the technology used to practice law over the Internet protects the general public that we serve, it should not matter what method or combination of law practice methods legal professionals use to get their work done.  There will always be clients and attorneys who prefer certain methods over others.  It doesn’t make one type of attorney more or less of a professional.

    My prediction is that in the next ten years attorneys will continue to run into more clients who expect them to use web-based methods of communication to provide legal services.  Look even further down the road and expect to see attorney avatars having online conferences with their clients’ avatars.  While some attorneys already have law offices in virtual reality worlds, the security is not there yet for attorney/client confidentiality and the general public is not quite at that level of comfort with the concept.

    I certainly don’t think traditional face-to-face lawyering will ever disappear.  However, attorneys operating VLOs and those practicing law online are at the forefront of an increasingly useful and popular law practice method.

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

    Part I of this post on the unauthorized practice of law in other jurisdictions addressed the following questions:  How does a virtual law practice avoid UPL in other jurisdictions? and 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?

    How is it clear with a Virtual Law Office (VLO) when the attorney/client relationship is established?

    An online client receives adequate notice through his or her individual homepage in the VLO as to the different statuses of the case.  Notice is provided to the online client when the attorney has reviewed the client’s question and posted a response, when the attorney has accepted or declined representation, when the attorney provides details of the scope of representation, and when the attorney has completed legal representation and is formally closing the online case file.

    The attorney/client relationship begins when the online client has registered on the VLO and requested legal services from the attorney.  The client is notified when the attorney has reviewed and responded to his or her legal question.  Then the client is asked follow-up questions by the attorney or is presented with the price quote or terms of representation for the online client to accept or decline.

    Through the VLO, the attorney has several options to define the scope of representation, including providing clients with a traditional written retainer letter uploaded to the system, writing out personalized messages to each client and requiring that the client accept a customized clickwrap agreement solidifying the terms of the attorney/client relationship, or using both traditional and online clickwrap methods.  Basically, the same procedures for establishing attorney/client relationship and defining the scope of representation that are used in a traditional law practice can be integrated into a VLO.

    I would argue that using the technology actually provides clearer notice to the clients of the establishment of the attorney/client relationship and the scope of representation. It may also do a better job of keeping the clients informed of their case status than occurs with a traditional law practice.  One of the biggest malpractice complaints from clients is that their attorney does not communicate effectively with them regarding their case.  The VLO handles so much of the process for the attorney automatically. It also gives clients the ability to check for themselves the status of their file and to review their previous discussions with the attorney.

    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?

    It is my understanding that it would constitute the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction if an attorney used his or her VLO to draft a legal document that pertained to the laws of another state where the online client was a resident but where the attorney did not have a license to practice law.

    However, if the attorney operating the VLO were partnering with attorneys or legal assistants on his or her VLO who were licensed in other jurisdictions, then this would be different.  For example, a virtual paralegal could work on the VLO to draft a Will or other estate planning document for a client a jurisdiction where the virtual paralegal was familiar with that state’s estate planning laws.  The virtual paralegal would then flag the document for review by the attorney on the VLO who was licensed in that online client’s state.

    My understanding is that the review and approval of that legal document by the attorney licensed to handle that state’s laws would permit the virtual paralegal to complete the transaction for the online client without it constituting UPL in another jurisdiction.  You can see through this example how a solo law practice taken online with a VLO could grow very quickly across multiple jurisdictions if well planned out.

    How does the issue of UPL in other jurisdictions relate to legal document automation software?

    Some attorneys are choosing to provide legal services online by using document automation software, similar to the way that LegalZoom and similar companies provide legal documents across jurisdictions.  There is a separate issue here which pertains to assisting a nonlawyer (the software vendor or legal form provider) in the practice of law.  If this form of providing legal services interests readers, I recommend that they check out Richard Granat’s recent blog post regarding the automated delivery of online legal services, or online document assembly, as it relates to UPL.

    VLOTech is preparing a feature for the first of next year that allows attorneys to create forms for clients on the VLO to fill out and send to the attorney securely on the system in addition to the existing VLO forms of communicating online with the client.  The forms could be anything from estate planning and family law questionnaires to customized client intake forms based on the attorney’s virtual law practice areas.  Since the forms would be generated by the attorney individually for the VLO and not pre-packaged from a vendor, then it should avoid the UPL issue completely.  It will be interesting to see how attorneys practicing law online will choose to integrate this additional feature in their virtual law practice.

    Online Resources Regarding UPL

    ABA Model Code, Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law

    State by state comparative analysis of UPL – Cornell University Law School, American Legal Ethics Library

    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!

  • Elawyering Ethics: Determining Competency and Contractual Capacity Through a VLO

    A couple good ethics questions came out of my CLE presentation at the GP/Solo and Small Firm Symposium this past week concerning the competency and contractual capacity of a virtual attorney’s clients.  I thought I would share those questions and my thoughts. 

    How can you determine the competency and contractual capacity of a client before providing online legal services through a VLO?

    This ethics concern came from an elder law attorney in the CLE audience specifically regarding the drafting a power of attorney online without meeting the client in person.  The topic has also come up multiple times on the ABA’s Solosez listserv.  It seems to be an issue that attorneys cannot easily agree on. 

    Many states, including North Carolina, have older professional rules of conduct or ethics opinions that require that the attorney meet with a client in person before drafting a power of attorney for that client.  However, in most cases these rules were created without consideration of how web-based technologies in combination with other best practices may be used to provide online legal services. 

    I hope that this question will be revisited by the attorneys who consider these issues and their bar associations because two key factors have changed dramatically in the past couple years: 1) current technology offers additional methods beyond email communication that may establish an online relationship with clients, and 2) there are several online resources available for members of the lay public to acquire legal documents without an attorney ever reviewing them.

    To address the power of attorney, this document creates such broad authority for the named attorney-in-fact that the attorney drafting the document needs to make sure that the client understands what they will be signing and is not being unduly influenced into gifting this power.  However, is it the responsibility of an attorney to judge the competence of a client?

    In my opinion, I am not a psychologist or a medical doctor who may rule professionally on the mental competency of my client.  If from our communications, my client makes it clear to me that he or she understands the nature of the document and the powers that it provides to the named attorney-in-fact, then in my opinion my client is competent to execute that legal document. 

    In all reality, if an individual wants to coerce their relative into signing a power of attorney naming them as attorney-in-fact all that person has to do is go to the Office Depot and spend $60 on a software kit or if they are really cheap, google “sample power of attorney” and cut, paste and edit their way to creating a Power of Attorney that may appear enforceable.  Legalzoom offers a Power of Attorney online for under $50, and it is only reviewed by a paralegal prior to being sent to the client for execution. 

    I find it unlikely that with the easy availability of the public to acquire legal forms someone wanting to use a power of attorney for malicious purposes would go to the trouble to pay an attorney to draft the document for them.  There is the risk that the attorney would speak with their relative and realize the undue influence before the document was executed.  Even if these malicious parties go through a VLO, there are practice methods the virtual attorney may follow to avoid malpractice and ethics risks which I discuss below.

    Can a virtual attorney properly ascertain the contractual capacity of a client through a VLO?

    One audience member at the CLE presentation said he would worry about 13 year olds going online to a VLO and purchasing legal documents.  How would the virtual attorney know the prospective client was not 18 years or older?

    While anyone may accept the multiple clickwrap agreements on a VLO and lie about their age, again, I find it unlikely that many individuals under the age of 18 would want to purchase legal services online through a VLO.  However, it is the attorney’s responsibility to ascertain that the client has the contractual capacity to execute the document.  There are various methods of handling this online which I have discussed in a previous blog post here and will mention again briefly below.  In addition, with many of the legal documents, the witnesses signing in front of the notary public would be signing a statement that they attest that the person signing the documents is 18 year of age or older, of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.  The notary would also verify the client’s identity and hopefully notice if they were dealing with a teenager. 

    The virtual attorney should be able identify that the client is underage through the online discussion, request for the client to scan in and upload their driver’s license, and payment by valid credit card.  If the virtual attorney has any additional hesitations, they may speak with the client by telephone or arrange for a web conference.  In the event that the virtual attorney continues to have any doubt regarding the capacity or competency of his or her client, the attorney has the option of referring that client to a full-service law office and declining the representation.

    In my personal elawyering experience, I have not encountered a situation where there was a question in my mind after communicating with the client as to the capacity or competence of that individual.  In cases where the client was an older citizen and they were not just having me update their original documents, i.e. they sent me the originals and I updated them to NC law without the named parties changing, then I would call them on the phone before drafting the documents and again to follow up after they received them.  It is clear to me that these clients clearly understand what they are asking me to draft and understand the power it conveys to the named parties.  (You might be surprised how many 70+ people register on the VLO.  Many people expect that my clientele would be strictly in the under 40 range.  Happily this is not the case.)

    Perhaps the virtual law practitioner could offer power of attorneys but only after requiring that the client go through additional procedures not required of other clients.  For example, the attorney could require that they receive a scanned copy of the client’s driver’s license and photo id and speak with the client on the telephone before returning to communicating through the VLO.  There are a number of ways the drafting of legal documents may be handled online.

    Virtual attorneys should not be deterred from finding innovative ways to use technology to provide the public with legal services online just because there is the potential for fraud or undue influence.  The bottom line is that the individual virtual law practitioner will have to make the decision regarding what legal services they feel comfortable providing online within their state bar’s rules of professional conduct.

MENU