Prof. Edgar CahnHappy Birthday to Edgar Cahn

The University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law is having an 81st birthday celebration for Prof. Edgar S. Cahn, the founding Dean of what was then Antioch School of Law, (founded 1972), the nation’s first clinical law school.

I first learned of Edgar and Jean Cahn (deceased) as a 2L at Columbia Law School in 1964. At the time I was involved in creating a law students civil rights organization, with colleagues from other law schools, (LSCRRC),  and Edgar and Jean helped us establish a chapter at Yale Law School.

At the time  I  was wondering what my alternatives might be for a career in law that would be meaningful and purposeful.  Then I read the Cahn’s ground-breaking article titled: The War on Poverty: A Civilian Perspective [The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 73, No. 8 (Jul., 1964), pp. 1317-1352 ], which introduced the concept of a neighborhood law office dedicated to increasing access to the legal system for all.

This was an idea I could relate to and a way for me to have a career in law consistent with my core values.

In 1964 Edgar became Special Assistant and main speech writer to Sargent Shriver, the new Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, (“the War on Poverty”),  and Jean Cahn, became a consultant to the Office of Economic Opportunity to create a national legal services program.  When I graduated from law school in June, 1965, Edgar helped me secure my first job in the General Counsel’s Office of the Office of Economic Opportunity, for which I am forever grateful.

Edgar and Jean’s breakthrough thinking continued to shape my thinking and my career for many years thereafter.

In 1996, they co-authored another ground-breaking article titled: What Price Justice: The Civilian Perspective Revisited  [Notre Dame Law Journal, Volume 41 Issue 6 Symposium Article 8 7-1-1966 ]. This criticism of the legal industry could apply today:

“We would contend that – the product we are selling – quality legal services – is virtually unusable for the purpose for which sold. – the production and distribution system we are currently attempting to expand is basically obsolete. – And, the manpower supply is curtailed sharply by unnecessary, nonfunctional protectivist guild restrictions. ”

and:

“If Justice under law is to become a product for mass consumption, rather than a luxury item for the privileged and for private enterprise, we will not bring the price down within general reach by a straight exponential increase in the present supply of legal services as currently rendered the poor – or even the middle class. More neighborhood law firms, “judicare” programs, sliding scales of indigency, expansion of law school enrollment, increase of legal technicians, a massive increase in federal expenditures – none of these will produce more than the appearance of due process where the endless proliferation of rules and safeguards masks our underlying misgivings above the humanity and fairness of the system itself. (p. 940).

These were new ideas I could also relate to.  I owe Edgar Cahn a great debt as much of my own career has been  working on a variation of the ideas he and Jean first introduced  me to in these two landmark articles and many personal conversations. Edgar was my best teacher even though I was never  a formal student in one of his classes. His friendship and support enabled me to make a commitment to increasing “justice” in our society. Edgar and Jean helped me to find my right path.

The Cahn’s criticism of the legal profession, written over 50 years ago, is just as relevant today. Many innovative concepts that can be traced directly to their work:

  • a national, federally funded-legal services program;
  • clinical programs in every major law school;
  • the use of non-lawyers to deliver legal solutions directly to consumers;
  • neighborhood law offices staffed by “incubator” lawyers;
  •  “unbundled or limited legal services”
  • neighborhood court systems
  • online dispute settlement systems accessible without lawyers
  • self-help legal tools for citizens;
  • maximum feasible participation of citizens in legal systems governance  and regulatory systems. (Rather than only lawyers governing lawyers).

It’s quite a legacy. Even though it is Edgar Cahn’s 81st Birthday — which often marks a lifetime of achievement — Edgar continues to innovate with the TimeBanking concept which seeks to build caring communities through the exchange of time and talents – another breakthrough idea that is expanding worldwide.

Edgar — The best is yet to come!.

 

 

access_to_justivceOne of the obstacles to the development of innovative software solutions that automate part of the legal service delivery process resulting in lower, more affordable legal fees is the absence of capital. Traditional methods of legal service delivery based on hourly billing rates out of reach for low and moderate income clients.  Capital investment is required to create innovative web-based software solutions that can enable low and moderate income clients to either solve legal problems on their own as pro-se litigants, or to enable law firms to offer legal solutions at a more affordable price point.

The major obstacle to making more capital available to law firms, is the prohibition on investment in law firms by non-lawyers enshrined in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and replicated in the state rules of professional responsibility that regulate lawyers in their state. [ See Rule 5.4 – Professional Independence of a Lawyer ].

