Pointing to Great Britain as an example, Northwestern Law prof John McGinnis and K&E attorney Russell Mangas argue the case that legal education should be taught as a major at the undergraduate level. From their Jan. 17, 2012 WSJ opinion…
Posts Tagged ‘Opinion’
The Green Bag’s 2011 Exemplary Legal Writing Awards
27
Dec
Congratulations to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Kagan. Both were among the winners of The Green Bag’s 2011 Honorees for Exemplary Legal Writing. CJ Justice was honored in the category of Opinions for the Court for his opinion…
Court Questions Existence of An Academic Privilege of Confidentiality
19
Dec
There’s an opinion out of federal district court in Boston from last Friday that’s making the rounds of academic news sites. It’s the case In Re: Request from the United Kingdom Pursuant to the Treaty Between the Government of the…
From Point A to Point B: Can a court take judicial notice of the distance as calculated by Google Maps?
06
Dec
According to the recent opinion in United States v. Sessa, 2011 WL 256330 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), the answer is “yes” writes Colin Miller. See his EvidenceProf Blog post for details. [JH]
A Vendor Rep’s Professional Opinion on the Relationship between Vendors, Law Librarians and Their Institutions
15
Nov
Chuck Lowry, a sales rep for Fastcase, offers his professional opinion about the contributions law firm librarians make to their law firms writing Vendors have an almost unique perspective on law firm librarians. We are sometimes partners, sometimes adversaries; sometimes…
United States Courts Opinions on FDSYS
24
Oct
Last week I had the privilege of attending the Depository Library Council Meeting and Federal Depository Library Conference in Crystal City, Virginia. I was very excited to hear a presentation from the GPO about the new U.S. Court Opinion Pilot…
11th Circuit Court of Appeals Rule Against Health Law Mandate
12
Aug
The rest of the law stays in place however. The opinion is here. This should set up a conflict in the circuits ripe for adjudication by the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit ruled otherwise. [MG]
Legal Cloud Computing Association Publishes Responses to ABA, North Carolina State Bar
18
Jul
The Legal Cloud Computing Association (LCCA) has published responses to proposals issued by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 and the North Carolina State Bar regarding the use of cloud computing within a law practice.
The Legal Cloud Computing Association ("LCCA"), formed in December 2010, is the collective voice of the leading cloud computing software providers for the legal profession, consisting of Clio (Themis Solutions, Inc.), DiaLawg, LLC, DirectLaw, Inc., NetDocuments, Nextpoint, Inc., RealPractice, Inc., Rocket Matter, LLC, and Total Attorneys, LLC.
Response to ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20
The LCCA’s letter to the ABA Commission on Ethics was issued in response to the Commission’s Initial Draft Proposals on "Technology and Confidentiality" published on May 2, 2011. The Proposals include certain modifications to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct that are designed to facilitate the responsible adoption of technology that will increase the quality, and reduce the cost, of legal services. The Proposals were issued as part of a process initiated in early in 2010 where the Commission published an Issues Paper requesting comments and feedback from the legal community.
The LCCA fully supported the Commission’s Proposals, and concluded that the Commission ‘s recommendations provided a reasonable framework the would enable law firms to make infomed decisions about using cloud computing resources.
Response to North Carolina State Bar Proposed 2011FEO6
The LCCA’s letter to the North Carolina State Bar pertains to Proposed Formal Ethics Opinion 2011FEO6. The Proposed FEO attempts to address the ethical issues relating to the use of Software-as-a-Service or cloud computing within a law firm environment.
While the LCCA supported the NC State Bar’s efforts to provide clarity on the use of cloud computing, the Proposed FEO as written would negatively impact a broad scope of attorneys from those who do nothing more than use a web-based email client or conduct online legal research to those that do full scale online delivery of legal services.
The onerous requirements of the Proposed FEO, detailed in full in the LCCA’s response to the NC State Bar, would force many cloud computing providers to withdraw from the NC market entirely, thus negatively impacting the technological capabilities and competitiveness of NC-based law firms.
Unlike the recommendations of the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission, the draft North Carolina bar opinion, as it stands, is likely to have a negative impact on the use of cloud computing resources and applications by law firms in North Carolina. One result is that North Carolina’s law firms, particularly solos and small law firms would be handicapped when competing with law firms from other states.
We are hopeful that the revised opinion will be more compatible with the recommendations of the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission. Why is it necessary for each state bar to have their own set of guidelines in this area, when the companies that offer cloud computing services operate nationally?
NJ Attorney Advertising Committee Rules that a TotalAttorneys WebSite is Misleading
30
Jun
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.
