RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘rsquo’

How Do Lawyer Bidding Sites Work?

30 Nov

Recently several Web sites have emerged that enable consumers to bid for legal services. Examples include: ExpertBids and  Shpoonkle. (Don’t ask me how to pronounce  it). They all work pretty much the same way.

You submit a description of your project or the service you want, your location and your estimated budget. You create a secure account with a user name and password. Your service request is then posted or published to a lawyers who have registered for the service so they can bid on your work. When a lawyer bids for your work, you receive an email (each bid includes a rate, a description, and the lawyer’s profile, rating and client reviews). When the lawyer bids, whether bid by the hour or fixed price, you receive an email which includes a rate, a description, and the lawyer’s profile, rating and client reviews. The process gives you options and a basis for comparing how different lawyer;s will submit bids and pricing for similar work.

The process is always free to the potential client. Once you are connected to a lawyer you can continue your conversation either online or off-line. The sites enable you to communicate with the lawyer online directly, but often you don’t get any free legal advice or any legal service until you accept a retainer agreement and the lawyer/client relationship is established.

For law firms that have learned how to offer legal services for common legal matters for a fixed fee, these bidding sites could be another channel to the consumer and potential clients. These law firms, often virtual law firms, are low-cost producers of legal services, and can out bid more traditional legal firms without sacrificing quality or their profit margins.

Many of these law firms offer what are called, “limited legal services”, which enable these law firms to offer a low cost solution to consumers, but often consumers have no understanding of this concept. See for example the law firms listed in the MyLawyer.com Directory of  Virtual Law Firms. We think that the bidding sites should have articles and information on their web sites describing the “limited legal service” concept as this would be way to educate consumers about another way to cost effectively buy legal services.

A problem that we see with the bidding sites that we reviewed is that there is no easy for the consumer to describe that they want “limited legal services“, as distinguished from traditional legal services. There are options for bidding by the hour, or by the project, but no option for limiting the scope of representation. “Unbundling legal services“, is a relatively new idea, but many states (more than 35) have already passed amendments to their Professional Rules of Responsibility that enable law firms to offer “limited legal services” as long as the retainer clearly defines the scope of representation.

I think this is a critical gap in the way the operators of these site understand how middle class consumers want to purchase legal services. I also think that there is likely to be a disconnect between what the consumer bids for a service, and what they law firm delivers for the bid price. Without a clear specification of the scope of services, there is bound to be miscommunication and confusion.

It is too early to predict whether these “bidding sites” will survive. In the “dot-com boom and bust” era, there were several experiments with lawyer bidding, but all the sites failed because they could not generate enough volume to support their overhead structure.

Susan Cartier Liebel, the President of Solo Practice University has written a good blog post analyzing these sites,  that is worth reviewing by consumers who are interested in this approach to securing legal services.

Buy a Legal Forms Access Plan from MyLawyer.com

 
No Comments

Posted in bidding, Competition, for, limited, marketing, Marketing On-Line Legal Services, services, unbundled

 

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?


 
No Comments

Posted in 20/20, 2011FEO6, association, cloud, cloud computing, Commission, computing, eLawyering Ethical Issues, firms, for, NC, Outsourcing, Standards and Best Practices

 

North Carolina Bar Regulates Legal Cloud Computing

02 Jun

Legal Cloud ComputingA  proposed Ethics Opinion of the North Carolina Bar  that provides guidelines for attorneys using cloud computing services, commonly known as SaaS (Software as a Service),  contains language that is troubling because of its potential impact on solos and small law firm practitioners who are creating virtual law practices. The Bar is soliciting comments prior to making the Opinion final. Here are some comments for consideration.

The Opinion states that to comply with the attorney’s duty to keep client data confidential there should be:

"a separate agreement that states that the employees at the vendor’s data center are agents of the law firm and have a fiduciary responsibility to protect confidential client information and client property."

 

DirectLaw is a SaaS vendor that hosts law firm data at a Tier IV Data Center that implements the security controls that a bank or major financial institution uses.  The idea that our data center would enter into an agreement that would make its employees agents of a law firm is not realistic. There is not sufficient consideration to expose the Data Center to this kind of liability, and there is no way that they would modify their terms and conditions to meet the needs of a single SaaS vendor. I doubt that counsel for the Data Center would ever approve such language. The Data Center would just tell us to take our business elsewhere. Amending the contract terms just for SaaS vendors that service the legal industry is not likely to happen.

