RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘rules of professional conduct’

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?


 

The Unbundling of Legal Services

04 Oct

What can you do if you have a legal issue for which you cannot afford to retain a lawyer (but you do have some money) or you feel the issue is simple enough for you to handle on your own, but you need a little guidance? Perhaps you would like to use a lawyer for certain parts of your case such as:

  • To provide advice, information about the law, procedures to follow;
  • Completing crucial forms;
  • Review forms you prepared;
  • Conducting legal research; or
  • Representation at critical court hearings (perhaps you want to represent yourself to reach a settlement but want a lawyer in case the case goes to trial).

A lawyer providing limited representation for a client must follow Rule 1.2 division (c) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct which states:

“A lawyer may limit the scope of a new or existing representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and communicated to the client, preferably in writing.”

So as long as the limited representation is reasonable under the circumstances and preferably in writing, then it is allowable. However, many lawyers are still reluctant to enter into such agreements. Some find it difficult to communicate the limitations and fear misunderstandings with the client. Some are busy enough representing clients on a full-time basis that they don’t need to engage in limited representation. Others are just traditionalists and historically, this was not how legal services were rendered. Some attorneys will provide limited representation as long as it does not involve appearing in court. It is difficult to start handling a matter without knowing what previously happened in court. Also, once an attorney makes an appearance in court, the court must approve a subsequent withdrawal.

This should not stop you from inquiring about a limited representation arrangement if you feel it is right for you in your situation. This site’s administrator, Jason Kasunick, is an Ohio attorney who does engage in limited representation arrangements under the right circumstances. Please feel free to contact him at (216) 245-7375 or through the email form on the Contact Us page to learn more.