It used to be that lawyers had no choice but to practice law from a brick and mortar office. Opening up a solo practice or small law firm required heavy up front investment in office space, office furniture, office supplies and premise-based computer systems and servers. 

That was then. This is now. 

These days, all a lawyer needs to start practicing law is a laptop, an internet connection, and a smartphone. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that every law practice is sustainable using just these tools--transactional practices are much more amenable to practicing law with a virtual law office. And even then, an attorney with a thriving transactional law practice may eventually need--or want--to expand into brick and mortar office.

But lawyers can launch a successful law practice in the absence of a brick and mortar office. The key is to use the right tools and technologies--and to do so ethically.  

First, don’t be afraid to outsource. Take advantage of virtual receptionist and answering services like Ruby Receptionists. And, use legal assistants, whether paralegals or contract attorneys. 

Next, make use of all of the cost-effective 21st century technologies now available that are revolutionizing the way that business is being done. The key is to invest in flexible, reliable technologies, including computers, scanners, printers, smart phones and tablets, and more. Research your options and choose wisely. Resources like Lawyerist’s Legal Technology Buyer’s Guide can help.

Once you’ve acquired equipment appropriate for your needs, the next step is to consider online services that effectively replace the costly, clunky tools of yesteryear. So instead of buying a fax machine, use an online fax service. In lieu of a scanner or for scanning on the go, download a scanning app to your smart phone or tablet. Use your smartphone’s built-in phone system or download an app for conference calls. Test drive Google Voice or use an app such as YouMail to manage incoming messages.

Another important step--make the move to the cloud in order to increase your mobility and flexibility while reducing your overhead and IT costs. Take advantage of cloud-based law practice management software to run your law practice no matter where you are. Streamline your law practice and save money on postage by communicating with your clients and contacts using your cloud-based law practice management system. Manage and store your law firm’s documents in the cloud so that you’ll always be able to access and share documents from any location. 

And last but not least, make sure your technology choices are in line with the ethical requirements of your jurisdiction. As a starting point, you can learn about ethical obligations and different technologies by reading blogs such as Legalethics.com. The ABA also offers this very helpful chart that lists the ethics decisions from across the country that have been issued regarding the use of cloud computing by lawyers.  

So what are you waiting for? Your 21st century modern law firm awaits you! Grab the reigns, research your options, and take advantage of the new world order!

Matt Spiegel is the Vice President and GM of MyCase, a cloud-based law practice management system. He is an attorney in San Diego, California and started his criminal defense law practice in 2009 after working for four years with one of San Diego's largest consumer law firms. As a practicing attorney and one of the founders of MyCase, he often speaks at legal conferences regarding the in and outs of running a law practice and how cloud computing technologies can benefit the legal profession. He can be reached at matt@mycase.com.

First, the simple:  D. Casey Flaherty, corporate counsel at Kia Motors America, suggests that law firms don't need more software. They need to use their existing software more efficiently and effectively. What a concept. Reminds me of the scientists' suggesting that humans use only 10% or less of our mental capacity.

The difference between the two concepts is that inefficient use of existing technology increases the legal spend for clients. And only Corporate America can do what Mr. Flaherty did:  subject his outside counsel to economic consequences when they are guilty. He recently reduced a law firm’s billing to Kia Motors by 40 hours because he detected they didn’t know how to use Word to print to a .pdf file and eliminate the scanning process which would have reduced associates time on his matters by the 40 hours. Multiply this scenario many times and you are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer billing. More on that in a later post.

Next, the complex: Owen Byrd of Lex Machina discussed the concept of Moneyball for Lawyers. He says that “Moneyball” applies data (any collection of facts) to analytics in order to understand trends and patterns that emerge from that data. This supplements legal research and reasoning with predictive analytics. This approach can help predict a party's behavior, likely outcome of a lawsuit and the results from a specific legal strategy or argument. The concept, emanating from Stanford studies, can be viewed merely as a new research tool. If so, it's rather expensive. It can also be viewed as a marketing tool by helping you refine your pitches for new legal work to prospective clients. In this case, the cost is insignificant when you attain one or more new clients. This is the future of the legal profession. Currently, Lex Machina and its approach can be utilized only by the larger organizations with big money at stake. But, the handwriting is on the wall.

