Virtual Law Practice

Tag: Practice Management

  • Congrats to the Virtual Courthouse

    Congratulations goes out to the Virtual Courthouse for receiving the 2009 ABA Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access.  Each year the ABA gives out the Brown Award to recognize projects or programs that have addressed the need for legal services to members of the public who are in the middle class or of moderate means.  The project must not only have exhibited an innovative solution to delivering legal services to the public but also be replicable for others in the legal profession.  Since this year’s winner provides an unique virtual solution to a specific area of law practice, I thought I’d share it with this blog’s readers.

    The Virtual Courthouse provides an online method of dispute resolution. According to its website the Virtual Courthouse “enables parties to submit disputed claims, responses and supporting material in digital form for resolution by a neutral provider of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. These ADR services can include arbitration, mediation, neutral case evaluation or a settlement conference by members of a panel of neutrals.”  There are screenshots of the technology on the website, but not many details regarding data security or the actual technology behind the solution.

    This company is a good example of how attorneys are finding ways to integrate different forms of virtual law practice into their traditional practice methods to provide the public with access to more affordable and convenient legal services.  If your practice includes ADR and you have considered adding a virtual component to your practice, then you may want to check this out.

    The ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services also recognized Heisler, Feldman, McCormick & Garrow, PC and Have Justice Will Travel for their law practice methods.

  • Update to Virtual Law Practice eBook

    Please check out the latest, updated version of my free eBook, Practicing Law Online: Creating a Web-based Virtual Law Office.  Because the technology behind virtual law practice is changing at a rapid rate and because new state bar advisory opinions on the topic are starting to emerge, I plan on updating the eBook at least every six months.

    For this latest update, I conducted some additional research online through the Cornell University Law School’s American Legal Ethics Library which has a great state-by-state comparative analysis of the ABA’s Model Code.  There were some new state bar advisory opinions that related to third-party service providers, online backup and retention of law office data, email, online advertising and other technology related topics.  I included these in the different sections of the eBook relating to ethics and malpractice issues in virtual law practice.  I’m sure there are more formal and informal opinions from state bars out there that I did not find.

    Please share if you have any experience presenting technology-related law practice management questions or formal advisory opinions to your state bar.  I’ll post them on the blog and add the information to the eBook — with a hat tip to the sharer, of course.

  • Setting Guidelines for Virtual Law Best Practices

    A small group of companies providing software as a service (SaaS) products to legal professionals will begin meeting to discuss the use of SaaS technology in law practice management.  The group also hopes to discuss among other things a set of minimum security requirements for SaaS products used by attorneys.  As a co-owner of VLOTech, I am excited to be included in this group of innovators and entrepreneurs when they meet for the first time next week. 

    Last week, the ABA’s eLawyering Task Force held a conference call which I was able to join in on.  Over the next several months the Task Force will be working to establish a set of malpractice standards or guidelines for attorneys using technology to deliver legal services.  The Task Force plans to meet at least once a month to discuss these malpractice standards among other issues.  The goal would be to establish a set of guidelines that could be approved by the ABA’s Law Practice Management Section and posted on the ABA’s website.  Attorneys interested in establishing virtual law practices or in using technology to practice law in any form would be able to refer to these standards and present them to their state bars in support of their virtual practice methods.  

    Hopefully input from both the SaaS group and the Task Force will be combined in the final version of any guidelines, and that these guidelines will address both the needs of the legal professional as well as the general public’s need for more affordable and convenient legal services.

  • Podcast Interview about Virtual Law Offices

    Check out the podcast interview of me that was recorded recently by Ed Poll of the LawBiz Blog.  Ed is an expert in law practice management, and his blog is a wealth of useful knowledge and resources.  On the podcast, he and I discussed virtual law practice, VLOs, and how attorneys are using the technology to deliver legal services to clients online. 

    Ed brought up a good point at the end of our discussion that I thought was worth expanding on in a future post on this blog.  He suggested that virtual law offices might be another possible method of transition for an attorney who is looking to wind down their legal career or sell their traditional law practice.  It’s certainly something to think about as many attorney in our profession are nearing retirement age and are looking for more flexibility in the way that they practice law. 

