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

It seems like LegalZoom's practices are finally catching up with it. The company is being sued in Missouri on the grounds of unauthorized practice of law and the plaintiff's are requesting class certification. To give an example of how popular LegalZoom's services have become, LegalZoom in its petition for removal to Federal court claims that it has served over 14,000 Missouri residents in a five year period, generating over $5,000.000 in sales. Missouri is a relatively small state, so you can get some idea of what kind of business LegalZoom is doing nationwide. No wonder the legal profession is getting nervous and starting to pay attention to this disruptive player in the legal industry.

A good discussion of the case can be found on the IPWatchdog Blog in an article by the Blog's Founder Gene Quinn.

Click here for a copy of the Missouri Complaint,  LegalZoom's petition for removal to Federal court, and a copy of a letter from the North Carolina Bar requesting that LegalZoom Cease and Desist from operating within North Carolina because it is violating North Carolina's UPL statute when it prepares incorporation papers.

In its defense, LegalZoom in its removal petition,  claims that it is:

" a company whose principal business consists of providing an
online platform for customers to prepare their own legal documents. Customers choose a
product or service suitable to their needs and input data into a questionnaire. Where applicable,
the LegalZoom platform then generates a document using the product and data provided by the
customer."

It this were the case, LegalZoom would be functioning only as a "scrivener" transcribing the client's information into a form. It is well established in some states, including California, where LegalZoom is based, and also Florida for example, that non-lawyers, often called "legal technicians" can help consumers prepare legal documents, as long as they don't give legal advice.

The question of whether LegalZoom's  staff do more than they say, and actually provide legal advice, even if it is limited legal advice, is a question of fact to be determined. It  would be interesting to see what the discovery process turns up and what the  LegalZoom, "platform" actually does and how it works.

For comparison, We the People, a retail chain of 35  "Legal Document Preparation stores  operating in six states, operates under the same principles. Customers complete paper questionnaires which are faxed to a central processing center where a technician simply inserts the client's data into a desktop document assembly program which generates a form. (This is  the same process that many lawyer's use, except lawyers provide legal advice and analysis).  This document preparation process is essentially the same as LegalZoom's except that it takes place off the Internet through a network of retail stores. We the People has been attacked by the Bar in several states for UPL, but the company has worked hard to assure bar authorities that its staff and franchisees don't provide  legal advice.

In theory, We the People, stores are able to reach a market of customers that do not have Internet access and prefer to deal with a human being directly. This market base is likely to have even lower incomes, and ignored by  both attorneys as a target market, and have too much income to qualify for legal aid.  Ironically, however, the We the People pricing is even higher than the LegalZoom pricing, probably because of the cost of maintaining a  retail location. Yet the remaining We the People stores, ( down from a high of 140 stores), seem to be sustainable, if not thriving.

Both companies provide a needed service in the sense that they provide an alternative to consumers who are willing to invest their own time and resources to make sure that the forms offered are the correct forms for their particular situation. Neither company can advise a consumer about what form they should use for their situation, as that would be a form of legal advice. Consumers may be taking a risk when they buy from a self-help document preparation forms company, but it seems this is a risk that consumers are willing to take to avoid what are perceived by many as high legal fees for the same  transaction. For these consumers, what they get is a "good enough" result at a price they can afford.

The other reality is that it is deceptive for LegalZoom and We the People , to claim that using their services will save hundreds or thousands of dollars in legal fees, when two very different category of services are being compared: 
 

• one a legal information service;
• and the other a true legal service from a licensed attorney.
  
  The content of the services are fundamentally different and to compare the services to each other is like comparing "apples' and " oranges". 
  
  Sometimes you get the same legal result when you use a document preparation service, but often you don't.  Apart from UPL issues, it seems to me that this is a misrepresentation in advertising and these claims should receive closer scrutiny from state consumer protection agencies. (Although I am sure that many of LegalZoom's satisfied customers would say that they don't need any protection).

Both companies demonstrate the principle that you can solve certain legal problems by having access to "legal information." Legal information by itself is a problem solver for many consumers, and the access to legal information and legal forms on the Internet, has simply accelerated this trend at a much faster rate in the last five years than the self-help law book industry has been able to accomplish in 30-35 years of its existence. This means that lawyers will have to do more to demonstrate their value to the consumer, particularly solos and smaller law firms that serve the broad middle class.

