eLawyering Blog : Online Legal Services : DirectLaw : Document Automation, Web-Enabled Document Assembly, Virtual Lawyering

Richard Susskind, in his new book, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, devotes a chapter to disruptive legal technologies and identifies automated document assembly as a leading example. A related analysis can be found in a paper produced by Darryl Mountain, a Vancouver attorney, that is titled "Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models Using Document Assembly" Both authors make the point that automating legal documents is one of the major ways that a lawyer can increase productivity, particularly for document intensive practices. Offering these documents over the web directly to clients through a secure client area, where the client completes an online questionnaire increases productivity even more. It is much more efficient than a process where a lawyer or paralegal types data into a desktop windows application manually.

Once the user answers a series of questions that appear in the web browser, a document is instantly created ready for the lawyer's further review and analysis. If the client misses a question, the lawyer can easily communicate by email and request additional information or provide a clarification on how a question should be answered. But that is much more efficient that jotting down the client's answers to the attorney's questions on a yellow pad.

This is consistent with Susskind's analysis that lawyers should automate what they can, leaving to human intelligence what it does best, which is providing legal advice and more customized and individualized drafting. Today automated document assembly solutions  are very robust and can automate very complex documents with multiple levels of "if-then" clauses to accommodate hundreds of different fact situations. Automation of more standardized legal documents should be a "no-brainer."  Using automated document assembly reduces greatly the amount of time the attorney has to spend on an individual document project enabling alternative billing systems that yield a higher margin for the law firm and also potentially lower pricing to the client.

We have seen these efficiencies in our own business activities. Through our affiliate company, Epoq, US, we sell thousands of standardized legal documents a month directly to consumers. Many of these documents are court documents, available for free from court sites, in Adobe .PDF format. Examples are non-contested divorce actions, name change actions, child support modification actions, incorporation documents, and other corporate filings.  By automating these documents and legal forms and adding extensive help screens we add value and make it easier for self-help ("pro se"  parties to complete online.

We know that our legal forms business is taking away market share from law firms, even though we do not provide legal advice and we are selling legal forms only. This is a classic case of "pure-play" disruption. Because the user is "doing"  the work by completing an online questionnaire, and the software does the rest, we have a very high profit margin on these forms, once they are automated. I call this, "making money while I am sleeping."

We also know the limitations of a "forms only" , self-help approach. Our DirectLaw, virtual law office platform, makes our legal forms and automated document assembly technology, available to law firms as a hosted service.  In the law firm configuration, the lawyer can bundle legal advice for legal forms offering a much valued-added offering at a price point which is significantly higher that the sale of automated legal forms only. The lawyer still provides a personal service element, but the document assembly technology enables the lawyer to spend more time with the client because creating the first draft of the document is instantaneous. Moreover, the client is doing part of the work as the lawyer doesn't have to waste time gathering basic factual information which is captured online within a web page. This also can be a very profitable business model. I know from operating my own Maryland virtual law firm , from my home in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,  just how profitable and satisfying this can be.

I have heard some critics of automated methods remark that lawyers were not trained to be "robots." This perspective misses the point by a mile. By figuring out what parts of a legal process can be efficiently automated, and which parts need to remain the domain of human intelligence, the productivity of the lawyer is greatly enhanced. In the future automated document assembly over the web will become the norm, as it offers the promise of greater value and lower fees or prices.  If not through law firms, then through non-lawyer legal form publishers who have migrated their legal form content to a dynamic and interactive format.

Solos and small law firms ignore these developments at their peril. While many solos practitioners ponder these developments, non-lawyer operated web sites like SmartLegalForms, Wills Online, the Name Change Law Center [ disclosure: We also operate these aforementioned legal form web sites ], Nolo, and LegalZoom, and other non-lawyer sites, will continue to eat away at the market share of the legal profession, particularly solos and small law firms.

It is time for the legal profession to catch up and not cede this piece of business to non-lawyer operators. At the end of the time day, it is the consumer who will suffer by not having access to the legal profession.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you who are members of the eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, this is reminder that there is a Task Force Conference call on January 9, 2009 at 10:00 A.M.

There will be a discussion on standards and best practices for elawyering and delivering legal services over the Internet.

Members of the American Bar Association, who wish to become members of the Task Force should contact Marc Lauritsen, Co-Chair of the Task Force at marc@capstonepractice.com directly. In order to be eligible for membership you also have to be a member of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you who are members of the eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, this is reminder that there is a Task Force Conference call on January 9, 2009 at 10:00 A.M.

Our agenda includes a discussion on standards and best practices for elawyering and delivering legal services online.

Members of the American Bar Association, who wish to become members of the Task Force should contact Marc Lauritsen, Co-Chair of the Task Force at marc@capstonepractice.com directly. In order to be eligible for membership you also have to be a member of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are hundreds of non-law firm legal information and legal form web sites, some good, but many are inaccurate containing out of date legal information and legal forms that are not valid in many jurisdictions. [ Disclosure our company operates automated legal form web sites such as SmartLegalForms. ].  