    Thank you to Ed and LawBiz for giving me the opportunity to share my experience in virtual law practice with others in the profession.

  • Top Ten 2008 Developments in Virtual Law Practice

    Happy New Year!  The following is my list of the top ten developments in the delivery of legal services using technology that have happened in the past year.  Please feel free to expand on this list in the comments.  I’m also including at the end my predictions for virtual law practice in the new year.

    1.  Richard Susskind’s book, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, is published.  The book discusses “disruptive technologies” that allow attorneys to provide legal services online.  Susskind predicts that attorneys who adopt rather than resist these changes in the technology used to deliver legal services will prosper as the profession adapts to marketplace changes.  The public’s need for affordable and accessible legal services will drive the legal profession’s use of technology to meet this demand.

    2.  State bars and other professional legal organizations offer CLEs and sessions geared at teaching attorneys best practices and security standards for using technology in their law practices.  Popular topics include email security, online backup solutions for law office data, minimizing metadata and using scanners to decrease the use of paper.  See the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center’s website for a list of 2008 articles.  In addition to increased law and technology management education in the profession, several state bars provide specific ethics decisions with approval for virtual law offices (VLOs) and/or allow for attorneys to provide unbundled legal services online.

    3.  More attorneys turn to piecemeal technologies and free online apps to collaborate with each other and their clients online.  Basecamp, Google Docs, Adobe ConnectNow, Webex, GoToMeeting, and Dimdim are a few of the popular web-based tools.  

    4.  New web-based, software as a service (SaaS) law practice management products launch, including Rocket Matter and Clio.  Popular legal blogs and listservs discuss the pros and cons involved in the use of “cloud computing.”  The discussions center on the security and backup concerns with a hosted system.

    5.  VLOTech sets up web-based, virtual law offices (VLOs) in Alabama, Maryland, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia with more VLOs planned in Alaska, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and North Carolina for the upcoming year.  The technology aims to provide attorneys with the flexibility to operate a completely online law office or to combine the technology with a traditional law practice and offer unbundled legal services online.  “VLO” becomes a more recognized term for a web-based virtual law practice and elawyering.

    6.  Virtual Law Partners opens its doors as the newest example of BigLaw using technology to allow its attorneys to work remotely and collaborate on legal cases.

    7.  LegalZoom comes under fire over filing fees that the legal document service company charges to online clients, in particular in relation to the filing of trademark applications with the USPTO.  Critics of invention submission companies and of companies that provide form-generated legal documents in general spoke out about what they saw as the potential misleading of the public by online companies offering legal services where an attorney was not involved in reviewing the final legal product. 

    8.  With more attorneys practicing law using mobile devices and relying on electronic forms of communication with clients and other attorneys, management of electronically stored information (ESI) became more of a concern.  Solos and small firms are expected to understand e-discovery and ESI management in their daily practices.  Check out the archives of the EDD Blog co-authored by Bob Krantz and Jeffery Fehrman.

    9. Larger numbers of attorneys adopted popular online social networking tools to meet up with others in the legal profession.  Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Legal OnRamp, JD Supra and other sites connect attorneys with each other and prospective clients. 

    10. Some useful law and tech/practice management blogs came online this year, including Law 21, Above and Beyond KM, 3 Geeks and a Law Blog, and Law Practice Matters, among others.  Blogging continues to grow as an attorney marketing tool and is used as a method of providing the public with basic legal information and resources. Law blogs remain a method for attorneys to educate themselves and network in their individual practice areas.  The Louisiana State Bar’s proposed rules of professional conduct touch on attorney blogging, social networking and other forms of online attorney communication causing some concern and originating in a lawsuit from attorneys in that state. 

    My predictions for virtual law practice in 2009:

    1.  Attorneys will continue to question web-based, hosted software providing law practice management tools. However, companies providing SaaS legal products will band together to establish standards regarding the security of their products for the benefit of the legal profession and the reputation of the companies and the saas business model. 

    2.  The ABA will move forward with proposing standards or policies for the delivery of legal services online. The eLawyering Task Force as well as the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services will both play a critical role in establishing these guidelines.

    3.   Attorneys hit hard by the downward economy will seek out ways to minimize their law practice overhead using technology.  Some will use piecemeal software solutions to minimize overhead in law office administrative tasks. Others will consider opening completely web-based VLOs to get rid of the law office lease and expand their client base statewide or nationwide depending on their practice areas.  