A better solution for consumers, as we have advocated in these pages, is for attorneys to offer legal forms bundled with legal advice at an affordable price, perhaps slightly higher than LegalZoom, but offering much greater value, over the Internet. This is often called. "unbundled legal services," enabling a consumer to purchase just the legal services they need, and no more.

Using virtual law firm technology, like DirectLaw's virtual law firm platform, lawyers can be even more efficient that the LegalZoom or We the People models, because the entire document assembly process is software driven creating a legal document instantly from the user's input, ready for the lawyers further review, drafting, and advice-giving. The increased productivity that results from a web-enabled document automation process enables the lawyer to offer a very price competitive service that in fact offers more value. The value of each sale is lower, from the attorney's point of view, but volume can be much higher if effectively marketed. (Neither LegalZoom nor We the People have such a technology in place. No wonder there prices are so high for what you get!).

As long as the legal document preparers don't give legal advice, they should be able to coexist with the legal profession, for certain kinds of common legal transactions, but not all.

But lawyers will have to work harder to provide their value and start offering true legal services online over the Internet. Driving non-lawyer legal document preparers out of business on UPL grounds is not an answer. At the end of the day prosecution efforts, will seem to the consuming public as just another attempt by the legal profession to maintain high legal fees for common transactions, while avoiding the cost of innovation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

The eLawyering Task Force,  which is part of the Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association has been developing a recommended set of minimum requirements for law firms delivering legal services online.  The draft that has been published is a working draft and we are soliciting comments as we move towards a final document. The draft document can be downloaded here.

The ABA does not have a comment facility on their web site, but comments can be contributed on this blog, well as a discussion group  that has been set up on LinkedIn called Virtual Lawyering.

Any comments that are submitted will be circulated among members of the Task Force.

Disclosure: I am Co-Chair of the eLawyering Task Force

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

 DirectLaw is pleased to announce the launching of SlatterLaw its third virtual law firm in the State of Georgia. SlatterLaw will provide online legal services to small businesses and individuals throughout Georgia.

Kerry Slatter founded the law firm with the goal of providing convenient and cost-effective legal services to small business owners and individuals across the state of Georgia. In addition to small business legal services, the Slatter Law Firm also provides counsel in various other areas, including estate planning, corporate law, and employment law.

From the web site:

 "Slatter Law provides the following core values for its clients:

• Customer Service – Provide value and legal solutions to exceed client’s expectations.
• Cost Efficiency – Provide cost efficiencies to enable clients to obtain more value from their legal budgets.
• Responsiveness – Limit attorney workload and the number of clients. The motivation to build long term relationships with clients drives this goal.
• Convenience – Utilize excellent customer services and technology to provide legal services in a convenient manner for the client (via secure online website client space, by email or by phone as needed).
• Innovation – Promote innovation for all aspects of client legal services, including the use of cutting edge technology, resources, and fixed fee arrangements."

Mr. Slatter has an undergraduate degree from Morehouse College and a law degree from State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law and is licensed to practice in Georgia.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We are pleased to announce the launch of the law firm of Pfau and Associates that will provide online Estate Planning services to Nevada residents. This is the first DirectLaw law firm in the State of Nevada.

Pfau and Associates concentrates solely on the areas of estate planning and probate to ensure the highest quality of legal representation. The firm offers both online digital estate planning solutions and in-office services to provide for the client’s estate planning needs. Among the online offerings are simple living wills and trusts, durable powers of attorney, and advance healthcare directives.

Matt Pfau says that his philosophy is, “We make sure that we are always available to our clients for any type of support that they need. Since the choices that you will make are deeply personal, we will provide you with individualized, one-on-one attention"

Matthew Pfau has an undergraduate degree from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and his law degree from Wittier Law School. Matthew is admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California and Nevada.  He is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  For more information visit his website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association awards the James I Keane Memorial Award in Excellence in eLawyering, annually at the ABA TechShow in Chicago. Nominations are now open for the Award to be in March, 2010. Candidates can self-nominate. The Award Requirements can be found here. The nomination form can be found on-line here.

