Virtual Law Practice

Tag: Practice Management

  • The Future of the Legal Profession is Client-Centric

    This past week the ABA LPM Section held its spring conference in Las Vegas. Of the many topics covered in the sessions and CLEs, the one recurring theme was that the changes in our profession are being driven by the clients. Some of these changes include increased customer service, response time, alternative billing, online access and use of technology by the firm to cut costs and make legal services more easily obtainable and affordable. This client-centric focus on law practice management is important because once these changes have been made by the attorney, there is little room for going back.

    Imagine telling the client who has enjoyed online access to the status and files of his case that he must now make in-person appointments in your office and will receive the invoice in the mail in 7-10 business days. Or imagine telling your clients who you provided flat fees for legal services that you will now be charging them by the billable hour rate and instead of a number they can budget, giving them a guestimated range they will owe you upon services rendered. (more…)

  • Update on Ethics Inquiry into Cloud Computing

    UPDATE:  I received an email from the ethics committee with the following information: If you would like to submit a comment on the proposed opinion regarding cloud computing, the deadline is July 9, 2010 and the comment should be directed in writing to Alice Mine at the N.C. State Bar. Further information on the ethics opinions is located on this site. 

    Here is a brief update from the NCBA LPM Council this morning regarding the status of the cloud computing inquiry. 

    Proposed 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 7The NC Ethics Committee met on April 15th and discussed whether attorneys could use SaaS and still observe the duty of confidentiality owed to clients and the duty to preserve client data.  The Committee voted to publish the opinion for comment.  I’ve posted a copy of NC Bar Proposed 2010 FEO 7 online.

    To summarize, the proposed opinion states that an attorney may contract with a SaaS vendor provided the attorney takes responsible measures to ensure the risk of loss is minimized.  To note, the opinion does not require that the attorney employ “infallible methods” but makes the standard one of “reasonable methods” to reduce risk.  The proposed opinion also provides that the lawyer or law firm should be able to answer a set of questions to ensure that client file information is reasonably safe.  The proposed opinion provides a list of 23 questions some of which include inquiries into the financial information and stability of the vendor. 

    In general, Inquiry #1 of the proposed opinion is positive about the use of SaaS for law practice management.  Inquiry #2 discusses “best practices” for the use of SaaS, and the Committee will most likely refine this before formal publication by sending it to a subcommittee.  After publishing the proposed opinion in the next issue of The State Bar Journal, the Ethics Committee will re-examine the proposed opinion at its July 22nd meeting.

  • NC Bar Ethics Committee Reviews Cloud Computing Inquiry

    For some reason, a firm here in my home state decided it was in their best interest to ask permission of the NC State Bar before using a SaaS product.  *really big sigh*  So now those of us who have been using SaaS applications for years for everything from email, tasks and calendaring to delivering legal services online now have about one week to step forward to provide comments related to the inquiry. 

    The question posed was:  

     Is it within the RPC for an attorney/law firm to use online (“cloud computing”) practice management programs (e.g., the Clio program) as part of the practice of law?  These are instances where the software program is accessed online with a password and is not software installed on a computer within the firm’s office.

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • 2010 ABA Keane Award for Excellence in eLawyering

    This year’s 2010 ABA Keane Award for Excellence in eLawyering was awarded to the Rosen Law Firm.  Lee Rosen was presented the award by eLawyering Task Force co-chair Richard Lauritsen at the keynote luncheon at Techshow yesterday.  Following the presentation, Ari Kaplan was the keynote speaker discussing the convergence of technology and marketing. 

    The Rosen Law Firm is a NC-based law firm providing divorce and family law services to clients.  The firm has mastered the use of technology to market their services and to communicate with and educate the public.  The site has even spun off a separate website called StayHappilyMarried.com.  Lee hosts Divorce Talk Radio from the firm’s studio with a live call in show and records educational videos staring the firm’s attorneys for clients to watch online. 

    Check out the site to see the many different creative uses of elawyering.  Congratulations to Lee and the Rosen Law Firm.