Most important, these two divergent approaches to technology demonstrate the need to be proficient with current technology in order to satisfy rule 1.1 (definition of competence) and to run scared about the future if you fail to pay attention to the changes coming in the future. The bottom line is to serve clients well. Your awareness and proficiency with technology addresses that goal…and may provide a competitive advantage to some.

The AVMA claims that it is protecting the public's interest. The vet claims that the regulation is intended to protect the brick-and-mortar veterinarian practices.

Does this sound familiar? Every Bar regulation that I've ever reviewed (or testified against) has been sustained on the basis of protecting the public. Where are the interests of the membership, the very professionals who pay dues to keep staff employed? These interests seem to be relegated to the back of the bus, if not ignored completely. In the legal community, this "ship" has sailed. I don't think anyone would claim that a "virtual" law practice is illegal. It will be interesting to see how the Texas court rules in this matter.

There is more to the internet than most of us ever imagined. Walk (or type) carefully. The life you preserve may be your own.

Irrespective of the actual percentage, it is clear that mobile devices such as the mobile phone and new tablets, not to mention laptops, are critical to the operation of most law practices today.

And Apple today announced that it will soon be releasing a smaller version of the iPad. What's next and why?

Law firms must meet client needs through greater technology efficiencies. Not only does this seem obvious, it is an element necessary to maintain competence as required by the rules of professional conduct.

More efficient law firms that reduce client legal costs should gain new business that enhances revenue.  However, the ability to increase billings while becoming more efficient depends on changing the billing system to embrace alternative fee arrangements.  With greater reliance on contingent, fixed, capped or value fees where time is not the relevant issue to determine the fee; service to the client is the key metric of value to the client, not billable hours.  

In any event, I went into Verizon this afternoon, the same store from where the purchases were made., and asked for assistance. I was told that they now have a new policy:  They would help me if I want to buy a new device or accessory. But, they would need to make an appointment with me for another time if I want to ask questions or get some help about the devices I already own.

The old policy was to wait your turn until a representative had finished with a current customer and was available to meet with you. That seemed fair.

Apple, a much larger store, will put you on their list and you wait your turn. Yes, they will also make an appointment for you at the Genius Bar. And there are many knowledgeable sales people walking the floor who can answer most of the questions I've had ... and are willing to do so.

This reminds me of the lawyer who plays telephone tag with a client ... to the frustration of the client. If you're not in when the client calls and cannot return the phone call quickly, have your assistant make an appointment. It's clearly better, however, to take that call on the first attempt if you're in the office. Failure to connect is still the #1 complaint against lawyers.

Verizon does not seem to get this simple fact of customer relations! Do not let the customer go away angry because you are unwilling to answer his/her questions about the device you sold. Oh, yes, I forgot. They can be as nasty as they want because they have you tied to a two year contract!  Just think what would happen without that contract? I'd be back at AT&T in a heartbeat!

He set the stage by commenting on a statue that is in the lobby of the Moody's Building where he worked. It portrays a farmer and a blacksmith shaking hands with the comment, "Credit: Man's Confidence in Man." This is similar to the cowboys shaking hands on the prairie which we photographed during our 2011 trip through Oklahoma. The point is well-taken. Without the confidence that life will proceed as reasonably expected, we have chaos ... and no legal documents are strong enough to withstand such chaos. That is why the cowboys' handshake resonates so dramatically.

26,000 Lehman employees lost their jobs; $370 Billion of claims were settled for just $.20 on the dollar. Eight books have already been written on the subject. From 1930 to 1997, housing prices increased .7% per year. From 1998 to 2006, housing prices increased 8% per year. And the world thought this would continue forever. But, 25% of housing mortgages defaulted; the securitization market dried up; and there were massive writedowns of asset values.

The problem was not Lehman's alone, however, as we learned later. The problem was systemic. For example, credit was loosened; one hardly had to qualify in order to get credit. Short term credit was used for long term assets, and this created part of the problem. While some complain about too much regulation, we took the training wheels off of our financial system and chaos resulted.

This resonates for me in light of my mantra that lines of credit should not be used for partners' compensation. Partners, as equity holders, should be the last ones to be paid, not the first.

Genirs closed by quoting three favorite commentaries:

Galbraith: History counts for so little in financial affairs.

Greenspan: We swing from fear to euphoria and back very quickly.

Keynes: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

And, citing The Black Swan, unlikely is not the same as impossible.