Here is a brief summary of the Award criteria:

• The project or law firm must demonstrate the use of the Internet to deliver legal services.
• It must be unique. It should be an on-line legal service that has never been done before, or not quite this way before.
• Absence of precedent - Never been done or done quite this way before.
• There should be some measurable outcome that would indicate that the innovation is accomplishing what it was intended to do.
• Action must have taken place no more than three years prior to this entry, and the legal service must be operating for at least one year prior to submission of the Application.
• Additional consideration will be given to projects that focus on the delivery of legal services to individuals of moderate means.
• The nomination should describe how the service was developed, how it is managed, and how it has been evaluated.
• The nomination should describe how the service can be replicated by other law firms in terms of development costs, required technology, people requirements, and ongoing maintenance costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Friday, October 2nd, I presented at Vancouver’s Pacific Legal Technology Conference on the topic of Virtual Law Practice with Simon Chester of Heenan Blaikie and Nicole Garton-Jones of Heritage Law.

We discussed the two heads of the definition of virtual law practice:  practising law over the Internet through a secure online portal and practising law under one brand through satellite offices (which are often home offices).

Nicole is an early adopter who described her experience in managing Heritage Law, a paperless office where most staff work from home.  Some staff are located in places such as Victoria and the Sunshine Coast that are remote from Heritage Law’s central office in West Vancouver.  Heritage Law soon will be implementing DirectLaw through a separate business model called Heritage Law Online, subject to regulatory approval.

I analyzed Web-enabled virtual law practice using the Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create grid, which sets out a framework for contrasting innovative value propositions with conventional value propositions.  It comes from a book called Blue Ocean Strategy.  Among other things, Web-enabled virtual law practice eliminates the visit to the lawyer’s office, reduces cost and waste, raises a lawyer’s reach beyond his or her immediate geographical area, and creates a packaged solution.  I also discussed Chrissy Burns’ PhD thesis, entitled “Online Legal Services—A Revolution that Failed?.”  It is found at http://tinyurl.com/kvtden.

Simon discussed the regulatory issues involved in setting up a virtual law practice in Canada.   Canadian regulators have not addressed virtual law practice specifically but there are issues with regard to limited scope representation, preservation of data, and the client identification and verification rules.

Our PowerPoint slides from the presentation are located here:

http://www.pacificlegaltech.com/download/SSF2.pdf

 Reported by Darryl Mountain, President, Ontago, Inc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been some recent blog comments [See: Carolyn Elefant 's Blog  [about  the meaning of Robert Capps article  in this month's WIRED Magazine, (September 2009) about the concept of "Good Enough",  "Good Enough" solutions, (when cheap and simple is just fine). , and my quote about how this concept applies to the legal profession.

When I was interviewed for the Wired Article, I didn't know the focus of the article, and I was simply reporting my experience in offering limited legal services to consumers for a fee they can afford. I wasn't saying at all that lawyer's should do less competent or less excellent work. Rather I was thinking about how legal transactional events between consumer and lawyer can be restructured to get to the "good enough result" that many consumers seem to want.

My best example is one that I participate in daily, and which I mentioned in previous blog post. Divorcing couples opt for a quick settlement, even if they don't get "every right" they are entitled to in the interest of reducing their legal fees and getting on with their lives.

Divorce lawyers can charge from $5,000 - $10,000 (low-end of fee schedule) for even a relatively simple divorce. case. The lawyers will say there are no simple divorce cases. But that is from the the viewpoint of the lawyer. From the consumer point of view, they have a choice to spend $5,000 for each counsel who is representing either party- or to take the money and use it to get on with their lives. The question is--  what is the ROI from the consumer's point of view?  Sometimes the investment of $5,000.00 in legal fees is worth it. ($5,000.00 is really a low end estimate). Consumers don't think so, or there would not be thousands of pro se litigants representing themselves in family court. Pro Se Representation is a good example of a restructuring of the lawyer/client relationship to get a "good enough result." The success of LegalZoom -  admittedly a service which is a very small step above a bare legal forms service is more evidence of consumer preferences.

So is the movement towards "limited legal services." Lawyers, mostly solos and small law firms, that think that otherwise and think that full service representation is the only way to go are not facing consumer reality. These lawyers are living in a dream world.

Consumers want solutions to their legal problems. If they can get legal solutions in a different form than a traditional legal service from an attorney that is "good enough" at much less cost, they will turn away from the legal profession and seek those alternatives if they get a result that satisfies their expectations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

The American Bar Association Journal has started a new Legal Rebels project to get lawyers thinking about how to change the legal profession. The Journal recognizes that the legal profession is undergoing structural change accelerated by the current recession, and that as the economy emerges from this recession, the landscape of the legal profession will be very different from the one that we have now know. 