    4.   More attorneys will realize that customer service is the key to growing a successful practice and that the public is demanding more efficient and convenient legal services through the use of technology.  This will prompt more attorneys to provide unbundled legal services online to clients either as the sole form of virtual law practice or in addition to their traditional law office practice.

  • ABA eLawyering Task Force Conference Call

    The ABA’s eLawyering Task Force will hold a conference call next week on January 9th at 10:00am Eastern time.  The website has an incorrect date on it as the meeting had to be rescheduled for the first of the new year.  If anyone is interested in discussing the delivery of legal services using technology, you might want to consider joining the group’s listserv and taking part in the conference call.  Participants must also be a member of the ABA’s Law Practice Management Section in order to join the Task Force.

    One of the eLawyering Task Force’s goals will be to discuss setting standards for the use of technology to deliver legal services.  This will be my first conference call with the group so I’m looking forward to speaking with some of the individuals I’ve been reading about and emailing over the past year or so.  Anyone operating a virtual law office or considering hanging a virtual shingle should take an interest in this group’s activities. 

    If you are reading Richard Susskind’s new book, The End of Lawyers?, you will know why I think this group is going to have growing relevance for the ABA and the legal profession in general.  For anyone who can’t join in on the conference call, I’ll try to post a summary of the meeting in the near future.

  • Attorneys Discuss Virtual Law Practice

    Check out two blog posts discussing virtual law practice from Chuck Newton and Jay Fleischman, both attorneys who use technology to practice law outside a traditional law office.  Newton’s post Is Virtual Virtually Impossible? prompted Fleischman’s post An Open Response to ‘Is Virtual Virtually Impossible?’

    As I commented on Newton’s blog, I believe there is room in our profession for many different law practice methods, including virtual law offices, whether they are completely web-based or integrated into a traditional law office setting.

    Fleischman’s post discusses the definition of the word “virtual” and whether it is the appropriate term to use.  When I was considering what to call my own web-based law office and we were evaluating the name for VLOTech, we looked at all of the existing terms that came close to describing the method of practicing law securely over the Internet, such as elawyering, online law practice, online legal services, web-based law office, online unbundled legal services, etc.

    The term “virtual” and the connotations it brings may depend on an attorney’s concept of how the Internet can be used to recreate real world environments.  Virtual can also mean a software representation of something physical. A virtual reality world is a software representation of the 3D physics of the real world.  Virtual machines, such as VMWare or Virtual PC, are software representations of physical hardware.  Virtual law offices are software representations of a physical law office, including front office, backend office and even secretary.

    What we intended to convey by the term VLO or virtual law practice was that this method was a way of recreating an entire law office environment on the Internet.  Second Life, for example, is a virtual reality world; a digital world accessed completely online.  Likewise, my VLO is a complete virtual law office accessed online.  My waiting room, my conference room, my filing cabinets, my copy machine, my law library, etc. are all in one place online.

    Since I started my own web-based practice I’ve worked with other attorneys who are using technology to run both a traditional law practice and a web-based law office.   As long as the technology used to practice law over the Internet protects the general public that we serve, it should not matter what method or combination of law practice methods legal professionals use to get their work done.  There will always be clients and attorneys who prefer certain methods over others.  It doesn’t make one type of attorney more or less of a professional.

    My prediction is that in the next ten years attorneys will continue to run into more clients who expect them to use web-based methods of communication to provide legal services.  Look even further down the road and expect to see attorney avatars having online conferences with their clients’ avatars.  While some attorneys already have law offices in virtual reality worlds, the security is not there yet for attorney/client confidentiality and the general public is not quite at that level of comfort with the concept.

    I certainly don’t think traditional face-to-face lawyering will ever disappear.  However, attorneys operating VLOs and those practicing law online are at the forefront of an increasingly useful and popular law practice method.

  • 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?

  • Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) in other Jurisdictions with a Virtual Law Office (Part Two)

    Part I of this post on the unauthorized practice of law in other jurisdictions addressed the following questions:  How does a virtual law practice avoid UPL in other jurisdictions? and If a website is accessible internationally, then how can a VLO be limited to provide legal services only in the state(s) in which the attorney is licensed?

