This Friday there will be a debate on twitter about virtual law practice between Stephanie Kimbro (@StephKimbro and Brian Tannebaum (@BTannebaum) You can follow the debate at:
@22Twts and with the Twitter hashtag #22TwDb.
Brian has already launched an opening salvo in response to a blog post that Stephanie wrote just yesterday. Unfortunately the ABA Journal, which is co-sponsoring the debate, has framed the issue of whether lawyers can dispense with physical office space.
The issue should have been framed in terms of whether on-line legal services delivered through a secure client portal are a valuable adjunct to an existing law practice, and whether a law firm operating purely virtually, with out a physical office can be a viable mode of law practice. It is hard to discuss this complex topic in 140 character sound bites but I am going to try:
Virtual lawyering is about delivering legal services on-line, not about doing away with a physical office, although that is an option.
Virtual lawyering is about relating to clients through a secure client portal where the client signs on with a user name and password.
Within a secure client portal clients can communicate with their lawyer securely, provide data to assemble legal documents, pay bills, etc.
The utility of the client portal concept depends on the type of law practice. I would not recommend it for a criminal defense practice.
Some kinds of law practices require rich face-to-face interactions. Other kinds of practices, can get by with more digital transactions.
One size doesn't fit all, but a physical office is not necessary for some kinds of law practices.
Millions of middle class Americans have turned away from using lawyers to solve their legal problems.
50% of middle income households in the US have at least one legal problem per year . Only 20% seek the assistance of an attorney.
A younger generation with the Internet in their DNA will prefer to deal with their attorneys online.
They prefer to go on-line and use non-lawyer providers like LegalZoom, USLEGAL, USLEGAL and Nolo and other non-lawyer web sites.
These non-lawyer solutions are inadequate but seem to be good enough, for the average consumer.
Unless solos and small law firms wake-up they will continue to lose market share to these non-law firms providers.
Fact: A recent study showed that over half (56%) of consumers expect good law firms to offer legal services online.
The same study revealed that (47%) of consumers would be more likely to choose a law firm that offered the convenience of online access.
The legal profession is changing. Change is caused by the Internet as a new platform for the delivery of legal services.
@BTannebaum is completely wrong. He doesn't let facts get in the way of his opinions.
@BTannebaum doesn't understand the risks that he is taking by using email to send documents to his clients in his criminal law practice.
The virtual law office issue is not about not having a physical office. It is about providing legal services on-line.
No virtual lawyer that I know has argued that client files should be kept on an IPad while sitting in Starbucks.
There is more danger in keeping records in paper format in the office, than there is storing them in a Tier IV facility in encrypted format.
Does @BTannebaum even know what a Tier IV facility is? Has he bothered to find out?
@BTannebaum thinks lawyers looking for a better way are whining, when in fact they are looking for a better way to serve clients.
Almost every other industry provides a on-line client portal for their customers -- except the legal profession.
Virtual lawyering is not for the convenience of the lawyer. It is an approach which is aims to offer legal services at an affordable price.
It is an approach the offers more convenience and a more transparent lawyer-client relationship.
A face-to-face meeting with a client is often optimal, but it is expensive, and clients are looking for cheaper alternatives.
In a criminal defense practice, price is usually no object.
If you are going to lose your license to practice law, price is usually no object.
@BTannebaum is biased because his vision is limited to his kind of law practice. He has blinders on.
@BTannebaum can keep arguing for traditional methods of law practice, while consumers turn away from the legal profession.
Brian Tannebaum (@BTannebaum) stop whining. Wake-up. Its the 21st century.
Stephanie Kimbro (@StephKimbro is a pioneer and a legal rebel breaking new ground in developing new methods of delivering legal services.