Searching for new ways of practicing law, the Journal will profile 50 or so lawyers who are demonstrating new ways of serving clients by expanding their markets, delivering legal services in a different ways, or creating new styles of legal practice. The plan is to tell the stories of these lawyers through a variety of social media channels using text, pictures, audio and video.

A colleague of mine,  Jeffrey Hughes, was named today in the first group of profiles for his innovative and ground-breaking work in combining a law practice within the context of a coffee house under the Legal Grind brand, serving "legal counsel" and good coffee in a community setting. Legal Grind is an excellent example of delivering "unbundled" or "limited legal services" at prices that people can afford.

By the way, I was honored to also be included in this first group of profiles.

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

The month's WIRED Magazine, (September 2009) has an interesting article on how the Internet is enabling "Good Enough" solutions, (when cheap and simple is just fine). I have maintained for a long time that often there is a certain amount of overkill when lawyers tackle a problem, when consumers really want a quick and reasonably priced result. Consumers will often sacrifice securing every "right" they have in order to save thousands of dollars in legal fees. I see this in the divorce area in my online practice all of the time. Often the divorcing parties want to get on with their life at the lowest possible cost. Rather than spend $15,000 in legal fees pursuing every right that the parties think they have, often the best solution is to use the funds that would have been spent on legal fees to invest in their individual futures. The present recession is accelerating these trend.

Lawyers are taught to represent a client "zealously". In fact they are required by the ethical codes of professional conduct to do so -- but at what price. Pursuing every legal angle results in prohibitive legal fees that the average consumer or small business can't afford. There must be a better way to practice law without breaking the bank.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It has been a very busy summer at DirectLaw. We are constantly adding features to our DirectLaw Virtual Law Firm Platform. Sometimes new features are suggested by our growing network of DirectLaw law firms; often one of our staff gets a good idea and we push it out to the Platform to see what kind of response we get from consumers and our client law firms. The nature of a SaaS (Software as a Service) offering, like DirectLaw, is that we can can modify and enhance the platform at any time and all law firms in the network benefit immediately. Our clients don't  have to wait until "the next quarterly software release."

Here are some of the recently features that have been added to the DirectLaw Virtual Law Firm Platform:

June 17, 2009 - New virtual law firm platform for consumer bankruptcy attorneys released. Click here for more information.

July 13, 2009 -  DirectLaw Workspace™. brings the benefits of web-enabled document automation for clients who are not online by enabling law firms to use our web-enabled document automation system for regular office-based clients.  

July 29, 2009 - A new "collaboration" function that enables law firms to communicate and collaborate securely with their clients over the Internet. Click here for screenshot.

August 5, 2009 - We installed a new "billing" function that enables law firms to bill clients online for traditional legal services and supports online bill payment by clients through their MyLegalAffairs page. Click here for screenshot.

August 20, 2009 - Today we released a new user friendly design for the Legal Services Page ,  which is now available to all law firms in the DirectLaw network of law firms. Each legal service offered by the law firm now appears on a separate tab, with detailed explanations of the scope of the legal service. Legal services offered by the law firm can be added or deleted and the fees charged increased or decreased at any time by the individual law firm using the Attorney Dashboard - the Administrative area that the law firm uses to manage their virtual law firm platform.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DirectLaw  has announced that the Law Office of Kyle Rhodes, based in Fort Worth, Texas has subscribed to DirectLaw's virtual law firm platform to enable the firm to offer legal services over the Internet to Texas residents. The firm focuses on offering Texas, Wills, Texas Trusts, and other asset protection documents for a fixed price, bundled with legal advice.

This law firm is not a pure virtual law firm as Attorney Rhodes maintains a downtown Ft. Worth office for clients who prefer to meet with him face-to-face. This is a good example of what I call, "click-and-mortal" - combining a virtual law practice with an off-line physical practice.  The market research that we have conducted suggests that the most effective implementation of the "virtual law firm" concept is as an add-on to a office-based practice, as this combines the best of both worlds.

