Virtual Law Practice

Tag: online legal services

  • 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.

  • Attorneys Scared of Web 2.0? ABA Journal Article Says Yes.

    The September issue of the ABA Journal ran an article entitled Web 2.0 Still a No-Go: Lawyers Slow to Adopt Cutting-Edge Technology. I’ve been wanting to blog about this article for a couple weeks now because I think any virtual attorney should find it interesting. The article consisted of three pages of charts showing that attorneys are starting to use more technology in their daily law practices, but they are not jumping to it at the rate that the general public has been over the past five years.

    Only 2% of attorneys maintain a law blog and only 15% of lawyers have joined a social network. Attorneys use technology to receive information, but its primarily through news websites (79%) or by email newsletters (59%) and discussion lists (40%). Only 10% use RSS feeds and 6% use podcasts. Even more disturbing, only 30% use their firm’s intranet, extranet or website to communicate and receive information.

    What are you folks using? A phone, a fax machine and snail mail?

    Did these statics surprise me? A little, but they shouldn’t have. Attorneys are by training a skeptical bunch. Nevertheless, the statistics in this ABA Journal survey make our profession seem like a close-minded and archaic bunch compared to the general public. And this is at a time when we should be working to improve the image of attorneys as progressive professionals who are ready to serve the public and stand for justice in the legal system.

    Yes, my perspective is a bit skewed considering how I operate my own solo law practice. I run a virtual law office from my home and work with other attorneys and clients who make the most of the technology that is available to us. So it is difficult for me to understand why an attorney would not make use of the evolving Web 2.0 applications that are now available to them. Check out the list of useful websites from my last post and the CLE presentation last week. Many of these sites are for useful Web 2.0 apps that can have an impact on your practice.

    It doesn’t make practical sense to hold back on Web 2.0.  Why?

    1)  The general public is not holding back. These are your clients. Attorneys serve their clients. In the end, it is all about customer service. Your clients use these technologies to communicate with co-workers, family and friends across the nation. They enjoy the convenience and affordability that the technology provides for them. Ignoring these trends in the general public will keep your law practice in the dark ages. You may retain a clientele that enjoys receiving snail mail and can’t use email to save their life, but don’t expect that clientele to hang around forever.

    Can you be efficient, convenient and affordable? Will you work with me using the technology that I use on a daily basis and not talk down at me just because you are a professional?

    This is what your clients want. Instead of buying a lovely new set of chairs for your reception area, invest in the technology that will make your practice run smoother. Start simple. Learn to use your email, buy a scanner and start storing your docs online, learn basic backup techniques for your systems. Learn about encryption and security. Try setting up a virtual law office, using web conferencing, hiring a virtual paralegal, connecting with others on Twitter, Skype, LinkedIn, Facebook, Legal OnRamp, etc. Find ways to connect with other attorneys through the technology. It will benefit your clients and your law practice.

    2)  In this dark economic climate, why wouldn’t you want to lower your law office overhead? Not only can some of these Web 2.0 applications make your practice more efficiently, many of them are free or the cost is low enough to receive a fast return on investment. Lower your overhead and pass the savings along to your clients.

    3)  Take a second look at the life of a typical attorney. Do you have a life outside of your practice? One positive statistic in the article was the indication that more attorneys are using mobile devices. In two years the number of firms providing attorneys with BlackBerrys or iPhones has increased from 49% to 76% in two years. 72% of attorneys under the age of 40 are using mobile devices.

    That’s perhaps positive progress. It’s either being used to bill more hours while on the go or to make more time for a personal life by using the flexibility of not having to be tied down to a physical office. That work/life balance detail wasn’t in the survey, but at least the option of more flexibility is there to those attorneys through the use of mobile devices and Web 2.0 apps.

    That said, I recognize that change is never easy, and for a solo practitioner it can be a scary leap. But in my opinion, not understanding Web 2.0 and keeping up with current technology is a much bigger risk. Here’s looking forward to an ABA Journal Article that shows other attorneys agree with me.

  • 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.

  • Online Law Office Receives Local Press

    The Wilmington Star News ran an article in the Business Section regarding my online law practice and the VLO software. (You may have to register to view the article.) The article neglected to mention all of the ABA or North Carolina Bar resources supporting virtual law offices. So, I’m posting that information below just to supplement the article.

    “The highest leadership of the ABA knows we need a catalyst for lawyers to adapt and flourish in the new technology-driven economic order. The Internet presents us with unparalleled opportunities and powerful new tools to provide legal services. Innovative law firms and web-based companies (many run by lawyers) have already cast off — successfully — into these uncharted waters. They have set up web sites that go far beyond a list of partners, practice areas and a map to the law firm.”

    —American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section: E-Lawyering Task Force

    According to the American Bar Association’s E-Lawyering Task Force,

    “[l]awyers… are exploring the new Internet landscape. These lawyers have the vision to see a wholly new market of un-met legal needs.”

    —American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section: E-Lawyering Task Force

    A 2003 American Bar Association’s Report of the Modest Means Task Force stated that

    One method by which attorneys may improve the fairness of the American legal system is to provide limited legal services “to people who cannot afford ‘full-service’ representation.” The North Carolina Bar Association and other state bars, including Maine, California, New Mexico and Maryland, support attorneys who provide “unbundled” legal services.

    —Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance, A Report of the Modest Means Task Force, American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, 2003 and “Unbundled – A New Way to Practice,” North Carolina Bar Association, CLE Manuscript, May 24, 2002, featuring Alice Neece Mine, Assistant Executive Director of the North Carolina Bar Association responsible for Professional Responsibility and Ethics matters.

    As detailed in the findings of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee for the Delivery of Legal Services:

    “The unmet legal needs of consumers are well documented and dramatic.”

    —“Improving the Delivery of Affordable Legal Services Through the Internet: A Blueprint for the Shift to a Digital Paradigm”, Hornsby, William, American Bar Association’s Standing Committee for the Delivery of Legal Services, November 30, 2006

  • Legal Aid of North Carolina – Going Tech…slowly

    I just volunteered to do some pro bono work for Legal Aid of N.C. via their Wilmington branch. I filled out the volunteer form online which was an option newly available on their website. When I spoke with the very friendly PAI coordinator about my website and how I was able to offer services at a lower price because of no overhead costs and how that could benefit clients that Legal Aid could take, she said that the attorneys in their office were “traditionalists” and believed it was important to meet with the client face to face.

    I had a feeling that was the case. And sure, if I didn’t have mountains and mountains of student loan debt and I had a nice savings or trust fund, I might could afford my own physical law office and would enjoy counseling clients face-to-face. However, I still stand behind my virtual law practice as a great alternative way to provide legal services. When it comes to money versus a nice, friendly in person conversation, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that most middle to lower income folks (myself included) are thinking about the money and not the friendly face-to-face chatting. If we can get the same legal service and it costs less, then I’m all for that.

    I think it is a generational difference. Also, the PAI coordinator mentioned that most of their clients did not have access to the internet and therefore, the website office wouldn’t be of use to them. Again, there is so much resistance before the idea is even really introduced to the public. So I mentioned that the public library and law library offer free internet to the public. Plus, personally, I have been in some of the lower income neighborhoods in town and you would be surprised how many of the younger generations living there are decently current in their use of technology. Almost every kid you see has a cellphone and I find it very hard to believe that for many of them someone in their family doesn’t have access to a computer and the internet somewhere.

    Again, I just think that if it’s between no legal assistance because Legal Aid can’t help you and affordable legal services, they would prefer the help however it comes. For example, I just finished working with a client this morning. Never met her in person. Only talked to her on the phone. Did my research and work on her matter online and through the cell phone to assist her. Got back with her by phone and that was all she needed. Before she had contacted me for help, she had gone to Legal Aid and they had not been able to take her case due the nature of the matter and their funding restrictions. If I hadn’t offered an alternative way to get legal services, she would have had to go back to looking up random attorneys in the phone book and listening to the brush-off from many of them as she had before she was referred to me.

    So, I sincerely hope that the more traditional attorneys don’t immediately disregard what I am trying to do with the virtual law practice and at least take the time to consider it as an alternative way of practicing the law that can be of service to the citizens of our state and local community.

MENU