6 ms·

Sounds like an opportunity. Live chats with lawyers for significantly lower prices than in-person consultation might cost. You can represent yourself, but get g

by skizm 7y ago

Sounds like an opportunity. Live chats with lawyers for significantly lower prices than in-person consultation might cost. You can represent yourself, but get guidance from a real lawyer. Sounds like something that already exists since it seems obvious in retrospect, but not sure.

tryptophan 7y ago
The problem is that non lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. And what lawyer wants to work over low cost chat sitting in a room all day? That's part of why this sort of service doesn't and will not exist.
- wholepointofcc 7y ago
  Maybe a lawyer who would like to work fewer hours, live anywhere in the world, make his own schedule, etc
- dman 7y ago
  Any reason why there is a restriction disallowing non lawyers from owning law firms?
  - wmeredith 7y ago
    Strong state bar lobbies
  - rayiner 7y ago
    State bars don't want outside investors or non-lawyer executives directing the conduct of lawyers. (Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms? The reason you have corporate structures is to be able to raise capital. Law firms require very little capital.)
    - eldavido 7y ago
      Law as currently practiced, does not require much capital. You're correct about that. But legal services in general are an expensive, labor-intensive craft industry. Just like any craft industry, there's probably scope for low-touch industrialization alongside high-end bespoke craftmanship. Clothing is a good example of what I'm talking about--rich people have tailors, everyone else buys off the rack. What you have now in law and may other professions only works for the high-touch case. Atrium (google them) is trying to get around this by having a traditional high-touch law firm use a lot of software provided by a standard silicon valley-financed venture capital startup. They're basically laundering legal fees to the startup side via the law firm. I'm not sure of the exact legalities but we need more stuff like this. Access matters. A system that, for completely well-intentioned reasons, attempts to guarantee that everyone only gets the best, means the low end will never have access at affordable rates. It's simple economics. Until practitioners work for free (they won't), or there's some way to do things more cheaply, the bottom won't get served.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        The atrium model isn’t problematic at all. Law firms use software built by third parties all the time. (West Law, document review platforms, etc.) You don’t need to permit non lawyer ownership of law firms to have that.
    - dman 7y ago
      Capital is only one of the things a founder brings in - a point of view and skills are others. The legal profession could be missing out on avenues of innovation by requiring a founder to be a lawyer.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      “Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms?” For the same reason or not-reason you can have any other company owned by people who are not experts in the company’s subject. This is probably good for lawyers but otherwise this restriction makes no sense.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Hey remember how intel suffered for years under CEOs who were chip engineers? And then started doing really great when they moved away from that model and started hiring MBA CEOs?
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        I am not saying it’s a good idea but such restrictions shouldn’t be there in a “free market/capitalist” country like the US.
        dman 7y ago
        If law firms run by lawyers run better, then why do they need a rule to enforce this? Shouldn't the market take care of this? ie Law Firms with Lawyer owners will simply out compete clueless Law Firms with owners who are not lawyers.
        likpok 7y ago
        "Better" is a value judgement, and the specific value you've chosen is "makes more money". One concern, I think, is that a non-lawyer may push employees towards legally-unethical behavior. Since the non-lawyer can fire the lawyers, that gives them a big stick they can use to influence the employees.
        siegel 7y ago
        Lawyers are subject to ethical requirements that are not imposed on non-lawyers. And those ethical requirements are just that - requirements. If a lawyer breaks them, they jeopardize their entire careers. There's no equivalent for a professional CEO. Clients insist that their attorneys act in a fiduciary capacity. This is very different from the chip engineer scenario. It is the most important reason why non-lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. Because non-lawyers are not bound by rules that require them to put profit motives second in many circumstances.
AlexB138 7y ago
It exists. One example is called Rocket Lawyer.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
Looks like an expansion opportunity for Atrium.
tialaramex 7y ago
This is roughly the fix in place in other systems that inherit from the English system. The McKenzie Friend rules says if you proceed pro se you can nevertheless have somebody who may or may not be trained as a lawyer present to help you by taking notes, prompting, and giving advice not so different from the way a lawyer might use assistants. You have to do all the actual talking, most weight is on your shoulders - you can't use this to basically keep all the advantages of pro se (courts give people proceeding on this basis more leeway because they may not know and understand the rules a lawyer must master) while having a lawyer do everything, but you can at least have somebody to help you and it can be someone legally trained. In the UK this principle is named for a Mr McKenzie who lost a divorce case because the lawyer sent to try to assist him after he lost funding for a "real" lawyer wasn't qualified to appear in front of that court (an Australian lawyer, in an English court), and the court reasoned that lawyer was thus prohibited from attending except to sit in the public gallery. On appeal a higher court concluded that nothing clearly prohibited this lawyer being present as "a friend" of McKenzie and so that's the McKenzie Friend rule. Since they aren't a "real" lawyer it can be a paralegal working for cheap, somebody who has done a year's law school and dropped out, or even just your actual friend who is better at reading and thinking than you are. It all helps.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  It sort of makes sense. A lawyer is authorized to represent someone in court, and what they do is binding. But anyone can give you advice in the court house parking lot.

