Tag: online clients

  • Social Media for the Legal Professional

    This past weekend I presented a CLE session for the North Carolina Association of Women Attorneys (NCAWA) annual meeting on the topic of social media for legal professionals. Anyone involved in virtual law practice needs to understand social media and how it can be used to market a virtual law office, but also about how online clients might attempt to contact the virtual lawyer using these methods and how to tactfully handle that.

    I’ve had online clients attempt to “friend” me on Facebook or chat on Twitter, but I’ve created a policy for my solo virtual law practice not to “friend” or “follow” clients and to let them know up-front that I won’t use unencyrpted or non-secure methods of communicating with them. Most of the relationships I have within the legal professional are for the most part created and conducted completely online using whatever social media app is trending at the time. It’s an invaluable part of my professional networking so I enjoyed the opportunity to share some of my methods and recommendations at the NCAWA Annual Meeting.

    This presentation covered the basics of social media how-tos with a healthy dose of “watch out for x” and “monitor y”. I also provided suggestions for creating consistent online reputations for law firms using social media and discussed how attorneys might implement social media policies for their firm and educate firm members and even clients about procedures the firm has adopted for the use of social media.

    Here are the slides from the presentation. The final slide has a list of recommended resources for further reading up on the topic.

  • Following the Virtual Lawyer Mindset

    Jay Fleischman has a thought-provoking post up on his blog entitled “Being a Virtual Lawyer is all Mindset, Not Technology.”  You can read my comment below the post.

    Jay writes that regardless of the form of technology you use to operate a virtual law office, the key is having the right attitude to go with it.  He’s right.  To take advantage of the benefits that the technology gives us to make our professional lives more flexible, we have to be able to change our work habits and know when to unplug. 

    However, I would add that the choice of technology is a factor in coming to this mindset and is going to differ depending on the comfort level of the attorney.  Some attorneys are more tech-savvy and experienced working online than others.  What is easy for one attorney to set up and work with clients is not going to be easy for another attorney with less experience.  That will affect their ability to enjoy the benefits of operating a virtual law practice. (more…)

  • Secure Client Portals to Deliver Legal Services Online

    The delivery of legal services online depends on the use of a secure client portal where the attorney and client can interact. This is the key feature of a virtual law practice and what distinguishes it from other online legal services and law firms that claim to be “virtual” by using unencrypted email.

    I’ve noticed in the past year that several new versions of the secure client portal have been introduced. Some of these are even developed specifically for legal professionals and most are designed for use by solos and small firms interested in delivering legal services online. If you are considering opening a virtual law practice, you might want to take a look at these different applications. Some of them have free trials and are still in beta.

    As fast as the technology for virtual law practice changes, it’s worth keeping an eye on what’s coming down the pipeline in client/attorney online communication.  The features that allow you to communicate with your clients online varies.  So far, no one is keen on having their online clients choose avatars or going beyond realtime chat and video communication.  As usual, my imagination fueled by reading too much sci-fi tends to exceed our current capabilities in terms of practical and cost-effective implementation of current technology for law practice management.

    With all of these below, check out the level of security each provides.  Look for end-to-end encyption of the transmission of any sensitive law office data.  You will want the basics — written online communication in some fashion that is recorded with date and time (for ED and CYA of the attorney), online files or other methods of organizing documents, calendaring or the ability to schedule communications with the attorney, uploading and downloading documents, limited client management features to protect them from themselves, etc.  Some client portals are going to work better for unbundling legal services online for many clients and others are more suited to larger online projects with a single client or two.  Keep in mind the chosen structure of your virtual law practice and the needs of your online client base when you are reviewing the products.

    Here are a few new client portal products I’ve run across, along with some that have been around for a few years now.  Know of any other technologies that create secure client portals?  Drop me a note in the comments.

    MyCase Client Manager
    Wizilegal
    DirectLaw
    VLOTech
    Advologix (client portal is not the focus and costs extra)
    HoudiniEsq (was announcing client access this summer, still in beta)
    BaseCamp  (not developed for legal professionals, may not have certain malpractice checks in place)
    ZohoProjects  (not developed for legal professionals, but if your clients are attorneys or other professionals, perhaps a way to collaborate online on a project.  Not sure about the security of this and also there are probably not the same malpractice checks in place)

  • 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.

