I always thought that at one of the top priorities of a bar association is to help the public find access to competent representation.  Well, access to law is a goal of the New Jersey Bar, but one that’s secondary to other matters like generating revenues or preserving the local bars’ turf.  At least, that’s the impression that I came away with after reading this law.com article, NJ Bars Wary As State Bar Advances Online Lawyer Listings (5/10/06).

According to the article, the New Jersey Bar Association has proposed to set up a website that would list attorneys by name and phone number and for $100 extra, include a link to the attorney’s firm website.  You’d think that lawyers would welcome this type of visibility, but apparently, the county bars fear that the plan will detract from the referral services that they run.  Specifically, county bar representatives are concerned that consumers seeking attorneys will simply go to the New Jersey website and click to find a lawyer on their own (oh, the horror of autonomy!) instead of calling the county bar and paying a referral fee to set up a meeting.

Shame on the county bars!   They ought to support a system that makes it easier – and potentially cheaper – for clients to find a lawyer.  For example, many lawyers offer free consultations, while referral services often require the client (or the lawyer) to pay a deminimis fee for consultation.  If a client can go directly to a website and find a lawyer who will meet for free, all the better for the client.  Moreover, why should a client have to jump through two hoops, first calling the bar and filling out intake or describing the legal problem only to go through it all over again when meeting a potential lawyer.  Why not eliminate the middleman and make it easier for clients to contact lawyers directly? 

Still, I don’t completely endorse the New Jersey bar’s listing scheme either.  Why charge lawyers to include a link to their website?  The bar helps the public by making it easy to contact lawyers through a website – so why should participating lawyers bear the cost?

In time, however, I’m guessing that referral services and state bar listings will be rendered obsolete by the Internet and the web.  More and more generations of potential clients are growing up using search engines like Google and reading weblogs.  When these future clients go to search for lawyers, they’ll rely on those tools, and not the antiquated bar associations.  So let the bars battle for the little piece of turf they have left.  In another generation, this kind of debate will go the way of the rotary phone, the typewriter, the ditto machine, hard copy Shepards and other relics of legal practice.

18 Responses to More Proof That The Bar Associations Don’t Really Care About Access to Law

I’m afraid, Carolyn, that you need to point your finger at your own MyShingle constituency — solo-, duo-, micro-firms. In general, they are the ones who love the current referral system, run by the county bars. You see, LRS makes every lawyer seem like the equal of every other lawyer.
What the micro-firms love about the traditional LRS is that there is no meaningful chance for the consumer to compare lawyers — they are given one name, and it’s the next one in the rotation from the relevant subject category (for which law firms self-select).
It certainly is not surprising, then, that the local bar groups — who are even more guild-like than state associations — feel threatened by a statewide website that would allow consumers to easily browse and “window-shop.” And, if upstate New York is any example, a lawyer on such a state bar list who has a website is seen as especially dangerous to the micro-firmers, the vast majority of which have no site (and are, at best, listed on virtual “yellow pages” lists).
As you suggest, concerning the statewide site, it doesn’t seem fair to charge extra for a firm to have a link to its website on the statewide list. (Of course, such firms surely pay other vendors for the chance to produce a consumer click-thourgh.) Also, the link fee is in line with the bar’s general dislike for “too much” competition. And (shocking!), it suggests that “helping the public” is often not the top priority for any bar association.
For more, see my post from October 2003 Consumers Deserve Better Lawyer Referral Services, which notes:

From the consumer’s point of view there are several major problems with the traditional LRS model, the cumulative effective of which is to make the service only slightly better in most instances than using the “Lawyers by Practice” section of the Yellow Pages . . . .
. . . Under this regime, the consumer basically has to go through a blind interview with the referral attorney, and either choose on the basis of that one interview or entail significant transaction costs to compare lawyers. As the bar groups surely know, the dynamic would be very different, if the referral program gave the consumer background information on several lawyers (e.g., experience level, educational background, hourly fee rates, special office hours or language skills, etc.), who are experienced in the relevant practice area . For one thing, the lawyers would know that they are actually (dare we say it) competing with eachother for the client’s business. For another, the client would understand that all lawyers are not equal — not interchangeable, depending on the luck of the rotational draw.

