Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on the changing look of law firm offices. To make more efficient use of space in a down economy, firms are reducing office size, assigning the same sized offices irrespective of seniority and moving lawyers to interior spaces once reserved for administrative staff.  Firms are also shifting resources to spiff up group space like cafeterias and group meeting space and transitioning from mahogany and wood panelling to soundproof glass to lighten up the space.  Across the pond, some UK firms have  gone a step farther, ditching the offices entirely and using an open layout with work stations and open rooms.

Yet even as  big firms are changing their look to keep pace with the times, the offerings for solo and small law firms haven’t changed much since the time I first started looking for office space 18 years ago.  Back then, the only options I could find in my price range were interior closet-sized rooms, in a suite with worn carpet, stained walls and reeking of smoke or virtual offices, which include a mailing address and a few hours of office use each month.  Flash forward to two years ago, and the choices are virtually the same.  Sure, there are now a wider variety of virtual office arrangements and there are more places than just the bar weekly to find a seedy, Class D space.  But even though the quantity of offices has changed, the quality (or lack thereof) hasn’t.

With technology, today’s lawyers aren’t necessarily wedded to a permanent space.  They can work equally efficiently from a client site one day, a home office the other or a Starbucks or library on other days for a change of pace.  Of course, none of these options are suitable for meeting with current clients or scheduling a last minute meeting with a prospective client.  So it’s also useful to have permanent space to work a few days a week.  Trouble is, permanent space is priced on the assumption that you’re using it 24/7.  Here in DC., a full time office in a location that you wouldn’t be ashamed to show a Fortune 1000 client can easily start at $1000/month and more likely, will cost  $1500+.  Certainly, that’s not awful for a viable practice, but the real question is, does it make sense to blow $16,000 a year on office space that you only use two to three days a week?

Update Note 7/19/2012: I had a chance to chat with Michael Mills of Neota two days ago. Neota is doing some really exciting work, and is definitely responsive and curious about opportunities in the solo/small firm market. Stay tuned…
Editor’s note:  This is the first of a regular feature, Future of Law Fridays where we’ll comment on issues related to where the legal profession is headed, with a focus on the impact on solos and small firms, the legal profession and clients.  We welcome commentary and posts from others who think about these issues, with a preference towards original thinkers who are both open minded but also skeptical and interested in provoking spirited debate. Please, no raving fans who think that anything tech is the greatest thing under the sun or raging traditionalists who want to turn back the clock on technologic advancements.  Contact carolyn.elefant@gmail.com if you’d like to contribute.

Over the past nine months, Neota Logic, a law technology tool that automates analysis of legal questions has been the darling of tech circles.  My favorite legal futurist and commentator Jordan Furlong  profiled Neota back in October and  more recently, the company sponsored Ron Friedmann’s Prism Legal update on virtual firms, and earned a complimentary shout out from Steph Kimbro.  But probably, Neota’s biggest moment in the sun came by way of serving as the engine for the   innovative online legal question/answer systems developed as part of a Georgetown Law course, a project that received widespread press.

So, not to be left out, I finally made my way to the Neota Logic website.  Immediately, I discovered the Independent Contractor (IC) Status Advisor, a system that poses a series of questions and churns out a report on whether a worker is an employee or a contractor.  The IC Status Advisor is a great example of how Neota can convert a once complex and individualized legal analysis and without sacrificing sophistication (each question explains includes an explanation of its legal significance) convert it into a practical tool that lawyers and laypeople can use.  In particular, the IC Analysis is especially useful for solo and small firm lawyers who frequently outsource – sometimes, so much so that the worker might actually be more appropriately characterized as an employee than IC (or alternatively, being risk averse, some lawyers might classify an IC as an employee when it’s not necessary). I asked the system to analyze whether a contract lawyer would be considered an employee or IC and here’s the cool report  that it generated (the answer is no).

[docstoc docId=”124229338″ mId=”64099″ width=”500″ height=”550″  slideMode=”false” showRelatedDocs=”false” showOtherDocs=”true” allowdownload=”true” url=”http://www.docstoc.com/docs/124229338/Employment-Status-Report”]Employment Status Report[/docstoc]

After looking at some of the other Neota examples, I immediately came up with at least 30 different ways that I could use Neota in my regulatory practice. Or, how bar associations (or preferably, my website, MyShingle) could create tools to help solo and small firms analyze the ethics of a particular activity. (Big firms have in house counsel for this task, solo and small firms don’t) With regard to my energy practice, one of my biggest gripes about my field that there’s so much inaccurate information — even at some government websites which relied on work of inept contractors.  I’m often shocked at the level of misunderstanding from many of the small green tech companies that approach me.  Often, I wind up giving out a ton of free advice in the hopes that they’ll retain me later on (and many do). But that wouldn’t be necessary if I could use Neota to set up a Q&A process so that companies could help themselves, and then come to me later if needed.  Plus, I could charge a small fee for use of the tool so I’d capture fees that I’m otherwise giving away.

