Practice Management

I have been contacting lawyers in my state of late with ideas that I have about virtual law practices to get their feel and opinions.  The almost universal response is "I think that is a bad idea".  Strangely enough, I get this response even from lawyers that work with me presently in the virtual and collaborative practice of law.  So, you cannot write all of this off to unfamiliarity.  I think, however, that you can write if off to the "devil I know is better than the devil I don't know" philosophy.

To me it just seems a waste to neglect the method or the formula that has been established with my firm.  Besides, I am a curious guy who always thinks the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.  Obviously, some follow the Erma Bombeck rule that the grass is always greener over the septic tank.  Regardless, I have a lot of interest, not the least of which is the employment of cheap tech, coupled with collaboration and procedures that simply emasculate the traditional practice of law.

(Oops.  Maybe that is too strong of visualization).

There is part of me that would like to one up the established view of how law should be practiced.  However, forgetting my colleagues for a moment, I learned a long time ago that we are reaching for a market that is often as reluctant as those attorneys to which I have spoken of late.  You are not going to immediately eliminate the competition, just as being able to operate online has not eliminated Wal-Mart or Barnes Nobel.  You are dealing with a somewhat smaller universe of what I would call "broadbanders" who live by the Net.  People for whom it is not a threat.  This group is growing rapidly, but I should say we are not in the majority, yet.  Therefore, this to me is the biggest concern.

Margret Thatcher in England once tried to reform the British legal system to allow solicitors to practice openly in the courts, which had once been the clear territory of only the barristers.  I had an opportunity to participate in a trial in England once, and from my perspective it was a tad antiquated.  We would go to the office of the solicitor, who would copiously take down everything by handwriting it in something similar to a blue book we would use for exams in law school back in the day.  Solicitors would not type the information out on a computer because at that time anything maintained on a computer in England did not enjoy the attorney-client privilege (as it was explained to me).  The barrister, which was separately retained, did not sit in on these meetings.  Then we would go down to the courthouse and the solicitor would meet at length with the barrister, without the client or witnesses, and review the blue books.  The barrister spent very little time with the witnesses or the client, before trial.  Then the barrister would deck himself out in a robe and powdered wig and off we would go.  There were not really depositions of which to speak, but mainly a war of affidavits filed in court with big red waxed and foiled seals on them.  It was really quite quaint.  You could feel the history and the traditions dripping from the courtroom walls.  It was also just plain retarded to a young lawyer not far out of law school at the time.

I digress, but the point was that Thatcher wanted to do something about this style, and I think the cost of the British legal system because Britain, after all, has legal care, similar to our Medicare for certain legal problems and people.  The system had gotten expensive and I think she wanted to lower the cost.

But, during this donnybrook over court access, I recall a barrister being asked by the British media why solicitors should not be able to represent clients directly before the court.  His response was that it would be unseemly because solicitors, by tradition, would not be allowed to wear powdered wigs.

Now maybe I should not be allowed to talk because I wore a leisure suit and polyester shirts nearly everyday of my life during part of the 70s.  So, to say that I understand anything about dress, decorum or tradition is probably a long shot.  But, I tend to think that resistance to a purely virtual practice of law is about as silly as barristers opposing solicitors over the fact that tradition does not allow them to wear powdered wigs.

It does not mean that my friends do not have some valid points.  First, they argue that by physically meeting with a client you can get a feel for the person.  Some said you can tell when your client is lying to you.  I think, however, that a client will lie to you in person just as quickly as they will do it online and over the phone.  And, the older I get I am not sure I want to get the full feel for the person I represent.  After all, I want to represent the cause or the objective without always being swayed by the fact there is something for the client for which I do not really care.  My point is that getting a full feel of the person can be both beneficial and a detriment.  It can be both a blessing and a curse.

Second, clients are not likely to retain somebody they have not met.  Well okay, I can see the reluctance, but a year ago I borrowed $200,000.00 to buy a house and I never once met my mortgage banker in person.  I purchased home insurance without meeting the insurance agent.  I had a survey and appraisal on the house without even talking to either of these professionals.  I never met the selling agent.

A few years back I retained the services of a law firm to contest the property value for tax purposes on my house.  It was all online and by email.  I never even talked to the firm.  Admittedly, the firm was not successful, but I also did not have to pay for the services.  My son got a traffic ticket in a wreck he had.  I did not believe he did anything wrong in trying to avoid the wreck.  So, I hired a attorney that litigates tickets.  I spoke to a staff person once, submitted my payment online and emailed an authorization form back to the firm.  I met an attorney at the hearing for a total of 10 minutes.  He and my son prevailed.  I was satisfied.

Most traffic ticket lawyers do not meet their clients before a court appearance.  Most creditor and collection attorneys do not meet their clients unless the case becomes seriously contested.  My point is that it is not unusual not to physically meet with your client in this day and age.  Both lawyers and clients have gotten use to this as a way of life in most of what they do.  So, is the reluctance to argue against the effort to operate in this way a fight for the right to wear a powdered wig?

Third, there is no computer system that allows one to cheaply handle such a thing.  This is certainly true from a George Jetson standpoint.  There is not a software or hardware system that will allow you to push a button and have everything completed from end to end.  Nobody said that a virtual firm needs to eliminate the lawyer completely.  There are applications, however, that one should be able to master and combine together to help the lawyer process a case virtually.  The key is to find, test and incorporate these.

Fourth, I practice a type of wholesale law now in which my cases are referred to me by other typically brick and mortar attorneys, and I am not the first line of defense for these clients.  Practicing a retail type of law on the Net is a whole lot different.  Well, on this point I agree.  It is the biggest concern that I have.  I use to operate a large consumer bankruptcy law firm in a past age.  We survived on massive advertising and TV spot purchases.  The market has changed a lot since 1999.  And, where I am in a new land, I still have a perspective, I think, that new attorneys do not have.  This is because the goal is not to win or control all of the business in the Texas.  The goal is to build the practice areas based on networking.  In this case, social networking and social media.  Just on a larger more diverse scale than what I am doing now.  I am not going to convince everyone.  I am not going to convince most.  I just have to convince enough.

So, is the virtual practice of law virtually impossible?  I do not think so, but then nobody said that it will be easy either.  I just do not think attorneys should oppose it because of the powdered wig rule.