Virtual Law Practice

Tag: online communication

  • How Does a Virtual Law Office Close Shop for the Holidays?

    For the past couple of years, I have kept my VLO open through the holidays.  I can log in remotely and check the case queue while traveling or on vacation so it’s not a problem to keep up with my self-imposed response policy.  The VLO sends a notice to let me know when there is any activity from a client or a new prospective client has registered.  That’s how I know when to log back in and check the queue or a client’s case file. 

    My VLO is open 24/7.  When I started my online practice almost three years ago, I decided that I would respond to each request for legal services within 24 hours of the request being posted on my VLO case queue.  That doesn’t mean I complete the legal services requested in 24 hours, just that I respond to the online prospective or existing client in some way to let them know that I am paying attention.  The VLO sends out a notice to the client if they want email updates to let them know that I have received their message, but I prefer to respond in a more personal manner to each client.

    But this year I need a couple days off.  How do attorneys practicing law with a web-based VLO close up the virtual office door to take a break? Well, I won’t need to prohibit clients or prospective clients from contacting me on the VLO.  What I do need is to provide them with notice that I will not be reading or responding to their requests for a couple days.

    There is the typical auto-responder that most law offices use that will tell each person who logs into my VLO that I am out of the virtual law office and when I will return.  I could also post a sign on the front of my VLO login and register page that tells any online clients and prospective clients that they may request legal services but that I will be unable to respond for a few days.

    For attorneys with completely virtual law practices or for those attorneys whose clients are used to contacting them outside of typical business hours, how do you let your clients know when you need or want to take a few days off?

  • Assisting a Pro Se Litigant Online – Proposed NC State Bar 2008 Formal Ethics Op. 3

    The winter issue of the North Carolina State Bar’s Journal came out this week.  Of interest to attorneys practicing online with a virtual law practice, the Journal published the Proposed 2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 3, Assisting a Pro Se Litigant.  The proposed opinion had come out earlier this year but was only recently printed in the state bar’s publication.

    The Bar’s summarized its ethics decision:

    Proposed opinion rules a lawyer may assist a pro se litigant by drafting pleadings and giving advice without making an appearance in the proceeding and without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of his assistance to the court unless required to do so by law or court order.

    How does this relate to a virtual law practice?

    Several virtual law office owners that I have worked with are planning on providing pro se litigants with unbundled legal services.  This would help to lessen the burden on the court systems in their state that are swamped with pro se litigants and at the same time allow the attorneys to tap into a different client base with a large need for legal services. 

    The technology of a web-based virtual law office would allow these attorneys to efficiently assist a large number of pro set litigants in any number of areas of law.  They could charge fees for legal services that are perhaps less than their traditional billable hour rates, but which make economic sense because the client is doing all of the footwork and the technology streamlines the process. 

    Of interest in this NC ethics opinion, the state bar specifically recognizes the public’s need for legal services to be delivered in less traditional ways. The ethics opinion references the NC 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 which permits an internet based law practice to offer to work with and provide clients with online legal services, including providing services to pro se litigants. 

    The key to this new proposed ethics opinion is similar to the NC 2005 FEO Opinion 10 because it requires that the online client provide “informed consent” to the limited online representation.  Through a VLO, the client is given adequate notice of the terms and scope of the online representation multiple times and is asked to accept these terms through two separate clickwrap agreements. 

    The ethics opinion also requires that the attorney make the independent judgment as to whether the services he or she offers can be competently provided to the client based on that client’s unique legal needs.  This is similar to the process any attorney should go through in a traditional law practice and is not different with a virtual law office.

    To summarize, this opinion is another nod from another state bar that a virtual law practice may provide services to pro se litigants, provided that the virtual law practice is handled properly by the attorney practicing law online.

  • State Bar Regulation of Online Lawyer Communication

    I have been fielding questions lately about the recent lawsuit filed in Louisiana regarding the Louisiana State Bar’s new proposed Rules of Professional Conduct and how they may affect blogging and other online social networking.  Attorneys operating virtual law practices tend to use blogging and other online communities in their daily law practice for the purpose of client development as well as to network and collaborate with other attorneys. 