Reply

I’m afraid, Carolyn, that you need to point your finger at your own MyShingle constituency — solo-, duo-, micro-firms. In general, they are the ones who love the current referral system, run by the county bars. You see, LRS makes every lawyer seem like the equal of every other lawyer.
What the micro-firms love about the traditional LRS is that there is no meaningful chance for the consumer to compare lawyers — they are given one name, and it’s the next one in the rotation from the relevant subject category (for which law firms self-select).
It certainly is not surprising, then, that the local bar groups — who are even more guild-like than state associations — feel threatened by a statewide website that would allow consumers to easily browse and “window-shop.” And, if upstate New York is any example, a lawyer on such a state bar list who has a website is seen as especially dangerous to the micro-firmers, the vast majority of which have no site (and are, at best, listed on virtual “yellow pages” lists).
As you suggest, concerning the statewide site, it doesn’t seem fair to charge extra for a firm to have a link to its website on the statewide list. (Of course, such firms surely pay other vendors for the chance to produce a consumer click-thourgh.) Also, the link fee is in line with the bar’s general dislike for “too much” competition. And (shocking!), it suggests that “helping the public” is often not the top priority for any bar association.
For more, see my post from October 2003 Consumers Deserve Better Lawyer Referral Services, which notes:

From the consumer’s point of view there are several major problems with the traditional LRS model, the cumulative effective of which is to make the service only slightly better in most instances than using the “Lawyers by Practice” section of the Yellow Pages . . . .
. . . Under this regime, the consumer basically has to go through a blind interview with the referral attorney, and either choose on the basis of that one interview or entail significant transaction costs to compare lawyers. As the bar groups surely know, the dynamic would be very different, if the referral program gave the consumer background information on several lawyers (e.g., experience level, educational background, hourly fee rates, special office hours or language skills, etc.), who are experienced in the relevant practice area . For one thing, the lawyers would know that they are actually (dare we say it) competing with eachother for the client’s business. For another, the client would understand that all lawyers are not equal — not interchangeable, depending on the luck of the rotational draw.

Reply

For the record, Texas already has a website that lists every attorney in the state by name, address, phone number, and, if the attorney wishes, practice area. It’s my understanding that I could put my URL on it for $25. But I haven’t. Why? Because I haven’t found a non-lawyer yet who has used the site. For that matter, I don’t know of any non-lawyers not married or otherwise related to lawyers who know the site exists. I belong to a local LRS, and volunteer for our LegalLine, and I find that because of the sheer number of lawyers, most potential clients want a PERSON to give them A NAME. The potential clients in Texas who use the internet — an elite group already — google for the megafirm or megasite listings that come up quickly in the search engine. They are simply not interested in wading through listing after listings of lawyers available for hire. The task is too daunting. So good luck to NJ with all that, but it has neither eliminated a middleman nor killed local LRSs here in Texas.

Reply

For the record, Texas already has a website that lists every attorney in the state by name, address, phone number, and, if the attorney wishes, practice area. It’s my understanding that I could put my URL on it for $25. But I haven’t. Why? Because I haven’t found a non-lawyer yet who has used the site. For that matter, I don’t know of any non-lawyers not married or otherwise related to lawyers who know the site exists. I belong to a local LRS, and volunteer for our LegalLine, and I find that because of the sheer number of lawyers, most potential clients want a PERSON to give them A NAME. The potential clients in Texas who use the internet — an elite group already — google for the megafirm or megasite listings that come up quickly in the search engine. They are simply not interested in wading through listing after listings of lawyers available for hire. The task is too daunting. So good luck to NJ with all that, but it has neither eliminated a middleman nor killed local LRSs here in Texas.

