These are slides from my presentation at DATA2J, a roundtable conference hosted by Prof. Elizabeth Chambliss, Director of the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Center on Professionalism at the USC School of Law. In my presentation, I addressed ways to increase online engagement between the public and lawyers through the use of gamification. I based the talk on my working paper.
This is a slide deck from a presentation I gave this morning as part of a panel for the South Carolina Law Review Symposium entitled, On Task?: Expanding the Boundaries of Legal Education. In it, I look at why increasing online engagement is critical for lawyers to think about, what methods of engagement might work, assessing engagement, and then the transfer that happens after engagement.
There’s a good balance that must happen here between lawyers pulling in “leads” for new business and at the same time using these engagement methods to educate and empower the public to 1) know when they might have a legal need in the first place and to prevent issues before they happen, and 2) if they do have a legal need, having access to where to go for help (ie, intelligent matching systems). Another piece of the puzzle to explore.
Last week I gave a presentation with Chad Burton at the ABA LPM Spring meeting about the eLawyering Task Force‘s newest project, the Client Portal Matrix, formally titled as the “Comparative Evaluation of Web-based Practice Management Software with Client Portal Applications for Solos and Small Law Firms.” Donna Seyle, who did most of the work gathering data for the matrix, was unable to make the meeting so I filled in to discuss some of the practical uses of a client portal in law practice and the best practices and ethics issues that might come up.
The matrix will be posted on the eLawyering website in the near future. It is a work in progress, but is already a useful tool and starting point for lawyers considering virtual practice. It was designed primarily for solo and small firm practitioners. The matrix focuses on cloud-based, SaaS solutions and specifically excludes the online client portals and tools provided by branded networks, such as Rocket Lawyer. The focus of this project was on client-facing technology so also excluded were systems that focused on other administrative tasks, such as time and billing, calendaring, or matter management among others. There are fourteen companies with client-facing features on the matrix so far.
It makes me think back to eight years ago when I opened my solo virtual law office and co-founded the system that is now Total Attorney’s platform with client-facing features. At the time, there weren’t any SaaS options out there for a practitioner. Now there are choices and more most likely in the works. Expect to hear more clients asking their lawyers and firms for online access to their legal accounts. If you don’t have a client portal or any client facing features in the technology you use for your firm, you need to consider in the near future how you will add it to the mix. This is going to be the case whether you are delivering legal services online with a virtual law office or operating a traditional law firm without online delivery options. It’s about client access and good customer service which should apply in any firm structure.
These are the slides from my part of the panel presentation from the College of Law Practice Management (COLPM) Futures Conference last Friday at Georgetown Law Center in D.C. Some of this talk included research from my forthcoming book on the subject.
I think Michael Mills, who was on the panel with myself, Marc Lauritsen and Tanina Rostain, made a wonderful point when he asked whether our profession’s reluctance to use available technologies that make legal knowledge available to a larger majority of the public is actually “immoral.” It is certainly malpractice to not use it, but I think he is right, if it’s available and can be implemented by law firms or at least made accessible through legal services organizations to increase access to justice, then yes, it borders on being immoral.
I tried to argue that some of these companies creating new platforms to deliver legal services might collaborate with private practitioners as well as legal aid services to increase alternatives available but also help lawyers to build their online brand and market their full-service or unbundled legal service offerings. I’m not sure about what reception these ideas had because it was the end of the day and that always limits attendee questions. Would love the feedback.
Ron Friedmann over at his Prism Legal Blog has posted an updated list of big law firms delivering online legal services. Neota Logic sponsored the updated list and most likely provides the technology that facilitates the online delivery process for some of the listed firms. (I am a fan of Neota Logic and have been sharing how it works and its potential with the law students I teach.)
I share some of Ron’s thoughts about the direction that online services are heading at least in the Big Law arena. It’s difficult to see how the changes affecting the legal profession in the UK under the Legal Services Act with its encouragement of alternative business structures is not going to eventually trickle over to the US. In the process that will encourage technology companies and innovative law firms to adapt to alternative forms of legal service delivery, including online and those that rely on decision-making and document assembly and automation systems.
It’s also interesting to see that financial services are the primary online service for most of these firms. I would hope that as the technology becomes more affordable to customize, firms will see the potential in adding other practice areas. They might consider adding those services in practice areas that are transactions-based and delivered online to supplement other unbundled or full-service offerings that are delivered traditionally. If you are keeping track of the development of online delivery, Ron’s post is a good resource.
Most of my earlier writing on this blog was geared towards the solo practitioner or small firm finding ways to deliver legal services online. But I would also get questions from practitioners in larger law firms and from practitioners who were licensed in multiple states and wanted to understand how they could use innovations in technology to work with clients across the country and internationally. Some lawyers were living overseas and were licensed in several states in the U.S. or they lived in one State here but were licensed in multiple jurisdictions and wanted to make sure they were in compliance with the rules of professional responsibility.
