|Many today are angry at our justice system, and many of them have good cause to be angry!
But, some are too angry!
Their anger will hurt you!
They are out of control!
They teach falsehoods!
They’re that angry!
That’s how you know them.
They are not your friend!
Their “legal theories” fail.
They are blinded by rage.
Believe them at your peril.
Angry people can rarely be trusted, and that is never more true than when they try to get you to join them in their angry legal theories that run contrary to the rules that control our courts.
#1 For example, a nice fellow called me the other day and ended up screaming at me because I refused to go along with his idea that our birth certificates are some kind of “contract”. In the first place, the most fundamental truth about contracts is that no “contract” can bind a party who doesn’t understand the agreement. Even if we were able to understand the alleged binding nature of our birth certificate at the moment of our birth, we didn’t sign the thing! Some doctor did, probably. We cannot be bound by a contract we don’t understand, and certainly not one we didn’t enter into. Yet, this nice man screamed at me for refusing to help him storm the hated walls of justice for him and take up his cause to fight the dragons!
#2 Another strange legal myth that’s come around in the last few months is that one can “copyright” his or her own name and thereby prevent the courts from using their name on any court papers. Duh! Anger does twist the mind in strange ways! But, to think one can prevent others from using his or her name by “copyrighting” the name is utter nonsense.
I want you to win.
You cannot win relying on nonsense!
#3 A few are absolutely convinced that our courts are “sitting in admiralty” and therefore cannot rule in common law or statute. But, the fact is that pretty much any court can rule in admiralty cases, if the issue before them is one that involves navigation or the rights of seagoing workers or dockside stevedores. Contract disputes, negligence cases, foreclosure, and other matters are absolutely notadmiralty cases, and the courts that hear such cases are not “sitting in admiralty” … no matter whether there’s a yellow fringe on the flag in the corner or not.
#4 More than a few seem to have made a “religion” out of believing such things. Many claim to be “patriots”, yet do all they can to evade the Rule of Law and refuse to do much of anything toward learning the principles of due process so many gave their lives to protect in past and present wars! This group of people get together to talk about how horrible things are but spend very little effort learning how to make things better by learning the rules!
I know people are hurting.
I’ve been helping thousands upon thousands of good people get justice in the courts since 1997 when I first put Jurisdictionary on the internet. It wasn’t much back then, but I’ve been doing all I can to make it better each year and will do the best I can to continue in the months and years to come.
If you choose to believe the lies, God help you!
Lies are what we’re fighting to overcome.
Overcoming lies is what the rules are all about!
Please don’t get me wrong. I want to help those who are angry, as well as those who are being destroyed by crooked bankers, corrupt judges, lying lawyers, and the hosts of darkness that never seem to give up in their quest to destroy all that’s good and wholesome in this world we live in.
YOU … that’s right … YOU cannot afford to believe the lies if you want to get justice in our courts!
Your birth certificate is not a contract.
You are who you are, no matter whether your name is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS or all small letters or written out in script with a ball-point pen!
And, as far as our courts go, nobody (and I do mean nobody) knows better than I do about the corruption of some judges or the stealth and trickery that lawyers use to twist the truth to their own advantage.
But, being angry won’t help.
The only thing that will help is learning how to use the rules that control the courts, rules that stop corruption, rules that require judges to grant justice, rules that were paid for by far too much innocent blood already.
Please join Jurisdictionary in our effort to uplift the hopes and determination of the American People and even people in other nations around the world where justice is for sale to the highest bidder and good, honest people are sacrificed on the altar of money!
Someone once said, “The truth will set you free!”
If YOU believe that … if you really believe it … then you will join the work of Jurisdictionary to reach people who are being destroyed all too often simply because they are believing the legal mythology so rampant on the internet, in our daily emails, and even in weekend seminars a few amateurs here and there are putting on for those foolish enough to pay.
There’s never been but one way to win any contest!
Either you cheat … or you use the rules to your own advantage.
Cheaters don’t win all that often.
Food for thought?
– – – – – – – –
Winning is EASY once you know the rules and how to use them effectively!
Help Your Friends!
Don’t let anyone intimidate you into thinking lawsuits are too complicated for mere mortals to grasp or deceive you into thinking all lawyers are smarter than the rest of the human race … ’cause it ain’t so!