The Wall Street Journal, perhaps reflecting the concerns of its corporate readership, continues to emphasize what it considers to be the overpaid lawyers at the pinnacle of the profession.  In a recent article that had the less-than-subtle title, “Biggest Lawyers Grab Fee Bounty,” the Journal reported that partners in the top 25% of more than 4,000 law firms examined in a new study boosted their average price to $873 an hour last year, up 4.9% from 2010.  At the same time, the lowest-billing partners struggled to keep pace with inflation. Partners in the bottom 25% of surveyed firms charged an average of $204 last year, up just 1.3%.  As the paper said, “That disparity between who can raise prices – and who can't – spotlights a growing segmentation in the $100 billion corporate legal market.”

Ed offers 5 ways to increase your law firm's revenue.
1. Emphasize collections.
2. Hire lateral lawyers to meet specific demands, a new practice area, a new need.
3. Leverage technology.
4. Create a cooperative compensation model that emphasizes the law firm as an institution.
5. Outsource functions that are better done by others. Delegate.

In this technology-driven age, a lot of lawyers' work can be moved online. Today Ed discusses the virtualization of law offices to help you consider whether or not that move makes sense for you.

The .org generally was reserved for non-profit organizations ... But, now the Arizona Bar says that it's o.k. to use .org for profit-making organizations as well.  This reverses an earlier Arizona state bar ethics panel decision (Arizona Ethics Op. 01-05 (2001)) that had found the use of the suffix ".org" by for-profit law firms would mislead consumers. This most recent opinion, (Arizona State Bar Committee on Rules of Professional Conduct, Op. 11-04), finds that the ".org" suffix is now more widely used by for-profits such that consumers of legal services will no longer be misled.

The cynic might say that the neighborhood has become so crowded that economic forces command that .org be available for everyone, profit and non-profit.  My question is who is running the madhouse? Is this the Wild West where anything and everything goes? There was some comfort in knowing that .org was an institution or non-profit. But, since the world is upside down anyway in the last few years, why not the internet and web addresses?

Still, .com is the preferred suffix ... But, then, why do we need a suffix of any kind? It just means more letters have to be typed. While we're not cutting trees to write the extra 4 characters, we are using our energy (means we have to eat more to have energy to move our fingers more), we might encounter more finger strain (carpal tunnel syndrome), and other yet to be determined maladies. Where are the real reformers when we need them?

"If a lawyer receives a document and knows or reasonably should know that metadata was inadvertently included, the Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility only require notice to the sender. The receiving lawyer is not required to return the document unread or to comply with a request by the sender to return the document, according to the opinion.

The Bar went on to say that the 2nd lawyer's client should be consulted about whether the lawyer should read the document. ".... (G)iven that the decision affects a client’s objectives, lawyers should consult with the client about the risks and rewards of returning the document versus retaining and reading the document prior to making such a decision."

It was my understanding that a misguided "hard copy" needed to be returned, unopened, if the lawyer knew the document was mistakenly sent. It seems we are modifying the rules a bit with technology.

But, there was a more fascinating pronouncement. The opinion went on to say that lawyers may not utilize special software to reveal the metadata in a document. “Searching for metadata using special software when it is apparent that the sender has made reasonable efforts to remove the metadata may ... constitute ‘conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.'" The comparison was made to surreptitiously entering the other lawyer’s office to obtain client information.

The homeowners were puzzled and could not figure out how someone was able to get into their home, steal their property, and get away, since there was no sign of forced entry into the house. The owners reported the thefts to the Sheriff’s department.

What the thief  didn’t know was that one of the stolen laptop computers was embedded with a “LoJack for Laptops” theft recovery software. The company’s monitoring center was notified of the theft by the owners and the monitoring company kept in close contact with the sheriff’s investigator.

The monitored laptop was also equipped with photo recognition software. When the suspect in possession of the stolen laptop realized he could not log onto the computer, he had a completely new operating system installed and the photo recognition software removed. He incorrectly thought the embedded monitoring software had been removed, but it is very difficult to remove it.

The suspect used the laptop to log on to Facebook. This enabled the monitoring company to gather the suspect’s personal information, including a photo of him, his name, and more. This was given to the Sheriff’s investigator who showed the photo of the suspect to the victims. They immediately recognized him as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at their home two months prior.  The victim didn't know him by name, but their information was sufficient to find and arrest the suspect.

Do you have access to such software?