For more information visit the website. The firm utilizes Rapidocs, DirectLaw's web-based document automation system to enable clients to complete online questionnaires which generate documents ready for lawyer review and editing.  This is DirectLaw's third law firm launch in the State of Texas. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legal Zoom has been challenged by the North Carolina Bar which claims that Legal Zoom is violating the unauthorized practice of law statute in North Carolina. The essence of the Bar's complaint is that even though Legal Zoom asserts that their legal documents are created by a web-based software system,  this constitutes the practice of law because Legal Zoom selects the content that is incorporated into the system. The Unauthorized Committee of the Bar cites  In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007) , a case that was decided by a Federal court in California on a different set of facts. In fact, in the case of Legal Zoom, a paralegal or legal technician, conducts something called a "review" , which Legal Zoom uses as a rationale to charge a higher fee. This review is not supposed to be "legal advice", but apparently this gives the North Bar UPL Committee problems as well. We think the In re Reynoso decision is limited to the particular facts of that case, which the Court notes, so it can be argued that is not appropriate for the North Carolina UPL Committee to cite this as precedent,  We also that in California there are many non-lawyer providers who provide alternatives to lawyers, including Legal Zoom , which is based in Hollywood, California. So what is the unauthorized practice of law in North Carolina, is not in California. This doesn't make sense.

This is an ominous development as it indicates that the organized bar will go to any  length to maintain its monopoly over the delivery of legal services, even redefining what is essentially a "legal information service" as  the practice of law.  The legislature of the State of Texas was faced with a similar situation several years ago, when the Bar was trying to shut down a legal software publisher on the theory that the purchase of a  legal software program from Staples was the practice of law, and responded by passing a statute in response to consumer demand that exempted legal software programs as falling within the definition of the practice of law.

This is not an issue that will stir North Carolina's citizens to rise up in anger at the organized bar for restricting their choices and keeping legal fees unnecessarily excessive, but they should. They should follow the path of Texas's citizen's and put the North Carolina bar in its place.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

LegalZoom has a clever plan to create an Attorney Directory for visitors to its web site that supports its market position. LegalZoom now attracts the most web traffic of any legal web site so this is an attempt to squeeze more value from this traffic.  Attorneys who enroll in the Directory, which is free except of a $99.00 set-up fee, are required to give users who are sent their way, a free 30 minute consultation. This enables LegalZoom to provide legal advice to augment its legal form document preparation services. The only lawyers who would participate in this Directory are those who are hoping to capture a case with a large fee, for either a complex matter or a personal injury matter --- cases which LegalZoom can't service with its legal form business.

These lawyers are not threatened by the fact that LegalZoom is offering an alternative, non-lawyer service that is eating away at the market share of solos and small law firms that provide legal services to the broad middle class in such areas as wills, incorporation, no-fault divorce, trademark, and name change, to name only a few. The reality is that these common transactions also require the legal advice of an attorney, but if lawyers are to keep their fees low, how can they give legal advice away for free?

Attorneys who are offering lower cost "unbundled legal services" which consist of legal forms together with legal advice for a fixed fee would not be motivated to provide 30 minutes of free advice. Many of these firms can charge a small fee for this legal advice. 

Nolo, one of LegalZoom's competitors, also offers an Attorney Directory, but these attorneys are not required to provide a free 30 minute consultation. As a result law firm's in the Nolo Directory are more oriented towards providing limited legal services to clients of moderate means. Nolo is the second highest traffic legal web site.

Disclosure: My Maryland-based virtual law firm which offers limited legal services for a fixed fee is a member of the Nolo Lawyer Directory. We are pleased with the results we are getting, even though we pay advertising fees to participate.

With this move, venture-backed LegalZoom, with its superior market position, will continue to increase its market share of common legal services at the expense of the legal profession.

With this new Lawyer Directory, LegalZoom can buttress its claim that it "puts the law on your side."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Stephanie Kimbro, a solo practitioner who operates Kimbrolaw.com, a virtual law firm in North Carolina, has been selected as this year's winner of the James Keane Memorial Award for Excellence in eLawyering. This award is given annually by the eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association, a group which was founded by Jim Keane an active and long-standing member of the ABA/LPM section who died tragically from lung cancer several years ago. I am the present Co-Chair with Marc Lauritsen.

Ms. Kimbro's law firm is a completely virtual law firm that serves individuals and small business over the Web. Our group concluded that Kimbrolaw.com  met the criteria for the Award perfectly as it demonstrates an innovative online model for delivering services to the broad middle class. Clients access their own individual web space where they can consult with their attorney, have their documents reviewed, and conduct other legal tasks -- all online.