Anyone can learn the rules required to win!
You simply need to start with a clear view of the field of play, the object of the game, and the rules that control all the players … including judges and lawyers!
It IS simple … as many thousands have learned!
In the 13 years since I launched Jurisdictionary I’ve found the most debilitating factor that infects good people with hopelessness is the fear that comes from lack of knowing how the game of litigation is played to win!
Not knowing creates fear.
Knowledge displaces fear with the confidence!
Take any apparently complicated thing apart to examine its component parts and you quickly see how they all fit together. When you first begin, it seems impossible.
If someone shows you how each separate part works with each of the other parts, even the most complicated things are suddenly easy-to-understand. The mystery my profession has woven disappears!
Every one of you has great legal power!
Sadly, many good people never discover the power that is theirs … so people who know how to use the rules of court and the law of the case take advantage of them!
Jurisdictionary wants to turn the tables on crooked lawyers and biased judges and protect the “little guys and gals” that are being taken advantage of simply because no one has ever come out with a course like this. No one has ever cared enough to tell you the truth. No one has ever made it this easy-to-understand!
It is easy-to-understand how to win in court once you see things the way I teach them!
The full details you need to know are in my affordable step-by-step Jurisdictionary course.
To learn more, go to: www.Jurisdictionary.com
My affordable 24-hour step-by-step lawsuit self-help course includes:
Still Only $249 (plus $7.50 for Priority Mail S&H)
Save legal fees!
Defeat crooked lawyers!
Ask anyone who has it: Jurisdictionary Works!
Call Toll Free for details: 866-Law-Easy
Get your competitive edge before the price increase.
Force judges to enforce the rules, instead of allowing the lawyer on the other side twist the law against you!
You cannot win if you don’t know how to control the judge and all the lawyers (including your own lawyer, if you can afford to pay one to go to court for you)!
You’ve heard the horror stories from others.
Don’t let it happen to you!
Know the rules and how to force everyone to obey!
Know how to draft proper pleadings, how to get your own evidence in the court’s record, how to keep the other side from getting their evidence in, how to move the court to enter orders favorable to your cause, and how to use your Jurisdictionary legal know-how and case-winning strategies to control the judge and win your case!
My self-help course is presented in such an easy format people tell us an 8th grader can learn it in just 24 hours!
Know what you must know to win!
Stop courtroom corruption!
I’ll show you how in just 24-hours … step-by-step!
Control judges and lawyers – or lose!
My “Tips & Tactics” newsletters are only introductions to the complete course you need to win. If you don’t already have my 24-hour step-by-step self-help course, go to my website and order now!
As Woody Guthrie used to sing, “This Land is our Land,” and that includes every courtroom and every courthouse from San Diego to Bangor, Maine. Why let lawyers control our lives with trickery? Why let judges destroy our lives by letting lawyers get away with their trickery?
YOU CAN WIN!
Forward this article to ALL YOUR FRIENDS!
If you aren’t involved in a lawsuit or threatened with one today, learn what my course teaches and help others who will be destroyed by all-too-common courtroom corruption if YOU don’t help them learn what it takes to win!
There are more than 150 lawsuits filed every minute in the United States – nearly 100 million each year. Try to imagine how many thousands of good, honest people will be destroyed in the next 7 days just because they have no idea how to protect themselves and have nobody they can trust (or afford) to help them win!
Urge everyone to get my affordable 24-hour course!
Do it for your nation … and for your children!
Dr. Frederick David Graves, JD
Archive for the ‘firm’ Category
For years some law firms, but not all, have used some form of document automation in their law offices. Ranging from an MS Word macro to long standing programs such as HotDocs, as well as automated forms distributed by legal publishers such as Willmaker by Nolo, some law offices have incorporated some form of document automation in their law practices. Document automation of legal documents that are generated in high quantity by a law firm is an indispensable process for increasing law firm productivity and maintaining profit margins in an era of intense competition.
Legal Document Creation the Old Way
The manual process of cutting and pasting clauses from a master MS Word document into a new document, is a productivity process which is fast becoming out dated. It reminds me of the time before there were automated litigation support programs, and legal assistants would duplicate a set of case documents three or four times. The next step was filling one file cabinet with a set of documents in alpha order, filling another filing cabinet with a set of documents in date order, and finally, filling another filing cabinet with a set of documents in issue or subject order to enable "fast" retrievable of relevant paper documents. It took awhile, but almost all litigation lawyers now use automated litigation support methods.. This is not true of transactional lawyers, many of whom still use out-dated methods of creating legal documents, as if each legal document were a unique novel, poem, or other work of fiction.
Barriers to Change
An obstacle to wider use of automated document assembly methods, is typically the lawyer’s insistence on crafting the words in each clause to their own satisfaction. Because most lawyer’s do not have the requisite programming skill to automate their own documents, law firms by default will opt to use their own non-automated documents, rather than risk using the legal documents automated by an independent provider, because by definition the content of the documents is "not their own." As a result, many law firms do not even use desk-top document assembly solutions when the forms are published by an independent provider or publisher, remaining stuck using more time consuming and less productive manual methods.
Typically, when a law firm does use document assembly methods, a paralegal inputs answers from a paper intake/questionnaire into a document assembly program running on a personal computer. This results in the extra time-consuming step of inputting data from the intake questionnaire to the document assembly program, but it is still more efficient than manual methods.
Web-Enabled Document Automation
Now comes, "web-enabled legal document automation" methods." Web-enabled document automation is a process whereby the intake questionnaire is presented on-line to the client through the web browser to be completed directly.
When the client clicks the "Submit" button the document is instantly assembled, ready for the attorneys further review, analysis, revision, and customization if necessary. The result is a further leap in productivity because the client is actually doing part of the work at no cost to the lawyer, freeing the lawyer up to focus on analysis and further customization of the document.
This is what the work flow looks like when using web-enabled document automation methods:
Unfortunately, lawyers have been slow to adapt to this process as well, because of their reluctance to use legal documents drafted or automated by someone else. However in order to automate their own documents they must either acquire the skill to do the job, or commit the capital to have a skilled professional automate their documents for them. For solos and small law firms these two constraints create formidable obstacles to using more efficient methods.
Since neither condition is common within smaller law firms (programming skill, investment capital), the result is that the law firm gets stuck using older less productive methods of document creation.
Vendors that provide web-enabled document platforms include, our own Rapidocs, and Exari, Brightleaf, HotDocs, DealBuilder, and Wizilegal, to name only a few, all claim that their authoring systems are easy to use, but I have yet to see lawyers without any kind of programming skill create their own automated legal documents in any quantity. Thus, law firms become stuck in a negative loop of their own creation which reduces productivity (and profitability) :
"My legal documents are better than yours; I can’t automate them for the web because I don’t know how; thus I will be less productive and be required to charge you more because of my own inefficiency."
In the consumer space, now comes the non-lawyer providers to take advantage of the solo and small law firm’s competitive disadvantage. Research by companies like Kiiac provide support the conclusion that 85% of the language in transactional documents is actually the same. In more commoditized areas, where legal forms have been standardized, the legal form content is 100% the same in all documents. Taking advantage of this consistency of legal form content, companies like LegalZoom, Nolo, CompleteCase, SmartLegalForms, and LegacyWriter , with their superior on-line marketing and branding machines, now sell legal forms by the thousands at low cost which provide a "good enough" legal solution for consumers who would do any thing to avoid paying the higher fees to an attorney.
Its true that the consumer doesn’t get the benefit of the attorney’s legal advice and counsel, and the accountability and protection that dealing with an attorney provides, but consumers don’t seem to care.
What can be done?
The "web-based legal document automation solution" , used by non-lawyer providers, is a disruptive technology that is eating away at the core business base of the typical solo and small law firm practitioner.
What can solos and small law firms do to compete in this challenging competitive environment?
The American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center reported last year in their Annual Technology Survey that only 52.2% of solo practitioner’s don’t have a web site. Even if this number is underestimated, it is shockingly low compared with web site utilization by other industries. If you don’t even have a web site, the idea of "web-enabled document automation" is still a "light year" away.
What can be done to encourage more wide-spread use of web-enabled document automation technology by law firms, particularly solos and small law firms? A follow-up post will explore some solutions, but I am open to ideas from anyone.
A new nonprofit organization has emerged to help lawyers assess the safety and security of their law practice environment. The organization is the International Legal Technology Standards Organization and it recently released a set of standards that law firms can used to evaluate:
- the law firm’s internal security standards; and
- help law firm’s make informed decisions about "cloud computing" vendors and other hosting arrangements where confidential data is stored outside of the physical office of the law firm
The Standards are much more detailed and comprehensive than the ABA/LPM’s eLawyering Task Force publication of Cloud Computing Guidelines for Law Firms.
Disclosure: I am on the Advisory Board of ILTSO and provided some guidance to the development of the standards.
The standards are being circulated for comment before final publication.
The standards offer a sensible definition of "reasonable under the circumstances" by recognizing that different types of law firms have different security needs, although all lawyers are bound to prevent the disclosure of client data. Law firms are categorized into three types of situations:
- "Bronze – this standard is appropriate in every law practice, including solo practices."
- "Silver – this standard is typically appropriate for firms of more than one attorney, or where circumstances or resources dictate."
- "Gold – this standard is typically appropriate for larger firms or those with additional IT resources, or where circumstances or resources dictate."
The idea of categorizing law practice environments into these three categories is a new idea, as some of the standards only apply to the Gold and Silver category. The intent is to recognize that law firms have different IT capabilities and the size of the law firm usually determines how the law firm will approach the problem of securing client and other firm data.
At this point of development, the law firm is responsible for undertaking their own self-assessment. Law firms can apply to the standards to their own law practice environment and if in compliance display the ILTSO seal.
At some point, I can see where ILTSO might undertake an independent assessment of a law firm’s security arrangements and if it compliance with the standards, award a certificate like the Truste certification which assesses an organization’s privacy policies. A small fee could be charged for this assessment and it would vary depending on whether the type of law firm practice environment is Bronze, Silver, or Gold. This would give assurance to clients that all reasonable efforts have been taken to secure the confidentiality of their data.
It will be interesting to see how the organized bar responds to these standards, as their are entities both at the state level, and the American Bar Association that are analyzing these same subjects.
Just last week, the Commission released its recommendations on outsourcing, which is a process that has an impact on the confidentiality of client data. The recommendations have not yet been posted on the Commission’s web site, but the ABA Journal reports that:
"The commission proposes revisions to the Model Rules recognizing that electronically stored information, including metadata, is material subject to confidentiality rules. It also proposed revisions directing lawyers to make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent disclosure of information relating to representation of a client."
ILTSO’s new standards would give concrete meaning to the definition of "reasonable efforts" and provide a detailed framework that could guide attorney assessment of particular outsourcing and cloud computing arrangements.
A positive impact of having this evaluation framework in place might be the accelerated adoption of technologies, such as cloud computing. Compliance with the guidelines would support a law firm’s assertion that the firm has taken all reasonable steps to secure client data to reduce its liability in case of a security breach over which the firm had no control.
An unanticipated consequence might be a slow down in adoption, as the lack of clarity in this area might give many lawyers a reason not to become "early adopters." Many lawyers might choose to wait until standards like ILTSO’s are accepted by a broad base of legal organizations and law firms.
Of course, by then, the "real" early adopters will have acquired a first mover advantage over law firms that are still thinking about the subject, to the those firms competitive disadvantage.
We have been evaluating the experience of law firms that have subscribed to our DirectLaw Virtual Law Firm Platform to determine what are the factors that make for success. Subscribers to our service are mostly solo practitioners and small law firms who are experimenting with this new mode of delivering legal services online. We want to share their experiences as we learn from them about what works and what doesn’t work. When we have exemplary examples of success we will develop case studies from which we all can learn.
All kinds of lawyers have subscribed to our DirectLaw client portal which enables the online delivery of legal services:
- recent law school graduates who can’t find a job and forced to hang out their own shingle;
- lawyers who want to give up on a physical office for one reason or another and want to try working from anywhere, but still see clients face to face when necessary;
- lawyers who think they can copy LegalZoom and get rich quick by simply putting a site up that sells legal forms and documents online;
- lawyers who are in transition because they have been terminated by their law firm employer because of the impact of a constrained economy which is not growing;
- retiring lawyers, with deep experience and expertise, and who want to transition into a part-time practice, rather than give up the law entirely;
- “pure-play” virtual law firms, where the lawyer never sees a client face to face in an office setting or goes to court;
- more traditional law firms, and the experienced lawyers that run them, that want to extend their brand online by adding what we refer to as a “virtual component” or a “virtual law firm platform.”
