The Future Of The Legal Profession: How To Ethically Lie About Your Fake Office

So much discussion about the future of the legal profession is running around the internet these days that you may begin to think that the people talking about it actually know what they are talking about. Look a bit closer and you will see that the so called "future" is being described by those who are tired of practicing, addicted to tech, have no real substantive practice to speak of, and generally make up things to bolster their self-fulfilling prophecies. In essence, those that talk about the future of the legal profession these days are mainly spewing their vision of the profession. A vision that many "real" lawyers don't share.

One vision I do share with these "future of the legal profession" idiots, is that the future includes more acceptable lying. You know, pretending you have a certain amount of experience, or credentials, or yes, even a certain type of office.

Which brings me to the topic at hand.

Why do some lawyers put photos of their office building on their website? I don't have a picture of my office building on my website. Maybe I should. Maybe one day I will. But when I do, it will be a picture of the office building where I have an office, with a desk, and people working for me and with me. It will not be a picture of the building in which some timeshare company owns a floor and of the address I own for $100 a month.

Which leads me to the answer to my own question. There are lawyers who put a picture of the building in which their "office" is located in order to create an impression that they in fact, have an office there. When in fact, I, as well as many other lawyers know (not potential clients though) that in each city there are Class A office buildings that have a floor rented by a "Regus" type company that in turn, provides fee-for-service office solutions for lawyers and other businesses.

A lawyer can have merely the address to receive mail, or someone answering a dedicated phone line, or conference room time, office time, and yes, lawyers can actually rent offices and work there like in any other place. But for the most part, in this "future of the legal profession," lawyers buy the address and pretend (lie) that this is actually where they practice.



Cool, huh?

Welcome to the future.

.Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Dry Cleaners, Rental Cars, And The Practice Of Law

Ten years ago I began using a dry cleaning company that comes to my house, picks up the week's wears, and drops them off at next week's pick up. It's not a little, but a lot more expensive then standing in line at the one next to my local breakfast joint on a Saturday where moms in jogging suits and dads in t-shirts evidencing the last good trip sigh as they hold the pile of whites and blues of the week.

As I walk past them Saturdays on my way in to have Tanya pour me some coffee and bring me a perfectly scooped bagel, I shake my head at how people can wait in line to have their clothes dry cleaned.

But they do. They do there, and at the dozens that I pass every day as I travel through town. While pick up and delivery is more convenient, I don't see dry cleaners closing up store fronts and buying vans in their place.

Why?

Because there are still and will always be people who don't trust leaving their clothes on the front porch. Maybe they like saying hello to that angry Greek guy who runs the place. Maybe they like to explain exactly how they want their clothes cleaned. Maybe they can't afford the pick up and delivery service. Maybe they just like doing it the way they've done it for years and have no reason to change.

Then there's rental cars. I think Hertz was the first company to have a service where you got off the plane and went right to the car. No stopping at the counter.

Plane - car - done.

But I still see counters. I still see lines of people there.

There's guys like me who can't understand any of this. Why wouldn't you pay a little more for the convenience? Why would you do it the way you've been doing it for all these years?

The problem is that I'm not one of these new fangled "evangelists" who spends their days trying to convince people that the way I do things is the way they are going to be done and therefore you must do them this way or you will die.

Listen to the evangelists of the internet today as it pertains to law practice, and you will think that in 5 years there will be no offices, no paper, no pens, no clients meeting lawyers face to face, nothing will be like it is today.

But don't ever forget that those who are making these claims, are doing so because they are doing things differently, and can't imagine doing it any other way.

See, I think there's many ways to practice law. I know very good lawyers with nice offices and computers that sit on a credenza behind their desk collecting dust. I also know very good lawyers who are hired by fax and credit card and have well organized trunks.

Don't tell me I have to get on board. Don't tell young lawyers looking to rent an office and hire a secretary that this spells disaster.

Just put your pajamas back on, sit at the dining room table, and shut up.

The people in line at the dry cleaners and rental car counters don't give a crap what you think.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Lawyers Better Get On Board, Or Die, Again.