There has been little innovation within solo and smaller law firms to develop client-centered, web-based applications that provide a low cost solution to low and moderate income clients. Instead innovation is centered in the vendor community that provides tools to law firms, usually as a SaaS service for a monthly subscription fee. A good example is our own DirectLaw virtual law firm platform that provides a client-centered document automation application, and other tools that enables a law firm to unbundled legal services for a fixed fee to clients online. While the value of innovation outside of the law firm, within the vendor sector of the legal industry, is not to minimized, it is the lawyer within the law firm that has the most nuanced view about what their clients need and want. The lawyer within the law firm also has the primary interest in figuring out how to develop and manage the delivery of legal services so that for certain kinds of legal problems a scalable, volume-based business model can be implemented.

Innovation requires capital. It is capital intensive to develop software applications and new delivery systems for legal services. Solos and small law firms that serve individuals and families do not have access to capital. Whatever innovation is taking place in the delivery of legal services is happening outside of the legal profession in organizations like LegalZoom financed by venture capital, or the within legal aid programs funded in part by the Technology grant program within the Legal Services Program, or outside of the United States. [See also, blog post from Lexicata – How Law Firms Can be More Like LegalZoom ].

There has been much controversial discussion with the legal profession on modifying the ownership rules that apply to law firms, with little result. For example, the American Bar Association created last year a Commission on the Future of Legal Services to address the access to justice problem, under the under the leadership of then ABA-President William C. Hubbard.   The Commission convened a National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services, in May, 2015 where private investment in law firms as a prerequisite to innovation was on the agenda. But I have yet to see any progress on this issue within the American Bar Association. Unlike other countries, private investment in law firms as a way to develop new ways of serving a latent market for legal services is dead on arrival when it reaches the ABA’s House of Delegates, although 80% of the U.S. population can’t afford the cost of legal services and is unserved by the legal profession.

The evidence we have seen in the United Kingdom, where the legal profession has moved towards de-regulation, and where capital can flow freely into law firms, suggests that the United States will remain a laggard in innovation in the delivery of legal services until this problem can be fixed. In the UK, LegalZoom is taking advantage of this de-regulation by becoming an ABS [ Alternative Business Structure ].  As a private company, operating in the UK, LegalZoom can offer legal services directly to the public. LegalZoom plans to use this opportunity to develop and experiment with new end-to-end legal services for consumers with the idea that in the far distant future these innovations can be imported into the U.S. legal market.

The bottom line is that you can’t really innovate without access to capital – it is the fuel of innovation. For solo and small law firms that serve people, rather than large corporations, capital is not available for innovation unless the lawyer or law firm has generated capital from their practice and makes a conscious decision to invest in software automation and web-based solutions.

An example of a law firm that has accumulated capital because of litigation against the mortgage servicing companies and the banks in the robo-signing scandal during the U.S foreclosure crisis, is IceLegal, P.A., a small law firm based in Florida. IceLegal under the leadership of Thomas Ice,  is launching its own access to justice initiative at: http://www.legalyou.com.  The firm has also created its own LegalYou video channel for educating pro-se litigants.  This is a project of the law firm (not of a private company), and will  provide low cost legal solutions to Florida residents. If LegalYou is a success it will serve a new latent market ignored by most of Florida’s law firms. LegalYou is the exception rather than the rule.

One would think that Internet-savvy, recent law school graduates would be motivated to serve a latent market for legal services by developing innovative solutions, but handicapped by large student loans they are forced into career roles that provide sufficient cash flow to amortize those loans. Risk-taking is not an option for them.

A Proposal Safe Harbor for Law Firms Serving Low and Moderate Income Clients

To increase the flow of capital to law solos and small law firms who wish to serve just low and moderate income clients with automated legal solutions I propose that:

  • The American Bar Association amend Rule 5.4 to permit private investment in just those law firms that serve low and moderate income clients exclusively.
  • Personal injury and other contingent fee practices would be excluded from this exception as capital is self-generating for successful firms in these practice areas.
  • To comfort to those who are concerned that the independence of the lawyer is compromised by this proposal, the law firm must remain at least a 51% owner of the law firm. Private investors can be minority shareholders only.
  • It is relatively easy to create an income generation screen to capture just low and moderate income clients for the law firm, and exclude those of higher income. The data from this intake process can be archived and audited to comply with the exception to the rule.

Creating this exception opens up the opportunity for smaller law firms to take advantage of crowd-funding opportunities, the angel investor community, and the new SEC rules that permit crowd-funding investment. Further, the rich relatives and friends (if they exist) of a young lawyer could fund the new lawyer’s law firm, and get a return on investment, without the lawyer risking disbarment because of violation of the 5.4.