- Less experienced lawyers who want to compete against older more experienced lawyers with an online service to distinguish themselves from more traditional law firms in their community.
Each of these lawyers see potential in the “virtual law firm” concept acquiring new clients and serving existing clients more effectively.
Almost all of our DirectLaw subscribers hope to acquire new clients by creating a dynamic, and interactive Internet presence that is more than a passive web site, which is no more than an online brochure.
Some law firms are struggling as "virtual law firms" and are not able to generate new clients and new sources of revenues. On the other hand, we know from our own direct experience in running a virtual law firm since 2003, that the concept can work, and our own success in selling automated legal forms directly to consumers through a network of more than 30 legal form websites, indicates that there is real demand for online legal solutions.
So what are the factors that contribute to success?
1. Your law firm web site needs to be findable on the web.
Our analysis indicates that a major cause of failure for law firms trying to market their services online is a poorly constructed front-end website that is not search engine optimized. DirectLaw’s client portal integrates with a law firm’s front end website and it is through the law firm’s web site that the client finds the law firm, and logs on to their own password protected and secure client space.
If the firm’s web site is not findable on the Internet, the site gets little traffic, which translates into no prospects and no new clients. Most lawyers no little about the art and science of inbound internet marketing and the techniques of how to make their web sites findable. Web design firms that create graphically intensive law firm web sites that look beautiful do a disservice to law firms unless the sites they develop are also search engine optimized and the web design firm stresses the importance of creating new legal content that is practice specific as a magnet for web traffic.
2. You need to have a good reputation as a competent attorney in your community with an existing client base if you are going to make it online. There are some exceptions to this rule, but not many.
A major factor that contributes to online success is having a good reputation in a particular area of legal practice. See Case Study
“Pure play” virtual law firms launched by lawyers who can’t quite make it in the real world won’t make it online.
The most successful use of online virtual law firm technology is demonstrated by law firms who already have a successful traditional practice and a base of clients to draw upon. Online law firm technology enhances the experience for existing clients and increases the productivity of the law firm in serving these clients. Word of mouth referral from existing client’s, sends new clients to the law firm’s web site. New online prospects convert to clients because of the credibility of the attorney in the real world, and the potential for a face to face meeting when necessary. The online technology component complements the offline practice, and vice versa. This doesn’t mean that a “pure play” virtual law firm can’t work; it just requires a special type of practice to make a "pure play" business model work. A "click and mortar" law firm model seems to work best, at least during this period of early development of the online legal services concept.
This is a complex subject that requires more space than can be contained in a single blog post.
For further analysis and discussion of success factors see: Factors That Contribute to the Successful Delivery of Online Legal Services.
The eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA is seeking recommendations and applications for the James Keane Award for Excellence in eLawyering which is awarded annually at ABA Tech Show in Chicago ( April 11-13, 2011). This will be the fourth year that the Award has been made. Previous award winners include Stephanie Kimbro for her work in creating the virtual law firm of KimbroLaw and Lee Rosen of the The Rosen Law Firm (both coincidentally located in North Carolina).
The purpose of this Award is to give recognition to law offices that have developed legal service innovations that are delivered over the Internet. The focus of the Award is on the innovative delivery of personal legal services, with special attention given to firms and entities that serve both moderate income individuals and the broad middle class.
The Award is technology-focused, in the sense that the Award Committee is seeking innovations that demonstrate the concept of eLawyering – which can be further defined as the delivery of online legal services. Examples of elawyering include the development of online web advisors, expert systems, innovative uses of web-enabled document automation, on-line client collaboration systems, and on-line dispute settlement systems, to name a few examples.
Nominees may be any individual lawyer, law firm or other deliverer of legal services to individuals within the United States.
The nominee can be a large or small law firm, public or private, or a legal services agency. More than one entry may be submitted, and the Task Force encourages self-nomination. The Application deadline has been extended to March 15, 2011.
For further information and an application form see: http://tinyurl.com/48xvcfq