  • Delivering Unbundled Legal Services in Michigan – New Ethics Opinion

    A new ethics opinion has been published by the State Bar of Michigan on the topic of unbundling legal services.  This is another example of a State Bar recognizing the need for unbundled legal services as a means of access to justice for the public.  The conclusion from the opinion (entitled RI-347):

    So long as he or she complies with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and other law, a lawyer may, without appearing in a proceeding or otherwise disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of the lawyer’s assistance to the court or to other counsel and other parties, assist a pro se litigant by giving advice on the content and format of documents to be filed with the court, including pleadings, by drafting those documents for the litigant, by giving advice about what to do in court or any combination of these.

    The opinion further states that the attorney is not obligated to announce the limited legal representation to the court as long as there is no misrepresetnation by the pro se litigant that he or she has not been provided with the assistance of an attorney.   So for those attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan who may have been considering operating a virtual law practice to deliver unbundled services online, this opinion is supportive of limited scope services pertaining to that state’s laws.  Footnotes in the opinion provide citations to other state bar and ABA opinions and resources related to the unbundling of legal services.

  • 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.

  • Does the Internet Make You Feel Risky?

    Oh, yet another excuse to not take responsibility for individual action and blame it on the technology instead.  *sigh* 

    Seriously, this article just annoyed me to no end.  The National Law Journal published an article entitled “Lawyers’ Ethical Stumbles Increase Online” and then proceeded to give the most outrageous example of an incredibly irresponsible attorney using email to share pictures of a deceased individual from a case along with lewd commentary of his own in the email. 

    First of all, this guy is not using social media; he’s using email.  Email use in the law office at all for any communication regarding a case is not secure because it’s typically not encrypted.  Second, given the immaturity of the action, this is probably the same type of individual who goes out to the bar on the weekend with his buddies and discloses confidential information from cases with them while having a few beers.  I don’t think it’s anything related to a new “method” of communicating that caused this breach, just a question of education on the part of the attorney.  The article then goes on to give several other outrageous examples of attorneys misusing everything from email, to Twitter to blogging in isolated incidents.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think it is great that there are so many organizations out there concerned with the use of social media by attorneys.  Surprisingly, there are many attorneys out there that do need guidance on how to use something as simple as email or Twitter to communicate — or refrain from communicating — as the case may be.  I know that the ease of which we chat online through different Internet-based technologies makes it seem like the risk is higher.  But I would disagree and say that it depends on the individual and their knowledge and use of the technology. 

    For me, I’m way better off communicating by writing.  I can edit, re-edit, delete, be absolutely sure what I am saying or sending before it goes out.  Get me on the phone, put me on the spot in front of a group of people and it’s a completely different situation. My tongue ties, I end up saying more than I should or am too shy to speak when I need to, and usually regret my speech or omissions later.   This preference  just depends on your personality and skills.  Not everyone communicates the same way.  

    However, we all learn ways to cope with other methods.  As I practice public speaking more I’m learning to think longer before I speak or to ask if the audience understands me clearly before jumping onto another topic.  Similarly, attorneys who are new to social media and perhaps not as educated about technology and security issues need basic guidance for the best ways to use those methods and they need to practice them – not jump from using a fax machine and phone into marketing their firm on Facebook and Twitter. 

    Just because everyone is using social media doesn’t mean that all attorneys should use it unless they know how to draw the necessary lines that it requires.  That’s one of the downsides to being an attorney – no matter where we go or what we do, we are legal professionals and can’t escape that by going online.  It’s a huge responsibility, almost a burden sometimes when you just want to hop on Facebook and chat with your college buddies about things that you would prefer your clients and colleagues didn’t know about.  But as professionals in this new media, I think we have to be careful about those lines that we draw and remember that even when we are not working on our clients’ case, they are still our clients and we carry that burden of protecting their information. 

    But adding ethics rules restricting the use of social media is not the answer because many of us do use these methods to communicate effectively and efficiently with our clients and other attorneys and we do respect the technology and use it responsibly.  The few bad seeds should not ruin this for the rest of us.  Remember, the methods that we attorneys find to cut costs and more efficiently work with our clients trickles down to the clients in reduced legal fees and more accessible legal services. 

    Legal ethics expert Michael Downey said lawyers’ tendency to be risk-averse seems to fade away on the internet. “They’re disclosing confidences, talking about pending matters, they take potshots … like everyone else,” said Downey, immediate past chairman of the American Bar Association’s Ethics and Technology Committee and a member of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility.

    Social media must be like a shiny new toy for some attorneys that they are eager to try out and show off.  Maybe that is what makes their actions online seem more “risky.”  Maybe it’s because some of these communication methods so closely connect our personal lives and personalities with our professional that some attorneys have trouble holding their tongues.  I’m not sure, but even Mr.  Downey, cited above, “suspects the current rules ‘are probably adequate.’”  

    My personal opinion is that this is yet another learning phase for our profession that we are smack in the middle of.  The high-profile examples of stupidity cited in this article are the lessons learned by others. These stories will teach other attorneys who are not using the technology responsibly about the risks. 

    For those attorneys who prefer to educate themselves about technology, security and social media BEFORE jumping in (& I highly suspect this is still the MAJORITY of our risk-averse profession), the ABA LPM and state bar associations can provide that education and guidance.  Rules and regulations that will stay in place for years and cover all of us  should not be written as a reaction to a minority of irresponsible attorneys who fail to educate themselves before acting.   There are already outdated rules on the books that hinder the use of technology to deliver legal services online, for example, the bona fide office rule.  

    There are some great books written by and for attorneys on how to deal with social media that have recently come out.  Niki Black and Carolyn Elefant’s book published by the ABA LPM is one example that comes to mind.  I just wish this article had ended by citing one of those books, recommending a resource for attorneys or at least reminding the reader that while there are these bad seeds out there, there are many other attorneys using the Internet ethically and responsibly to serve the public.

  • Ethics Reminder for Unbundling Legal Services Online

    If you are providing unbundled legal services online — whether you are providing pro bono unbundled assistance or charging a fee for your services, you might want to read through this opinion (Thigpen v. Banas) that was issued in the Northern District of Illinios in February.

    The case is related to ghostwriting/unbundling of legal services.  Mr. Thigpen, a pro se litigant, filed a proposed second amended complaint which appeared to be drafted by an attorney and upon inquiry the plaintiff admitted that it was.  However, the attorney had not signed his or her name to the document or made an appearance before the court.  The opinion discusses the dangers of ghostwriting to both parties in the case and discusses the rules of professional responsibility that the attorney who drafted the document breached by not making an appearance before the court. 

    This opinion provides a good reminder for those of us unbundling legal services online that we need to 1) determine from the beginning of our contact with the prospective client if the matter may be unbundled or needs full-service representation and 2) that we are clear when we intiate any online representation what services we will provide for the client and which services we will not provide.  In the above opinion, the attorney who drafted this proposed second amended complaint should not have jumped into the middle of a matter where full-service, in-person representation was required without making appearance before the court.  (more…)

  • Twitter Debate about Virtual Law Practice

    UPDATE: The transcript from the Twitter debate is posted on the ABA Journal.  Overall, the feedback I received from others regarding the event was positive.  A lot of valuable information and opinions shared on both sides with some fun side debates, including one started by @LisaSolomon. Looking forward to the next event hosted by @22Tweets!

    Please join me and Brian Tennebaum as we debate virtual law practice on Twitter this Friday at 2pm EST.  The hastag to follow is #22TwDb.  Richard Granat, a mentor and fellow leader in the field of virtual law practice has already published an entertaining blog post  in preparation of the debate.  I was also going to prepare 140 character tweets ahead of time, but I think I’ll accept the challenge of thinking out responses at the keyboard as they come to me.  Looking forward to a productive and educational dialogue!

  • NJ Bona Fide Office Rule and Virtual Law Offices

    NJ Bona Fide Office Rule and Virtual Law PracticeNew Jersey’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and the Committee on Attorney Advertising released a joint opinion dated March 25 that states that even when an attorney hires a virtual assistant or receptionist or shares a rented office space for conferences to attempt to create an office presence in the state, this does not create a “bona fide office” that complies with the state’s residency requirements for practicing law.

    This opinion limits attorneys licensed in New Jersey to having a physical law office where clients may call during regular business hours.  Such restriction on business discriminates against many solos and in particular women attorneys who may need to practice law from home, but for personal and security reasons, they do not want to provide their home address or phone number to clients.

    The opinion refers to “virtual offices” but defines them as “a type of time-share arrangement whereby one leases the right to reserve space in an office building on an hourly or daily basis” and does not address web-based, virtual law offices or the use of technology to deliver legal services online.  From the discussion in the opinion it may be assumed that any law practice without a physical, dedicated office building would be included as violating Rule 1:21-1(a).

    How this restriction will affect solos and small firms wanting to form completely virtual law offices is yet to be seen. However, the joint opinion does allow for attorneys with traditional law practice to also operate virtual law office with adequate notice to prospective clients of the firm’s physical office location. This does not sound like it protects the solo practitioner wanting to operate a home-based virtual law office. Or an attorney located in another state who is licensed in NJ and wants to provide NJ legal services through their virtual law office. (more…)

MENU