    As I’ve worked with other attorneys nationwide to set up virtual law offices, I’ve been reading through different state’s bars rules of professional conduct and ethics decisions related to electronic communication and advertising.  Every state seems to have a different understanding of how attorneys are using the Internet in their law practices.  Sometimes it’s an archaic understanding and at other times it’s just not informed enough from a technology perspective to provide the guidance to attorneys as it was intended to do. 

    The new proposed Louisiana rules regulate lawyer advertising on blogs and other social networks and will go into effect in April of next year.  The lawsuit, brought by a Louisiana Construction Law Firm,  challenges the constitutionality of Louisiana’s new rules claiming that they will restrict free speech.  The full text of the Complaint is here.

    An attorney in the firm filing the lawsuit is active in online communities and forums.  He is a member of LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and other popular social networking sites.  He operates an educational blog about the construction industry and construction law.  As a blogger, he posts comments on other blogs and writes guest posts.
     
    The most interesting claim made in the complaint is that each incidence of “speech,” each blog post, each tweet, would have to be run by the Louisiana Bar prior to posting and would cost $175 per review.  Wow.  That might be doable for BigLaw, but would certainly not be cost-effective for a solo practitioner.  How could you make timely blog posts if you had to run it by a review team before posting?  I will be interested to read the response to this particular claim.   

    I’ve read Kevin O’Keefe’s opinion about the new proposed Louisiana rules and the lawsuit on his blog.  He seems to think the whole issue is being blown out of proportion and the rules will not be any threat to blogging.  O’Keefe is probably right. 

    What interests me more about this lawsuit and the proposed rule is the way that state bars are trying to draft rules that regulate their attorneys’ use of technology to communicate, not just to advertise their law practice, but to provide the delivery of legal services.

    Most of the rules and regulations that exist for each state bar related to electronic communication are out of touch with the technology that their attorneys are using.  Many ethics opinions and rules of professional conduct restricting attorney advertising through electronic methods were written when email was still new.  Most haven’t been updated since the mid-1990s.  

    In addition, the rules and ethics opinions that I have read seem to be out of touch with the general public they are intended to protect.  Maybe I’m off base here, but I think it’s past time that the legal profession reevaluates the experience and ability of the general consumer to find and retain legal services.  Yes, there will always be unscrupulous attorneys out there who will use online advertising to mislead the public.  However, there could be a better balance of 1) education on the part of the state bar regulators regarding the technology used by attorneys in daily practice and 2) addressing the public’s demand for affordable and convenient access to legal services through electronic methods.   

    I’ll be watching to see what happens in Louisiana.  In the meantime, I’m still compiling a state by state list of rules of professional conduct and ethics opinions that relate to an attorney’s use of technology in daily practice.  I’d like to provide this as a resource for attorneys wanting to practice with a virtual law office to see how their state bar as well as neighboring state bars have addressed the delivery of legal services online.

  • Update on progress

    I have been enjoying the personal contact with clients that I think only can really happen in a small law practice. My clients don’t have to wade through the secretary and paralegals to communicate with me. I’m available 24/7 through the website and I check it at all hours of the day and night which makes it more convenient for everyone. At some point, I would like to put testimonials up on the website from some of the clients. I think some people may still have the misperception that practicing online removes you from real interaction with the clients, but I’ve not found this to be the case. People communicate online today more than they do in person. I know I shop and bank online more than I visit a mall or stop in to chat with my local bank representative. I see my online law services as an extension of services available to the community in a more efficient and affordable manner through the Internet.

    There is a great article in the San Francisco magazine by Natasha Sarkisian about how younger generation lawyers are starting their own law firms as a way to escape the “biglaw” partnership track as the traditional, end-all-be-all of practicing law. It is definitely a trend that I’m thrilled to be a part of. The writer of MyShingle.com is another lawyer who started her own small firm and really supports the efforts of other attorneys in making that life change. My practice may be a new concept right now, but give it a couple more years and there will be more competition out there! The more the merrier!

MENU