by skizm 7y ago

tryptophan 7y ago

The problem is that non lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. And what lawyer wants to work over low cost chat sitting in a room all day? That's part of why this sort of service doesn't and will not exist.

wholepointofcc 7y ago
Maybe a lawyer who would like to work fewer hours, live anywhere in the world, make his own schedule, etc
dman 7y ago
Any reason why there is a restriction disallowing non lawyers from owning law firms?
- wmeredith 7y ago
  Strong state bar lobbies
- rayiner 7y ago
  State bars don't want outside investors or non-lawyer executives directing the conduct of lawyers. (Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms? The reason you have corporate structures is to be able to raise capital. Law firms require very little capital.)
  - eldavido 7y ago
    Law as currently practiced, does not require much capital. You're correct about that. But legal services in general are an expensive, labor-intensive craft industry. Just like any craft industry, there's probably scope for low-touch industrialization alongside high-end bespoke craftmanship. Clothing is a good example of what I'm talking about--rich people have tailors, everyone else buys off the rack. What you have now in law and may other professions only works for the high-touch case. Atrium (google them) is trying to get around this by having a traditional high-touch law firm use a lot of software provided by a standard silicon valley-financed venture capital startup. They're basically laundering legal fees to the startup side via the law firm. I'm not sure of the exact legalities but we need more stuff like this. Access matters. A system that, for completely well-intentioned reasons, attempts to guarantee that everyone only gets the best, means the low end will never have access at affordable rates. It's simple economics. Until practitioners work for free (they won't), or there's some way to do things more cheaply, the bottom won't get served.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      The atrium model isn’t problematic at all. Law firms use software built by third parties all the time. (West Law, document review platforms, etc.) You don’t need to permit non lawyer ownership of law firms to have that.
  - dman 7y ago
    Capital is only one of the things a founder brings in - a point of view and skills are others. The legal profession could be missing out on avenues of innovation by requiring a founder to be a lawyer.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    “Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms?” For the same reason or not-reason you can have any other company owned by people who are not experts in the company’s subject. This is probably good for lawyers but otherwise this restriction makes no sense.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Hey remember how intel suffered for years under CEOs who were chip engineers? And then started doing really great when they moved away from that model and started hiring MBA CEOs?
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        I am not saying it’s a good idea but such restrictions shouldn’t be there in a “free market/capitalist” country like the US.
      - dman 7y ago
        If law firms run by lawyers run better, then why do they need a rule to enforce this? Shouldn't the market take care of this? ie Law Firms with Lawyer owners will simply out compete clueless Law Firms with owners who are not lawyers.
        likpok 7y ago
        "Better" is a value judgement, and the specific value you've chosen is "makes more money". One concern, I think, is that a non-lawyer may push employees towards legally-unethical behavior. Since the non-lawyer can fire the lawyers, that gives them a big stick they can use to influence the employees.
        siegel 7y ago
        Lawyers are subject to ethical requirements that are not imposed on non-lawyers. And those ethical requirements are just that - requirements. If a lawyer breaks them, they jeopardize their entire careers. There's no equivalent for a professional CEO. Clients insist that their attorneys act in a fiduciary capacity. This is very different from the chip engineer scenario. It is the most important reason why non-lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. Because non-lawyers are not bound by rules that require them to put profit motives second in many circumstances.

AlexB138 7y ago

It exists. One example is called Rocket Lawyer.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

Looks like an expansion opportunity for Atrium.

tialaramex 7y ago

This is roughly the fix in place in other systems that inherit from the English system. The McKenzie Friend rules says if you proceed pro se you can nevertheless have somebody who may or may not be trained as a lawyer present to help you by taking notes, prompting, and giving advice not so different from the way a lawyer might use assistants. You have to do all the actual talking, most weight is on your shoulders - you can't use this to basically keep all the advantages of pro se (courts give people proceeding on this basis more leeway because they may not know and understand the rules a lawyer must master) while having a lawyer do everything, but you can at least have somebody to help you and it can be someone legally trained. In the UK this principle is named for a Mr McKenzie who lost a divorce case because the lawyer sent to try to assist him after he lost funding for a "real" lawyer wasn't qualified to appear in front of that court (an Australian lawyer, in an English court), and the court reasoned that lawyer was thus prohibited from attending except to sit in the public gallery. On appeal a higher court concluded that nothing clearly prohibited this lawyer being present as "a friend" of McKenzie and so that's the McKenzie Friend rule. Since they aren't a "real" lawyer it can be a paralegal working for cheap, somebody who has done a year's law school and dropped out, or even just your actual friend who is better at reading and thinking than you are. It all helps.

Gibbon1 7y ago
It sort of makes sense. A lawyer is authorized to represent someone in court, and what they do is binding. But anyone can give you advice in the court house parking lot.