Recently I wrote about the self-fulfilling prophecy of lawyers and marketers trying to convince other lawyers that things need to be done differently.

It shouldn't be lost on the lawyers out there that those that sell blogs, will type all day about the importance of blogs. Those that are in social media marketing, will type all day about the importance of social media to lawyers. There is scant self-criticism, as it doesn't bring in the snake oil dollars.

So the ABA (motto: if you can't beat social media and tech lawyers, join 'em), never too far from capitalizing on the trend of flip-flop wearing Starbucks lawyers, recently hosted a panel at their mid-year meeting on the topic of "change or die." Change with the times, or find another line of business.

Cue the Jaws theme:

Law practice is changing so fast and so dramatically that wholesale groups of lawyers either need to change how they operate or face finding another line of business.

Fast. Dramatic.

A tidal wave is hitting the legal profession,” former Texas State Bar president and American Bar Foundation immediate past president Richard Pena, who moderated told a packed conference room. “The question is, are we ready?

Yes, I'm ready, where's the courtroom?

Here's the key:

The bottom line, they agreed, is that technology and globalization have caused a massive shift in how potential clients get legal information. Lawyers and law schools are not keeping up.

Tech, tech, tech, tech.

To those who practice law in an office, in a courtroom, with a telephone and desktop - be warned:

If you think nostalgically about the practice of law and how it used to be, then you are on the train tracks and not on the train,” said former Connecticut Bar President Frederic Ury, who is the president–elect of the National Conference of Bar Presidents. “The development of artificial intelligence along with increased Internet search capabilities is making access to answers for complex legal questions easier and cheaper.

Easier. Cheaper.

And here's what they are really talking about:

Ury pointed to Web-based legal information and document sites such as LegalZoom, cybersettle, CompleteCase.com, and Google Scholar that are providing basic legal information that lawyers once provided for a fee.

Buying documents. (Cue the applause from the virtual law firm Bar)

Why is someone going to pay $700 to have a lawyer prepare a will when they can get it for $49 online,” said Ury. “We have had a monopoly on answering legal questions about the law. But the consumer–our former clients–can now get that information for free on Google.

“Virtual law firms are here,” he said, “and there are now thousands of small town and small firm lawyers who once depended on those consumers who may not make it.

And the ingenious solution:

...lawyers must provide services that are a value-add to their clients. The value-add, they said, is knowing your client’s business better and helping them solve problems that they couldn’t figure out.

OK, gather round.

First, I'm comforted to see that for once, the ABA isn't cheerleading for the social media marketers. This issue is not about social media.

Second, this is not about every area of law (a notion that the internet gurus disagree with, only because it hurts their bottom line).

This is about the value we provide to clients.

No matter what information is available on the internet, people will still require a real attorney client relationship for various types of disputes - litigation is not going the way of Legal Zoom.

People in business with disputes will want to go to a lawyer and have them review the relevant documents and talk to the players in the dispute. Obviously, those arrested will always see the need to talk to a real lawyer, in person, and before they go to court - with that lawyer. People getting divorced, who own homes, have children, and significant assets, will not be buying legal documents through a virtual lawyer.

The concern is solely with lawyers who provide basic legal services - wills, corporation documents, and basic contracts.

Having recently gone through an estate administration for a family member, where the initial documents were faulty, I can tell you I would much rather pay a lawyer $700 than buy a will for a Florida resident from a virtual lawyer.

So while some legal services are available via keyboard and internet connection, there will always be clients who for some crazy reason, would rather actually talk to a lawyer, in person, before having documents prepared for signature that will affect some aspect of their future.

If you want to compete with the $70 virtual lawyer, become a virtual lawyer and charge $67.50. Lawyers today well know the tactics that comprise the race to the bottom.

I, am off the train, and I'm not getting on, no matter how many train riders scream for me to jump on board.



Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Starbucks Advocate

Last week I participated in the first ever twitter debate sponsored by the ABA Journal. The topic was Virtual Law Offices. I don't have a virtual office. Mine has a door, a desk, some photos of my family, and a small refrigerator. I keep some sodas in there and an occasional unfinished sandwich brought back from lunch. My colleague in the debate, does. She's also in the business of consulting with lawyers who want to start a virtual office.

A virtual office is a laptop computer. Clients purchase documents and services online, and speak with the lawyer over the phone and email. Virtual lawyers believe that virtual lawyers are in high demand and that virtual lawyering is the future. That's what manufacturers of cassettes said, too. Virtual lawyers actually tried to convince me during the debate, with a straight face, that because I have an office and use technology, that I am somewhat of a virtual lawyer, too.

My colleague in the debate, Stephanie Kimbro, is deeply involved in the virtual lawyer world. Based on my unscientific survey of the internet, she's the only credible virtual lawyer I know. She not only practices virtually, she also participates in her State Bar's Technology Committee, advocating for a type of practice that the grey hairs know nothing about.

I'm not a big fan of virtual lawyering. Stephanie could care less. My negativity on the topic is to her, an opportunity to shove articles, facts, and grounded opinions in my face. It's never personal, it's about the topic at hand. Stephanie knows that I will never be a virtual lawyer, never encourage young law school graduates to enter this type of practice, and will probably never use the services of a virtual lawyer. "So what" says Stephanie. It's not for me, and she knows that. She also knows that my opinion is just that. It's just like when someone says "I could never do what you do." "Great," I say, "more work for me." There's an appellate lawyer I know. One time I told her "I would kill myself if I had to do what you do." That was 11 years ago and she still doesn't speak to me.

I think virtual lawyering is a cheap way to practice law, and I think that lawyers are demanding virtual practices more than clients. I also think that virtual lawyers are doing a poor job trying to convince the legal community that this is the future of lawyering. I think it's a self fulfilling prophecy. I think that lawyers practice from Starbucks demeans our profession. I wish every manager at Starbucks would walk around and ask: "excuse me, I noticed you are typing a lot, (nice t-shirt by the way), are you a college student studying for finals or working on a term paper?" "Aw, shucks no, I'm representing a client as a lawyer." "OK, well this is not a law office, so can you kindly finish that cup you've been nursing for the last 2 hours and.....leave?"

I've discussed my views with Stephanie before, and enjoyed debating her last week. She has facts, stats, and opinions minus the hysteria that online lawyers show when anyone criticizes them. The hysteria is already simmering halfway into this post, with those online lawyers reading this saying "there he goes again," and taking everything personally.

What's funny is that as a criminal lawyer, I am constantly criticized: "How can you do what you do?" Sometimes I respond, sometimes I ignore it, but my criminal defense colleagues rarely see it as an opportunity to join in and help me defend myself. I don't take it personally, which is a rarity for the online lawyers today.

For online lawyers, it's different. It's all personal. Any criticism of them is an attack on them personally. The reason? Many of them are uncomfortable with where they are in their career and any naysayers cause them to think about what they really wanted to be at one time - maybe that was a practicing lawyer, in an office, in a courtroom, in a conference room negotiating a deal.

Online lawyers are either the virtual lawyers I speak of, or those former lawyers who are here to let you know that even though they no longer practice, they can help you make a lot of money. I don't have to mention them here, giving them the dearly beloved SEO they rely upon in their "profession." One claims that for $7,500 they can change your life. Another has worked with so many firms and made them so much money, that he can't even name one of them. Another practiced law for about 6 months before getting laid off and now claims that he can make you a rainmaker by teaching you how to.....use twitter.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but you are listening, you are paying, you are typing "how to make money as a lawyer" on Google and reaching them.

At last week's debate, some of these "lawyers" ran to the rescue in the debate. They were figuratively saying "don't say that!" to me. They had no facts, stats, or credible opinions. They just tried to squelch any criticism, any comments that would expose what this really is - a cheap way to practice law. These are not lawyers who can debate, argue, defend a point, they are lawyers trying to make a buck at Starbucks and believe that my opinion, written online, will have some effect. They run to support their friend and business position out of fear that a dissenting view will tank their pipe dream of wealth-by-laptop, or worse, hurt their efforts to be retained by other lawyers who are searching for the shorts and flip flop life of a law practice amongst the low-fat muffins and funky teas.

I have no consulting business on the side. Wait, actually last week I did have lunch with two young law school grads and, oh, never mind, I picked up the tab for lunch and didn't charge them for my advice.

Last week's debate didn't surprise me. As Stephanie and I began to debate, the Starbucks lawyers came out in droves. The trial lawyers? Lawyers with offices? One told me that they didn't participate much because they were busy practicing law.



I think Virtual Law offices have their place. I think it's great that a client can do a contract or will over the phone. Hopefully it is done properly and when someone says it wasn't, the virtual lawyer can virtually appear somewhere to fix it, even if that requires a real room, with a judge and opposing counsel.

I don't think any type of law practice is perfect, or perfectly safe, as the virtual lawyers try to make others believe. Don't tell me that any thing on a machine is perfectly safe. That tanks your credibility, immediately.

What I learned from this debate I only learned from Stephanie's comments, which were on point and based in fact. The others were just there to whine, scream and yell that I didn't know what I was talking about (without saying why), pimp their business model and protect their bottom line from those like me that have something different to say.

Unfortunately for the virtual lawyers, there are other lawyers who have opinions, opinions that don't help them in their quest to be left alone amongst the smell of Colombian coffee beans.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Debating The Virtual Lawyer

This Friday I am participating in a debate on twitter regarding virtual law practices with Stephanie Kimbro, who operates a web-based virtual law office (VLO) powered by VLOTech (Virtual Law Office Technology, LLC), a company that she co-founded in 2007. Stephanie practices online from her home office or as she says "wherever I feel like working remotely that day."

In advance of this debate, Stephanie has written a blog post about the future of the legal profession.

In an effort to begin the debate here, Stephanie is completely wrong.

It's OK, Stephanie is not one of the hysterical people on social media who whines and cries tears anytime someone says something that doesn't comport with her opinion. Stephanie understands that the ability to bolster her opinion, which is completely wrong, is served by those who disagree.

That's why I agreed to this debate.

In her blog post, Stephanie makes her case, or tries at least.

She begins by saying the future of law practice is client-centric. No, it's always been client-centric to lawyers that believe their role is to serve the client. But Stephanie is specific about her title. By client-centric she means increased customer service, response time, alternative billing, online access and use of technology by the firm to cut costs and make legal services more easily obtainable and affordable.

No one can argue that in this economy, increased customer service and response time is essential in any business. Lawyers are not immune from economic downturns, and when times are tough, clients look to those lawyers who are doing everything they can to satisfy the client.

Alternative billing? This always makes me chuckle. Criminal defense lawyers have used alternative billing forever. It's called the flat fee. With the death of BigLaw and their overbilling of hours, they now call that a "value fee." This is nothing new, it's just what BigLaw never did, so we call it "alternative," as if anything BigLaw doesn't do is "alternative."

Technology? All for it. Any lawyer who doesn't have a blackberry, iPhone, or other PDA, is a moron. I'm all about scanning documents, and emailing things to clients. Client files accessible online? Sorry, not for me. Not for my criminal or Bar clients. Can't do it. A client wants a document, I'll email it to them, that's as far as I will go. My job is to protect the client and the client's right to confidentiality. Don't tell me allowing them access to their file on-line has no danger at this point in time.

But then Stephanie goes off the deep end. She envisions the end of virtual law offices:

Imagine telling the client who has enjoyed online access to the status and files of his case that he must now make in-person appointments in your office and will receive the invoice in the mail in 7-10 business days. Or imagine telling your clients who you provided flat fees for legal services that you will now be charging them by the billable hour rate and instead of a number they can budget, giving them a guestimated range they will owe you upon services rendered.

In person appointments? Invoices in the mail in 7-10 days? No more flat fees?

Huh?

The virtual law office issue is about lawyers not having a physical office, it is not about clients not being able to be emailed files or invoices, or talk to their lawyer on the phone, or Skype. State Bars (some, state Bars) want lawyers to have a physical location. That is not to the exclusion of technology based practices. Sure, there is an issue of files being kept on-line, but why should we as lawyers determine how the client's file will be maintained? The client isn't entitled to a physical file of documents because some of us want to keep them on our iPads while sitting in Starbucks?

Stephanie, wrongly, believes that through the use of technology and especially through the security of virtual law practice we have much more effective communication with our clients, and wants to know why we as attorneys want to give that up?

Give what up? Rules on virtual law offices are again, not to the exclusion of technology. The sky is not falling. The "clouds" are still there. More effective communication with clients is by email and phone, not in person? Says who? These are clients hiring lawyers. Is a face to face meeting such a terrible thing?

In the end, Stephanie's point really appears to be that a virtual law office makes things easier and cheaper:

But the benefit should be that the use of technology gives us the ability to better serve our clients and the time to focus on actually solving problems for individuals rather than getting bogged down in administrative tasks that we later have to find ways to cover in our legal fees.

Stephanie relates the prohibition of virtual law practices as creating "less customer service." I don't see it. I don't buy it. I think that advocates for virtual law offices just want to do what they want, claim it benefits the clients, when in reality it's really for the convenience of the lawyer. The lawyer doesn't have to pay rent, doesn't have to provide a place to meet with the client, and can work out of their trunk. While some clients appreciate this in terms of fees, if the virtual crowd wants state Bars to come into their 21st century of law practice, they need to stop whining and get on a Bar committee and open their mouth.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Slackoisie New Demand: "Starbuckslex"

Recently, New Jersey dropped a bomb on lawyers who chronically whine "why can't we do what we want," better known the Slackoisie.

Apparently in New Jersey, the Bar thinks lawyers should have offices. This comes as quite a disappointment to the Slackoisie, the new kids that want to practice law how they want, when they want, and absent any regulation that may hinder their cries to re-define the practice as needing nothing more than a pair of shorts, Ed Hardy shirt, Frappuchino and a laptop.

In Florida, we also like lawyers to have offices. Our Rule ruins the Starbucks dwelling lawyers day by stating that the a lawyer must have a "bona fide office," "a physical location maintained by the law firm or lawyer where the firm or lawyer furnishes or reasonably expects to furnish legal services in a substantial way on a regular and continuing basis." In Florida, a non-Starbucks office is determined by the following criteria:

Does the office have the firm's name on an outside office sign or on the building's directory?

Is the advertised location staffed by law firm employees who answer phone calls at that location from prospective clients?

Is the advertised location staffed by receptionists, secretaries, clerks, or paralegals employed by the firm on a full-time basis?

Other than client interviews and conferences, do firm attorneys furnish legal services from the advertised location?

Is the advertised location staffed by at least one firm lawyer on a regular and continuing basis?

But we provide for a little "Starbuckslex" existence:

Even though an attorney may not advertise an office location that is not a bona fide office, the attorney may nevertheless advertise that he or she is "available for consultation" at a specified location or may identify other locations as "limited service" or "satellite" offices.

My friend Carolyn Elefant, herself a lawyer (far from Slackoisie) with a former full-time office, is not happy with New Jersey's new rule, and feels that it will send the profession into a cost-prohibitive stratosphere that will only hurt clients.

AVVO's General Counsel (non-Slackoisie as well) Josh King is also not happy.

Josh wanted the New Jersey Bar to change the rule regarding bona fide offices. Why? because lawyers want to work in the "cloud?" Because lawyers don't want to pay for an office? What else don't lawyers like about the rules? Let's make a list why don't we?

Josh says New Jersey "could have easily found a more expansive definition of what constitutes a “bona fide office;” one that takes into account our present world of ubiquitous broadband connections, voicemail and mobile phones."

Josh says this is "not good for solos, and not good for consumers who will bear these increased costs."

Carolyn, and Josh, my good friends, you're wrong about the effect of this opinion, and if you were right, I disagree this is a bad thing.

Carolyn believes that the New Jersey opinion by two New Jersey judicial advisory committees finds that "virtual office arrangements, outsourced or shared receptionist services and even working outside of the office for more than a few hours violate New Jersey's bonafide office requirement." She calls the opinion "simply so moronic that it could readily be mistaken for a joke."

By way of New Jersey's bonafide office rule, Rule 1:21:

New Jersey defines a bona fide office as:

a place where clients are met, files are kept, the telephone is answered, mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney's behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries and to ensure that competent advice from the attorney can be obtained within a reasonable period of time.

The opinion holds that virtual offices, Google "Regus," where as Carolyn says "lawyers can rent space part time to meet clients or use as a mail drop - are not a bona-fide office within the meaning of Rule 1:21 because lawyers use the space part time -- they do not keep files on site or employ staff who can assist walk-in client."

Carolyn disagrees with the rule because in sum:

Email, texting or voice mail "afford a far quicker, not to mention, less expensive way to contact a lawyer to obtain a response or advice within a reasonable amount of time than a receptionist and physical office space, and;"

"Many lawyers don't keep physical files in their office, but instead house them in the cloud while storing paper files off site."

Then Carolyn goes a little "the sky is falling:"

"Many lawyers, even those with full time space, like to spend time outside of the office. Back in the day when I had full time space, I often worked at the library, on site at one of my client's offices and occasionally from home. This too, would have violated the bonafide office rule unless I had someone babysitting the office, since the opinion states that: "If the attorney is regularly out of the office during normal business hours, then a responsible person must be present at the office."

No, not even close. And I will offer to pay for the Bar defense of any New Jersey lawyer with office space who spends 3-4 hours a day at the library or working somewhere else, while having daily office hours. "Regularly out of the office" would only come to light if clients started complaining to the Bar that they can never reach the lawyer, and the Bar went to the office for a few days in a row and found no one there. Trust me.

Carolyn continues:

"Essentially, the New Jersey ruling requires full time office space and a full time receptionist. Assuming $500 a month for space, and $20,000 for staff, that's $26,000 per year compared to the $3000-$5000 cost of a virtual office. It's clients who will absorb that cost."

Again, no. Wrong. The opinion wants the lawyer to have a "bona fide" office. I know plenty of lawyers who rent space from "Regus" type offices. They are there every day or at least most days, keep their files there, and have someone answer the phone. No other staff is involved. But let's say that wasn't the case, so what? State Bars don't exist to assist lawyers that want to re-invent the practice in order to avoid paying about $2,000 a month in rent and staff. If a lawyer is charging $100 an hour, working 40 hours a week, (Slackosie ignore this part), that's $16,000 a month. Let's cut that to $10,000 a month. We should be concerned about a lawyer spending 25% on rent and staff? Most real lawyers spend 50% on overhead.

Carolyn also claims this is bad for women lawyers:

"Moreover, the added cost of complying with the bonafide office rule is even higher if a lawyer has children. There, the lawyer will have to pay for child care so she can spend time at her physical location. And while the New Jersey ruling does allow a home office to meet the "bonafide office" requirement, most lawyers (particularly women) who work from home are loathe to use that address for security reasons, a point I made in this article.

So let me get this straight. You can work from home, but because women may not want to give out their address, it's a bad opinion? This is what I call "you can't make everyone happy all the time." What's left out, is that plenty of law firms have P.O. Box addresses for mail. If the female lawyer is concerned beyond that about having clients in the home, then yes, an office is required.

Carolyn believes this opinion is nothing more than "throwing up barriers to the burgeoning number of unemployed lawyers who may want to rent a virtual office to test the waters of starting a law firm. No offense Carolyn (I know, none taken), but state Bars are not in the business of making it easy for lawyers to define law practice just because a bunch of unemployed whiners want to practice while sipping mocha lattes at Starbucks.

What about the clients? Don't they have the right to have their files kept in a safe place? I feel much better having my file, my real file, with real documents, kept in a real office with insurance and security, than in the trunk of a car, or a den in a home with 4 kids, 2 dogs, and people visiting that I don't know.

Carolyn asks that the lawyers banking (no pun intended) on the virtual practice of law contact the New Jersey Bar and help "bring the New Jersey bar into the 21st century."

I say call all you want, my clients will always have the benefit of a meeting in a real office, where their files physically sit, in file folders, where a receptionist asks them if they want a cup of coffee, just not a Vente Mocha Latte with a shot of caramel, with room for cream.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.