Framing the Discussion About Virtual Law Firm Practice

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Richard Granat

There is a thoughtful discussion going on about the value of adding the capability of offering legal services online to a law firm's business model that was started by Lee Rosen's blog post titled, "What the Virtual Office Advocates Aren't Telling You."  Responses, so far,  include a post by Carolyn Elefant, an astute observer of solo practice, a post from Susan Carter Liebel, the  Founder of Solo Practice University, and a comment by Stephanie Kimbro, the founder of Virtual Law Office Technology, now owned by TotalAttorneys and the author of the recently published book, Delivering Legal Services Online. Lee Rosen is the winner of the ABA/LPM James Keane Memorial Award for Excellence in eLawyering in 2010, and Stephanie Kimbro won the same Award in 2009 for her work in creating her virtual law firm at KimbroLaw. Donna Seyle, a member of the ABA/LPM eLawyering Task Force and a consultant to solo law firms on law practice strategy, also commented on Lee Rosen's blog arguing that there is a great demand for "unbundled" legal services by the middle class.

Lee's argues that in his opinion there isn't much demand by clients for virtual services and that many clients if they want a virtual service are perfectly happy with LegalZoom. He says he has seen, "a survey indicating that many clients prefer a paralegal-provided service to an attorney-provided service, even when both are offered at the same price." Moreover it will be very hard to turn around consumer preferences now that LegalZoom has established a nationwide legal brand.
He also argues that it is very difficult, or not impossible, for a lawyer to generate a stream of income from a purely virtual practice and that a low-end practice doesn't generate the kind of clients that a law firm needs to be successful. Carolyn Elefant makes a similar argument that it is very difficult to generate significant profits from a low end practice unless you have volume which is difficult for the average solo practitioner to create without some capital and the skills to market their legal services on the Internet. I would agree with these points, but whether a solo or small law firm should consider adding a virtual law firm presence to their web site and modifying their business model is really a more complex discussion than can be easily done within the context of a blog post. There is much wisdom in Lee's observations, but the story is more complicated than he makes out.

I would make the following additional points:

1. A virtual law firm as we define it, is one that has a “client portal” where clients can interact with their attorneys online, view copies of their documents, pay their bills online, communicate with their lawyer in a secure space where their attorneys responses are archived and available, assemble documents through an online questionnaire, and access other digital applications. In my opinion, the benefit of using a virtual law firm platform is to increase law firm productivity, law firm transparency, client retention, and client acquisition. These are all positive values that studies of consumers indicate that they want.  It is not the case, as Lee argues, that there is little demand for by consumers for online legal services.  The 1,000,000 wills that LegalZoom claims it has created during the past five years or so, and the dozens (hundreds ?)  of other non-lawyer legal form sites is ample evidence that the legal profession has abandoned the online legal services market to non-lawyer providers.

2. A “client portal” concept is just another tool that enables a law firm to have an interactive presence on the Web which has certain productivity and client communication benefits. It is not a substitute for a law firm developing its own unique business model and market positioning approach which identifies a group of prospects and converts them into clients. Each law firm has to figure out how to integrate these tools into their own business model. For some law firms, this concept is not relevant to their type of practice. For others, it can be another basis for differentiation,  for choosing one law firm over another.  For many law firms, a virtual capability becomes an important adjunct to the regular office based practice, creating efficiencies that only can be created by using the web as a platform for delivery.

Here are a few examples of law firms that are experimenting with online marketing of legal services, offering "unbundled" legal services in a niche area for a fixed price:

For other examples, see the Law Firm Directory at MyLawyer.com.

3. If a law firm wants to market to web-based consumers, including members of what we now call the “connected generation” a law firm needs to have a virtual law firm platform in place, as one option for relating and working with clients.  The cost of adding this functionality is now trivial, so there is little excuse for not trying it. We know from our own experience that there are benefits to this approach, as a complement to a traditional office-based practice.

