3 ms·

wireLawyer – Linkedin Meets Elance for Lawyers [video]

19 points by tuty767 13y ago

grabeh 13y ago
To me the messaging is confused. The tagline of creating the world's largest law firm clashes with what appears to be the central idea of the site i.e. to promote referrals between lawyers. The reason for the clash is that referrals often happen because a firm who receives the initial instruction is conflicted due to an existing client and has to refer the instruction to another law firm who is not conflicted. As a result, the aim of creating the world's largest firm seems counter-intuitive to the intended objective of the site.
- chalst 13y ago
  CoI maybe drives most referrals from larger firms, but from small firms, capacity will be a major factor.
  - grabeh 13y ago
    This is very true. There are obviously a whole a range of potential causes of a referral. I just find the use of 'largest law firm' a bit ambiguous and unnecessary in light of the potential CoI issue. 'Network of firms' or something similar would be better.
chalst 13y ago
The "elevator pitch" is not very clear, so I'll summarise what I have gathered. The idea, from the website, seems to be threefold: a CV service, a referral marketplace, and a (free?) repository of legal documents. The emphasis seems to be on credibility: it looks like you need 50 connections before taking place in the referral network, which, if they can ensure that most accounts are held by bona fide lawyers, is solid. I would like this kind of professional-to-professional service to succeed. Elance is not a good comparison, I think.
joonix 13y ago
The video demo makes it seem like you can effectively "auction off" clients to lawyers primarily on the basis of who offers a higher referral fee. You are going to clash with the professional rules. * >New York rules do not permit a pure “referral” fee – that is, a fee for merely referring a client to another attorney. (Some states do permit such fees under certain circumstances; as an example, New Jersey court rules permit certain attorneys who have been certified by a state board to provide a referral fee to another attorney without regard to the amount of work performed or responsibility assumed by the referring attorney [N.J. Rule 1.39-6(d)]). The governing New York rule is DR 2-107(A), which provides: A. A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of the lawyer’s firm, unless: 1. The client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made. 2. The division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by a writing given the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. 3. The total fee of the lawyers does not exceed reasonable compensation for all legal services they rendered the client. [1] * The job of a lawyer is not merely to act as a "broker" who develops business and then sells the client to specialists who will pay her the biggest fee[2]. Referrals are a part of the profession, yes, but the emphasis is not on making money but rather directing your client to the best person for the matter because you have the duty of acting in the client's best interests. The referring lawyer should still do work on the case after the referral in order to accept a fee, too. [1] http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/LawPracticeManagementResources/Feesharing.pdf http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/LawPracticeManag... [2] Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a lawyer who counsels clients on picking the best lawyer for the job, or provides access to their network of contacts. However, the client should pay for these services (hourly or fixed), not the referee. When you sell the lead based on a referral fee there is going to be a conflict of interest and keep in mind the lawyer has to get the client's consent to this division of fees.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I'm not sure what to make of this part: "With its smart document database and curated Q&A, wireLawyer enables small to mid sized law (SMLs) to operate like Big Law- in essence creating the largest virtual firm in the world." It seems like there is an element of having smaller and medium sized firms share (something? what sorts of documents? what sorts of Q's and A's?) Which makes the question you raise of sharing fees even more complicated. Also, it looks like they're taking outside investments. If the entity is in fact a "virtual law firm" then the outside investors can't be non-lawyers, right? It's an interesting concept, though I'm not sure if it's exactly what folks at small and mid sized firms are really crying out for. Then again, I've read the pitch twice and I still don't understand exactly what they're doing...

19 points by tuty767 13y ago

To me the messaging is confused. The tagline of creating the world's largest law firm clashes with what appears to be the central idea of the site i.e. to promote referrals between lawyers. The reason for the clash is that referrals often happen because a firm who receives the initial instruction is conflicted due to an existing client and has to refer the instruction to another law firm who is not conflicted. As a result, the aim of creating the world's largest firm seems counter-intuitive to the intended objective of the site.

chalst 13y ago
CoI maybe drives most referrals from larger firms, but from small firms, capacity will be a major factor.
- grabeh 13y ago
  This is very true. There are obviously a whole a range of potential causes of a referral. I just find the use of 'largest law firm' a bit ambiguous and unnecessary in light of the potential CoI issue. 'Network of firms' or something similar would be better.

chalst 13y ago

The "elevator pitch" is not very clear, so I'll summarise what I have gathered. The idea, from the website, seems to be threefold: a CV service, a referral marketplace, and a (free?) repository of legal documents. The emphasis seems to be on credibility: it looks like you need 50 connections before taking place in the referral network, which, if they can ensure that most accounts are held by bona fide lawyers, is solid. I would like this kind of professional-to-professional service to succeed. Elance is not a good comparison, I think.

joonix 13y ago

The video demo makes it seem like you can effectively "auction off" clients to lawyers primarily on the basis of who offers a higher referral fee. You are going to clash with the professional rules. * >New York rules do not permit a pure “referral” fee – that is, a fee for merely referring a client to another attorney. (Some states do permit such fees under certain circumstances; as an example, New Jersey court rules permit certain attorneys who have been certified by a state board to provide a referral fee to another attorney without regard to the amount of work performed or responsibility assumed by the referring attorney [N.J. Rule 1.39-6(d)]). The governing New York rule is DR 2-107(A), which provides: A. A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of the lawyer’s firm, unless: 1. The client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made. 2. The division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by a writing given the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. 3. The total fee of the lawyers does not exceed reasonable compensation for all legal services they rendered the client. [1] * The job of a lawyer is not merely to act as a "broker" who develops business and then sells the client to specialists who will pay her the biggest fee[2]. Referrals are a part of the profession, yes, but the emphasis is not on making money but rather directing your client to the best person for the matter because you have the duty of acting in the client's best interests. The referring lawyer should still do work on the case after the referral in order to accept a fee, too. [1] http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/LawPracticeManagementResources/Feesharing.pdf http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/LawPracticeManag... [2] Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a lawyer who counsels clients on picking the best lawyer for the job, or provides access to their network of contacts. However, the client should pay for these services (hourly or fixed), not the referee. When you sell the lead based on a referral fee there is going to be a conflict of interest and keep in mind the lawyer has to get the client's consent to this division of fees.

rayiner 13y ago
I'm not sure what to make of this part: "With its smart document database and curated Q&A, wireLawyer enables small to mid sized law (SMLs) to operate like Big Law- in essence creating the largest virtual firm in the world." It seems like there is an element of having smaller and medium sized firms share (something? what sorts of documents? what sorts of Q's and A's?) Which makes the question you raise of sharing fees even more complicated. Also, it looks like they're taking outside investments. If the entity is in fact a "virtual law firm" then the outside investors can't be non-lawyers, right? It's an interesting concept, though I'm not sure if it's exactly what folks at small and mid sized firms are really crying out for. Then again, I've read the pitch twice and I still don't understand exactly what they're doing...