Reply

The Future of Lawyer Referral Services

In the course of delivering a well-deserved bashing to obstructionist bar associations that don’t seem all that concerned about clients, My Shingle takes time to point out that a brighter future is on the way:In time, however, I’m guessing that…

Reply

The Future of Lawyer Referral Services

In the course of delivering a well-deserved bashing to obstructionist bar associations that don’t seem all that concerned about clients, My Shingle takes time to point out that a brighter future is on the way:In time, however, I’m guessing that…

Reply

N.J. Local Bar Associations Contra Open Access to Lawyer Information

Carolyn Elefant on myshingle writes about some local bar associations in New Jersey who are concerned…

Reply

N.J. Local Bar Associations Contra Open Access to Lawyer Information

Carolyn Elefant on myshingle writes about some local bar associations in New Jersey who are concerned…

Reply

Rather than cling to the “old ways” of making money, local Bar Associations need to turn to technology and start shaping the Bar Association of the future. You can’t stop progress and new ways for attorneys to promote and advertise are inevitable. That’s why Bar Associations need to shift their revenue from providing referrals to attorneys, to providing services to their own membership.
Bar Associations can set up centers for administrative assistance, virtual reception and provide office and meeting space. Of course, there’s CLEs to host and other “Galas” to produce. Copy centers and even mail pick up drop off services to offer. Its really up to the Membership Benefits Committee, I would imagine, what processes can be put into place.
Other revenue generating options for Bar Associations include affiliate sales to legal subscription services, as well as partnering with local IT and other legal service professionals – there’s a whole new world of “referring” out there!
The whole idea is to make everyone happy – so along with making the bar building wireless, staff a few secretarys with steno skills – I’m sure every Bar Association Director knows at least one “old school” legal secretary who wouldn’t mind coming in two or three morning per week.
Old School does not mean obsolete. Local Bar Associations have been in existence almost as long as there have been lawyers. Many Bar Associations are actually house in buildings of historic signficance.
Keep the brick and mortar, but update the technology and service. That’s the Local Bar Association of the future, IMHO.

Reply

Rather than cling to the “old ways” of making money, local Bar Associations need to turn to technology and start shaping the Bar Association of the future. You can’t stop progress and new ways for attorneys to promote and advertise are inevitable. That’s why Bar Associations need to shift their revenue from providing referrals to attorneys, to providing services to their own membership.
Bar Associations can set up centers for administrative assistance, virtual reception and provide office and meeting space. Of course, there’s CLEs to host and other “Galas” to produce. Copy centers and even mail pick up drop off services to offer. Its really up to the Membership Benefits Committee, I would imagine, what processes can be put into place.
Other revenue generating options for Bar Associations include affiliate sales to legal subscription services, as well as partnering with local IT and other legal service professionals – there’s a whole new world of “referring” out there!
The whole idea is to make everyone happy – so along with making the bar building wireless, staff a few secretarys with steno skills – I’m sure every Bar Association Director knows at least one “old school” legal secretary who wouldn’t mind coming in two or three morning per week.
Old School does not mean obsolete. Local Bar Associations have been in existence almost as long as there have been lawyers. Many Bar Associations are actually house in buildings of historic signficance.
Keep the brick and mortar, but update the technology and service. That’s the Local Bar Association of the future, IMHO.

Reply

And I educate that, if there is to be a chance of our medico-military, we must explain to them whom we dispatch when we startle that henti babes are to rule in the State, then we shall be able to defend ourselves: There will be discovered to be some free hentai who ought to study philosophy and to be xxx hentai in the State, and hentai sex who are not born to be henti porn http://groups.google.com/group/derekmandeville/web/fore-play.html , and are meant to be henti rather than hentai.

Reply

And I educate that, if there is to be a chance of our medico-military, we must explain to them whom we dispatch when we startle that henti babes are to rule in the State, then we shall be able to defend ourselves: There will be discovered to be some free hentai who ought to study philosophy and to be xxx hentai in the State, and hentai sex who are not born to be henti porn http://groups.google.com/group/derekmandeville/web/fore-play.html , and are meant to be henti rather than hentai.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *