Evaluating Online Lawyer Referral Services

Online referral services can be a good source of business for lawyers entering private practice.  And the pitch is often tempting:  “Sign up with us and you’ll get all the clients you want in [your practice area].  You will be the only lawyer in [your state] to receive referrals from us.”  Scads of clients.  Exclusivity.  Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Bar-operated programs aside, you should take the time to scrutinize offers from for-profit online referral services.  Potential traps abound:

Fees

Paying a fixed annual or other set periodic fee not related to any particular work derived from a directory listing violates neither RPC 5.4(a) nor RPC 7.2(a). A charge to Lawyer based on the number of hits or clicks on Lawyer’s advertising, and that is not based on actual referrals or retained clients, would also be permissible.  Helen Hierschbiel, Internet Marketing: Rules of the Road

The key here is that the fee and the work are not connected.  The typical referral service gets this right, but make sure you understand how fees are paid and what conditions apply.  To learn how you might run afoul of the fee sharing prohibition, see Amber Hollister, What Hath the Web Wrought? Advertising in the Internet Age.

Confidentiality

Odds are you’ll be required to report back some kind of tracking data to the online referral service.  Assuming this includes only benign information, such as a client identification number, there is no breach of confidentiality.  Services vary, however, so learn exactly what must be reported and why.

Advertising

…Internet-based advertising is governed by the same rules as other advertising. The basic ground rule is that advertising cannot be false or misleading. See RPC 7.1(a). Because Web pages may be viewed by persons outside of Oregon, lawyers must take care to ensure the advertisement identifies the jurisdictional limits of their practices. Furthermore, while lawyers may include their names in directories or other advertising Web pages, they must not allow a directory to promote them using means that involve false or misleading communications. RPC 7.2(b). Lawyers are responsible for content that they did not create to the extent they know about that content.  Helen Hierschbiel, Internet Marketing: Rules of the Road.

Some online referrers advertise that the lawyers in their network are “Verified.”  They give lawyer-members “Verified” logos or other graphics to place on their websites.  This begs the question: what does “Verified” mean?  By whom?  How?  When?  Unless this statement is adequately explained, it could be considered false or misleading.

Puffery in numbers

If the online referral service is suggesting you should sign up now because they have a gazillion clients waiting in the wings for a lawyer in your practice area, probe that representation.  Ask for numbers, demographics, and details.  If the clients really exist, they should have the information to back up the statement.  How many clients do they anticipate referring to you each month?  What is the basis for that expectation?  How will they ensure the flow of future clients?

Puffery in other ways

Some online referral services tell lawyers they’ve been approved or vetted by a bar association.  Designed to give peace of mind, this statement is more than a little suspicious.

While a referral service may have done its homework to investigate the rules in Oregon, and may have contacted the bar to learn more about the rules, this does not constitute “approval” of the program.  To my knowledge, the bar does not engage in such a process.

If you are approached by a referral service that implies it has been approved by the Oregon State Bar, contact the Oregon State Bar to verify this representation.

Exclusivity

Some services promise exclusivity:  sign with us and you will be the only Oregon lawyer to receive referrals in your area(s) of law.  You should be especially skeptical of this representation.  Get it in writing and carefully investigate any potential exceptions or loopholes.

General reputation, references, and complaints

Minimally, run a Google search.  Look beyond the first page of results.  Read any articles, reviews, or posts about complaints that mention the name of the service.  The BBB or like organizations can be a good source of information.

Also take the time to check references.  Ask for the names of other Oregon lawyers who have been using the service for at least six months.

Cancellation

Make sure you understand the cancellation terms. You don’t need a nasty surprise if you decide to get out.  Initial set-up fees are likely to be nonrefundable, but check.

Better Marketing

The PLF has an excellent set of marketing practice aids which include a business development goal checklist, sample marketing plan, and marketing worksheets.  Download these resources at Practice Management > Forms > Marketing on the PLF website.

Ask

Many of the issues related to online lawyer referral services are ethical in nature.  Don’t hesitate to contact the OSB General Counsel’s Office when in doubt.

All Rights Reserved [2015] Beverly Michaelis

Are Changes Coming to Oregon’s Data Breach Law?

Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is urging the Oregon legislature to update Oregon’s data breach law:

“Data breach and the distribution of personal information is a growing risk for Oregonians. Nationally, data breaches in 2013 exposed an estimated 546 million piece of personal information. The Oregon Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2007 requires businesses and governmental agencies to notify consumers of digital data breaches and develop safeguards for personal information but provides no protection for medical, insurance or biometric information. By extending enforcement power to the Oregon Department of Justice, Oregon will be able to use the effective enforcement tools of the already-existing Unlawful Trade Practices Act .” Read more here.

Track the status of legislative action on this issue and in other areas that affect your practice by using the Oregon State Bar 2015 Regular Session Bill Tracking tool.

The 2015 Oregon State Bar Law Improvement Proposals are found here. The 2015 Oregon State Bar Legislative Priorities include improvements to court funding in general, eCourt funding in particular, and legal services to the poor. Read more here.

Avoiding eCourt – Waivers and eFiling “Lawyer Buddies”

Oregon eCourt is nothing less than revolutionary.  It is transforming how we file pleadings, meet deadlines, pay filing fees, and access court documents.  For those who were hoping to retire or transition to another career before eCourt became mandatory, the change is especially rough.

Initially, eCourt requires an investment – buying a scanner and purchasing software.  It also demands that lawyers learn new technology and adapt to changing court rules and practices.

If you are on the cusp of making a transition away from the private practice of law, but fall within the boundaries of mandatory eCourt, you may want to delegate this task – or find an eFiling lawyer buddy.  Before you do, consider the following:

Is it ethically permissible to delegate eFiling?

Short answer: Yes, qualified.  (Read the remainder of this post.)

Whether you use an eFiling lawyer buddy (contract lawyer who tends to the eFiling responsibilities of the case) or a non-lawyer staff person, you have the right to give others access to your eFiling account.

On November 19, 2014, I co-presented the OSB-PLF CLE, Oregon eCourt Update, with Daniel Parr from the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD).  At that CLE, the following questions were posed:

Q: Should an assistant be the Administrator and then the Attorney be under that same registration? Or should a legal assistant have a separate account?

A: In general this decision is up to you. Your group should register as a firm or as a unit on the system, even if you are a solo practitioner. You can choose who to assign as a firm administrator, and this can be multiple individuals. Some firms have chosen to have staff log into attorney accounts, and other firms have chosen to have the staff set up accounts directly.

Q: Are there any ethical issues with having non-attorney staff handle filings?

A: Staff are permitted to assist with this process, and non-attorney staff are already eFiling on behalf of attorneys. Obviously it is up to the attorney to review and supervise any work done by non-attorneys, and the attorney is responsible for the result.

While we did not explicitly receive a question about using a contract lawyer to handle eFilings, the result is the same – contract lawyers (eFiling lawyer buddies) are permitted to eFile on behalf of the attorney of record.  As attorney of record, it is up to you to supervise your eFiling lawyer buddy, and you are responsible for the result.  There are some other considerations, discussed below.

Is it possible to avoid eFiling entirely?

Short answer:  Yes, upon “good cause” shown, with the court’s permission.  Any lawyer can apply for a waiver of the eFiling requirement.  The waiver may apply to an existing (singular) case (UTCR 21.140(3)(a)(ii)) or all cases in a given judicial district for a specific period of time. (UTCR 21.140(3)(a)(i)).  Lawyers seek a waiver for an existing case by filing a motion; for all cases in a specific judicial district by filing a petition.

If the court grants a petition waiving the eFiling requirement in a specific judicial district, “the person obtaining the waiver must file a copy of the court’s order in each case subject to the waiver; and include the words “Exempt from eFiling per Waiver Granted [DATE]” in the caption of all documents conventionally filed during the duration of the waiver.” (UTCR 21.140(3)(d) and (e)).

Using an eFiling lawyer buddy (contract lawyer)

If you decide to use a contract lawyer to eFile your cases, follow these guidelines:

  • Put it in writing.  As with all contract lawyering arrangements, document in writing the scope of the agreement, method of compensation, and other details.  For assistance with establishing contract lawyering relationships, see the checklist and documents available from the Professional Liability Fund (PLF).  On the PLF website, select Practice Management > Forms > Contract Lawyering.
  • Assess PLF coverage implications.  If the eFiling lawyer buddy is claiming an exemption from PLF coverage, he or she cannot operate independently and “take over” eFiling responsibility.  Contract lawyers who are exempt from coverage must function under PLF guidelines.  (For details, visit the PLF website.  Select Assessments & Exemptions > Exemptions, then “Law Clerk/Supervised Attorney Not Engaged in the Private Practice of Law.”)
    Your eFiling lawyer buddy is likely to be safe if she restricts her role to that of an assistant or secretary: uploading documents at the attorney of record’s direction, following the attorney of record’s instructions in selecting a filing code, etc.  The more independent your eFiling lawyer buddy becomes, the more likely she could be viewed as acting beyond the scope of the PLF contract lawyering exemption (if in effect).  The simple workaround: your eFiling lawyer buddy (aka contract lawyer) can obtain PLF coverage for more freedom in executing her duties.
  • Understand the acceptance/rejection process. As you define the scope of the eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibilities, consider who will be responsible for processing and responding to acceptance and rejection notices issued by Tylerhost.net.  (Oregon’s eCourt vendor.)  For example, if the attorney of record eFiles a complaint on the day the statute runs and her filing is rejected, who will refile and seek relation-back?
    It stands to reason that each time an eFiling lawyer buddy files a document for the attorney of record, she needs to be engaged and available to assist with the filing until an acceptance or rejection notice is issued. This can take up to a week.  Specific terms should be added to the written contract lawyering agreement that address the eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibility in rejection situations.  (Note: the attorney of record can instruct her eFiling lawyer buddy to add himself as a contact in order to receive acceptance/rejection notices generated by Tylerhost.net.)
  • Understand the court notice process.  Some lawyers who are tempted to hire an eFiling lawyer buddy might be operating under the misapprehension that they can completely avoid all associated technology.  However, court notices from the Oregon Judicial Department are sent only to the “filer,” in this case, the attorney of record.  The attorney of record is responsible for reviewing and acting upon court email on a timely basis.
  • Limit account access.  By necessity, an eFiling lawyer buddy will need access to the attorney of record’s eFiling account (Odyssey) operated by Tylerhost/Tyler Technologies. But this access can (and should be) limited in writing.  The eFiling lawyer buddy should only use the attorney of record’s eFiling account as needed, and at the express direction of the attorney of record.
  • Limit credit card access.  Ideally, the attorney of record will create the eFiling (Odyssey) account and enter the credit card information needed for payment of filing fees.  If the attorney of record needs assistance, she can call the Tyler Technologies support number and/or use the “GoToAssist” feature, allowing Tyler Technologies to take control of her computer to establish the account. This limits the eFiling lawyer buddy’s access to the attorney of record’s credit card account information.  Once the credit card information is entered, the eFiling lawyer buddy simply selects the payment account to pay filing fees.  If the eFiling account is configured properly, the eFiling lawyer buddy will not be able to see the credit card information.  The attorney of record should be the “administrator.”  The eFiling lawyer buddy should be a “user.”  Support staff at Tyler Technologies can help attorneys of record set up accounts using these distinctions.
    To further protect herself, the attorney of record should dedicate a specific credit card to use in paying eFiling fees.  By establishing a credit card solely for this purpose, it will be very easy to spot whether there is any inappropriate activity on the account.  The only charges that should ever appear on attorney of record’s billing statement are filing fees payable to OJD.
  • Provide proper supervision.  Regardless of how duties are divided, the real responsibility here still falls on the attorney of record.  This scenario presumes that the eFiling lawyer buddy’s role is to act only as a technical specialist.  The attorney of record must be sure at all times that eFiling lawyer buddy is doing his job.  The eFiling lawyer buddy is not responsible for the content or accuracy of documents filed; nor is it eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibility to monitor filing deadlines.
  • Be aware of ethics traps in determining compensation. The attorney of record can cover the cost of using the eFiling lawyer buddy out of his own pocket as a cost of doing business.  If the attorney of record intends to bill clients for eFiling lawyer buddy’s services, the clients must consent.  The attorney of record should update his client fee agreements accordingly.  (Beware the limitations of modifying a fee agreement midstream – see OSB Formal Opinion 2005-97.)
    Alternatively, the attorney of record could also barter services in exchange, but should check in with OSB General Counsel about the ethics of such an arrangement.
    If the attorney of record plans to split her fees with the eFiling lawyer buddy, she must comply with the Oregon RPCs requiring disclosure and consent of the fee split to the client.

[All Rights Reserved – 2015 – Beverly Michaelis]

The Importance of Keeping Complete Client files

Do you keep a complete copy of your client files?  If not, does your reasoning fall into one of the following categories:

 

Let’s consider these arguments individually.

Rationale: I don’t want to store the paper

Agreed!  I don’t blame you one bit.  Talk about inconvenient!

  • You could keep files at home, but no one wants to do that and some of us don’t have the space.
  • You could keep files in your office, but it can look like a clutter bomb went off.
  • This leaves the expensive option: keeping files off-site.

Solution: Scan your closed files

The easiest solution is to stop adding to the problem.  Resolve to scan your closed files starting this year.  Most practitioners will need a scanner for Oregon eCourt.  Put it to work as a file retention tool.

Rationale: Scanning is too time consuming

If your paper files aren’t “scanner” friendly, digitizing them at closing time can be tedious and time-consuming.

Solution: Make your life easier and scan as you go

Scanning paper as you receive it means all file materials are electronic from the start and the work is done automatically over the life of the file.  In fact, if you “scan as you go,” there is no reason not to simply be paperless.

After scanning, paper can be:

  1. Shredded
  2. Given to the client
  3. Kept for a designated amount of time in a general chron file
  4. Kept for a designated amount of time in simplified client file (e.g., dropped into an expanding file folder)

Exceptions may apply to certain types of originals.  See the PLF File Retention Guidelines, available on the PLF website.

Rationale: The court has all my pleadings

This is a specific example of the argument that if someone else has a copy of the documents stored in my file, I don’t need to retain my set.

Solution: Keep it real

No one else possesses your exact client file, as you gathered it, for the purpose you gathered it.

When you decide that it isn’t necessary to keep copies of the documents you filed in court, the medical records used to prove your client’s damages, or some other part of your file on the grounds that “someone else has a copy,” you are taking a huge risk.

Many a lawyer has regretted the decision not to keep records because “they were available elsewhere.”  For example, the lawyer who said he withdrew from a case long before a judgment was entered against his former client.  The lawyer claimed he withdrew, but had no documentation in his file.  The court’s Register of Actions showed receipt of a letter from the lawyer seeking to withdraw, but when a PDF of the court file was obtained, there was no letter.  Maybe the letter never made it into the paper file.  Or perhaps it was missed when the file was scanned.

Regardless, the moral of the story is pretty apparent: anyone (including a court clerk) can misplace, misfile, or lose a document.  Never rely on another person or entity to keep your records.  PLF claim files are replete with similar examples.

In the event of a legal malpractice claim, it may be crucial to prove what you did nor did not have in your file.  And while it may be possible to obtain duplicate records, doing so does not establish they were previously in your possession.

Additionally, defending the practice of discarding part of your file can be quite uncomfortable at deposition or in front of a jury.  Jurors hold lawyers to a high standard and often naturally have sympathy for the plaintiff bringing a claim.  If your testimony shows that you shredded part of your file, jurors may draw the wrong conclusion about your motives.  Play it safe and keep your complete file.

All Rights Reserved [2015] Beverly Michaelis

 

Practice Alerts for Oregon Lawyers

Professional Liability Fund Practice Alerts are a quick, easy way for Oregon lawyers to stay informed about developing legal news and practice management announcements.

With an RSS feed you can subscribe to alerts and receive new posts automatically in your browser or e-mail inbox  without the need to login or monitor the PLF website.  Examples of recent post topics include:

  • Are you eCourt Ready?
  • Temporary eFiling Restrictions Lifted
  • UTCR 21.140 Amended Out-of-Cycle
  • Office Productivity in the Cloud: Is Office 365 Right for You?
  • eCourt Service Status – Temporary eFiling Restrictions
  • eCourt Mandatory effective December 1, 2014

You can also follow the Professional Liability Fund on social media, including:

Social media accounts are used to share news, events, CLE announcements, job opportunities, discounts, and useful practice tips.

Stay in touch!

[All Rights Reserved – 2015 – Beverly Michaelis]

Crowdfunding Your Law Practice

crowdCrowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.

The crowdfunding model is fueled by three types of actors: the project initiator who proposes the idea and/or project to be funded; individuals or groups who support the idea; and a moderating organization (the “platform”) that brings the parties together to launch the idea.

In 2013, the crowdfunding industry grew to be over $5.1 billion worldwide.
Source: Wikipedia.

Crowdfunding for Lawyers

Potentially, lawyers could use crowdfunding at any time – to jumpstart a law practice, expand a law practice, or bridge the gap during a downturn in business.

As you might expect, crowdfunding is most successful when used to promote a cause or new product idea rather than a service.  But it could work for lawyers if donors find the practice area and marketing pitch appealing.

The Ethics of it All

Before we get too excited about this idea, we need to do a gut check.  Simply put: is crowdfunding ethical?

A quick Internet search produces a list of posts and articles on the subject.  Here are a few:

The first result is by far the most interesting for Oregon lawyers.  In Crowdfunding: The Future Of Public-Interest Funding? author Sam Wright reports a conversation with Oregon lawyer Kellie Ann Furr who is crowdfunding a “private-public interest environmental law firm” on Indiegogo.  Furr is halfway to her fundraising goal of $7,500.  Take the time to look at her campaign and you’ll understand the appeal and her success.

But back to the ethics of it all…

In his Above the Law post about Furr, Wright tells us:

First, she sought and received an informal opinion from the Oregon State Bar on “the ethics of donation-based crowdfunding” to make sure she was on sound ethical footing. She was also careful to select “perks” for donors that would not affect her “professional independence” — in her case, the perks mostly involve volunteer time or pro bono assistance to environmental organizations. And she includes appropriate disclaimers on her campaign page.

So does this mean Oregon lawyers are off and running – free to set up crowdfunding campaigns without a second thought?  Not quite….

Crowdfunding is a “Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services” for Purposes of Oregon RPC 7.1

By necessity, crowdfunding involves representations about your potential or ongoing law practice. Therefore, Oregon RPC 7.1 – Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services – would apply to the content contained in your crowdfunding appeal:

“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”

Simply put: lawyers are responsible for ensuring that representations made about their practice are accurate.  For an excellent discussion of this topic, see OSB Formal Opinion No. 2007-180 Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees and the following articles:

“Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation” – the Companion of RPC 7.1

A violation of Oregon RPC 7.1 (communication that is false or misleading) could also implicate Oregon RPC 8.4:

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”

But lawyers can run afoul of RPC 8.4 in other ways.  As discussed below, crowdfunding campaigns often promise “rewards” or “perks” for donors.  Assuming that offering something in return for a donation is ethical, failing to deliver the “reward” or “perk” if all conditions are met would likely be construed as a violation of 8.4.

The Granddaddy of them all: Is Crowdfunding Fee Sharing with a Nonlawyer?

Lawyers and law firms are prohibited from sharing legal fees under Oregon RPC 5.4, except in limited circumstances.  This begs the question: if a donor gives a lawyer money to fund his or her law practice, does this constitute impermissible fee sharing?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Where is the “fee” and how is it “shared?”  Compare the following scenarios:

  1. Lawyer and nonlawyer wish to form an LLC offering business advice.  They intend to charge potential clients a flat fee of $1,000 for their services and split the fee 50/50.  Lawyer will provide the legal advice; nonlawyer will coach clients on business strategies, financing, marketing, and the like.
    While this arrangement raises a number of issues, the question here is: does the proposed fee split violate Oregon RPC 5.4?  The answer is a straightforward: yes!
  2. A donor gives money to a lawyer to start her law practice, no strings attached – the funds are a gift, not a loan; the donor is seeking nothing in return; the lawyer is providing nothing in exchange for the donation.  There is no “fee.”  There is no “sharing.”  The donor could be Mom, Dad, a friend, or a stranger responding to a crowdfunding appeal.  It is hard to understand how this could be a violation of RPC 5.4 – but as always, I encourage readers: take your questions to the experts – OSB General Counsel’s Office.

So crowdfunding looks like a “go,” right?  Not so fast … here’s the thing about crowdfunding.  Donations aren’t generally a “gift” with no strings attached:

The Crowdfunding Centre’s May 2014 report identified the existence of two primary types of crowdfunding:

Rewards crowdfunding: entrepreneurs pre-sell a product or service to launch a business concept without incurring debt or sacrificing equity/shares.
Equity crowdfunding: the backer receives shares of a company, usually in its early stages, in exchange for the money pledged. The company’s success is determined by how successfully it can demonstrate its viability.

Source: Wikipedia.

Permitting donors to take an equity interest in your law firm is clearly impermissible under RPC 5.4.  A rewards approach could quickly go awry if the lawyer violated RPC 7.1, 8.4, or other applicable rules.  Remember Kellie Ann Furr?  Her Indiegogo campaign offers four different “perks” or rewards for donors:  volunteer time, pro bono work, or a one-hour consultation.  She carefully limits the one-hour consultation to Oregon residents only and includes a disclaimer that donating to her campaign does not create an attorney-client relationship. Is this sufficient?  At the risk of repeating myself: take this question to the experts – OSB General Counsel’s Office.

Funding a Law Practice Is Only Part of the Picture: Student Loans, Litigation, and Securities Regulation

Crowdfunding raises issues in other areas as well.  Check out these posts:

Learn More

If you want to learn more about crowdfunding, read the following:

Next, get ethics advice – from independent ethics counsel with whom you form an attorney-client relationship or OSB General Counsel’s Office.  The General Counsel’s Office can help you identify applicable rules, point out relevant formal ethics opinions and other resource material, and give you a reaction to your ethics question – they are always a good place to start.

All Rights Reserved [2015] Beverly Michaelis

Postscript:

In addition to the above, practitioners should also consult with a tax lawyer or CPA. Money raised via crowdfunding will likely be considered taxable income. Check out these guidelines, available from PayPal. A word of caution: as noted here, failure to meet PayPal’s threshold for purposes of generating a 1099 doesn’t mean you aren’t obligated to report the income.

A New Year – A New Opportunity

Each new year offers an opportunity for a fresh start.  A chance to do things differently to improve your life and your practice.

If your goals for the new year include any of the following:

  • Reducing your stress levelNY
  • Improving your office routines
  • Increasing productivity
  • Streamlining office systems
  • Balancing the demands of work and home

but you’re not sure where to start, check out these classic posts on how to “spring clean” your office systems and work habits.

Feeling Overwhelmed?

If you’re an Oregon lawyer, you have a great resource right in your own backyard:  the Oregon Attorney Assistance Program.  The OAAP can give you guidance on how to develop your own stress management program using deep relaxation, meditation, time management, and other proven stress-reducing techniques.  Best of all, OAAP services are free and confidential.  If you are looking for help in any of these areas, please give the OAAP a call at 1-800-321-6227.

Looking for Practice Management Advice?

Is it time to revamp your office systems and procedures?  We’re here to help! Professional Liability Fund Practice Management Advisors provide free and confidential assistance with office systems.  If you’re a lawyer in Oregon, give us a call!  800-452-1639 Toll-Free in Oregon or 503-639-6911.

All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis [2015]

2014 WordPress Helper Monkeys

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 71,000 times in 2014. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 3 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

The Year in Review – Top Posts in 2014

Thank you loyal readers!  As 2014 comes to a close, here is a look back at the year’s top posts:

eCourt

mouseAre you eCourt Ready?
Calculating Deadlines Using the REGISTER OF ACTIONS
eCourt Notices: Forwarding is Up to You
Rejected Filings and Relation Back
Searching eCourt Calendars

Fees – Getting Paid, Credit Cards, Trust Accounting

Partnership & Of Counsel – Managing Money – Leaving – FormingBusinesswomen Balancing Over Money

IOLTA Accounts and Partnerships – Dos and Don’ts
I Say Of Counsel You Say…
Leaving Your Firm
Thinking about Partnership?

Technology

Unbundling and the Nontraditional Practice

The Nontraditional Law Practice
Establishing a Successful Home-Based Practice

 

 

 

[All Rights Reserved 2014 – Beverly Michaelis]