To help consumers evaluate the quality of legal information on the Web, the American Bar Association approved a set of best practice guidelines for legal information web site providers in 2003. These best practice guidelines provide a set of standards which are very basic,  such as the recommendation that legal information web sites publish contact information, provide notice of the jurisdiction where the legal content is valid, and publish a date which indicates the currency of the content and when the content was last up-dated. The guidelines are designed to be applied to both law firm web sites and non-law firm web sites as they focus on the quality and accuracy of the legal information provided within the web site, and not the ethical issues that apply only to law firms.

Unfortunately, the ABA never fully promoted these guidelines, because of other association priorities, and as a result most legal information web sites are unaware of them. As "best practices" they don't have much force other than than to provide a framework for "best practice" and are advisory only.  Many law firm and legal information web sites incorporate these best practices in their design even though they are unaware of the "best practice" guidelines themselves.

On the other hand, we notice new legal information and legal form web sites monthly that pop-up that not only don't conform to these guidelines but border on out right deception. Here is an example: Illinois DivorceOnline.com - subtitled "Official Illinois Divorce Forms"

This web site almost looks like a law firm web site with the picture of a smiling older gentleman with a beard as if to send a signal that this is a web site that can be trusted. The site refers to "divorce specialists, " whatever that is. In many states attorneys cannot even advertise that they are "specialists" and here we have a web site that represents that "divorce specialists" will review your forms. 

Closer inspection, however, reveals, that there is no contact information, no support page, no indication of the date when the legal forms were revised, and fine print disclaims any responsibility for their accuracy, which is typical of these sites, but further makes the promise that the company will guarantee that the forms will be accepted by the court and if they are not, then the consumer will get a full refund, less a $50.00 administrative fee. There is no explanation as to why a $50.00 fee should be deducted when the forms are rejected, as distinguished from a full refund. In fact, the only way for a consumer to figure out the refund policy is to read all of the fine print in the Terms and Conditions statement. The price is of the service doesn't appear on the home page. Instead, the user must first register their case and provide information, before learning what the charges will be.

This web site should be compared to: IllinoisDivorce.com , the Chicago web site of the law firm of Cowell Taradash, P.C., This web site also offers a low cost divorce for pro se parties, but there is a clear explanation of the services offered and the identity of the publisher of the site.

The first site is a non-lawyer paralegal document preparation web site which is opaque as to identity, scope of services, pricing, and follow-on support. The second site, is a law firm web site, that is transparent with respect to all of these factors. The consumers would benefit from more law firm web sites like this, and less deceptive non-lawyer legal form web sites.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some of our law firm clients have asked us whether there is a breach of confidentiality if a law firm uses our automated legal documents and virtual law firm technology as part of their web site. In our model, we provide a technology platform where a client who has been accepted by the law firm can complete an on-line questionnaire which captures answers provided by the client through the web browser. All information provided by the client is passed by the client to the law firm in encrypted form. These factual answers from the client, and client choices, are used by our web-enabled document automation technology ( Rapidocs) to instantly create a first draft for the lawyer to review or amend as appropriate.

The question is:

Does a lawyer breach his or her obligation to maintain a client’s confidentiality when using an online document automation application for his or her clients, which is provided from a third party vendor?

ABA Model Rule 1.6 addresses confidentiality and has been adopted by most states. The rule provides that a “lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted” by one of the exceptions set out in the next part of the rule, none of which pertain to this situation. Paragraph 16 of the comment to the rule states, “A lawyer must act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision.”

Opinions that examine the lawyer’s obligation to maintain confidentiality when using technology generally address email. The leading analysis of this is ABA Formal Opinion 99-413 (March 10, 1999). The opinion examined different modes of email transmission and concluded that in all modes, “lawyers have a reasonable expectation of privacy …despite some risk of interception and disclosure.” The opinion also cautions that when a lawyer may send information that is “so highly sensitive that extraordinary measures to protect the transmission are warranted,” the lawyer should consult the client about the mode of the transmission.

Opinion 99-413 is of particular note here because it includes an examination of email transmitted over the Internet, like online forms. The opinion states that confidentiality may be compromised by an ISP’s legal right to monitor what is transmitted through it or stored on its network and by illegal hacking. On the first point, the opinion indicates that by law providers may conduct random monitoring only for mechanical or quality service control checks. Therefore, the interception of content of a communication sent through the Internet would be illegal in either situation. This gives the lawyer a reasonable expectation of privacy that requires no further action, except as noted in the highly sensitive communication.

Although not required under the ABA Opinion or those of various states, encryption makes the possibility of interception even more remote and creates even greater assurances the information will be confidential. Nevertheless, under the analysis of these opinions, the transmission of online forms over the Internet would not breach the lawyer’s obligation to maintain the client’s confidentiality even when the communication is not encrypted.

For other opinions on this subject see: New State Laws Requiring Encryption May Affect Law Practices  on the Blog on Virtual Law Office Technology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Apparently LegalZoom has been advertising to its customers that the trademark filing fee is $325.00, when it was actually $275.00,  an obvious misrepresentation. Apparently they have been doing this since 2005. This has resulted in a consumer class action suit to recover the $50.00 overcharge on behalf of all customers who have paid the higher fee. Here is a good summary of the details of the case.  LegalZoom has since changed its web site to characterize the additional $50.00 fee as an administrative fee. If a law firm made this kind of misrepresentation on its web site it would receive a sanction from the bar for misrepresentation. This is another example of the lack of regulatory control over non-lawyer providers of legal services and the absence of any accountability other than the response of the market -- which is in inefficient as consumers  rarely have sufficient knowledge to understand the nature of a misrepresentation.  LegalZoom's claim that a consumer can save thousands of dollars by using its service, rather than lawyer, assumes that somehow the services of LegalZoom and an attorney are identical. Nothing could be further from the truth. Caveat Emptor!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently a prospect for our DirectLaw Web Service asked me whether it was the unauthorized practice of law for a law firm to use a legal document that is generated by our web-enabled document automation system (Rapidocs), because the legal form did not originate within the law firm itself. In this model, a client completes an on-line questionnaire which generates a legal form or legal document instantly ready for attorney review and further modification. I asked my colleague Will Hornsby, who is Counsel to the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, American Bar Association, and a leading expert on ethical issues that arise from delivering legal services over the Internet.

Hornsby says that a lawyer commits the unauthorized practice of law when the lawyer assists a non-lawyer, whether that is a person or a corporation, to undertake the practice of law. This leads to the question of whether online document automation that creates a legal form or document from data provided by the client is the practice law. The definition of “the practice of law” varies from state-to-state but frequently includes the drafting of legal documents and the use of legal knowledge or skill. (For specific state definitions of what is the practice of law, or the unauthorized practice of law, click here.

However, the question here revolves around whether the lawyer is “assisting” the software vendor in practicing law when the document preparation is provided as a legal service of the law firm. This is analogous to services provided by paralegals and other outsourced services. In most states, for example, paralegals have no independent authority to provide legal services. If they independently provide document preparation or use their legal skills in serving clients, they may be deemed in violation of their state’s UPL laws, as are any lawyers who assist them in providing those services. [This is the LegalZoom model ]. However, if paralegals provide those same services under the direction of a lawyer and the lawyer assumes supervisory obligations, the paralegal is not practicing law and is not violating UPL laws, nor is the lawyer who provides the supervision “assisting” in the unauthorized practice of law.

ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 (Aug. 5, 2008) clarifies that a lawyer may outsource legal services, subject to several considerations. The opinion directly addresses independent contractors, such as temporary lawyers, but also mentions sources of tasks such as a photocopy shop, a document management company and a third-party vendor for the firm’s computer services. In its discussion of Model Rule 5.5 and the unauthorized practice of law, the Opinion states, “Ordinarily, an individual who is not admitted to practice law in a particular jurisdiction may work for a lawyer who is so admitted, provided that the lawyer remains responsible for the work being performed and that the individual is not held out as being a duly admitted lawyer.”

Therefore, according to Hornsby, and I agree, even if a document automation application would be deemed the unauthorized practice of law if its services were provided independently of a lawyer’s services, once those service or the documents produced by the software application are provided under the lawyer’s direction and supervision, within the scope of the lawyer’s services, the lawyer can no longer be assisting the document preparation in the practice of law and no longer has a risk of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EssentiaLegal, based in Atlanta, Georgia, and founded by Robert Arrington, Latif Oduolo-Owoo, & Michael Mason, three alumni from large law firm practices in Atlanta, is a new style law firm, part virtual and part physical that is designed to serve the broad middle class with unbundled legal services. The physical office is located in a shopping mall for easy access, but the virtual component is powered by our DirectLaw Service and enables the firm to serve clients throughout the state of Georgia. Clients can complete Questionnaires either on-line, or within the physical office, which results in the instant creation of the first draft of a document or form, ready for the lawyer's review and further modification. Clients have the option of meeting with an attorney at their offices or relating to the firm on purely virtual basis through the MyLegalAffairs application created within the web site by our DirectLaw Web Service. I believe that this "click and mortar" strategy will be ultimately more effective than a purely virtual strategy because clients have the option of face to face contact with their attorney. "Click and mortar" refers to a business model that has both on-line and off-line components.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are exhibiting our DirectLaw Web Service at LEGALTECH in New York on February 2-4, 2009. This show is one of the largest legal technology shows involving over 450 legal technology vendors which attract over 13,000 participants. The show is at the New York Hilton at 1335 Sixth Avenue. We are Booth #1621 on Level II.  If you are planning to attend, please stop by for a demonstration of our DIrectLaw Service or just to chat about new developments in the delivery of online legal services. We will be introducing the latest version of Rapidocs, known as Rapidocs 4.0, which is our web-enabled document automation solution that operates totally within the web browser without requiring the downloading of an Active X control, Java Applet, or other software application.  Come see legal documents assembled in real time within the web browser.

Richard Cohen, CO-CEO of EPOQ, our sister company in the London, will also be in attendance and is up to date on new developments to de-regulate the legal profession in the UK and EPOQ's new mylawyer network of web-enabled UK law firms that serve consumers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link