Will non-lawyer ownership of law firms become a reality in the United States? That’s the question raised by  Riverview Law’s  Andy Dawes’ presentation on alternative legal business models and non-lawyer owned firms at the  Clio User conference and summarized at length by Sam Glover at Lawyerist.

Although the non-lawyer ownership question has enormous implications for the legal justice system and solos and smalls, I didn’t hear much in the way of discussion about non-lawyer ownership by conference attendees, an audience largely comprised of Clio’s solo and small firm user base. Perhaps that’s because the ABA’s most recent kibosh on non-lawyer ownership  means that any conversation about non-lawyer ownership in the United States is at best theoretical as least for the next few years.  Or maybe it’s because Clio’s lawyer-users have practical concerns – and are more interested in learning more about the nuts and bolts of Clio and how to improve its use in their practices than debating the pros and cons of non-lawyer ownership. Which makes sense.

But just because lawyers aren’t focused on the issue of non-lawyer ownership doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter. Quite the contrary.  One reason that the non-lawyer ownership discussion has taken on new intensity is because of the money.  Dawes’ presentation noted that investors in the UK have put millions of dollars into alternative business structures (ABS) and other similar models in Australia and the UK.  And as I’ve previously observed, the race for access to venture capital to promote access to justice is already underway.  With the legal technology “vertical” (a fancy name for an industry-specific space) so hot , we’re standing on the cusp of a potential $300 billion gold mine that is quietly but steadily attracting investor interest. And with the SEC’s recent issuance of crowdfunding rules, we may see even more growth since many legal tech start ups are small enough to take advantage of JOBS Act changes.

In any event, the point is that today’s legal tech market is dynamic – and between the influx of capital and technology changes, the systems and platforms emerging today will be very different from those of tomorrow. Moreover, what will also change are the players themselves as existing companies seek out ways to grow, while new players look for opportunities to buy their way into law technology markets. Which brings me around to the issue that lawyers need to be thinking about: who are the companies that will be owning cloud-based law practice management (LPM) and other cloud-based products that we use on a day to day basis in our practice.  Will today’s familiar names –Houdini, Clio and Rocket Matter remain autonomous, self-contained entities?  Or will they be acquired by companies that focus on the broader cloud-based professional services other than legal (as with the AppFolio acquisition of MyCase) or other legal giants like Bloomberg, LEXIS or Thompson Reuters (which recall, snatched up  LPO Pangea ). And of course, let’s not forget that a cloud-based company can also change hands involuntarily as a result of financial insolvency.

The likelihood of buyouts particularly acute when it comes to cloud-based LPM systems that serve the solo and small firm market. Even Clio’s 20,000 users (the number reported at the Clio conference), are still a drop in the buck compared to hundreds of thousands of users on more general platforms – which are all eyeing the legal space as well (as evidenced by the AppFolio acquisition, Google’s new Vault intended to facilitate e-discovery and Box.net’s growing focus on the law firms). Don’t get me wrong – I’m thrilled at the array of cloud vendors not only catering to solos and smalls, but proactively seeking input and feedback as well. But realistically, I also have to wonder about the sustainability of products geared only for solos and smalls because our sector of the profession has already lived through too many buy-outs (and subsequent deterioration in service) of other tech tools for me to rest easy.

In any event, what matters for now that is that with so much in flux, the identity as well as present and future ownership of  the company with which lawyers entrust their cloud data matters. First, even though none of today’s cloud subscribers require long-term contracts, once lawyers upload thousands of files to a particular platform, they’re not likely to relocate any time soon. So if a cloud company is acquired by a larger corporation with different ideas about the product’s functionality or features, lawyers may find themselves locked into a system very different from the one they signed up for.  A larger company may also not share the same commitment to upgrading or improving a newly acquired system – a problem that lawyers experienced even back in the day of pre-cloud LPM tools. 

User conferences are all the rage with Silicon Valley start ups.  Salesforce’s Dreamforce user conferences are legendary profitable affairs, but lots of other tech companies host them as well to bring together an ecosystem of users.

More recently, the user conference has entered the legal tech sphere.  Avvo has been sponsoring road shows and Avvocating conferences for several years now.  And right now, I’m attending  Clio’s  inaugural user conference in Chicago. (Disclosure: Clio covered my costs to attend and report). Thus far, Clio has followed the lessons of successful user conferences to a tee with informative speakers, tasty and abundant food and lots of different networking events and staff on hand to answer user questions.

Should lawyers attend user conferences? Not surprisingly, a bit of debate on this topic arose amongst the usual suspects on Twitter. I can see both sides. On the one hand, if you’re swamped with work, taking time from the office to attend a tech event is arguably wasteful. On the other hand, because so many users are lawyers, there are significant networking opportunities   – and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few referrals result from the event. And most of the user questions I’ve heard reflect a sophisticated user base seeking to further increase efficiencies – which is always a good thing.

Be careful what you wish for.  Lawyers have long argued that law is a business, not a profession – and if these recent  events are any indication, lawyers may have gotten their wish. Only turns out, the real world has even less tolerance for deceptive marketing practice than ye old bar association.

Gregory Turza, a Chicago-based lawyer learned this lesson the hard way when he hired a marketing shop that spammed local accounting firms with an unsolicited, canned newsletter — and  ran afoul of junk fax laws to the tune of $4 million dollars. Like the district court, the Seventh Circuit found that “promotion or marketing was the reason [the] faxes were transmitted and as such, was an “advertisement” within the meaning of the statute. (To be fair, the newsletter wasn’t totally ineffective; as Judge Easterbrook hilariously points out, “The faxes produced more business — but not for Turza.”).

Meanwhile, via  Scott Greenfield,  Kevin O’Keefe and Gyi Tsakalakis at Lawyerist, Internet ratings site Yelp  has brought suit against a San Diego law firm  for posting fake positive reviews prepared by the firm’s staff and colleagues in violation of California advertising law and the site’s Terms of Service. And while Scott Greenfield questions whether a breach of TOS is actionable, what’s significant here is that the firm’s fake reviews are being dealt with in a court room rather than a disciplinary hearing room.

I’ve never been fully happy with the MyShingle logo – though I’ve never been quite sure of how to fix it so I just left it alone. But I decided it was time for a change.  After all, let’s fact it, the .com logo is so last decade — no one ever refers to Facebook…

Exactly fourteen years ago tonight, at 11 p.m. on the eve of the birth of my second daughter (a planned induction since I was overdue), I waddled from my house to the just-opened all-night CVS four blocks away to buy a disposable camera for the big day. Back then, smartphones with reasonable photo capability hadn’t yet arrived on the scene – but CVS could develop the photos in an hour and put them on disk. Of course, in 1999, we didn’t have Facebook, Tumblr or blogs either – but over the weekend, I’d hand-coded this website to announce the birth, with instructions to my husband on how to upload the photos to take the site live.

In addition to the preparations for the birth, I’d also averted a work crisis earlier that day. Because I’d originally thought I’d be induced later in the week, I’d thought that I would have enough time to file the docketing materials in a pending case at the D.C. Circuit before heading to the hospital. Today, I can churn these out and e-file them in two hours and probably could have whisked them out that same night that I trekked to CVS. But back then, completing a docketing filing required me to complete a form by hand, generate four other documents, print out and append two large agency orders and make six copies of the 70 page packet, arrange for a messenger to deliver them to the court and return the stamped copy and then serve the parties by mail. It’s a task that could consume a half day – and I wasn’t sure I’d be up for it right after giving birth. So rather than risk a late filing, I’d filed an extension with the court. To my relief, the clerk had left a voice mail on my machine earlier that day letting me know that the motion had been shepherded up to the motions office and duly granted – and conveying the office’s congratulations on the upcoming birth (which had been my “good cause” for an extension).

This post follows up on last week’s interview with Immigration attorney Amy Long who shared her experience on starting a satellite office. The post generated such positive feedback that today we’re interviewing another solo, Andrew Ayers on his experience expanding his Brooklyn, New York office to New Jersey.   To learn more about Andrew’s practice, which focuses on family law, business counseling and litigation, visit his website – www.AndrewMAyers.com his blog – ayersblog.com; or follow him on Twitter at @ayerslaw

1.  Tell us a little about your law firm – when did you first open the firm, what practice areas does your firm handle and does your firm have any other lawyers and/or support staff?

I opened my law firm in the summer of 2011 with my office in Brooklyn. My primary areas of practice are family law and small business counseling and litigation, which are surprisingly complimentary to each other. I don’t have any dedicated staff or lawyers, but both offices are staffed generally by the managers of each suite.

2.   When did you open (or do you plan to open) your satellite office and why did you decide to add a second location?

My office in Summit, New Jersey opened on September 3, 2013. My family moved to New Jersey and it seemed logical to have a local presence here that was not run out of our house. I love being able to work out of my house, but having a second actual office to go to makes me much more productive.

3. How did you choose the second location for your office? Did you prepare a market assessment or business plan to evaluate need? Were you already familiar with the city or town where your satellite office is located?

Since we just moved to this area, I was not familiar with the local towns and spent some time looking at the downtown space of each and the various lawyers who were already set up. We are in an interesting area in that I am at the edge of one county (Union), but a five minute drive one direction takes you into Morris County, a five minute drive the other direction takes you into Somerset County and there are two other large counties a short drive away. So my office is relatively central to each of the counties so that I would be able to work on cases in each of them. I also really liked downtown Summit because it provided me with all of the office amenities that I needed (i.e. FedEx, bank, post office) within a short walking distance from the office. In the end, the town of Summit just felt like the right place to open an office.

4. What type of infrastructure do you have at your satellite location? Is it a full-time office? A virtual space? And how is it staffed? 

We’re our own worst enemy when it comes to starting a law firm. Alhough naysayers abound, frequently your worst enemy is you.

Because I blog about starting a law firm and have done it myself in my respective practice area, not surprisingly, I’m asked for advice on getting started.  Yet more often than not, every suggestion I make (and I’ve got a two book’s and a blog’s worth of it!) – whether it’s about finding alternative revenue streams to support a practice area that you love but doesn’t seem immediately profitable or identifying needs for legal services that consumers didn’t know they had or volunteering to do grunt work to build relationships in an organization or writing a law review article or even doing some good old fashioned networking, invariably, the response is an emphatic “that won’t work for me.”

Really? Do you have super-magical powers that enable you to see deep into the future to envision your failure before it happens? Do you have the brute logic skills of Big Blue to churn every possible scenario the events that might unwind if you make this move versus that one and come to the right conclusion every time? (And if you do, why are you practicing law, anyway?)

I’ll grant that sometimes, a proposed idea won’t work and can be eliminated right off the bat. For example, maybe someone recommends a pricy bootcamp to master a new practice area but it’s simply out of your budget. Or maybe the concept is plainly unethical (like passing out money to cab drivers to send clients your way like this tech start up, which could do that because it’s not a law firm).

Likewise, lawyers don’t have unlimited time and have to prioritize marketing ideas. There’s nothing wrong with ruling out those where the odds of success aren’t great (like this one or where an idea is so far out of your comfort zone that you couldn’t execute it convincingly.)

If you’re looking for ways to expand or diversify your law practice, you might consider opening a satellite office like Immigration Attorney Amy A. Long who shares her experiences in the interview below. By way of background, Amy has practiced law at her own firm, The Law Office of Amy A. Long, PLLC, for four years and is currently licensed in Virginia and the District of Columbia. Amy’s law firm websites are www.immigrationforvirginia.com and www.immigrationprovidence.com, and she can be contacted on social media at www.facebook.com/loaal1 and www.twitter.com/loaal.  By the way, if you’ve grown your practice recently – either through adding a new niche or setting up a satellite in another state or online, please contact me at elefant@myshingle.com if you’d like to share your experience with readers.

1.  Tell us a little about your law firm – when did you first open the firm, what practice areas does your firm handle and does your firm have any other lawyers and/or support staff?

I opened my firm in 2009.  I handle only immigration & nationality matters. I have no associates or support staff, though I occasionally utilize the assistance of law clerks.

2.   When did you open (or do you plan to open) your satellite office and why did you decide to add a second location?

I opened my satellite office in July 2013.

3. How did you choose the second location for your office? Did you prepare a market assessment or business plan to evaluate need? Were you already familiar with the city or town where your satellite office is located?

I chose the second location because it is close to my hometown. I have older parents and I wanted to be closer to them. Also, I had a friend introduce me to the landlord who is also a solo attorney. I did not prepare a market assessment or business plan. I talked to many attorneys though about how well my practice area is faring in that location. I realize that I am taking a risk with opening this office. That is why I entered into a six month lease.

4. What type of infrastructure do you have at your satellite location? Is it a full-time office? A virtual space? And how is it staffed? 

It is a full-time office. The landlord-attorney also works out of that office but of course we have separate work spaces.

5. How long did it take from when you first conceived of the idea of a satellite office to its implementation? Can you list some of the specific tasks involved in getting the satellite office set up?

Years. I had a lot to negotiate. I have a spouse and there were a lot of uncertainties involved. Would I move there? How often would I commute? Is it feasible (and affordable) to commute such a long distance on a monthly basis? Would I be compromising the quality of representation that I deliver to my clients in Alexandria, VA? Also, if the goal is to visit relatives more often, then why not just travel there more often, why incur the liability of a second office there?  These were questions my spouse and I had to hash out together.

I ultimately wanted to open an office in my hometown because my heart is there and I wanted to be part of that city’s business community.  My practice involves federal law only, so I am not required to be licensed in that state. I am at the very beginning of my journey in trying to make this office work, so I’ll have to let you know in 6 months if the commute was just too trying! Right now, my goal is to personally staff that office for a few days each month. Also, with a phone and internet I can basically work from anywhere. 

Lawyers’ ethical obligations when using social media may be summarized in a single graphic:
Yet rather than invoke the simple litmus test of whether a communication is deceptive to a reasonable viewer to evaluate lawyer advertising, disciplinary committees feel compelled to spill thousands of words analyzing the ethics of each and every feature of each and every iteration of each and every social media platform.  A recent New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) ethics decision, Ethics Opinion (EO) 972  on lawyer use of LinkedIn’s “specialty” features highlights the folly of that approach.

EO 972 responded to an inquiry about whether a lawyer or law firm can list certain services provided on a social media site that includes a section labeled “Specialties.”  The “specialties” question is one that legal ethicists have speculated about for some time, observes Nicole Black in her New York Daily Record column, since many ethics rules prohibit lawyers from stating that they “specialize” in a particular area of law unless they have some type of state-bar sanctioned certification.  In fact, Niki and I flagged this issue in our book,  Social Media for Lawyers  that was published more than three years ago.

Ultimately, EO 972 concluded that listing practice areas under a heading of “Specialties” would constitute a claim that a lawyer or firm is a specialist in a particular field of law and thus, absent certification would violate  New York Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4(a) ‘s bar on lawyers identifying themselves as specialists.

Sounds straight forward enough – but here’s the kicker:  THE OPINION IS ALREADY LARGELY OBSOLETE!! That’s because as of March 2012, LinkedIn deleted the Specialties Option entirely, and replaced it with the Skills and Expertise section for individual lawyers (though a “Specialties” section remains for company profiles; Mootus has several screenshots of New York law firm LinkedIn Profiles that prominently list specialties but I think they’ve since been removed). The New York decision expressly states that:

 “We do not in this opinion address whether the lawyer or law firm could, consistent with Rule 7.4(a), list practice areas under other headings such as “Products & Services” or “Skills and Expertise.”

So essentially, New York issued an ethics opinion that addresses a question that is irrelevant for individual lawyers with a profile on LinkedIn. What a waste!  Although to be fair, the opinion doesn’t mention LinkedIn by name (so arguably applies to other sites that have “Specialties” listings), let’s be real: other than LinkedIn, there aren’t any other social media sites widely used by lawyers that include a “Specialties” section.  I’m not necessarily criticizing New York for being slow to act – though we can assume that the opinion, issued in June 2013, was at least a year in the making since LinkedIn had done away with the Specialties listing by June 2012. Rather, the problem is that social media changes so rapidly and without any warning that even if a bar could issue a timely ethics opinion within a matter of weeks, the opinion would still have a short shelf-life.