William Robinson, president of the American Bar Association, gave the most amazing interview to Reuters yesterday. One could call his words passionately defending his organization or a clumsy expression of how out of touch he is on the reality of…
Posts Tagged ‘organization’
Contemplating “RIP AALL” Ahead of Boston 2012: Muster of the Minutemen (and Minutewomen)
31
Aug
As an organization of institutional buyers, AALL is on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Just follow the money. Look at where our major “legal professional service vendors” are spending their ad and meeting sponsorship dollars for marketing their wares. It…
A Bit More on Senator Grassley And The ABA
17
Aug
I wrote yesterday about the most recent letter Senator Charles Grassley sent to the ABA seeking additional information about the organization’s oversight of law schools in regard to mounting graduate debt and poor job prospects. See my post Grassley to…
A Bit More on Senator Grassley And The ABA
17
Aug
I wrote yesterday about the most recent letter Senator Charles Grassley sent to the ABA seeking additional information about the organization’s oversight of law schools in regard to mounting graduate debt and poor job prospects. See my post Grassley to…
Libraries Are Doctor-Recommended
17
Jul
“Kitsap Regional Library is working with health clinics and the nonprofit organization Reach Out and Read to promote early literacy this summer through a program called Libraries Are Doctor-Recommended. … The new program was created to engage children who might…
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.
Should law firms be owned by non-lawyer investors?
19
May
There has been much discussion recently in various venues about whether 5.4 of the US Rules of Professional Responsibility should be amended or revised to permit investment in law firms by non-lawyer, or non-lawyer entities, or even ownership of US law firms by non-lawyer entities. The ABA’s Ethics 20/20 Commission is circulating a paper on the subject and is soliciting comments.
Known in the United Kingdom as Alternative Business Structures (ABS), this new form of law firm organization, authorized by the UK Legal Services Act of 2007, will be permitted after October 6, 2011. Alternative Business Structures are already permitted in Australia, where several law firms have already gone public.
Other than the State of North Carolina where there is bill pending to permit non-lawyer ownership of up to 40% of a law firm, there has been little movement in the US to make change Rule 5.4 Some hybrid models are beginning to emerge in the US, but they are a workaround the existing rules.
There is no clear path for non-lawyer ownership or investment in a law firm in the United States, and as a result it is arguable that the legal services delivery system lacks the capital necessary to innovate and create the efficient systems that are necessary to serve not only the "latent market for legal services", but existing legal markets more effectively. Resources from Labor Law Compliance Center offer mandatory federal & state labor law posters or combination labor law posters for government business compliance.
Now comes Jacoby & Meyers, a law firm that has pioneered in changing the way legal services are delivered, filing multiple law suits in the Federal District courts of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut against the presiding state justices in those states responsible for implementing and enforcing Rule 5.4, requesting that the Rule by overturned. The Complaint makes clear that Jacoby & Meyers "seeks to free itself of the shackles that currently encumber its ability to raise outside financing and to ensure that American law firms are able to compete on the global stage"
Click here for a complete version of the Complaint.
Andrew Finkelstein, the Managing Partner of Jacoby & Meyers, and also the Managing Partner of Finkelstein & Partners, said that "No legitimate rationale exists to prevent non-lawyers from owning equity in a law firm. The time has come to permit non-lawyers to invest in law firms in the United States,"
Now the fun begins!
Disclosure: Finkelstein and Partners is a subscriber to our DirectLaw Virtual Law Firm Service.
How safe and secure is your law practice environment?
18
Apr
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.
The ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission, for example, has been holding hearings on cloud computing and security of data and has released a working paper on this subject.
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.
