Untethered Video Conferencing Comes To iPhone

December 3, 2009 by

iPhone_with_fringFring is a essentially an instant messaging platform that allows you to use AOL, MSN, Yahoo and all the other popular instant messaging systems.  It supports Skype calls as well, and works on the iPhone.

Big deal, you say.  Skype has an iPhone app.

Ever make a video call on your iPhone with Skype?  As of now, you can’t do it.

You can with Fring.

Rock on!  Now you can make video calls with your iPhone using Fring.  How cool is that?

Hat tip to the VOIP & Gadgets Blog for the information about this new functionality.

Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , , ,

Unbundled Legal Services Permitted In Kansas

December 1, 2009 by

On November 24, 2009 the Kansas Bar Association released Legal Ethics Opinion No. 09-01.  The opinion was prompted by a request from a Kansas attorney as to (a) whether the Kansas Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee approved the determination in ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 07-446 and (b) concerning the extent to which, if  any, the assistance of a lawyer under a limited scope of representation should be disclosed.

In response, the Kansas Bar Association held that:

Unbundled legal services are permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct, so long as (a) the limited scope of representation is clearly communicated to the client in writing, (b) the client gives informed consent in writing, (c) any document prepared by the attorney is marked “Prepared with the Assistance of Counsel,” and (d) the attorney complies with all other applicable court rules, including rules of ethics.

The opinion can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking on this link.

What do you think about the legal ethics opinion?  If you practice in Kansas, what does this mean to your business and how you deal with clients?

Hat tip to Topeka bankruptcy lawyer Jill Michaux for sending me the opinion.

Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , , ,

Saving GMail To Your Hard Drive

November 3, 2009 by

GMail Backup

Lots of lawyers use Gmail for their email needs, be it the standard “@gmail.com” version of the wildly-popular Google Apps. But we get nervous when it comes to keeping all of that valuable electronic data in the cloud. What if the messages are lost? What if I don’t have Internet access just when I need to get that attachment?

You’ve got a few options.

First, just use IMAP to download your email from the Google servers and keep it in sync between your computer and the cloud. It takes awhile the first go around, but if that’s how you routinely access Gmail then it’s pretty quick and reliable.

This is the option I use, and it works perfectly.  I can access my GMail account 24/7/365, and I’m always confident in my ability to get my hands on important messages and attachments whenever I want to do so.

There is, however, a second option.  You could go with GMail Backup, which is free. This is especially handy if you’re bumping up to your storage limit and don’t feel like opening up a second GMail account.

GMail Backup saves and restores a full archive of your Gmail email account. The downside is that though It’s available for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux, you get a graphical interface only with Windows. If you’re on a Mac or Linux, you’re forced to work through Terminal to get it done.

I’ve used GMail Backup on my Mac, and it wasn’t a big deal to use Terminal and go it without a graphical interface.  But I’m a geek, so I get it if you’re not keen on the idea of tinkering under the hood.

Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , , ,

Unbundled Legal Services Or Self-Represented Consumers? You Decide.

November 2, 2009 by

I recently came across a study by the New York State Bar Association that says that each year, New Yorkers experience a total of 2.5 million legal problems per year for which no lawyer is available.  Some of these people do nothing at all, others try to do it on their own.

Both of these groups concerns me, and should be cause for worry on the part of every lawyer.

Consider this: if someone has a legal problem and does what I like to call the, “ostrich in the sand,” routine, that person invariably ends up getting raked over the coals.  They get evicted, their bank account gets frozen, the kids don’t get child support, the house is lost to foreclosure.  Choose your poison, the end result isn’t ever good.

Don’t believe me?  Talk to any one of the millions of American homeowners caught up in the foreclosure crisis and ask them if they’ve got the money to hire a lawyer to adequately defend them – particularly in the specialized area concerning the transfer and securitization of mortgage obligations.  Take it from a lawyer who actively defends foreclosure cases when I tell you that it ain’t gonna happen too often.  Simply put, the cost of private counsel in these matters is prohibitive to many homeowners.

Now let’s flip to the other side of the fence and talk about pro se litigants.  Look, I understand why someone would “take the law into their own hands,” and either bring a lawsuit or defend one without a lawyer.  But there again, when looking to specialized fields of law such as bankruptcy, credit card lawsuit defense and consumer protection work the waters are murky indeed.  So much of this stuff is impossible to understand unless you’ve gone through years of education (and spent a bunch of time learning from the feet of the masters).

Once again, think I’m wrong?  Go to your local civil court one morning and watch the consumers who bother to show up to defend lawsuits brought against them for credit card debts.  Most of these lawsuits are filed without any lawyer review, without proof that the debt is truly owed by the consumer, and without any sense of how the amount demanded was calculated.

Many of these cases could be easily won if only the consumer had some amount of legal representation and background knowledge.  Instead, people either fail to show up to court to defend themselves or use, “I can’t pay you now,” as a defense.  Neither one of these is a good tactic to use.

And don’t get me started on consumers representing themselves in lawsuits against harassing bill collectors and credit reporting agencies.  They don’t.  Period.

I’m not saying that self-help isn’t effective sometimes.  In fact, there are many excellent resources available from companies such as Nolo to help guide consumers in helping themselves.  But the reality is that for many, not having a lawyer at all is the kiss of death for their legal needs.  They’re left in the dark, relying on unreliable sources of information and cobbling together defenses and causes of action that may not be legally viable.

So what’s the solution?  There are a few options:

  1. Increased funding for legal aid and legal services programs.  This is a great idea, but if you talk to anyone who works in legal aid or legal services you’ll find that they are understaffed, underpaid, and overworked on basic matters being handled for the truly poverty-stricken (criminal, eviction, child support and domestic violence).  Besides, is it the place of legal aid and legal services programs to provide representation for the middle class?  Nope.
  2. Create a workable framework for unbundled legal services and limited representation.  By allowing and standardizing unbundled legal services for consumer protection and bankruptcy work, consumers have the ability to gain basic knowledge and a cost they can more readily afford.  Lawyers end up charging less for basic aspects of their legal representation, but would potentially make up that loss through the increased amount of business (you have more time to take on more matters if you’re spending less time on each one) and lower staffing needs (you don’t need to hire more courtroom lawyers if you’re not handling the depositions and trial work).  Lawyers providing unbundled legal services would also be able to be brought back into a matter later on (presumably at full fee) if it was required by the facts and circumstances of the case.

As you can tell, the business model of unbundled legal services is one that fascinates me.  It can be a cornerstone of a virtual law firm, it can serve as an additional profit center, and – most importantly – it can enable a lawyer to do more good work for more people, which is good karma.

What do you think?  Sound off in the comments below – I’m anxious to hear your opinions.

Photo courtesy of scion_cho.
Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , , , ,

Unbundled Legal Services – A Primer

October 22, 2009 by

Unbundled Legal Services - Like A Relay Race

One of the major themes here at The Untethered Lawyer is the notion of unbundled legal services, and how a virtual law firm can use this as a business model while delivering excellent service to clients. It’s a concept I’ve been kicking around in my head for the past decade or so, and the time is finally right for unbundled legal services to take a place at the table.

But to many, unbundled legal services is a foreign concept. So in this article I will try my best to explain unbundled legal services if for no other reason than to lay the groundwork for some of our discussions on the topic.

What Are Unbundled Legal Services?

Unbundled legal services has also been called “discrete task representation.” The lawyer provides legal services to a client, but those services are less than the full range of what would be provided in a typical lawyer-client relationship.

For example, a client needs me to write a letter to a creditor demanding that they stop contacting the client at work. I agree to do so for a fixed fee, but don’t undertake to represent the client in any lawsuit for harassment that may arise later on.

Or perhaps a consumer who lives far away needs to file for bankruptcy. I’m unable to travel to the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing without charging a fee that is out of the client’s financial ability, but the client wants my help nonetheless. I may prepare the petition, schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs and Plan … but not file the case on behalf of the client or otherwise represent the client in court.

See? It’s as if there is a box called “full representation.” The client and I decide what to take out of the box, and what to keep in the box. Whatever remains in the box is the scope of my representation.

How Do Unbundled Legal Services Differ From Self-Help And Pure Pro Se Representation?

When you’ve got someone who buys a book or gets someone to fill out some forms … that’s a pure pro se party. They’re working without a net, do or die. All the knowledge they have is a product of their own information-gathering, and there’s been no licensed attorney helping them whatsoever.

In other words, they know just enough to be dangerous. Maybe they can get through the system in one piece, maybe not. Lawyering ain’t rocket science, but neither is rocket science … to the rocket scientists, that is.

With unbundled legal services, the person goes to a lawyer. The lawyer reviews the situation, explains the options to the non-lawyer, and together they make a decision on what the lawyer will handle and what the consumer will handle on their own. The lawyer does his or her thing (usually, gathering information, drafting documents, giving guidance on the remainder of the process) and the consumer picks up the ball and runs with it.

In other words, they work together to figure out who’s going to do what. The lawyer prepares the consumer for his or her part of the job, and the consumer does the job with that guidance as a foundation for action.

It’s like a relay race, where each person does his or her part in getting to the finish line.

Do you unbundle?  Drop me a comment – I’d love to hear from you!

Photo courtesy of matsugoro.
Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , ,

Are Unbundled Legal Services Bad For The Public?

October 13, 2009 by

Deception In Unbundled Legal Services?

Most of what now passes for unbundled legal services takes the form of providing forms for fees rather than any substantive legal advice.  We see online forms processors, We The People-style storefronts advertising quickie divorces and wills, and LegalZoom bringing “simple” things to the public.  In one sense that’s a great idea – after all, why should I pay a lawyer $300 to do a simple Power of Attorney so I can go on vacation and not have to worry about the mundane stuff of life?  Hiring a lawyer would surely be overkill when I could log on, grab a file, fill it in, and be done with it.

On the other side of the coin, you’ve got well-intentioned and otherwise intelligent people reducing the expertise to a fill-in PDF document.  Maybe their estate needs as so simple that they can do it on their own without a lawyer – but how do they know?  That’s probably why Charles Kennedy said in a recent comment here that:

The Courts in response to the unbundling by some attorneys are pulling into Court the lawyer who sells the form and requires the attorney to represent the party in the legal action.

The Courts are not at all on the same page. They want everyone to have counsel as it makes the Court’s work much simpler.

The court’s work does become easier, but in hauling the lawyer into court the unrepresented party is (theoretically) assured of competent legal representation.  Good for the public, good for the court.  And a stern warning to the lawyer, too.

But here’s the thing: unbundled legal services are not bad for the public in and of themselves.  Rather, it is the execution of the business model that fails the public in many respects.

Imagine, if you will, a humble law office.  In said office is a lawyer, skilled in his trade (let’s say he’s an estate planning lawyer).  The lawyer receives an inquiry from a prospective client, and sets up a consultation appointment.  During the appointment the lawyer determines that the client needs a Power of Attorney for day-to-day things, a living will, a health care proxy, and a full-blown Last Will and Testament.  The first three documents are simple, and so the lawyer directs the client to a CD with some PDF forms and instructions.  The Last Will and Testament, however, is another story – it’s going to need a lawyer’s firm hand and direction.

The client walks out with a $25 CD and a retainer agreement for the Last Will and Testament to be handled by the lawyer.  In other words, legal representation and guidance based on the needs of the client.

This is a proper business model for unbundled legal services, not the one of, “Set the public loose in a bookstore and let ‘em figure it all out for the low, low price of $29.95.”  The problem is that many courts don’t understand that not all unbundled legal service offerings are the same, and the decision to unbundle may be made by a lawyer only after proper consultation and assessment of the client’s needs.