The Award will be formally given to Ms. Kimbro at the American Bar Association's TECHSHOW on April 2, 2009, immediately before the key note speech by Richard Susskind, who will discuss his new book: The End of Lawyers: The Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I joined up as faculty with Solo Practice University last week. This is a new online educational venture started by Susan Carter Liebel , a coach and consultant to solo practices. Law schools really don't teach law students how to open a solo practice -- they are too busy training students for large law practice for which many of their students aspire but very few achieve. This program will be a welcome addition to bar association CLE courses as it focuses on the needs of solos, who still make up the largest percentage of practicing lawyers. I am going to develop a course on how to offer what is known as limited legal services or "unbundled legal services" both online and offline. My plan is to use pre-recorded video, discussion groups, an online blog, and email to help course participants develop a business plan for increasing and diversifying their revenue base. I am looking forward to this learning experience in how to deliver legal services online.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, had its monthly telephone call on Friday. One of the action items is a renewed interest and commitment to produce a set of best practice guidelines for law firms that want to deliver legal services online. These guidelines would complement the Best Practice Guidelines for Legal Information Web Site Providers that were produced by the eLawyering Task Force and approved by the ABA House of Delegates in 2003. The Legal Information Best Practices Guidelines apply to both law firms and non-law firms and don't deal specifically with issues that lawyers face when they want to deliver legal services online. In some cases it has been reported that malpractice insurance carriers have declined coverage when a law firm attempts to provide legal services directly through their web site. With more law firms embracing the concept of virtual legal practice, it becomes even more important to provide a framework for best practices.  The guidelines would cover such topics as ethical issues in delivering online legal services, security issues, and the attorney/client relationship.

In addition, a new group of software vendors that license "software as a service" {SaaS) have emerged to provide online software applications that support virtual law practice. Some of these vendors include: Virtual Law Office Technology, RocketMatter, Clio, and our own DirectLaw, Inc.,  As part of the guidelines development process, we plan to seek input from this emerging group of software as service vendors.

The goal is to have a draft ready for the discussion by the eLawyering Task Force at the ABA mid-year meeting and then a revised draft for further discussion as the quarterly meeting of the Law Practice Management Section in New Orleans in May, 13- 16, 2009.

Feedback and ideas about what issues should be covered are welcome from all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Recently a prospect for our DirectLaw Web Service asked me whether it was the unauthorized practice of law for a law firm to use a legal document that is generated by our web-enabled document automation system (Rapidocs), because the legal form did not originate within the law firm itself. In this model, a client completes an on-line questionnaire which generates a legal form or legal document instantly ready for attorney review and further modification. I asked my colleague Will Hornsby, who is Counsel to the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, American Bar Association, and a leading expert on ethical issues that arise from delivering legal services over the Internet.

Hornsby says that a lawyer commits the unauthorized practice of law when the lawyer assists a non-lawyer, whether that is a person or a corporation, to undertake the practice of law. This leads to the question of whether online document automation that creates a legal form or document from data provided by the client is the practice law. The definition of “the practice of law” varies from state-to-state but frequently includes the drafting of legal documents and the use of legal knowledge or skill. (For specific state definitions of what is the practice of law, or the unauthorized practice of law, click here.

However, the question here revolves around whether the lawyer is “assisting” the software vendor in practicing law when the document preparation is provided as a legal service of the law firm. This is analogous to services provided by paralegals and other outsourced services. In most states, for example, paralegals have no independent authority to provide legal services. If they independently provide document preparation or use their legal skills in serving clients, they may be deemed in violation of their state’s UPL laws, as are any lawyers who assist them in providing those services. [This is the LegalZoom model ]. However, if paralegals provide those same services under the direction of a lawyer and the lawyer assumes supervisory obligations, the paralegal is not practicing law and is not violating UPL laws, nor is the lawyer who provides the supervision “assisting” in the unauthorized practice of law.

ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 (Aug. 5, 2008) clarifies that a lawyer may outsource legal services, subject to several considerations. The opinion directly addresses independent contractors, such as temporary lawyers, but also mentions sources of tasks such as a photocopy shop, a document management company and a third-party vendor for the firm’s computer services. In its discussion of Model Rule 5.5 and the unauthorized practice of law, the Opinion states, “Ordinarily, an individual who is not admitted to practice law in a particular jurisdiction may work for a lawyer who is so admitted, provided that the lawyer remains responsible for the work being performed and that the individual is not held out as being a duly admitted lawyer.”

