Virtual Law Practice

Tag: clickwrap agreement

  • Online Document Signing for Your Virtual Law Practice

    One of the questions I hear regularly about virtual law practice is related to the execution of legal documents and how that process can be handled through a virtual law office.  I’ve written before on this blog about the establishment of the attorney/client relationship online and how an attorney may rely on a clickwrap agreement to ensure that the client has read and accepted all of the terms and conditions and the scope of the legal representation that will be conducted online. 

    I use a clickwrap to serve as the engagement letter for my virtual law office.  Other attorneys will use the clickwrap in addition to uploading a traditional engagement letter for the online client to sign, scan and upload back to the virtual law office.  There are many other examples of when an attorney may need to have his or her client sign a document.  Having the client give the attorney a Power of Attorney to act on the client’s behalf is one of those situations. 

    Enter Right Signature.  This application provides a way to obtain a legally enforceable digital signature on a document without your online client having to own a scanner or having to go to the trouble of printing it, signing it and uploading it back to you on your virtual law office.  (Many thanks to Lee Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm for pointing this product out during our recent CLE presentation). 

    You can try Right Signature for free to see if it would work for your virtual law practice.  It has authentication and security technology that make the digital signatures binding and legally enforceable.  The product is a SaaS hosted application so the documents and the digital signatures are stored on a secure server.  The process is really simple for your clients to execute so it may actually be faster to get them to sign digitally online than requiring them to upload a traditional, scanned-in signature on a document.  As a useful tool for your virtual law practice, I’d say this one is worth the monthly $14 fee if you need your clients’ signatures on a regular basis or don’t want to rely on the clickwrap agreement alone.

  • 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!

  • 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!

  • Checklist for Opening a Virtual Law Office

    The following is a basic checklist for attorneys considering opening up a virtual law practice.

    ___ Choose a VLO hosting company and find out what it will require in order to set up your VLO. Of course, I’m biased, but I recommend Virtual Law Office Technology (VLOTech).

    ___ Register a domain.

    ___ Retain a website designer to create a VLO website. It can be as simple as a single homepage or a more complex site with legal resources and articles for the public and your clients. Consider having a VLO website with blog functionality. Blogging on your VLO can be a useful marketing tool and resource for your clients. VLOTech refers its clients to Grant Griffith’s company, G2WebMedia. Griffiths, of Home Office Lawyer blog fame, has experience working with solo and small firm practitioners and creates websites with blog functionality to improve VLO marketing.

    ___ Make sure that any part of your website that handles confidential information, the actual VLO, registration and login for clients, is protected by an SSL certificate (https and the browser lock symbol). Your web hosting company may help you with this or you may need to purchase an SSL certificate separately.

    ___ Establish an account with a credit card processing company to use for your online payments, such as PayPal or your bank. If you plan on taking retainers through the VLO, make sure that you have the approval of your state bar regarding transfer of the client’s funds to a credit card processing company before going into your trust account. There was some discussion about this on Solosez not long ago and I’ve posted about it here.

    ___ Draft the terms and conditions for use for your general website and the clickwrap agreement for your secure VLO website.

    ___ Establish a response time policy. For example, let clients know that you will respond to their online requests within 24 hours.

    ___ If you will be handling transactional matters, prepare any forms or worksheets for collection of client data. These may be uploaded to the clients through the VLO and downloaded for you to review once completed by the client.

    ___ If you will be using the VLO with existing clients or in a litigation practice, draft a letter or email to clients notifying them to register and use the VLO to keep track of their cases.

    ___ Decide how you plan on handling client engagement letters, either through the VLO case dialogue and clickwrap agreement or by traditional letter uploaded to the client, or a combination of both methods.

    ___ Decide which billing method or combination of methods you plan to use. Consider providing sample fixed fees, billable hour rates or a range of costs on your VLO website.

    ___ Discuss your planned VLO practices with your malpractice insurance carrier and ask about discounted rates due to the use of technology to reduce malpractice risks.

    ___ If you will be practicing remotely, review the security of your mobile devices.

    ___ If you plan on using the VLO in conjunction with other law office software, have a data backup policy in place.

    ___ Create a backup Internet access plan in the event that you only have one method of connecting to the Internet and it goes out.

    ___ Check with your state bar’s rules of professional conduct regarding advertising and website content before getting started on any marketing campaigns. (Hat tip to Aaron Johnston for reminding me to add this one!) I’ve written a little about this here .

  • Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Other Jurisdictions When Practicing Law Online

    Practicing law from a web-based virtual law office brings the risk of unwittingly establishing an attorney/client relationship regarding a legal matter that the virtual attorney is not licensed to handle. The unauthorized practice of law in other jurisdictions can be avoided by following some simple practice methods.

    First, the virtual law practitioner has the responsibility to provide clear notice throughout the VLO website that he or she is only licensed to practice law in the states in which the attorney holds an active bar license. This information should show up at every turn — from the terms and conditions for the website to the registration and clickwrap agreement allowing access to the online client’s homepage.

    Second, the virtual law office website should contain contact information and the name of the attorney running the VLO. For some state bar associations, such as North Carolina, the requirement extends to providing a physical mailing address for the prospective client. This information should be located in a section that is easily found by the online client, such as an “About Us” section or at the start of the website’s disclaimer. By providing adequate notice throughout the VLO, the attorney should not be found to be soliciting clients from a state where he or she is not able to practice law.

    In addition, a well-designed VLO should contain a jurisdiction check for the benefit of the client and the attorney. This safe-guard was built into the VLOTech software for this purpose.

    VLOTech jurisdiction check

    When the client registers on the attorney’s VLO website, a simple check for the zip code notifies the attorney that the client is a resident outside his or her jurisdiction. A note would appear to the client which states that the attorney may only be retained to answer legal questions and handle legal work related to the laws of the state for which the attorney has an active law license. The jurisdiction check should not prevent the client from continuing with the registration process, but serves the purpose of providing more than adequate notice of the attorney’s jurisdiction. Through this process, the attorney is provided with a red flag on the backend of the law office to let him or her know that the client resides in a different state and may not have a legal matter that the attorney is permitted to handle.

    With the combination of adequate contact information and notice to any prospective clients regarding jurisdictional limitations, the virtual practitioner should be able to safely avoid crossing the line into unauthorized practice of law.

  • Notice & Understanding: Setting the Scope of Representation for Online Clients

    While each state’s bar has different rules governing their attorneys, I suspect that many of the rules of professional conduct and ethics opinions are similar. The NC State Bar was one of the first to address virtual law practice. On January 20, 2006, the NC State Bar adopted the 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 (Ethics Opinion 10) providing advice regarding virtual law practice and online unbundled legal services.

    The comments in the opinion focus more on email communication and do not envision a web-based application that provides for detailed attorney/client interaction. However, it is still nice to have a standard opinion to work with.

    The nature of unbundled legal services and the requirement that prospective clients understand the scope and nature of the legal representation being offered online was one of the topics addressed by the Ethics Opinion 10. The Bar stated that the virtual attorney must be careful to comply with Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule states “[a] lawyer may limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances.”

    Accordingly, the attorney must continue to provide competent and thorough representation to the client regardless of the limited nature of the legal services being conducted. Rule 1.2(c) allows for the limited legal services to be provided to the public as long as the attorney complies with Rule 1.1 regarding competence of legal services provided.

    A well-designed VLO provides notice to prospective clients as well as assurances that these notices have been read and accepted by the client. (See my Clickwrap Agreement post) Additionally, the scope of representation may be again communicated through a secure online message from attorney to the client and a traditional limited scope of representation agreement may be uploaded for the client to sign and return to the attorney, either by scanning and uploading to the VLO or by traditional mail or fax methods.

    Before offering unbundled legal services, the virtual attorney has the responsibility to explain exactly what services will be provided at what cost to the client. A well-designed VLO operates with this specific process as the foundation for the transactions by requiring multiple steps where the client must read and acknowledge the terms and/or provide information to the attorney which lets the attorney know that the client has moved forward with accepting the scope of representation.

