|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 ‘Legal Referral’ Category
The Committee on Attorney Advertising of the New Jersey Court System issued an Advisory Opinion this week that stated that a Total Bankruptcy web site, published by TotalAttorneys®, a law firm marketing and services organization based in Chicago, is misleading and in violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 (a) .Download Full Opinion .
The Committee also ruled that the web site was not an impermissible referral service and that Attorneys are not flatly prohibited from paying for advertising on a "pay-per-lead" or "pay per click" basis. That’s good news for TotalAttorneys and other performance-based marketing schemes on the Internet.
The Committee sets out clearly that "Attorney advertising cannot be misleading or omit operative facts." and found that the website did not provide sufficient information to the user and is misleading.
In this case, the user was directed to only one attorney based on the purchase of exclusive rights to a geographical area. To avoid misleading consumers, the Committee stated, the methodology for the selection of the attorney’s name must be made clear, including the fact that the website limited participation to one (paying) attorney per geographical area. Further, the Committee specified that all requirements to participate in the website must be clearly specified; a full list of participating attorneys must be readily accessible, and the website must inform the user that the attorneys have paid a fee to participate.
It is easy for attorneys to violate their professional obligations and expose themselves to bar sanctions, by ignoring the fine print in their agreements with Internet-based marketing websites.
For example, no less a credible organization as Lexis-Nexis®, recently launched a direct to consumer web site, called EZLAW.COM. The website purports to offer wills, powers of attorney and advance directives forms bundled with legal advice for a fixed and reasonable fee. A goal I would heartily endorse.
However, the site seems to suffer from the same issues as the TotalAttorney’s web site when viewed through the lense of the New Jersey Advisory Opinion.
At EZLAW, the site operator provides a mechanism for consumers to assemble legal documents on-line and then make available a network of attorneys to provide legal advice as part of the offered package. In describing its Attorney Network, EZLAW states that:
They are all prescreened by EZLaw to ensure that you get professional, experienced and confidential legal counsel. To be included in our network, attorneys must meet our rigorous 12-point checklist of criteria.
This suggests that EZLAW is vouching for the quality of the qualifications of the participating attorneys, not only whether an attorney has practiced a number of years or maintains a certain level of malpractice, and this could be construed as misleading.
Moreover, the NJ Opinion states clearly that as a form of attorney advertising, " a full list of participating attorneys must be readily accessible," but on the EZLAW web site no list of participating attorneys is to be found.
Moreover the limited representation agreement executed by the client with the law firm is provided by EZLAW on behalf of the law firm, so the client never knows the identity of the law firm prior to entering into an engagement with the attorney. Normally you would expect that the client would enter into a limited retainer agreement directly with the law firm. I never heard of a retainer agreement that wasn’t entered into directly between the client and the law firm. Not in this case.
Click here for a copy of the Representation Agreement between EZLAW and the client. You decide whether this agreement is ethically compliant? I am interested in hearing other opinions about this agreement. If you have one. please comment.
So what’s the bottom line? Lawyer’s need to read the fine print. Lawyers need to have a full understanding of how their ethical obligations apply to these new Internet-based marketing schemes lest they be caught in a web of disciplinary proceedings that wasn’t part of the bargain.
Another interesting start-up has emerged out of Silicon Valley to provide crowdsourced legal advice to other start-ups for free.
LawPivot, a legal Q&A web site founded in 2009, hopes to fill a niche by providing legal advice to the founders of start-up and early stage high-tech companies based in California at a legal fee they can afford — FREE. Legal advice is provided by an experienced network of high-priced business law attorneys, recruited from the top 200 hundred or so law firms, who hope to pick up new clients by entering into discussions by providing free legal advice services to start-up companies.
Free legal advice or the “free consult” has been employed by lawyers for years, pre-Internet, as a tried and true marketing strategy for acquiring new clients. Now many lawyers are beginning to offer free legal advice online from their web sites directly. See for example, VirtualEsq.Com . By next year there will be hundreds of these free legal advice services offered directly by lawyers from their web sites as the virtual law firm movement begins to scale.
However, free legal advice from an individual law firm’s web site, is not the same thing as a vertical web site that aggregates answers from many lawyers, giving consumers a wider variety of responses to their particular situation.
Free legal advice online is not a completely new idea. FreeAdvice has been doing it for years, and consumers can get answers to their basic legal questions from sites such as AVVO, RocketLawyer, and JustAnswer. What is new, is that LawPivot provides through its network of lawyers “real” legal advice that applies to the client’s particular situation, as distinguished from merely legal information. And this advice is reputedly to be "high quality" given the stature of the lawyers recruited to the LawPivot network.
However, genuine legal advice, [as distinguished from “legal advice” that is characterized as “legal information” ], like any legal service, has to be delivered in an ethically compliant way requiring that the client’s information be kept confidential, that an attorney/client relationship be established, and that the attorney providing the legal advice be a member of the bar within the jurisdiction where the client is located. Presumably LawPivot is addressing these issues. The LawPivot service is presently limited to California, but the company, according to its representations, plans to expand nationwide.
Although the company recently raised $600,000 from Google Ventures, the venture capital arm of Google, after a $400,0000 round from from a group of angel investors, it will be interesting to see how or whether it survives. At this point, neither the clients are charged for legal advice, nor are the participating attorneys charged an advertising fee. So there is no revenue, and apparently no business model. However, I doubt that the investors thought they were making charitable contributions, so there must be a business model lurking in the background somewhere?
Unfortunately, the only business model that is ethically compliant in the US, is one where the participating lawyers pay an advertising fee to play (get listed) and get exposure. Splitting legal advice fees between a law firm and a non-law firm , is a big “No, No” and an ethical prohibition that exposes the participating attorneys to bar sanctions which could lead to disbarment. Perhaps because Google is now involved as a major backer of LawPivot , and the company is planning to move to the GooglePlex campus start-up incubator, "they can do no wrong.!"