Therefore, according to Hornsby, and I agree, even if a document automation application would be deemed the unauthorized practice of law if its services were provided independently of a lawyer’s services, once those service or the documents produced by the software application are provided under the lawyer’s direction and supervision, within the scope of the lawyer’s services, the lawyer can no longer be assisting the document preparation in the practice of law and no longer has a risk of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been some recent press about the concept of the virtual law firm.  Craig Johnson has started a web-based law firm called Virtual Law Partners, P.C. The idea is to eliminate the overhead of a physical office or offices and to increase client collaboration over the Internet. I think this is a positive trend and indicates that lawyers are beginning to think about new ways of delivering legal services over the Internet. We would not call this firm, however, an instance of eLawyering, in the absence of digital applications that substitute for the labor of a lawyer -- such as web-enabled document automation. While these pioneering virtual law firms, may be saving the cost of a brick and mortar infrastructure resulting in lower fees to clients, their attorneys still work the same old way which is to bill for their time. Web-enabled digital applications on the other hand substitute for the time of an attorney and are truly disruptive as this time saving feature can result in more radical cost savings and translate into dramatically lower legal fees. We can envision that emerging virtual law firms will incorporate digital applications into their business models creating fixed price service packages for less complex legal services. At that time, these firms will morph into true providers of elawyering services.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LegalZoom is a California-based company that offers on-line paralegal document preparation services on a nationwide basis.  A nationwide advertising program, financed in part by a relatively large capital investment from Polaris Venture Partners,  is now underway in major national media markets with the goal of branding LegalZoom as the leading legal services web site on the Internet. With Robert Shapiro of OJ fame,  as the company's leading spokesperson, LegalZoom uses the  tag line: "We Put the Law on Your Side", a claim that the company could not make if it were a law firm under the marketing roles that govern the legal profession in all states. LegalZoom, as it is not a law firm, is not bound by these rules, Nevertheless, the company claims to be the leading legal web site. Is there something wrong with this picture?

When a customer arrives at the LegalZoom web site they are presented with a menu of legal documents that are sold for a fixed price. The documents are common legal documents that range from wills, powers of attorney, living wills, and no-fault divorce, on hand to business documents such as incorporation, trademark, and copyright on the other. The customer completes a web form and pays with a credit card. From the data inserted by the customer into the web form, a paralegal aided by document assembly software of some kind, generates a legal document or form, which is returned to the customer in paper format by regular mail.

Under long standing bar rules that are operative in every jurisdiction in the U.S, LegalZoom as a non law firm,  cannot give legal advice of any kind, cannot modify a customer's answers in any way, and cannot do any custom drafting that is responsive to a customer's particular set of facts. The company in a very fine print disclaimer makes clear that it is not a law firm and that" "LegalZoom is prohibited from providing any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. " The company does do a review which has to be limited to making sure that all answers are completed in the Questionnaire, that the spelling is correct, and minor tasks that are limited to very narrow role of being a proof-reader of the customer's data entries.

The company claims that: "With LegalZoom's lawyer-free service, you can save up to 85% off the rates an attorney would charge for the same procedure. " This comparison misrepresents the contribution that an attorney makes when serving a client. It suggests that the LegalZoom service is equivalent to the services of an attorney, when it clearly isn't. The representation suggests that a consumer will receive the same result that they would get if they went to an attorney, which is clearly not the case. Moreover, there are many attorneys who charge fees which compare favorably with LegalZoom's fee structure, so the fees that lawyers charge for comparable transactions which are published on the LegalZoom web site are true of some law firms, but not all solo and small firms.

LegalZoom's prices are in fact not cheap, when you consider that with a bit of effort searching  on Google a customer can find identical forms on the Internet that are either free, or which are sold for a modest fee, when compared to the "document preparation fees" that LegalZoom charges for very common legal documents.

But if the role of LegalZoom is really limited to data input and some minor editing and proofing, where's the beef?

There is no doubt that this service concept has been successful, because the company has claimed to have served 500,000 customers. LegalZoom's customers may believe that they are getting a service that is equivalent to the service that they would get from an attorney.

As a disruptive innovation, LegalZoom is demonstrating that there is room for competition in the delivery of legal services and that there are other way's to solve people's legal problems than going to an attorney, despite the very real limitations of the LegalZoom service.

It will be interesting to see how the organized bar responds to LegalZoom as the company becomes more dominant and continues to eat away at the legal profession's dominance in helping people solve their everyday legal problems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks