Debate on Virtual Lawyering on Twitter - May 7, 2:00 P.M.
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.
Thank you, Richard, for your insightful 140 character comments! I think the key to this debate will be getting over the misunderstanding that virtual law offices are going to somehow replace traditional practices. In my opinion there will always be a need with certain clients and practice areas for the attorney to provide full-service, in-person representation. However, there is a huge population out there seeking online legal services and who are going to less safe options to obtain them. Virtual law practice is a solution to meet the needs of those individuals as well as provide better support to the clients of traditional practices. I don't think it should be viewed as a threat to traditional practice, and I'm not suggesting that virtual law practice should be considered for use by every attorney. It should be seen as an alternative or an amenity to law practice management.
Wow Richard. I didn't know when we met over beer in Miami that you were so well versed in attacks against those that disagree with your type of I-live-in-Florida-but-practice-on-my-computer-in-Maryland practice. Now I see why you would never make it in a courtroom. The person on the other side may disagree with you. You're clearly well suited to sit behind a computer and lash out at those that have a different point of view. I'm not surprised. Most lawyers that think they practice in the "21st century" are those that can't professionally handle a debate. I see it daily. I'm just sorry you don't understand my point of view and only see it as a threat to your virtual practice. I'm biased? You're the virtual lawyer Richard? I'm just someone who has a different point of view. Perhaps if you stopped whining, you would understand, but that doesn't look possible
Too bad not all of us can be a "real lawyer" like you. I would be happy to debate you on the issue of virtual law practice any time, any place. In fact, I am planning on sitting in on your debate tomorrow.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about this subject, and there are points where we would probably agree. But I think, as you said of Stephanie, your position is wrong.
I thought your response to Stephanie Kimbro's blog post, was uncivil and perjorative, and warranted an equally perjorative response.
Of course I am biased. I run a company that enables law firms to create a virtual law practice and I believe in what we do.
I have a point of view that is informed by the realities of how I see a growing percentage of consumers want to solve their legal problems without retaining a lawyer. How many consumer's do you think want to solve their legal problems in court? Who can afford to go to court any way? How many middle class people can even afford a lawyer's going rate?
I don't see you as a threat. I see you as a proud example of a dying breed whose value as an advocate can't be disputed. I regret the loss as much as you do.
I have no doubt you are planning on sitting in on the debate tomorrow. I assume you'll be there to save poor Stephanie from big bad me. Here's a tip Richard, she doesn't need you to protect her. Stephanie and I have discussed virtual law offices previously, and had nice discussions. She's a rarity in online lawyers - she can handle debate and contrasting points of view. Most of you see debate as "uncivil" and "perjorative." I think it is also requirement of online lawyers that you have no sense of humor, and that you fly in on your capes to save your brethren anytime someone says "boo" to them.
"Of course I am biased," you say. "I run a company that enables law firms to create a virtual law practice and I believe in what we do." Marvelous Richard - you are in this for the business, and someone like me may affect your bottom line - so just say what this is - you are trying to protect your bottom line and I am an annoyance because I may convince someone that being a virtual lawyer may not be the best route. It's not about business for me, it's about a profession. That's what makes us different.
The starbucks work-from-my-couch lawyers will never be a threat to me. I help real people with real problems, face to face, in an office and a courtroom. My computer is part of my practice, it's not my practice like it is yours, and never will be.
And Richard, you may not see me as a threat, but you've made it clear my opinion is a threat to your attempt to make a business out of convincing lawyers to go virtual.
You lost me when you wrote:
But let's assume that you're capable of realizing that someone can't laugnt an opening salvo in response, and chalk that up to transitory stupidity.
As you begin with the facile recharacterization of the issue into a strawman of your own making, allow me to do the same: Does the fact that some clients prefer the convenience of a lawyer offering online access preclude their desire that the lawyer also have a brick and mortar location where the lawyer can be found when the client has issues to address?
Or can we eliminate the problem by assuming that no lawyer ever has a moment of transitory stupidity. Maybe you have a survey of what percentage of consumers are happy to walk away when their lawyer blows it, won't answer their phone calls or emails, and can't be found?
Twit on that one for a while.
We don't consider a virtual law firm as one that doesn't simply have a physical office, but one that offers legal services online through a secure client portal. See generally, http://www.elawyering.com.
If you are arguing that having a physical law office is a preferred practice, I would argue that it depends on the type of practice and the decision should be made by the lawyer as a matter of his or her own judgment.
If you are arguing that the organized bar should require that lawyers maintain a physical office for their practice, my counter argument would be that is an unnecessary interference in the way an attorney chooses to practice law. Why not also dictate office dress codes? Why not dictate the type of filing cabinets to be used to store client's paper records?
If the organized bar is so concerned about protecting the client's interests, how come most states don't require an attorney to carry malpractice insurance or to communicate to their clients that they have coverage. In my opinion, whether my attorney has malpractice coverage is more important than whether he or she has a physical office.
Richard: Thanks for your passion & dedication & weighing in on this. I personally appreciate all your hard work.
Very fun debate. I just got done reading Brian's blog and enjoyed reading Richard's resonse. Rather than respond to individual points as I did on Brian's blog, I'll just layout my own idea of a legal practice 2.0.
Here is my vision: A virtual law practice that is virtual not is physical location, but in leveraging the tools of the web to collaborate, share and access information from anywhere. The good thing is that the legal market for SaaS services has increased. There are options like Steph's VLO if one wants to go completely remote, or there are viable SaaS practice management and document management services that allow lawyers to work just as he traditinally would but also provide for anywhere access and online collaboration with clients.