www.vtbar.org
For those of us who make up the bar,
the question is whether we will design the
interface between lawyer and client or
whether someone outside the profession
will do it. There is nothing stopping us from
doing this or developing our own innovation on the traditional attorney–client initial
meet and greet.
President’s Column
go on Airbnb and list a room in their house
(or their entire house) for rent to complete
strangers. Think about that for a moment:
simply because the transaction is facilitated
by a computer program, people are letting
other people come into their houses, sleep
in their beds, and have free access to their
stuff. Airbnb does not perform background
checks, they do not offer security screenings, they just facilitate the transaction.
They act as listing agent and fee collector.
The same thing is true of Uber and Lyft
that connect people who need rides or
cars. This is essentially computerized hitchhiking. Why do we think that simply because the rider or driver has a smart phone
and can operate the program that they are
to be trusted?
But we do. That is the amazing thing.
These applications have exploded in the
marketplace and have grown more and
more popular. A friend who has an Airbnb
rental told me that she makes more money on it than if she put it out for a longterm lease. She rents it as often as she
wants. People love the idea of staying in a
home, with all the comforts and amenities
that suggests—usually at a lower rate than
a hotel, inn, or bed and breakfast. Sharing
apps, for many, are proving to be a field of
dreams … if you build it, they will make reservations.
With this growing trend, it is surprising
that more legal entrepreneurs have not developed or solicited a legal app.6 Imagine
a service where clients could put their issues up for bid and get matched with attorneys who could handle their need. Or
imagine a service where for a low price,
a client’s legal issues were reviewed, analyzed, and then offered to lawyers to bid.
Such an app would act as the initial consultation. Lawyers would benefit from receiving clients (without advertising) and clients
would benefit from reviewing a wider net
of potential lawyers then they could find on
their own and would be able to price out
the bids.
That is one concept. There are several variations and permutations that could
be developed from this idea. The problem, apart from designing and marketing
this type of app, is going to be how we
make it fit within the regulatory framework
that lawyers must follow. That is the tricky
part. As much as the sharing revolution has
taken hold in the public consciousness, it
has pushed up against existing regulation.
Airbnb has gotten into zoning and public
health issues.7 Uber has run afoul of hackney license and labor laws (and their own
boneheaded public relations actions).8 Amazon has shut down its associates programs
in Vermont because of sales tax issues.9
None of these challenges are fatal, and in
most cases either the program changes or
the regulations do.10
The Paperless Office and the
Software-Driven Practice
For years, one of my former partners
would rail against the amount of paper that
we had to sort and shift in the office. At the
time, we were a six-attorney firm, and the
amount of paper from clients, opposing
counsel, experts, and the courts that came
in each day was staggering. But this was
not what galled my partner. It was the fact
that each page that came in was usually
handled five or six times as part of its normal administration. First, the mail was open
and sorted to each partner. Second, the
partner read and reviewed the document.
Third, the partner would return the document to send to the client for her review.
Fourth, the document was returned from
the administrative assistant to the partner
who would take the appropriate action (responsive letter, filing, memo, etc.). Fifth,
the document would go into an interim filing system. Sixth, the document would be
filed in the client’s file. All of this shuffling
would occur before a hearing or meeting
as the normal life of a law office document.
For my partner, it was incredibly inefficient. If the document was simply scanned
and entered into an electronic client file,
then the original could go straight to the
client’s paper file and all the actions above
could be done by e-mail. No paper chase,
no back and forth, and most importantly,
no panic when you get to court and the
document is still in the interim filing back
at the office.
Given the ease of scanning, the inexpensive and wide availability of electronic
storage, and the computer programs that
make accessing electronic files simple and
self-evident, this is simply a no-brainer. Law
offices should be paperless or working to
become that way. What this means, however, is rethinking how you practice law
and organize the office. S