4. LegalZoom and other non-lawyer legal form sites can’t provide legal advice. I can give you many examples from my own virtual law practice where legal advice makes a major difference in legal outcome. Providing just legal forms alone, can sometimes solve a legal problem, but often they do not. The challenge for us lawyers,  is to figure out a way to provide an offering that is price competitive with LegalZoom, but which offers more value.

Moreover, as a profession we should not walk away from the legal problems of moderate income clients. We have skills that will result in better legal outcomes for moderate and middle income clients. As a profession we have an obligation to provide services at a lower price to individuals who can’t afford higher fees and we should figure highly productive methods of serving them. Are we only to serve the wealthy? If so perhaps the legal profession should be deregulated, as it is being done in the United Kingdom, and legal services regulated just like any another service business. This would provide opportunities for many different kinds of providers to provide legal advice and other services which the legal profession now monopolizes. This is the direction that we are heading.

5. Providing a low end, lower priced legal service can be a marketing strategy for providing higher end, higher fee services. A client of http://www.directlaw.com, that is a personal injury firm, is using a low end service to build relationships with prospects so that the prospects turn to the law firm when they have a high value PI case. Some of the DirectLaw law firms give away free legal forms as an inducement to enter into a relationship that results in the purchase of a broader array of legal services.

6. Some lawyers are able to attract a clientele that will be willing to pay $400.00 an hour for a divorce lawyer, but there are not enough of these clients to go around to satisfy all of the divorce lawyers in a state. The broad middle class is seeking less costly alternatives as this level of pricing, and pricing by the hour,  is more than they can afford. There is real demand for "unbundled legal services" at a fixed price. We can see this directly from the weekly increase in traffic at MyLawyer.com , since a Spring, 2010 launch, where virtual law firms offer their services at a fixed price. The success of RocketLawyer , operating in the same market space, is another example that there is real demand for this type of legal service.

7. For many law firms, a virtual offering becomes an important adjunct to the regular office based practice, creating efficiencies that only can be created by using the web as a platform for delivery. It is a component of an office-based practice that can be used to enhance the experience of existing clients with their lawyers.

8. Finally, the cost of adding these technologies to even a solo practice is becoming trivial. We tested a free version of DirectLaw this summer and experienced great demand, so we decided to end it on September 1, 2010, and offer in the future, what we call DirectLaw Basic for a subscription fee of only $49.00 a month for a solo practitioner.

$49.00 a month is not a significant cost for a solo practitioner to acquire a virtual law firm capability. It is low enough for a solo practitioner to experiment and test out the benefits. 

There will come a time, when thousands of solos and small law firms will add a “client portal” to their web sites to power and extend their marketing programs and to enhance the client experience for those clients that are looking for a way to work with their lawyers online. Lee Rosen is correct,  that simply adding a “virtual law firm” capability does not make a marketing strategy, but there are online marketing strategies that can’t be executed without a virtual law firm platform in place.

The delivery of online legal services will continue to expand, I predict, but it is not going to happen tomorrow. As a new generation of clients mature to the point where they have legal problems of their own,  the need of delivering legal services online will intensify.

New innovations take time to reach a tipping point. I remember, very clearly,  when lawyers would not think of using a paralegal, and I remember how long it took for the innovation to mainstream and reach a tipping point. These times are not dissimilar, as the platform for the delivery of legal services is changing, as Jordon Furlong observes.   In all things innovative, patience is a virtue.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2010 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report on E-Lawyering: Questionable Data

Posted on July 4, 2010 by Richard Granat

Volume IV of the recently released 2010 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report is devoted to Web and Communication Technology. A section on E-Lawyering reports that 14% of Respondents over all, and 19% of solo practitioners, report that they have a virtual law office or virtual law practice. This question in the survey that deals with with the question of whether a law firm has a 
"virtual law practice" was framed in terms of whether the attorney primarily interacts with clients using Internet-based software and other electronic communications software.

In my opinion, these self-reported responses from attorneys are not meaningful and are much too high to be accurate. The reported numbers are not useful in understanding where the legal profession is in terms of adopting the concept of a "virtual law practice." The reality is that the adoption rate is much lower.

The ABA Law Practice Management Section's eLawyering Task Force (disclosure: I am Co-Chair of the eLawyering Task Force),  defines a "virtual law practice" as one that offers to its clients a secure client portal, as part of the law firm's web site, where the client can log in with a user name and password, and interact with their attorney, as well as consume other online legal services. A virtual law practice is more than simply communicating with clients by email and never meeting with clients face-to-face. In order to have a "virtual law practice" by our definition,  you have to have a web site and a portion of that web site has to be dedicated as a secure portal for clients. Without this distinction, many law firms can claim that they are "virtual law firms" simply because they use email extensively, as the ABA Study seems to imply, giving the impression that integration of Internet technologies as part of their legal service delivery system is much higher than it actually is.

For example, in another question, the survey participants were asked whether the firm has a web site. The solo practitioner group responded that only 52.1% had a web site, but this is the same group that responded that 19% has a "virtual law practice."  By our definition, if you don't have a web site you don't have a "virtual law practice." The only explanation for the discrepancy in these numbers is that the question of " Do you have a virtual law practice?" was phrased so broadly that more law firms where included in the category than should be.

Another question that was asked to determine what kinds of online legal services were offered by the firm was: "Does your law firm offer online document preparation?" 11.4% of solo firms reported that they did. Again this number doesn't make any sense. There were 149 respondents in the Solo category. Only 52.1% actually had a web site, or 77 firms had a web site from which online document preparation could be offered. 11.4% would suggest that only approximately 8 law firms could offer this service. Not only is this number too small to make any meaningful projections in terms of the total number of solo practitioners in the US (more than 400,000), but it is also likely to be misleading. Here's why:

The technological options for offering online document assembly for solo practitioners are very limited. One option is to provide fillable Adobe . pdf forms. But you can't easily use a fillable Adobe .pdf to create a text document such as a Will or a Shareholder's Agreement. The major document assembly vendors such as HotDocs, DealBuilder, and Exari have systems that support online document assembly but the price for licensing these systems is much too expensive for the average solo practitioner. Wizilegal, a new entrant to the field, provides a new low cost web-enabled document assembly solution, but our market information suggest that they have only a small number of users. (Disclosure: DIrectLaw, which sponsors this blog, is one of the few web-enabled document assembly solutions that is offered at a price that a solo practitioner can afford.)

In short, the question about the use of online document assembly should have been phrased much more narrowly, with a field in the questionnaire that would require that the law firm indicate what platform is being used to support online document assembly, and whether it is a third party vendor, or whether the programming was done in-house. My sense is that if the question were asked properly, the number of law firms offering online document assembly would be much lower than actually reported.

Finally, 3% of respondents report that their firms offer expert system on their web sites (compared with 1% in the 2009 survey), including 7% of the large firm respondents. Based on our surveys of law firms from solos to large law firms, this percentage seems very high to me. It is very rare that I come across a law firm web site that actually offers an "expert system" for use by its clients, and I review or check out literally thousands of law firm web sites a year.  Most lawyers don't even know what an "expert system" is! I would like to see a more precise question, where the respondent is required to name the kind of "expert system" they are offering and the url of the web site where it is offered, so that a reviewer could more closely examine what the law firm represents they are doing is in fact the case.

I think that it is commendable that the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center now has a separate section of its annual report just on web and communication technology. The platform for the delivery of legal services is gradually shifting from traditional face-to-face office practice to the Web, but my sense is that the the pace of adaptation is much slower than is being officially reported. This is understandable in a profession that views its core identity as one where clients are dealt with primarily face-to-face. 

On the other hand, our own research on consumer preferences suggests that more than half of consumers would like their law firm to have an online virtual component. Thus, the legal profession continues to lag behind what other service industries offer to their clients and customers online.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,