  • Clearing Up the Terminology Before TECHSHOW

    TECHSHOW is here.  Some of the buzz this year is related to cloud computing, SaaS and web-based technologies that take aspects of law practice management online.  There are a lot of terms thrown around when discussing these topics.  One of them is “virtual law practice”.  We are bound to hear this phrase several times during TECHSHOW in various contexts.  Other terms, including VLOs, VLPs, virtual law offices, virtual law firms, online law offices, web-based or web-enabled law offices, are used to describe different methods of elawyering. However, when they are used, they are often not used to mean the actual delivery of legal services online to clients. 

    Elawyering is defined by Marc Lauritsen, the co-chair of the ABA’s eLawyering Task Force as

    all the ways in which lawyers can do their work using the Web and associated technologies.  These include new ways to communicate and collaborate with clients, prospective clients and other lawyers, produce documents, settle disputes and manage legal knowledge.  Think of a lawyering verb — interview, investigate, counsel, draft, advocate, analyze, negotiate, manage and so forth — and there are corresponding electronic tools and techniques.

    Check out the eLawyering Task Force’s website for more white papers and links to info about different elawyering methods. 

    When you ask attorneys to explain in detail what they mean when they say they have a “virtual law firm,” they may describe different combinations of elawyering.  However, from firm to firm there is usually a great deal of difference in the web-based technology they are using and each firm’s purpose for that technology in the scheme of their law practice management.

    So why try to limit the definition?  After all, when we try to cage something in there is the risk that this discourages future innovation and development of new forms of elawyering.  The key is whether the attorney is actually delivering legal services online to clients.  It should matter greatly in our profession for malpractice and ethics concerns.  If they are, the standards for daily use of web-based technology will be higher than if the technology is not being used to handle sensitive attorney/client data.  In other words, it should matter to their clients and their state bars whether they are delivering legal services online to clients using unencrypted methods of delivery and software products without the benefit of user agreements developed for the needs of legal professionals. 

    A virtual law practice involves the delivery of legal services to clients securely over the Internet by way of a client portal — whether the virtual law practice is completely web-based or integrated into a brick & mortar law office where the attorneys see in-person clients as well as their online clients.  Regardless of what web-based technology is used, the law firm is working with the client from the beginning of the legal representation through to the payment and rendering of legal services.   

    When discussing these issues, let’s be clear about what is meant by a “virtual law firm.”  It may be a paper(less) law office and the technology may be used for aspects of law practice management, but it is not virtual law practice.  When the practice of delivering legal services online to our clients is commonplace, as it will become in the near future, these distinctions will seem ridiculous.  But for the time being, they are important to keep us all on the same page.

  • Upcoming Events in March Related to Virtual Law Practice

    The South Carolina Bar Association is hosting a session entitled “The Virtual Law Office: Making It Work for You”, Friday, March 12 at 9:00am.  This session, taught by yours truly, will be a live webcast or if you are in Columbia, South Carolina, please join us at the Bar Center. In this three hour session, I’ll be covering how to start-up a virtual law office including both the practical how-tos as well as the ethical issues related to using technology to deliver legal services online.

    Martindale Hubbell Connected is hosting a two week event on virtual law practice.  If you are a member of Connected (a free social/professional networking site), join up with the groups Virtual Attorneys or Virtual Law Firm.  If you are not a Connected member, then join us for the Twitter discussion.  Here is a list of the scheduled events and participants:

    Special Postings — guest blog posts by Bradley Clark, Donna Seyle, Alan Wernick, Carolyn Elefant, Stephanie Kimbro, and Richard Granat.

    Live Twitter Discussion “Value Tweet” — hosted by Larry Bodine on March 16, 2010 at 12pm EST this discussion will explore the value that virtual firms provide to buyers of legal services

    Webinar — starring Carolyn Elefant, Stephanie Kimbro, Alan Wernick, and Richard Granat on March 31 at 12pm EST.

    ABA TECHSHOW, March 25-27th in Chicago, has several sessions on the paperless practice and practicing law in the cloud.  Be sure to check out “Going Virtual with Web Applications: New Forms of Practice” presented by Will Hornsby and Marc Lauritsen.   I’ll be attending the show this year if anyone wants to meet up.  Send a note to @StephKimbro to connect.

    The next Virtual LegalTech will be on March 18th from 9-5am EST.  It’s a unique way to network online with other attorneys, attend educational sessions and check out the exhibitors. One session that might be of interest to the attorney with a virtual law practice: “Developing a Comprehensive and Legally Sound Social Media Policy.”  You can hop in and out of this event throughout the day which makes it really convenient.