Many other Western common law jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, have abolished the division of fees, but the rules against splitting fees with non-lawyers remains sacrosanct in the US, on the theory that splitting fees would compromise the independent judgment of the attorney. However, in the UK, lawyers are permitted to work for a profit-making company and provide legal advice directly to consumers, and no one seems to be complaining about compromised judgment. [ See: FirstAssist in the UK for an example ].
Charging clients an administrative fee to “use” the web site, as an alternative revenue source, has been tried before in an earlier Internet era, and it failed then. [ e.g. AmeriCounsel ]. I doubt that this model will work today when consumers are expecting everything on the web to be for free.
I think it is a good sign that innovation is happening in the legal industry, and that private capital is finally looking for a way to get a return by investing in the delivery of legal services. [See: Total Attorneys Receives Multi-Million Dollar Investment ].
I would like to see companies like LawPivot thrive, but at this point I don’t see the juice. Are advertising revenues sufficient to make this venture sustainable, or has LawPivot figured out another legitimate source of revenue that doesn’t violate US ethical prohibitions? Only time will tell.
Posted in advice, Chen, crowd-sourcing, David, Don, eLawyering Ethical Issues, Fred, Free Law, Hutchison, Jay, Legal Fees, Legal Referral, Li, Mandal, marketing, Marketing On-Line Legal Services, Mehta, Nick, platforms, Q&A, Quora, Richard, services, smart, start-ups, Tisch, UK Legal Reform, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Ventures, vertical, Virtual Law Firms, Wilson
LegalZoom has been beta testing a concept which links its marketing capabilities to a network of law firms that offer legal services under the LegalZoom brand. With some state bar associations accusing LegalZoom of the unauthorized practice of law, it might makes sense for the company to seek deeper alliances with networks of attorneys who are able to offer a full and ethically compliant legal service. Solos and small law firms, leveraging off the visibility and prominence of the LegalZoom brand, could reduce their marketing costs and enable these firms to better capture consumers who are part of the “latent legal market” on the Internet. It could be a win/win for both parties.
Unfortunately, linking the capital and management resources of profit-making organization with private law firms is almost impossible in the United States, given the regulatory framework that governs law practice. Unlike, the United Kingdom, which is in the process of deregulating the legal profession, enabling profit-making companies, from banks and insurance companies to retail chains like Tesco, to actually own a law firm, and/or split legal fees with a non-law firm, these practices in the US are strictly taboo.
In the US, law directories can charge a flat marketing fee for a listing, but sharing legal fees with a marketing organization can get you disbarred.
During the dot-com boom around 1999-2000, a company emerged by the name of AmeriCounsel that tried to create a hybrid organizational structure similar to the LegalZoom experiment. The company sought to enable a network of attorneys to offer legal services at a fixed and reasonable price and to mediate between the consumer and the law firm in terms of guaranteeing the quality of the legal services offered. The company failed during the dot-com bust for various reasons, including lack of financing, but on the way to failure, secured some opinions from state bar associations that blessed their model and provides a blue print for hybrid delivery systems which combine the expertise of a law firm with the marketing, management, and technological resources of a non-law firm.
The Bar Association reasoned that the AmeriCounsel scheme was permissible because:
[S]ince AmeriCounsel does not charge attorneys any fee and since AmeriCounsel does not “recommend” or “promote” the use of any particular lawyer ’s services, it does not fall within the purview of DR 2-103(B) or (D). Rather, AmeriCounsel is a form of group advertising permitted by the Code of Professional Responsibility and by ethics opinions interpreting the Code.
In this model, AmeriCounsel provided technology and administrative services to link the client with the lawyer, but the law firm made no payment to AmeriCounsel. Instead, a separate administrative/technology fee was paid by the consumer to AmericCounsel for using the web site and gaining access to the lawyer. (This is not a practical scheme in today’s web environment, in my opinion), Moreover, AmeriCounsel did not choose the lawyer. The client was able to compare the credentials of different attorneys and choose their own lawyer. Thus no legal referral was involved, which would not be permitted in New York, as only an approved non-profit organization can make legal referrals.
In my opinion, this model, forced on AmeriCounsel, by the Rules of Professional Responsibility, is cumbersome, hard to implement, and was not economically viable for AmeriCounsel. Perhaps this was one of the causes of its failure.
Almost a decade later, companies that want to enter into this kind of hybrid relationship with lawyers, have to follow the same rule structure, as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility as the rules have not changed in any significant way. changed. It will be interesting to see whether the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission, which was set up just last year, will address these issues at all.
Perhaps there should be a “safe harbor” that enables organization’s like LegalZoom to experiment with new patterns of legal service delivery that could operate for a limited period of time in a specific state, like California, The experience would be evaluated carefully as a basis for rule and policy change. The evaluation would be aimed to see if client’s interests are compromised in any way, and whether the delivered legal service is less expensive, without compromising the quality of legal service.
Instead of creating legal profession regulatory policies that are based on the legal profession’s idea about what is good for the consumer, policy could be based on real experience and facts. Experimentation is good. It leads to change, and in other industries improvement of methods and approaches over a period of time.
Of course, I don’t believe that this will ever happen in the US, at least not in my professional lifetime.
Posted in deregulation, eLawyering Ethical Issues, Legal Referral, LegalZoom, marketing, Marketing On-Line Legal Services, of, plans, practice, prepaid, profession, Responsibility, Rules, services, the, UK Legal Reform, unauthorized, Unauthorized Practice of Law, virtual, Virtual Law Firms