An argument can also be made that enabling law firms that serve primarily corporate entities can create capital on their own without additional incentives and should not be able to take advantage of this safe harbor. Most large law firms represent corporate entities (banks, insurance companies, health care organizations, drug companies,  manufacturers, financial organizations) whose legal positions are opposed to many consumer interests.  These firms should have to use their own capital to become more efficient so as not to tip the balances against the consumer even more than it is.

One would think that this modest proposal to enable innovation designed to increase access to the legal system for clients who can’t afford the high cost of legal fees would be an idea that that American Bar Association and state bar associations might entertain or even discuss.

However, given that the structure of regulation of the legal profession is controlled by the legal profession, this idea will probably be dead on arrival.

 

H&R Block launched an experimental and innovative service in Texas in January to assist immigrants in completing H&R BlockUSCIS forms. The forms were powered by software and H&R Block’s role was to provide a service to assist users in completing the forms within their offices– , but no legal advice was to be provided.

It didn’t take long for the organized immigration bar to shut this service down.

Here is a report from Crystal Williams, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association to the Board of Directors of AILA about their efforts to make sure that H&R Block would not compete with the immigration bar:

“H&R BlockAs many of you are aware, this large national tax preparer had been advertising an “immigration document service,” apparently as a pilot program in Houston. After some quiet diplomacy, H&R Block has agreed to cancel the program and remove any advertising related to it.  They are in the process of removing what is out there on it.  If, after another week, you or other members still see anything at a physical site, on the internet, or elsewhere about it, please let me know.”

“In addition, we had a meeting with another large national accounting firm that had been contemplating something similar, and it appears that they too will not be pursuing it.  We will continue to work on this issue with other firms that seem poised to cross the UPL line.  Chapter chairs, please feel free to share this with your members.”

It’s not clear where there is any UPL violation, as the Immigrant Assistants were simply helping users navigate through the software rather than provide any legal advice.  It is well documented there is a huge demand for legal assistance and that the immigration bar only serves a small proportion of the total demand as most immigrants can’t afford the fees that immigration lawyers charge. For this reason that there is well documented fraud abuse by “notarios”, as scam artists move to service immigrants with services that are over-priced, fraudulent, and inadequate.

On the other hand, we have a Fortune 500 company that attempts to provide a needed service to fulfill this gap in service with the idea that evaluation and assessment would in the fullness of time result in a limited and valuable service that is software-powered, not unlike the tax preparation service that H&R Block provides to millions of Americans. Rather than permit this experiment, the organized bar moved quickly to intimidate Block into shutting this service down.

ftcNo wonder there is little innovation in the delivery of legal services to consumers. No wonder consumers hate lawyers. Non-lawyers helping pro se litigants navigate through intelligent and smart software is hardly the practice of law, and it is, as Prof. Renee Knake argues, a protected First Amendment right.

Where are you —  U.S. Federal Trade Commission?

Surely there must be opportunities to experiment in the use software technologies to close the access to justice gap in America without interference by the organized bar. Regulation of legal services is too important to be left only to the lawyers. It is time to think about alternative schemes to regulate the delivery of legal services that involved interests other than protecting the income of the legal profession – despite the continued claim by the legal profession that their only interest is protecting the public from harm. There is little evidence to support that claim.

 

Ifedarbt’s no secret that the Federal court system is broken, Understaffed and overworked Federal U.S. District Court judges rarely hold trials any more – encouraging the parties to settle and keep their conflicts out of the Federal courts. Trials when required by the parties, take forever to be scheduled. Justice delayed, is no justice at all.

Traditional arbitration can be arbitrary.

A clause which often appears in an agreement to arbitrate states that:

“The Arbitrators and Umpire are relieved from all judicial formality and may abstain from following the strict rules of law. They shall settle any dispute under this Agreement according to an equitable rather than a strictly legal interpretation of its terms.”

Traditional arbitration in commercial disputes claims to offer benefits of speed and cost lower than a jury trial. But if the outcome of an arbitration is often arbitrary, the benefits of traditional arbitration are limited.

Now comes FedArb – a new hybrid model, part private court, part arbitration tribunal as an alternative  to traditional arbitration.

Founded by  Abraham D. Sofaer, a retired Federal Judge,  FebArb provides as arbitrators  —  retired Federal Judges  with a new set of rules modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . These rules, and FedArb reliance on experienced judges, and commitment to follow precedent, bring principled decision-making back to the arbitration process.

Based in Palo Alto, the heart of Silicon Valley, FedArb provides its services through an on-line platform that is designed to ensure that all of the parties stick to deadlines and that disputes are resolved as quickly as possible. Fixed fee arbitration is also an option that is designed to limit the cost of resolving complex disputes.

FedArb has been growing slowly as traditional arbitration organizations are entrenched in arbitration contracts and corporate general counsel are risk adverse and are reluctant to try alternatives, despite the apparent benefits in speed of resolution, lower costs, and the potential for more just and principled outcomes.

Innovations in ADR are likely to move faster in the consumer market space. Modria demonstrates that there is a huge demand for speedy resolution of disputes outside of the courts, and that efficiencies and speed can be greatly enhanced by moving the entire process online.

The future of dispute settlement and conflict resolution is likely to be outside of the court system as innovators such as FedArb and Modria find new ways to resolve conflicts expeditiously and at a lower cost than traditional methods of dispute settlement.

 

*Disclosure- the author of this block post, Richard S. Granat, is a shareholder in FedArb.

 

In a previous post, I discussed the North Carolina’s Bar fight against an amendment to the definition of the practice of law that stated:

“(b) The phrase “practice law” does not encompass any of the following:” … (2) the design, creation, assembly, completion, publication, distribution, display, or sale, including by means of an Internet Web site, of self-help legal written materials, books, documents, templates, forms, computer software, or similar products if the products clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. “

The moving force behind this amendment to the definition of the practice of law is LegalZoom which is also engaged in litigation with the North Carolina Bar over the same issue

For now, the North Carolina Bar has won this battle. Mobilizing the entire lobbying energy of the North Carolina Bar, the proposed amendment was side-tracked into Committee for further discussion and will die there in this legislative session.

In a confidential communication to bar members, one of the officers of the bar stated that:

“As I am sure you know, LZ has sued the State Bar in an effort to prevent the State Bar from continuing its ongoing efforts intended to halt LZ’s efforts to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

I think it is important to understand that not all of the products currently offered by Legal Zoom violate the existing prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law. Merely producing and selling legal forms does not violate the prohibition against UPL. Consumers have always been able to purchase legal forms from bookstores, office supply stores and other outlets. The fact that LZ, and others, offer consumers the opportunity to purchase such forms over the Internet rather than from a brick and mortar business does not place them in violation of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law.”

“However, LZ’s use of “decision trees” and other such algorithms to create legal documents tailor-made to the individual consumer does present significant concerns and the State Bar has endeavored to prevent LZ from engaging in these activities.”

Talk about a “luddite” mentality — now North Carolina Bar wants to prohibit interactive legal software on the theory this is same as getting as advice from a lawyer. Maybe in the fullness of time getting legal advice and legal forms will be better than getting services from a lawyer. So what is the real justification — full employment for lawyers. The Bar argues that they are protecting the interests of the consumer. But  lawyers in North Carolina only serve the to 25% or so of the population with the remaining the 75% left to their devices. The argument doesn’t hold up. You can’t argue that you are protecting the safety of consumers when you are only serving a small proportion of the addressable market.

The North Carolina Bar has an answer to this.  Realizing that total resistance will expose the Bar to liability (Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, class action suits),  the Bar has proposed this amendment to the definition of the unauthorized practice of law.

Apart from the very narrow scope of this exception, the language kills innovation and access to justice for consumers who can’t afford lawyers is this language:

“The provider does not disclaim any warranties or liability and does not limit the
recovery of damages or other remedies by the consumer; “

This language would apply to any self-help legal materials including self-help law books, legal software on CD/ROM, and web-based interactive legal forms. I don’t know of any legal software publisher that would waive a disclaimer of warranties of liability.

Would TurboTax withdraw its Tax and Legal Products from retailers?
Would Nolo withdraw its self-help books from North Carolina?
Would web services such as http://www.completecase.com stop operating in North Carolina?
Would Amazon stop selling Quicken WillMaker?
Will LawHelpInteractive withdraw its interactive child custody forms?
Will ShakeLaw withdraw its products from North Carolina?
Would our company (SmartLegalForms), close down our North Carolina Divorce Web Site?

An argument can be made that self-help materials (books, software) are publications, and therefore this requirement to waive a disclaimer of liability is a prior restraint on speech and also an attempt to restriction competition. This requirement is a law suit waiting to happen.

Another requirement of the proposed legislation is that:

“The provider does not provide any individualized legal advice to or exercise any legal judgment for the consumer; provided, however, that publishing general information about the law and describing the products offered, when not done to address the consumer’s particular legal situation and when the general information published to every consumer is identical, does not constitute legal advice or the exercise of legal judgment.”

What does this mean? If the North Carolina Bar thinks that interactive software is a form of legal advice, as it appears to be the case, then can’t this language to be interpreted to mean that all interactive legal software that generates a set of legal forms in response to a consumer’s particular set of facts is this practice of law?

The proposed amendment at the beginning of this post is almost identical to the exception to the definition of the practice law passed by the Texas legislature almost 20 years ago. There has been apparently no harmful effect to consumers from this exception to the practice of law. The burden is on the North Carolina Bar to demonstrate with empirical evidence that consumers are harmed by these practices and publications.  The real justification is protecting the incomes of North Carolina lawyers afraid of losing market share to alternative providers.

 

Greedy Lawyers A bill was introduced in the North Carolina legislature that would narrow the definition of the “practice of law” to exclude sell-help legal materials, including books, software, and legal information. [ See House Bill 663 ]. The text of the amendment is:

“(b) The phrase “practice law” does not encompass any of the following:” …  (2) the design, creation, assembly, completion, publication, distribution, display, or sale, including by means of an Internet Web site, of self-help legal written materials, books, documents, templates, forms, computer software, or similar products if the products clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. “

The bill was reported out favorably of the Senate Committee on June 24, 2014, and will be voted on by the North Carolina Senate on July 9.  The North Carolina Bar Association is opposing passage of the bill.   The real reason for this opposition is  protecting lawyer’s incomes at the expense of easier access to the legal system for consumers. 

Texas has had a similar exemption from the definition of the practice of law for years with no demonstrable harm to the public.

It is well documented that 80% of the U.S. consumer public can’t afford the high cost of legal fees, so self-representation, a constitutional right, is one way for consumers to get access to the legal system. [ North Carolina Const. Art 1 § 18:  [ “All courts shall be open; every person for an injury done him in lands, goods, person, or his reputation shall have remedy by due courts of law, and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.” ].

Self-representation enables consumers to resolve their legal problems at low cost. The U.S. Legal Services Corporation has endorsed this approach and funded over 40 states to enable citizens to assemble their own state-specific documents powered by a national document server managed by LawHelp Interactive.com. The Legal Services Corporation has also supported state-wide legal information Web sites. North Carolina also maintains a state-wide legal information Web site to provide tools to self-represented litigants and a legal forms site sponsored by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.  North Carolina has also automated three sets of interactive forms using the National HotDocs Server designed to enable a self-represented litigant to a pro se litigant appeal an eviction or file for custody in court without a lawyer.

These are the software and legal information tools that the North Carolina Bar seeks to restrict by not clarifying that the provision of self-help  legal publications, interactive software, intelligent Web advisors, and other emerging software-powered tools are not the “unauthorized practice of law.”

Instead of making it easier for citizens to exercise this constitutional right, the North Carolina Bar wants to make it more difficult.

A growing body of academic scholarship suggests that the major obstacle to access to the legal system for those who cannot afford legal services is the legal profession itself. Afraid of competition from new forms of legal solutions enabled by the Internet and more powerful software, the unauthorized practice of law committees of state bar associations target non-law firm Internet legal form web sites, non-lawyer legal document preparers, and other innovative means of enabling access on the theory they are protecting the public interest from harm.

The North Carolina definition of the “practice of law” is so broad it is arguably unconstitutionally vague and includes within it almost any act that results in creating a legal document.  [ See Act ]. Categorizing self-help legal information materials as “the practice of law” is a slippery slope.

In a recent article from Professor Deborah L. Rhode, from Stanford Law School,  & Lucy Buford Ricca, Director of the Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School, titled: Protecting the Profession or the Public? Rethinking Unauthorized-Practice Enforcement., where the authors conducted a national comprehensive review of  unauthorized practice of law enforcement, they conclude that:

A third problem is the lack of focus on the public interest. Although bar leaders and case doctrine insist that broad prohibitions on unauthorized practice serve the public, support for that claim is notable for its absence.  Outside a few contexts such as immigration, foreclosures, and trusts and estates, it is rare for customers to assert injury, or for suits to be filed by consumer-protection agencies.  As noted earlier, three-quarters of jurisdictions reported that fewer than half of their complaints came from consumers or clients, and two-thirds of respondents could not recall a specific case of injury in the last year. Of those who did identify a case, almost all involved immigration. So too, the vast majority of UPL lawsuits filed against cyber-lawyer products are brought by lawyers or unauthorized-practice committees and generally settle without examples of harm.

More directly relevant Professor Renee Newman Knake from Michigan State Law School argues in:  Legal Information, the Consumer Law Market, and the First Amendment, 

“The economic arguments for liberalizing lawyer regulation to facilitate the free flow of information support the First Amendment analysis. Perhaps one state will bravely implement a regulatory structure to expand access to legal information without intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court. If not, as this Article has shown, many of the restrictions governing the organizational form of law practice and the distribution of legal services are constitutionally vulnerable to the extent they constrain the creation and distribution of legal information…”

Marc Lauritsen writing in Chicago Kent Law Review, in an article titled, Liberty, Justice and Legal Automa , (See also, Are We Free to Code the Law?) , concerned that the obstructionism of the organized bar will chill innovation when access to the legal system has become critical, asks whether we are free to code the law.