So I wrote this paper “Regulatory Barriers to the Growth of Multijurisdictional Virtual Law Firms and Potential First Steps to their Removal” which the North Caroline Journal of Law and Technology at UNC-Chapel Hill Law School was kind enough to publish in their recent issue. As it turned out, I could have written a short book on this topic so I had to exclude almost everything related to international regulatory barriers and just focus on the U.S. Saving my international research for another project I guess.
If you have time to read nothing else, I’d recommend the first half with the background on virtual firms which provides several case studies and models of multijurisdictional virtual practices and what technology and methods of online delivery or collaboration that they are using. I’ve mentioned the following firms:
Fair warning, most of the model rules I discuss in this paper will probably be at least a little modified by the ABA Annual Meeting in August. But hopefully some of my proposals at the end will strike a cord with someone out there. Comments always welcome.
Abstract:
The spread of disruptive technologies to the legal profession is changing the dynamic of how law firms are structured as well as the value propositions associated with the delivery of legal services. The number of law firms with a national presence has grown due to the cost benefits and efficiency of using cloud computing. New models for expansion across jurisdictional
boundaries are increasing. However, the regulatory barriers to create these new firm structures are numerous and costly. This
paper reviews the evolution of technology in multijurisdictional firms and examines the primary regulatory barriers to their further development. A starting point for standardization of regulations is proposed as well as potential first-steps to removing barriers to the growth of multijurisdictional virtual law firms.
The rest is here.
Consider adding the books below to your reading list. They are not new. They are a piece of history and offer a unique perspective on the digital revolution and how we communicate. It’s great to look forward, but looking back has its value as well.
These authors motivate me to think outside the box and to rely on my own intuition and view of the world rather than the whispers of naysayers who may just be too afraid or too comfortable. These should be on your digital or real bookshelf. Know of any other good “history” books? Please share.
By Alvin Toffler:
Future Shock (1970)
The Third Wave (1980) (Where I first heard about the third wave years ago: Attorney Chuck Newton’s blog)
Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (1990)
By Marshall McLuhan:
The Medium is the Massage (1967)
There are two weeks left to submit comments to the ABA Ethics Commission 20/20 regarding its two issues papers related to cloud computing and online marketing. I wrote about the cloud computing issues paper here, but as several fellow virtual law practitioners have pointed out to me, it is the second issues paper on the use of Internet-based client development tools that we need to be more concerned with.
I use most of the web-based “tools” that the paper addresses, including blogging, websites, and social and professional networking services. I do not use pay-per-click advertising for my virtual law office. I tried Google AdWords early on and found that I did not have the advertising budget to make it work effectively for my practice. But without these other methods, I’m sure I would not have a virtual law office today. At this point in my practice development, I use most of these methods to network with other legal professionals more than as a client development tool, but at what point does building a reputation for your practice turn into client development?
How could the virtual law practitioner possibly compete without using online marketing methods? It would not be possible. BigLaw firms setting up a virtual law office would have the financial resources to accomplish this, but certainly not a solo, small or even mid-sized firm. LegalZoom, USLegal Forms and other online legal service companies are allowed to drop millions on aggressive, direct online advertising to the public. Yet, online networking by attorneys is the big public threat?
As a small business owner it seems absolutely ridiculous to me that I would be not be able to use the most current and effect methods of marketing my services. I have been and always will be aware of and in compliance with my state bar’s rules and regulations regarding attorney advertising. They are necessary, and I’m glad there are there because these rules set a high standard for advertising for professionals by ensuring that unscrupulous attorneys do not mislead or take advantage of the public. It’s part of what sets us apart as a profession with a responsibility to the public we serve. (more…)
During yesterday’s ABA ELawyering Task Force call, we discussed the recent settlement agreement entered into by LegalZoom and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.
In an Assurance of Discontinuation, the online legal services company must not state in advertising to the public that its services are less expensive than those of a law firm without also explaining that its services are not a substitute for an attorney. With the far-reaching and well-funded advertising campaigns of the company, it is easy to see how the message may be misleading to members of the public, many of whom may have never retained the services of a licensed attorney and who may only have the price points and t.v. ads with which to make a judgement.
One of the statements in Assurance of Discontinuation pertains to the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Washington – a claim we have seen issued against the company in N.C. and Missouri. While LegalZoom does not admit to UPL in this document, it does agree not to engage in UPL with regards to providing personalized legal guidance that is state-specific within the legal self-help forms.
Other concerns that myself and others have brought up in the past related to the practices of online legal service companies are also covered in the agreement. It will be interesting to see if other state attorney generals will take notice of this and implement similar actions.
Here is the Assurance of Discontinuation: