Tag: Practice Management

  • Online Legal Services for “Digital Natives”

    I’m contributing to a public policy paper regarding the risks and benefits to the public from the use of cloud computing in law practice management.   The process has encouraged me to think in-depth about how the general public reaches out to the legal profession for help.  At the same time, I just finished reading Born Digital, by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser.  This has prompted me to add to my analysis how the age-range of clients and their methods of communicating with us change over the course of a law practice.

    Born Digital discusses the generation among us that has known only a digital world – “Digital Natives.”  They were the first generation to write papers in high school using online research engines and Wikipedia entries.  They are able to multitask in ways that the generations preceding them cannot understand.   They form complex online social networks and share information and unique online personalities that create digital records of the different phases of their lives from infancy on. (more…)

  • Virtual Law Practice in the News

    It’s time again for another post where I compile many of the interesting news articles and blog posts that have surfaced in the past six months about virtual law practice.  When I started doing this a couple years ago it took a lot longer to find things to list than it will this year.  More legal professionals are aware of virtual law practice and more virtual law firms and innovative technologies have emerged.

    The list is in no particular order.  At the end I have also added a couple new social networking resources that have formed where attorneys interested in the use of tech to deliver legal services online can meet up.   I know there are more out there, so please feel free to add them in the comments.

    “The Transformation of eLawyering” June 18, 2010, Darryl Mountain, Slaw.ca blog

    “Revolution has already happened” June 2010, David Hill, ILTA Magazine

    “14% of Lawyers Operate a Virtual Law Firm” June 11, 2010, Larry Bodine, Law Marketing Blog

    “North Carolina Bar to Issue Cloud Computing Opinion” April 13, 2010, Daily Record, Nicole Black

    “Legal Ethics of Cloud Computing” April 9, 2010, MyShingle, Carolyn Elefant

    The North Carolina State Bar & Cloud Computing Podcast, May 20, 2010, Lawyer2Lawyer with J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi interviewing Jack Newton of Clio and Alice Neece Mine with the NC Bar Ethics Commission, LegalTalkNetwork

    Exploring the Virtual Law Practice Podcast, May 12, 2010, The Legal Toolkit, hosted by Jared Correia, Law Practice Management Advisor with Mass. LOMAP (more…)

  • Massachusetts LOMAP Blog: Intro to Virtual Law Practice & Unbundling Legal Services Online

    I’ve written the first in a three-part series of guest posts for the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program (Mass LOMAP). The series covers a basic introduction to virtual law practice and delivering unbundled legal services online.  The other two posts will discuss marketing best practices and ethics issues in virtual law practice.  From the first post:

    Two influential forces are driving attorneys and law firms to consider delivering legal services online. The first is the increase in our clients’ expectations for more accessible and affordable legal services through the use of technology. The second is the changing landscape of the legal marketplace and the need for firms to find different means of obtaining a competitive advantage. Larger law firms continue to downsize and consider outsourcing, and more attorneys, many newly-licensed, are opening solo and small firm practices across the country. Virtual law practice provides a way for the legal profession to meet the needs of the general public for greater access to justice, while also addressing the practice management needs of the professionals who serve the public.

    Check out the rest of the guest post.  I’ll post links to the next two in the series when they go up on the LOMAP site.  Thanks to Jared Correia for the opportunity to share this information!

  • Upcoming Webinar/CLE – How to Operate a Virtual Law Office and Deliver Legal Services Online

    On July 13th and 14th, I will be presenting a two-part webinar with CLE credit for the North Carolina Bar Association on the topic of creating a virtual law office and delivering legal services online. 

    The first part will be a basic introduction to virtual law practice and how it is used by both completely web-based law firms and traditional law offices for law practice management.  We’ll look at case studies along the way.  This first part will also examine the technology used to create a virtual law practice and include a discussion of the ethics risks that are unique to this form of law practice management and ways to mitigate the risks. 

    The second part of the webinar will focus on the practical how-tos of setting up a virtual law office.   If you are interested in joining me, you can register for the webinar on the NCBA site.

  • 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.

  • Podcast: Exploring Virtual Law Practice

    Last week I had the honor of being interviewed by Jared Correia, Law Practice Management Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, for The Legal Toolkit podcast.  We discussed virtual law practice, the technology and security that is involved in operating a virtual law firm, the benefits of delivering legal services online for the public and attorneys, and about the place virtual law practice will hold in the future of our profession.  To listen to the podcast, please visit The Legal Toolkit.

  • 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!

MENU