“It is in the enlightened interest of lawyers, as well as the best interest of society in general, to enable programmatic expression of legal knowledge.  We should be free to write code, run code, and let others run our code. If concerned citizens, law students, and entrepreneurs want to create tools that help people access and interact with the legal system, the government should not get in the way.  Are citizens at liberty to create and share software that helps others understand and interact with the legal system? Are we free to code the law?   We certainly should be.”

Professor Catherine J. Lanctot. from Villanova Law School concludes in an article on the same subject [ “Does LegalZoom Have First Amendment Rights: Some Thoughts about Freedom of Speech and the Unauthorized Practice of Law” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 20 (2011): 255. ], that even if one assumes  that the practice of preparing routine legal documents for consumers runs afoul of many unauthorized practice statutes, however, there remains an open question of whether these statutes may themselves interfere with First Amendment guarantees.

“To the the extent that these statutes broadly sweep vast amounts of law-related speech within their scope, they may infringe on free speech rights. The article concludes with a “caution about aggressive pursuit of these online document preparers without careful consideration of the possible risks involved. A successful First Amendment challenge to an unauthorized practice statute could have repercussions far beyond the world of LegalZoom.”

Conclusion:  10 reasons the North Carolina Bar should support this amendment to the definition of the practice of law:

  1. The legal profession will be viewed more favorably as on the side of the consumer, rather than on then in the side of their pocket books;
  2. A challenge to a publisher that legal software is the unauthorized practice of law is likely to fail on 1st Amendment grounds;
  3. There is a difference between legal software (a “publication” ) and a lawyer providing legal advice. (‘conduct”);
  4. Technology innovation will be encouraged for the benefit of both consumers and lawyers;
  5. It will be clear that the publication of consumer facing web-enabled interactive legal forms by legal aid agencies in North Carolina, and other public agencies,  is not the unauthorized practice of law;
  6. The U.S Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission will have less reason to accuse the North Carolina Bar of anti-competitive behavior; [ See letter to Massachusetts Bar Association from the FTC on this subject ];
  7. Bar leadership can demonstrate that they understand that the legal profession is changing and can help prepare their members for 21st century law practice;
  8. With disclaimers, a consumer will understand the difference between using an interactive software application and receiving advice from a “live” person;
  9. The North Carolina Bar can avoid the charge it restricts access to the legal system;
  10. The North Carolina Bar can avoid the charge it is out of step with contemporary technological developments.
*Disclosure: My Company, SmartLegalForms, Inc.,   provides web-based interactive self-help legal forms directly to consumers and to non-lawyer companies nationally and in the state of North Carolina. [ See for example ]

Burton-LawBurton-Law, a virtual law firm based in Ohio and North Carolina has been selected by Law Technology News for the most Innovative Use of Technology in a Small Law Firm. This small law firm is a good case study on how a law firm can leverage virtual law firm technology to serve a diverse group of clients over a wider geographical area.

We are proud that the Burton-Law has selected DirectLaw as their client portal with embedded document automation capabilities. Burton-Law also uses CLIO as their web-based practice management solution which integrates seamlessly with DirectLaw through the use of an API.

Stephanie Kimbro,  formerly co-founder of Virtual Law Office Technology which was acquired by TotalAttorneys several years ago, helped make the decision to adopt DirectLaw as Burton-Law’s virtual law firm platform. Stephanie is no longer with TotalAttorneys.  Stephanie joined Burton-Law last March to expand their operations in North Carolina. Stephanie is a pioneer in the development of the virtual lawyering concept, having written the book  on the topic.

Consmer Law RevolutionStephanie has also just released a new ebook on the Consumer Law Revolution which is the best description and analysis of online marketing platforms that I have seen. You can download it here.

Stephanie also blogs at Virtual Law Practice, and you can follow her on Twitter @StephKimbro.

 

 

The College of Law Practice Management is presenting the Futures Conference on October 26-27, 2012 at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC. Anyone interested in the future of law practice and legal business should attend. Click here to register 

I am a Fellow of COLPM and highly recommend this Conference. My colleague, Ron Friedmann, is a Trustee of COLPM and is Co-Chair of this important Conference.

Below you will find the program in chronological order.

NEW MODEL LAW FIRMS
Big Law has never been the only option for general counsel. Today, many alternatives exist, including “new model law firms.” This panel will examine how these firms do business, practice law, differentiate, serve clients, and offer lawyers a different work experience. We will also hear from the founding visionaries on where they think the law firm market is heading.
Moderator: Ron Friedmann, Fireman & Co. Consulting
Panelists: Mark Cohen, ClearspireBen Lieber, Potomac Law Group PLLCAndy Daws, Riverview Law, and Patrick Lamb, Valorem Law Group.

THE CHALLENGES OF DIVERSITY IN A NEW STAFFING ENVIRONMENT
Law firms are adjusting the traditional personnel model, reducing the number of equity owners and adding new tiers of service providers. But the challenge of diversity remains. A nationally-recognized expert in diversity issues within law firms and other legal settings, Verna Myers will address what legal employers can do to tackle this critical issue.
Speaker: Verna Myers, Verna Myers Consulting Group LLC, author of Moving Diversity Forward.

PRESENTATION OF 2012 INNOVACTION AWARDS
The 2012 InnovAction Award Winners present.
Moderator: Tim Corcoran

LEGAL ACADEMY RESEARCH PROJECT
Reports on two research projects underway at the Center for the Study of the Legal Profession, Georgetown Law: Integration and Fragmentation in the Modern Law Firm; Developing Attorneys for the Future: What Can We Learn from the Fast Trackers?
Moderator: Mitt Regan, Georgetown Law
Panelists: Juliet Aiken, Georgetown LawHeather Bock, Georgetown Law and Lisa Rohrer, Georgetown Law.

THE CONSUMER LAW REVOLUTION
The panel will consider such questions as: How is technology changing delivery of legal services to consumers? How is technology changing how lawyers who serve consumers practice? Do we see signs today that consumer law developments are already doing so? Will constraints – for example, client or lawyer conservatism, immature technology, or ethical barriers – limit a more rapid evolution or a real evolution?
Moderator: Tanina Rostain, Georgetown Law;
Panelists: Stephanie Kimbro, Burton Law LLCMichael Mills, Neota Logic, and Marc Lauritsen, Capstone

EXPLORING THE NUANCES OF VALUE
In 2011, a panel focused on defining value. Now, in this panel discussion, we take the next step, as law firm and inhouse representatives explain how alternative arrangements are developed and tweaked so that both sides can derive value.
Moderator: Aric Press, American Lawyer Media
Panelists: Toby Brown, Akin GumpMark Chandler, Cisco Systems.

FUTURE OF MANAGING PARTNERS
The future demands a new focus in law firm management. This panel, featuring extraordinary managing partners, examines the critical roles and responsibilities of MPs in firms of all sizes—and what the panelists see as the future challenges and opportunities in firm management, including managing talent at all levels and “getting things done” in ways that most benefit the firm, its people and its clients.
Moderator: John Michalik, JJeyEm Consulting and author of The Extraordinary Managing Partner, Reaching the Pinnacle of Law Firm Management
Panelists: Thomas Grella, McGuire Wood & Bissette, P.A.Fredrick Lautz, Quarles & Brady LLPCharles Vigil, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.Ward Bower, Altman Weil, Inc.

THE NEW NORMAL FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL PERSPECTIVE
General Counsel face continuing pressure to control costs while coping with growing demands for legal advice. In a panel organized by the Association of Corporate Counsel, you will hear how experienced law department leaders respond to this pressure and what it means both for their department operations and the law firms they retain.
Moderator: Amar Sarwal, ACC
Panelists: Scott Chaplin, Jorge Scientific Corporation; Susan Hackett, Legal Executive Leadership and Eric Margolin, CarMax, Inc.

LEGAL SERVICES UPDATE
2012 has been a year of intense pressure on low-income people facing legal problems and unfortunately, intense pressure on the legal aid organizations that serve them. In these tough times, law practice management expertise and best practices are needed more than ever to improve efficiency, buoy up morale, tune up staffing and employ new technologies. During lunch, Jim Sandman, President of the Legal Services Corporation and a 2012 College fellow-elect, will update attendees on bleak conditions facing LSC and describe a new mentoring initiative in the planning stages that will expand the pro bono consulting the College can offer to legal aid.

 

 Raj AbhyankerHere is a tale of an exceptional entrepreneur/solo lawyer who has built a thriving Internet-based law practice of large scale in less than seven years. Raj Abhyanker, 37,  started his law practice in Palo Alto in a small office above a rug store in 2005 (sounds like many Palo Alto start-ups like Apple and Google!). The law firm’s focus is patent and trademark law which is Mr. Abhyanker’s specialty.  

In September, 2009, Mr Abhyanker launched a web site called Trademarkia which is designed to help small business secure a trademark for an affordable fee. Trademarkia contains an easy to search data base of all of the trademarks of the USPTO office. The site has been written up in the New York Times.

Little more than two year after launch,  Trademarkia has become the leading trademark site on the Web generating more than as 1,000,000 visitors a month, more than either LegalZoom or RocketLawyer.  The law firm now employs more than 60 lawyers, including a team of lawyers in India trained in U.S. trademark law.