What do you think?  Are unbundled legal services just bad all around, or is it simply the business model undertaken by some companies?

Photo courtesy of sylvar.
Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With:

Vonage Goes Untethered With New iPhone And BlackBerry Apps

October 5, 2009 by

Vonage For Untethered LawyersVonage today launched applications for the iPhone and BlackBerry, bringing low-cost calling for cell phones. The calls go over wi-fi signals, but when wi-fi isn’t available (or when cell coverage is available), Vonage calls take up local minutes.

With cell phone plans so inexpensive these days, it’s tempting to wonder why this is such a big deal. Two reasons:

If you make a lot of international calls, the Vonage calling plan is no doubt far less expensive than that of your cell phone provider.

If you’re using Vonage for your office line then you’re now able to roam the world, untethered, without missing your business calls or worrying about call forwarding.

Why use Vonage for iPhone rather than the Skype app? The iPhone app for Skype is limited to areas where Wi-Fi is available. When you make a Skype call while in cell range, you’re always using your minutes – local or long-distance.

There are differences in how the application works on both iPhone and BlackBerry. When you’re on the iPhone you need to open the Vonage application every time you want to use it. A BlackBerry, in contrast, will automatically revert to the Vonage rates over the wireless provider’s every time an international number is dialed.

It’s a major coup for the untethered, and those who want to cut the cords without breaking the lines of communication.

Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: , ,

Unbundled Legal Services – The Future Of The Law?

October 2, 2009 by

Unbundled Legal Services - The Future?

I’ve been thinking a lot about unbundled legal services lately, particularly in the field of consumer bankruptcy law. With the changes to the US Bankruptcy Code that became effective in October 2005, a host of new requirements forced lawyers to raise their fees significantly in order to cover their costs. Though necessary from a business perspective, it created hardship for many people who needed to file for bankruptcy.

This, of course, is nothing new – the doors to the courthouse are often barred to those with limited resources, forcing them to go it alone or do nothing at all. This is not the say that lawyers should lower their fees, but rather that there needs to be a middle ground.

People who need help should be able to get it, and lawyers deserve to be compensated for their representation.

Enter the notion of unbundled legal services, when the lawyer provides a more limited scope of representation than the norm in exchange for a lower legal fee. It’s good for the consumer because they get what they can afford, and good for the lawyer because they can still make an honest living for their efforts.

In the field of consumer bankruptcy, unbundled legal services has surfaced in the form of do-it-yourself document preparation services that offer petition preparation for very low fees. Though seemingly good for consumer debtors, these services are not law firms and so cannot provide reliable legal advice. The consumer is therefore left with nothing more than a typing service. They’ve got to fend for themselves when it comes to getting information about exemptions, types of debts, and even whether they qualify for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

DIY services like this come and go, often being brought to their knees by the court system – and rightfully so.  You don’t need a lawyer to file for bankruptcy, but if you’re paying someone a fee you should at least be informed.

There have been some scattered decisions regarding the unbundling of legal services in the context of consumer bankruptcy cases, but none have fully embraced the subject in light of the needs of the consumer debtor and exactly how representation should be structured in order to maintain the integrity of the process within the bounds of the law.

As an untethered lawyer – one who seeks a life of freedom and balance, protecting his or her clients without sacrificing integrity and ethics – the subject of unbundled legal services is bound to surface.  And I would be remiss if I didn’t grab this bull by the horns and help to work through the issues surrounding unbundled legal services.

After all, there’s not a whole lot of coherent information available to the legal profession unless you dig for it.  Some state bars have made tentative moves towards defining how unbundled legal services should work, but many fields of law remain uncharted territory.

Watch here for more on this fascinating subject, specifically how a bankruptcy lawyer can seek to offer unbundled legal representation as part of his or her practice.

Photo courtesy of z287marc.
Filed Under: Untethered Lawyer Tagged With: