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

ABA President B. Lamm has created a new Commission on Ethics called Ethics 20/20 to review  ethics rules and regulation of the legal profession in the United States in the context of a global legal services marketplace. Hearings will be held at ABA Meetings to get input from various interests on how to reform or modify the ABA Code to enable US law firms to remain competitive in an age where Internet  technology is pervasive.

I have been invited by the Commission to testify and submit a statement at the ABA Mid-Year Meeting in Orlando, where the Commission is holding one of its first public hearings.

My statement will discuss the following topics:

• how the rules of professional responsibility function as a deterrent to innovation;
• issues relating to the unauthorized practice of law and the definition of "the practice of law;"
• legal referral concepts in the age of the Internet;
• state rules of professional responsibility that require a "physical" business office in order to practice law in that state;
• the potential for cloud computing;
• enabling the delivery of limited legal services online;
• law firm ownership structure as it relates to innovation in the delivery of legal services;
• and the eLawyering Task Force Recommended Guidelines for the Delivery of OnLine Legal Services.

I am looking for suggestions and ideas about other issues that relate to the delivery of online legal services and the rules of professional responsibility. Any ideas are welcome. Just comment on this blog.

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

When we designed the DirectLaw web service we relied on theories developed by W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne in their best selling book Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant .

Our concept is that a technology platform that enables law firms to offer limited legal services over the Internet could tap into the "latent markets" for legal services.

We also used this analytical approach to develop our online non-lawyer document preparation service approach and our approach to offering automated legal forms over the Internet which are also designed to serve the "latent market for legal services". LegalZoom is demonstrating that there is a huge latent market that is satisfied with a "good enough" solution.

Nicole Garton-Jones, a lawyer based in Vancouver, Canada, and a user of our DirectLaw platform has posted a detailed analysis of how her law firm development strategy is an example of Blue Ocean Strategy in action. See her blog post on this subject. Its worth reading.
 

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

Last week, in a New York Times Opinion article, entitled, A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers, Chief Justice John T. Broderick, Jr. of New Hampshire and Chief Justice Ronald M. George of California endorsed the concept of the legal profession offering "unbundled legal services" to the broad middle class. Recognizing that there is a large "justice gap" with the number of self-represented parties increasing monthly in the nation's court systems, the Justices called for the legal profession to provide limited legal services as a way of getting at least some representation to unrepresented parties.

They write, " Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association, or similar provisions, which allow lawyers to unbundle their services and take only part of a case, a cost-saving practice known as “limited-scope representation” that, with proper ethical safeguards, is responsive to new realities."

State courts are facing severe budgetary cuts in staff and resources. The current recession has increased the level of disputes landing in those same court systems while at the same time stripping the ability of citizens to pay full service legal fees. Current circumstances make it  even more urgent that the legal profession provide innovative approaches to closing the gap between those who need access to the legal system but who cannot pay full service legal fees.

If citizens cannot access the legal system because they cannot afford it, our legal system will exist only for the "rich", resulting in further stratification of American society. As the Justices write:
"If we are to maintain public trust and confidence in the courts, we must keep faith with our founding principles and our core belief in equal justice under the law."

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

Attorney Louis Pepe, a Connecticut attorney and Chair of a Connecticut Bar Task Force examining non--lawyer legal information web sites, believes that these web sites are breaking the law by providing legal services in a state in which they're not licensed to practice, as reported in the Connecticut Law Tribune.

There are differences between  legal information web sites that provide legal information and legal forms only, and web sites that offer something called "legal document preparation services" where a paralegal or other non-lawyer reviews a document and assists in preparation prior to sending the form back to the client.  Rather than making a distinction between the different kinds of web sites, Pepe's  Task Force lumps them altogether into a single "evil" category. If it's not a  law firm web site, it has no place on the web, at least as far as the Connecticut Bar is concerned.

As reported by the Tribune, "the task force filed its report with the Department of Consumer Protection alleging that the on-line legal providers also were engaged in deceptive advertising because the companies are offering legal advice by providing relevant legal documents."

Can it be that the provision of just a legal form constitutes the "unauthorized practice of law?"  If that were the case why don't we just ban self-help legal software and self-help law books from Barnes & Nobles book shelves? All of the legal information web sites that I know of,  have a clear disclaimer that they are not a law firm and do not purport to give legal advice.

Does Pepe think that a consumer can't tell the difference between an attorney and a legal information web site? Is any publication - whether print-based or web-based -  that is a legal form the "unauthorized practice of law?"

In my opinion, there is a good argument to be made that a legal information web site that states that it's services and products are the equivalent to what a lawyer provides is a misrepresentation. It would be a misrepresentation in advertising, and consumer protection agencies should monitor the claims made by these providers. However, the claim that the mere provision of a legal form is the "unauthorized practice of law" is an abuse of the legal profession's self-regulatory power to protect the consumer from harm.

Catherine J. Lanctot has written an interesting article on the subject in “SCRIVENERS IN CYBERSPACE: ONLINE DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW,” 30 Hofstra Law Review 811 (2002, 44 pp, pdf), where she argues that those who wish to apply UPL enforcement against such software products or document preparers ”must not lose sight of the broader implications.”  Not only do they risk constitutional challenges, but :

“[W]e must consider the ramifications of such enforcement. The public reaction would likely be negative. Enforcing unauthorized practice of law statutes against online document preparation services would be neither painless nor popular. The lay public, which already detests lawyers, generally perceives unauthorized practice of law enforcement as yet another way for the legal profession to line its collective pockets at the expense of consumers. . . .

“In addition, it is at least possible that these websites are managing to provide some consumers with a necessary service—basic legal documents at an affordable price. At a time when the bar seems to have abdicated its responsibility to provide routine, noncomplex legal services to the poor and middle class, it could well be counterproductive to try to shut down one vehicle for serving those unmet needs.”

If  the Connecticut Bar can't distinguish between their self-interest in maintaining a monopoly over the delivery of legal services and the public's right to legal information whether in the form of a book, a desk-top software program, or a web-based software program, perhaps the citizens  of Connecticut should either strip the bar of its self-regulatory power, or further define what the "practice of law" means. That is what the citizens of Texas did, when the Texas Bar attempted to ban self-help law books and self-help legal software from being sold in the State of Texas.

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