    With each VLO, an attorney has the ability to tailor his or her virtual practice to encompass a variety of limited legal services, including the combination of using the VLO in conjunction with a full-service law office. Because each practice will differ in the areas of law practiced by the attorney(s) and by the chosen design and use of the VLOTech application, the responsibility to ensure compliance with Ethics Opinion 10 and Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct will remain with the individual practitioner or law firm.

    Here are a couple examples: An attorney whose practice centers on litigation may use a VLO to generate additional client revenue on the side by answering basic traffic ticket questions while maintaining a full-service litigation practice. The same attorney might use the VLOTech application to provide homepages to existing clients that he or she meets with in person and allow those clients to pay bills online, communicate in a more secure method than through email and basically to use the VLO as an amenity to the full-service firm.

    As a different example, another attorney may decide to enter retirement from a full-service law firm by creating a VLO that handles only transactional legal services, such as drafting estate planning, contracts or setting up business entities for clients who do not want or need to meet with the attorney in-person. The VLO allows this attorney to work remotely or from home allowing him or her to ease into retirement or create a completely new online law practice that allows for greater work/life balance.

    There are a variety of different situations where a VLO may be used to provide unbundled legal services and with each it is possible to provide quality legal services and comply with Rules 1.2(c) and 1.1 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.

    Similar to a traditional law office, a virtual law attorney must use his or her judgment on a case by case basis when deciding whether he or she may competently and ethically handle a particular matter. If the client’s needs would be better suited if handled by a full-service attorney and the virtual law attorney does not provide this services, then it is his or her responsibility to refer the client out. This is no different from the responsibility of every attorney — whether practicing virtually or with a traditional, brick and mortar law office.

  • Clickwrap Agreements in a Virtual Law Practice

    I’ve been doing more blogging for the VLOTech website. A lot of my material is coming from the CLE manuscript that I’m drafting for a presentation this summer on security/ethics issues with virtual law practices. The legality and enforceability of clickwrap agreements in a vlo is a question I’ve gotten from other attorneys.

    In my virtual practice, I don’t soley rely on the clickwrap agreement that my clients are required to accept before registering for their own homepage. I more specifically define the scope of legal representation (or non-representation as the case may be) with each individual client that registers. That is handled on each client’s secure homepage and depends on the legal work they are seeking. As more attorneys go online with their law practices, the use of the clickwrap agreement will probably be standard on the vlo, but I suspect each individual solo or small firm practitioner will want to use an additional retainer agreement or other contracting method with clients after registration.

    Here’s my post from the VLOTech website on this subject:

    Solo and small firm practitioners operating a VLO require that their online clients accept a clickwrap agreement before registering for a homepage on the virtual law office. This agreement contains the terms and conditions of the attorney’s representation to the client, explains the nature of unbundled legal services, defines the scope of representation and may contain other provisions tailored to the attorney’s virtual law practice.

    While retainer fees, payment arrangements and further definition of the scope of legal representation is communicated with the client through the client’s secure homepage on a case by case basis, the standard clickwrap agreement for the VLO serves as the legal contract between the attorney and his or her online client. Some attorneys may chose to require that their clients download and sign a separate written agreement following registration similar to a traditional retainer agreement. The business method depends on the individual virtual law practice. However, an online agreement during client registration with the terms and conditions for use of the VLO is standard.

    The ABA Committee on Cyberspace Law during a panel discussion at the ABA’s Annual Meeting last year provided a practical reminder of the steps to follow when creating an online agreement. Blogger, Jason Haislmaier, in his blog ThinkingOpen, provides a great blog post regarding the drafting of enforceable online agreements and the Cyberspace Law Committee’s recommendations.

    Haislmaier writes,

    “In particular, the panel indicated that the working group had identified four “bottom line” steps for forming legally binding online agreements:

    1. The user must have adequate notice that the proposed terms exist;

    2. The user must have a meaningful opportunity to review the terms;

    3. The user must have adequate notice that taking a specified, optional action manifests assent to the terms; and

    4. The user must, in fact, take that action.

    Among these four steps, adequate notice of the existence of the proposed terms is among the most important.”

    VLOTech attorneys draft their own terms and conditions for use with their virtual law offices. The ABA Cyberspace Law website has a searchable archive for members which contains many good resources to assist attorneys in researching this topic and drafting their VLO online agreements.

MENU