There are other approaches to providing assurance to law firms that client confidential data is secure and less burdensome.

I think a better guideline would be to suggest or require that SaaS vendors host their data at a data center that is a Tier IV Data Center.  A Tier 4  Data Center is one which has the most stringent level requirements and one which is designed to host mission critical computer systems, with fully redundant subsystems and compartmentalized security zones controlled by biometric access controls methods. The Data Center should also be SAS 70 certified. The Data Center should also have PCI DSS certification if credit card data is stored within the Data Center. With these safeguards in place,  a law firm should be  considered to have undertaken reasonable due diligence to satisfy the obligation to insure that client data will remain confidential.

There are other problems with the North Carolina opinion. Another guideline:

"requires the attorney to undertake a financial investigation of the SaaS vendor: to determine its financial stability."

What does that mean? I am not about to divulge our private financial statements to just any lawyer who inquires. How is it relevant? If there are provisions for data capture and downloading data that is stored in the cloud, and the law firm has access to that data, what difference does it make if the SaaS actually goes out of business?

It would make more sense to simply require that a SaaS vendor carry Internet liability insurance for the benefit of its law firm clients. Law firms will have problems securing Internet Liability Insurance to cover data loss. Data loss as a result of a Data Center outage is not normally covered under a law firm’s malpractice policy. For solos and small law firm’s securing this kind of coverage would be a burden and cost prohibitive. It makes more sense to require the SaaS vendor to secure such coverage and make its law firm subscribers a beneficiary of the coverage.

Another guideline states that:

"The law firm, or a security professional, has reviewed copies of the SaaS vendor’s security audits and found them satisfactory."

How much does such an audit cost? Can solo practitioners afford such an audit? Who qualifies as a security professional? I think this requirement will act as deterrent to solos and small law firms who are seeking cloud-based solutions that they can use in their practice. I think that a less costly and more effective solution would be for an independent organization to issue a Certificate of Compliance to the SaaS vendor indicating that the SaaS vendors has satisfied or complied with well recognized standards. Like the Truste Certificate in the privacy area, this would give solos and small law firms this would provide stamp of approval that minimum standards have been satisfied. This would move the cost burden of undertaking due diligence to the SaaS vendor, rather than to the solo or small law firm practitioner.

Another guideline states:

"Clients with access to shared documents are aware of the confidentiality risks of showing the information to others. See 2008 FEO 5."

This guideline should be clarified because it is not clear what "shared documents" means. This kind of statement is likely to scare clients into thinking that a law firm that stores client data on the the Internet is putting the client’s data at more risk than storing the data in a file cabinet in the lawyer’s office.

As the American Bar American,  through its Ethics 20/20 Commission, and state bar associations adapt ethical rules to deal with the delivery of legal services over the Internet, it is important to consider that the burden of compliance may have a different impact on solos and small law firms, than on large law firms. The rules should not act as a barrier to solos and small law firms exploring new ways of delivering legal services online which are cost effective for both the law firms and their clients.

For a similar point of view see Stephanie Kimbro’s blog post on the same topic.

Disclosure: DirectLaw is a SaaS vendor that provides a virtual law firm platform to solos and small law firms.

 
No Comments

Posted in Bar, cloud, cloud computing, Competition, computing, data, DirectLaw, Granat, IV, Kimbro, lawyering, North, opinions, Richard, services, Stephanie, Tier, virtual

 

How Does the IRS Treat Registered Domestic Partners?

14 Apr

Before 2010, the IRS treated Registered Domestic Partners (RDPs) who reside in community property states like Washington as single people. For tax year 2010, the IRS has changed its policy and now treats RDPs more like married couples. Attorney Elaine G. DuCharme wrote an article for the April 2011 King County Bar Bulletin called, “New IRS Rules for Registered Domestic Partners,”  which points out the changes in the tax code and what they mean for RDPs. This is an overview of that article for people who are in a Washington RDP or are considering registering.

The Old Rule.

Before 2010, people who were in a Registered Domestic Partnership would each file a separate federal tax return, report only their income, and only be entitled to claim their credits and deductions. Basically, the IRS treated RDPs like single people. This was despite Washington’s Registered Domestic Partnership Act which extended community property rights to RDP’s as of June 11, 2008.

The New Rule. 

The IRS has changed their rules for RDPs in Washington effective with the 2010 tax returns. People who are in an RDP still file individually, but now each person reports half of the combined income of the RDP and takes half of the combined total credits for income tax withholding. “Income” includes both wages and income from community-property assets. These rule changes also allow taxpayers to amend tax returns filed in 2008 and 2009, though they do not require amendment. If one taxpayer amends, the other must do so as well.

What is or isn’t community property is still being sorted out and is likely to change as the IRS refines their new rules. According to Ms. DuCharme’s article, withdrawals from IRAs and Coverdell Education Savings Accounts are treated as separate income, but withdrawals from pensions (including military retirement, civil service retirement and FERS retirement plans) could be treated as community property. Income from a community business is community income, but the self-employment taxes are only imposed on the partner who is carrying on the business. If the property was acquired before the couple was registered or before June 11, 2008 (whichever was later) it will be considered separate property unless it was clearly converted to community property via a quit claim deed or agreement.

Effect of New Rules. 

There is bound to be a good deal of confusion about how these new rules affect you and your partner. If you are registered, should you stay registered? If you aren’t registered, should you take that step? What does the IRS consider to be separate property and what is community property? Should you and your partner enter into an agreement stating that property is or isn’t community property? Is the new rule going to save you and your partner money or end up with you paying more taxes? Do you and your partner need to amend your tax returns?  If so, how far back do you need to go? These are all very good questions and should be answered by a tax professional and attorney who are fluent in the new IRS rules as well as the RDP Act. 

Ms. DuCharme’s article can be read here. If you have questions, feel free to call Pro Se University at 877.776.7310.

 
No Comments

Posted in King County, King County registered domestic partnership, Washington IRS policy for domestic partners

 

Online Legal Services: Is It Hype or a New Way of Delivering Legal Services?

09 Apr

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.

See: Law Firm Web Site Design: Tips and Techniques

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.

 

 
No Comments

Posted in and, DirectLaw, DirectLaw Law Firms, elawyering, firm, firms, marketing, Marketing On-Line Legal Services, mortar, practice, services, studies, successful, virtual, Virtual Law Practice

 

How can I expect my life to change after divorce?

11 Mar

People know to prepare themselves emotionally when going through the divorce process, but they often fail to prepare for adjusting to life afterward. Too often, they assume that life on the other side will be easier and they vastly underestimate the new challenges they will inevitably face. To help make things less stressful for you later on, take some time to think about and understand some of the common misconceptions surrounding divorce.

What are some common misconceptions surrounding divorce?

One of the biggest misconceptions concerns money. Both women and men tend to believe that their finances will not change significantly after a divorce. They don’t take the time to sit down together and figure out how the income that previously supported one household will be able to support two in the future. Instead, each party expects to sustain their current lifestyle while the other makes concessions. Typically, women believe they will receive more maintenance than the court is likely to award, while men believe that they shouldn’t have to pay alimony and that everything should be divided equally, even if their spouse hasn’t worked for many years. In most cases, both parties will end up living off of a lower income post-divorce.

You may be able avoid frustration and disappointment down the road by setting up a budget during the divorce, either together or on your own. At the very least, a budget will help you to anticipate upcoming lifestyle adjustments. In fact, you may want to start cutting expenses now if you can, or think about ways to eventually increase your income.

Other common misconceptions about divorce involve children. Parenting after a divorce can be complicated, but it helps to be flexible and open-minded. Many women are used to being the primary caregiver and find it difficult to let go of the high level of control they once had over their children’s lives and schedules. Depending on your custody arrangement, your children may spend time between two homes, which means increased time away from you. This can be painful at first, but remember that your children have two parents and that it is essential to their well-being and development that they spend time with both of them.

Men struggle with their own parenting challenges after divorce and are frequently surprised by how difficult it is to raise a child on their own. They are also often caught off guard by the amount of child support they are required to pay.

It is important to note that the amount of child support one pays is related to the amount of time each parent spends with a child. The parent who has the child most of the time will receive child support from the other parent. If the child spends significant time with both parents, then the paying parent may get a credit against the support payment to account for this extra time. Also, if primary parenting of multiple children is split between the parents, then child support is based on this “split-custody” arrangement. In these situations, we use a formula to calculate which parent will pay support and in what amount. This formula was developed by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in the case of In re Marriage of Arvey, 77 Wn.App. 817, 894 P.2d 1346 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1995).

It is also important to remember that the issues of child support and parenting are treated separately by the court. This means that one parent cannot withhold visitation from the other parent because he or she has failed to pay child support. Instead, the parent who is not receiving his or her court-ordered support must bring legal action to enforce the order to pay.  But in the meantime, the nonpaying parent is still entitled to enforce the parenting plan. This is because to do otherwise  would be unfair to the child, who has a right to spend time with both parents.

How can I clear up any misconceptions I may have about life after divorce?

You can learn about the realities of divorce by reading through the Pro Se University blog archives or you can sign up for the next free 30-minute Attorney Appointment. We are here to help.

 
No Comments

Posted in divorce, if child support is not paid, life changes from divorce, misconceptions of divorce

 

60% of UK Survey Respondents Said They Would Buy Legal Advice From National Brands

10 Mar

YouGov, a research firm based in Great Britain, in a survey of consumer preferences for legal services recently reported that 60% of respondents said they would buy legal advice from brands like Barclays, AA, Co-op and Virgin. The report states that  “Law firms build their business on their reputation not on their brands and, in a highly fragmented market, recognisable legal brands are few and far between. The large non-legal brands could follow the Co-op’s example and build a strong presence relatively quickly in a market where no strong brands currently exist." In the US there are no national legal brands that serve consumers directly, except for LegalZoom, which isn’t even a law firm. It would be interesting to see what would happen if nationally branded networks of law firms emerged to service consumers with a better value proposition than the typical local solo or small law firm practitioner.

The study also asked about online legal services: 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to choose a law firm that offered the convenience of online access to legal documents over one that had no online capability; 22% disagreed and 37% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Younger males were the most likely to choose a law firm with online services and access: 44% of 25-to-39 year-old males (and 40% of such women), along with 40% of 16-to-24 year-old males, would choose a law firm offering online access to documents over another law firm.

There is obviously a generational shift happening.  As a younger generation matures to the age where they have legal problems, their desire to deal with counsel online becomes a preference.

 

 
No Comments

Posted in access, advice, automation, branded, Competition, documents, firms, Marketing On-Line Legal Services, networks, of, services, to, UK Legal Reform, web-enabled

 

How can social media affect my divorce?

11 Jan

Are you going through a separation or a divorce and maintain a profile on Facebook? You need to be careful what you post.

According to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML):

An overwhelming 81% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys say they have seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence during the past five years, according to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Anything you post online is public. Even if you have tight privacy settings, you never know who’s looking at your profile and who will share the information. 

What are attorneys or your estranged spouse looking for? They are trying to check your emotional state and see if you post anything that contradicts a statement you previously made. For example, if you go on record that you are having financial troubles and then post pictures from a recent vacation or a big purchase you just made, it will not paint the same picture and has the potential to hurt your case.

What can I do to protect myself on Facebook?

Even if you are not “friends” with your estranged spouse on Facebook, any status updates, pictures, links, and comments you leave on the things your friends post may show up on your estranged spouse’s newsfeed through mutual friends. Don’t risk it.

Check you privacy settings on Facebook. Here are two articles to walk you through how to check your privacy settings:

  1. Time to Audit Your Facebook Privacy Settings, Here’s How on Fast Company
  2. 10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know on All Facebook: The Unofficial Facebook Resource

Be careful what you say. Think before you post and comment on anything—be it a status update, a photo or a comment on another friend’s post. Do not post anything related to your case, your estranged spouse, or if you’re starting to date other people. If you have any doubts, you probably shouldn’t push the “share” button.

Lock down your account. You can temporarily deactivate your Facebook account during your litigation or simply not post anything until it’s over. This will prevent you from sharing something that could potentially be used against you.

You should also be aware of what you post on Twitter, especially since all public tweets posted to Twitter are archived by the Library of Congress.

If you have questions about the role social media can play in your case, contact our office and we can help you figure out the best strategy.

 
No Comments

Posted in affect of divorce, divorce, Facebook, resources, social media