    How is it clear with a Virtual Law Office (VLO) when the attorney/client relationship is established?

    An online client receives adequate notice through his or her individual homepage in the VLO as to the different statuses of the case.  Notice is provided to the online client when the attorney has reviewed the client’s question and posted a response, when the attorney has accepted or declined representation, when the attorney provides details of the scope of representation, and when the attorney has completed legal representation and is formally closing the online case file.

    The attorney/client relationship begins when the online client has registered on the VLO and requested legal services from the attorney.  The client is notified when the attorney has reviewed and responded to his or her legal question.  Then the client is asked follow-up questions by the attorney or is presented with the price quote or terms of representation for the online client to accept or decline.

    Through the VLO, the attorney has several options to define the scope of representation, including providing clients with a traditional written retainer letter uploaded to the system, writing out personalized messages to each client and requiring that the client accept a customized clickwrap agreement solidifying the terms of the attorney/client relationship, or using both traditional and online clickwrap methods.  Basically, the same procedures for establishing attorney/client relationship and defining the scope of representation that are used in a traditional law practice can be integrated into a VLO.

    I would argue that using the technology actually provides clearer notice to the clients of the establishment of the attorney/client relationship and the scope of representation. It may also do a better job of keeping the clients informed of their case status than occurs with a traditional law practice.  One of the biggest malpractice complaints from clients is that their attorney does not communicate effectively with them regarding their case.  The VLO handles so much of the process for the attorney automatically. It also gives clients the ability to check for themselves the status of their file and to review their previous discussions with the attorney.

    Is it UPL in another jurisdiction to draft a legal document, such as a Will, for an online client who is a resident in another state?

    It is my understanding that it would constitute the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction if an attorney used his or her VLO to draft a legal document that pertained to the laws of another state where the online client was a resident but where the attorney did not have a license to practice law.

    However, if the attorney operating the VLO were partnering with attorneys or legal assistants on his or her VLO who were licensed in other jurisdictions, then this would be different.  For example, a virtual paralegal could work on the VLO to draft a Will or other estate planning document for a client a jurisdiction where the virtual paralegal was familiar with that state’s estate planning laws.  The virtual paralegal would then flag the document for review by the attorney on the VLO who was licensed in that online client’s state.

    My understanding is that the review and approval of that legal document by the attorney licensed to handle that state’s laws would permit the virtual paralegal to complete the transaction for the online client without it constituting UPL in another jurisdiction.  You can see through this example how a solo law practice taken online with a VLO could grow very quickly across multiple jurisdictions if well planned out.

    How does the issue of UPL in other jurisdictions relate to legal document automation software?

    Some attorneys are choosing to provide legal services online by using document automation software, similar to the way that LegalZoom and similar companies provide legal documents across jurisdictions.  There is a separate issue here which pertains to assisting a nonlawyer (the software vendor or legal form provider) in the practice of law.  If this form of providing legal services interests readers, I recommend that they check out Richard Granat’s recent blog post regarding the automated delivery of online legal services, or online document assembly, as it relates to UPL.

    VLOTech is preparing a feature for the first of next year that allows attorneys to create forms for clients on the VLO to fill out and send to the attorney securely on the system in addition to the existing VLO forms of communicating online with the client.  The forms could be anything from estate planning and family law questionnaires to customized client intake forms based on the attorney’s virtual law practice areas.  Since the forms would be generated by the attorney individually for the VLO and not pre-packaged from a vendor, then it should avoid the UPL issue completely.  It will be interesting to see how attorneys practicing law online will choose to integrate this additional feature in their virtual law practice.

    Online Resources Regarding UPL

    ABA Model Code, Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law

    State by state comparative analysis of UPL – Cornell University Law School, American Legal Ethics Library

    BTW:  By no means do I claim to be a legal ethics expert.  I practice law online from my VLO and work with other attorneys nationwide to set up VLOs.  These issues interest me and I love hearing and learning from other’s experiences.  If anyone has specific ethics decisions from their state bar pertaining to UPL in other jurisdictions and online law practice, I’d love to hear about it.  Please share!

  • 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.

MENU