    Know of any other upcoming events that might be related to virtual law practice?

  • Residency Requirements and the Virtual Law Practice

    I’ve been reading with interest the case of Attorney Ekaterina Schoenefeld who filed a lawsuit against the State of New York claiming that by requiring an attorney to maintain a physical law office in the state, New York law discriminates unconstitutionally against attorneys who are out-of-state.  Schoenefeld is licensed in California, New York and New Jersey and claims she was not aware of NY’s residency requirement before taking and passing the NY Bar Exam.   Law.com has a detailed article on the case and Carolyn Elefant over at MyShingle.com wrote a rousing post in support of this solo attorney’s plight.

    I do not know if in the case of Schoenefeld the attorney was planning on operating a virtual law office, but her intent was clearly to provide legal services pertaining to the law of each of the states for which she obtained a law license. This is a similar situation faced by attorneys wanting to open virtual law offices.  They may choose to reside in a state in which they do not hold a law license or to provide legal services of one state while maintaining an office in another.  The technology allows them the flexibility to deliver legal services online and choose where they live and work.

    In my opinion, residency or physical office requirements, which exist for some state bars, are an example of an out-dated restriction on the legal profession that could use some updating to reflect changes in law practice management.  If you feel like reading up on some examples of residency requirements, see New York’s §470 of Judiciary Law, Missouri State Bar Informal Advisory Opinion Number 970098 regarding Rule 5.5;   Tolchin v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 111 F.3d 1099 (3d Cir. 1997); Lichtenstein v. Emerson, 674 N.Y.S.2d 298 (App. Div. 1998);  Parnell v. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 110 F.3d 1077 (4th Cir. 1997) or Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.946 (the attorney must show intent “either to maintain an office in this state for the practice of law, and to practice actively in this state, or to engage in the teaching of law”).

    These residency requirements focus on the attorney “actively practicing law within the state.”  How should this be interpreted if the attorney physically resides in one state and actively practices law from a virtual law office providing the legal services pertaining to the laws of another state?  He or she is actively practicing law, just not physically within the state.  Residency requirements make more sense to me when they are restricted to attorneys who are handling litigation in that state and will be expected to make court appearances.  But if they are drafting state law contracts and handling IP projects for NY clients while living in NJ or CA? 

    Does the attorney need to run a physical law office or reside in the state in which he or she practices law?  It probably depends on the attorney’s practice area and client base.  For those practices in which it does make good business sense, then the residency requirements place a significant burden on the attorney trying to startup a virtual law office that is located out-of-state.  It seems a very geo-centric and out-dated rule in a society that has become increasingly more global and interconnected through technology. 

    I’d love to hear others thoughts on residency requirements whether related to a completely virtual office or a traditional law practice that is integrating a virtual law office to expand into multiple jurisdictions.

  • Family Favorite Award Winner for the 4th Year in a Row

    I’m excited to announce that my virtual law office has won the Wilmington Parent Family Favorite Award under the category of “attorney” for the fourth year in a row!  (more…)

  • Reminders for Avoiding Malpractice in Virtual Law Practice

     

    This past Friday I attended a Law Practice Management Section Council meeting at the NCBA Bar Center.  This is the first meeting I’ve attended in person. Usually I am on conference call and booming my thoughts to the group via voice box.   Thanks to the Chair, Lee Rosen, these meetings are about the least boring I’ve ever been in and worth the two hour drive up to Raleigh. 

    At each session, we have an educational “mini-CLE” for the council members.  This past Friday’s mini-CLE was presented by Mark Scruggs of NC Lawyers Mutual which provides services to attorneys licensed to practice in North Carolina.   Mark engaged us in a great “refresher” session on the top malpractice issues and how to avoid them.  Many of these tips are ones that every attorney knows by heart, but it can’t hurt to occasionally review the basics. 

    For the attorney with a virtual law practice, it might good to review these rules and put them in the perspective of how they apply to the use of technology to deliver legal services online.  Here are some of the reminders for avoiding malpractice that Mark discussed.  He did not talk about virtual law practice, but I’ve added here below how I thought they related to an attorney practicing law online.  These tips were based on those issues for which his company sees the most malpractice claims filed. (more…)

MENU