This is an example of how a single lawyer with a deep knowledge of the power of the Internet, together with a background in knowledge process management and outsourcing, can create a world-class enterprise from nothing in a relatively short period of time.

Quality Solicitors in the United KingdomMr. Abhyanker is now moving his concept to a new level by creating LegalForce,  a new national legal services retail brand, similar to the Quality Solicitors concept in the UK.

Quality Solicitors
is a national network of retail offices serving consumers and small business by linking together a network of small law firms that share a common brand, advertising and marketing budgets, and an online presence. Mr Abhyanker’s goal is to create a Quality Solicitors type network in the United States.

Legal force Law CenterLegalForce is creating, in a historically-preserved building, a retail law center in downtown Palo Alto in the heart of Silicon Valley, (right across the street from the new Apple store on University Ave.)  The LegalForce center is set to open in the Fall of 2012.

Mr. Abhyanker’s idea is to create a physical space, that is as much about education as it is about "retail", like an Apple Store. In this innovative legal space clients can meet with their lawyers in a comfortable and non-formal setting. Like Starbuck’s "Third Place"  consumers and small business entrepreneurs will be able to meet their lawyer’s in a casual friendly environment. Part coffee bar, self-help book store, legal education and  legal research center, the idea is that a LegalForce center will be a nexus where people can connect and get to meet their lawyers in an accessible environment. Legal services won’t actually be delivered from the store – instead the store will be designed as a gateway to legal and other related services and the visible manifestation of a national retail legal services brand.

There have been other attempts to create a physical retail space where clients can meet with their lawyers in a comfortable and accessible environment. LegalGrind, based in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, advertises coffee with your counsel, but has never been able to expand beyond a few locations. Chicago has their LegalCafe, which is a similar concept, but remains a limited operation. 

My opinion is that the failure of these two operations to scale is the absence of an online strategy which offers legal services over the Internet as well as in a physical setting.

Unlike these smaller operations, Mr. Abhyanker plans to create a national branded legal service that links together lawyers working in the real world with a powerful online legal service strategy.

Unlike a typical law firm, Mr Abhyanker employs a team of software engineers capable of creating an innovative Internet legal services delivery platform that can create referrals for law firms that are members of the LegalForce network.

LegalForce  has the promise of creating a true national retail legal services brand that will offer a range of legal services – from limited legal services online to full service legal representation.

I have often thought that what serves consumers best is a business model that combines a strong online presence with lawyers who provide a full range of services within their own communities.

Online legal form web sites, like LegalZoom, CompleteCase,  RocketLawyer, and our own SmartLegalForms, are limited in scope.These are alternatives that consumers choose because (1) there is no existing national trusted legal service brand; and (2) consumers don’t understand what they are not getting when they purchase just a form from a non-law firm.

The LegalForce idea is designed to be a counter-force to these online insurgents which are capturing market share from the legal profession.

It will be interesting to see how this LegalForce idea develops and whether Mr. Abhyanker will be successful in this venture. LegalForce is one to watch.

 Free White Paper- Virtual Law Practice: Success FActors

Get Free White Paper on
What Makes a Virtual Law Practice Work.

The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal InstructionThe Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) is offering a free online course on digital law practice, primarily for law students and law professors, but anyone can register.

 

I don’t doubt that most law faculty will find these topics to be irrelevant, but its connecting with law students, as over 500 law students have registered nationwide.

For lawyers interested in delivering legal services online, this course would be a good introduction to the subject.

The first session is February 10 at 2-3 EST. Stephanie Kimbro is doing a session on the virtual law office.

Later in the course, Marc Lauritsen is doing a session on document automation, and I am doing a session on “unbundling legal services”.

Here are some of the other sessions:

Week 5: Online Legal Forms in Legal Aid
Friday, Mar. 9, 2-3pm ET
Ronald W. Staudt, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Week 6: Contract Standardization
Friday, Mar. 16, 2-3pm ET
Kingsley Martin, President, kiiac.com & contractstandards.com

Week 7: Free Legal Research Tools
Friday, Mar. 23, 2-3pm ET
Sarah Glassmeyer, Director of Content Development / Law Librarian, CALI

Week 8: Unauthorized Practice of Law in the 21st Century
Friday, Mar. 30, 2-3pm ET
William Hornsby, Staff Counsel at American Bar Association

Week 9: Social Media for Lawyers
Friday, Apr. 6, 2-3pm ET
Ernest Svenson, Attorney at Law

Here is the course description and the registration page:

http://www.cali.org/blog/2012/01/25/free-online-course-digital-law-practice