In a recent post at Catalyst Secure , my friend Bob Ambrogi not only summarizes Massachusetts’ recent ethics ruling on lawyer use of cloud platforms, but provides a valuable public service with a round up  of ethics decisions from 11 other jurisdictions.  Like most states, Massachusetts permits lawyers to use cloud based products so long as (1) lawyers make reasonable efforts to ensure that the vendor selected operates in a manner consistent with a lawyer’s professional obligations and (2) obtain clients’ express consent to use cloud products.

Since it seems that the state bars are never going to come to their senses and adopt my oft repeated  recommendation that the 50 states pool their resources to develop sound, technology-based guidance for lawyers who wish to use the cloud, we’re now stuck with a dozen copy cat rulings that basically say “It’s OK for you lawyers to use the cloud if you’re reasonable in selecting a secure provider – but just to be on the safe side, you’d better make sure that your clients expressly consent.” Not only does this kind of requirement throw up a red flag that can heighten clients concern, but it makes us lawyers look as if we’re trying to pass the buck on security.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again and again and again until someone listens.  First, why do the bars discriminate against the cloud when it comes to client disclosure?  I’m not required to tell clients which bank I use to house my trust account, or seek special approval for use of online banking services.  I’m not required to obtain client approval to conduct research on LEXIS or Westlaw even though it’s conceivable that someone could hack into my account and discover certain search strings that give away my strategy.  I’m not required to seek my clients’ consent to store unencrypted information on my computer or use a certain type of lock on my office door or to leave the cleaning service in my office unattended.  All of these practices that I’ve listed can potentially compromise the confidentiality or security of client documents or property (in the case of bank accounts). So why is only the cloud singled out?

Second, why must we burden clients with an obligation that should be our responsibility alone.  When clients come to us for representation, they’ve got enough on their plate – maybe they’re facing a 20 year jail sentence or they’re about to lose their home or they’re trying to leave an abusive relationship.  The last thing they need is to read through a 40 page retainer letter with millions of caveats and “initial here, please.” 

Up until this month, if you were looking to hire or refer a woman lawyer, finding one wouldn’t have been as easy as you might think.  At one time, the ABA’s Litigation Section Woman’s Advocate Committee maintained a referral network but no longer does.  And as I posted here, NAMWOLF, an association for women and minority counsel that serves as a resource for corporations looking for outside counsel won’t let law firms with fewer than three people even join.

Now, there’s a new site to fill the gap:  the Woman2WomanReferral Network, created by Ohio based small firm lawyer Kathleen Havener.  Below, you can read her description of the network along with instructions of how to join.
Welcome to the Woman2Woman Lawyer Referral Database!
I’ve spent 100% of my extracurricular  activity since I entered the practice of law on efforts to improve the circumstances of women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, members of the gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities, and others who face difficulties remaining in the practice of law and reaching the level of success in our profession that they hope to achieve.  When I have the chance to refer legal work, I try always to refer to women.  In the words of Madeleine Albright, “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”  When I reach heaven’s gates, I don’t intend to be turned away.

One tool I’ve often longed for is an efficient means of searching online for competent, enthusiastic, and committed women lawyers in various areas of the country, with different kinds of practices and practice areas, to whom I could refer clients or fellow lawyers who wanted to engage a lawyer, find local counsel, or refer a matter that had arisen in a jurisdiction where I am not licensed.  (I have 4 licenses, including the District of Columbia, so only 47 more to go.)  Nothing I could find met my own requirements.  So I started thinking about what I really wanted in such a tool, and how I might go about getting it.

So, I’ve been thinking and teaching  about the 21st Century Retainer Agreement (for those who attended the last event, the ebook is coming soon; for those who missed it, we’re scheduling another webinar in August), specifically ways to streamline the drafting process.  Flat fee or one-off retainer agreements aren’t all that tough (my upcoming ebook will have a bunch of samples), but for lawyers like myself who handle more complex or protracted matters, the process of drafting the scope of work and payment provisions of a given agreement sometimes takes longer than I’d like.  Moreover, in jurisdictions where  flat fees must go into IOLTA and aren’t treated “as earned” until work is performed , it’s important to specify milestones along the way where payment is deemed earned, or it might be years before a case finishes and you can take payment.

So, I got to thinking, what’s the best way to devise a case plan that depicts the different phases and identifies milestones?  Of course, a word document or spreadsheet works just fine, but I wanted something more elegant, that I could use both for proposals to clients and as a scope of work and payment schedule for a retainer.  I couldn’t come up with anything law-specific, so I took a look at online proposal generators for freelancers and consultants, where I hit pay dirt.

Online proposal generators help streamline the process of creating a project proposal.  Users can identify and describe tasks, performance deadlines and price, and also include stock language such as credentials of lawyers and other personnel expected to staff the project or description of the firm’s policy.  The stock terms can be re-used from proposal to proposal.  The finished product is impressive: a well-formatted, professional looking document that takes far less time to create than using a word template.

I’ve been blogging for nearly a decade and during that time, I’ve expressed opinions about the legal profession, legal products and other lawyers’ practices.  Ten years is a long time though, and sometimes, it’s not unusual to change one’s mind in light of new circumstances or experiences.

So why are we so embarrassed about changing…