Tag: Massachusetts

  • Marketing a Virtual Law Office – Guest Post for Mass. LOMAP

    The second post in my three-part series on virtual law practice has been published on the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program (LOMAP) blog.  This post discusses how to market a virtual law office while complying with state bar rules and regulations regarding law practice marketing and advertising.  From the post:

    Marketing a virtual law office requires some out-of-the-box thinking. It also requires careful balancing of the application of non-traditional marketing methods with continuing compliance with state bar rules and regulations regarding attorney advertising. Where state bars are silent on specific forms of online advertising or the use of technology, attorneys must interpret existing advertising rules and regulations to fit the context of modern-day practice. …

    While in many ways the strategy for marketing a virtual law office does not differ substantially from the strategy for marketing a traditional law firm, the methods for advertising a virtual law office are most often online options, and are mostly digital, rather than paper-, or phone-, based. The methods used to market the virtual form of practice must be utilized with consideration as to where the prospective online clients are coming from and as to how the firm will deliver legal services to those clients online. In some cases, the marketing of a virtual law practice may cost less than the marketing of a traditional law firm.

    However, there are also unique risks associated with marketing unbundled, online legal services. Forms of online marketing and methods of building a brand change rapidly, as the technology underlying the internet and marketing on the internet shift over time. Before you begin to market your virtual law office, you must understand what your firm’s comfort level is with respect to using and keeping up with technology (and that “keeping up” includes addressing prevailing security issues, like those implicated by Massachusetts’ new data privacy regulations); you’ll also need to have a grounded knowledge in your state bar or ethics agency’s stance on attorney advertising and online marketing. …

    Continue reading the rest of the post on the LOMAP blog and look for the final post in the series that will cover ethics concerns and how to mitigate the risks.

  • Another Opinion Related to Residency Requirements

    If you are keeping up with developments in the bona fide office rules or residency requirements of state bars that govern the practice of law, you might want to read through this recent opinion: In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF CARLTON, No. 10-mc-160 U.S. District Court D. Maryland (April 26, 2010).  I’ve only got the Westlaw citation for it: 2010 WL 1707722 (D.Md.).  I’ll link to it if it ever makes its way online into the zone of free research. 

    The attorney in this case worked from home in Massachusetts for a law firm based in the District of Columbia. She is licensed in the District of Columbia, but not in Massachusetts. The opinion held that her law practice is in D.C. even though she lives in MA and that she was not in violation of a Maryland local rule regarding “principal law office” location.  The opinion discusses the attorney’s use of technology to provide legal services online and collaborate with her firm in D.C. 

    This is another example of where elawyering is called into question because of outdated rules and regulations that do not take into consideration the methods now available to attorneys to ethically and responsibility provide services online.  At least the outcome is a positive one.  It’s worth a read if you keeping up with new development on this topic.

MENU