

wireLawyer – Linkedin Meets Elance for Lawyers [video] - tuty767
https://rockthepost.com/wireLawyer1

======
joonix
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/LawPracticeManag...](http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/LawPracticeManagementResources/Feesharing.pdf)

[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
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...

~~~
joonix
It sounds like it's just going to be a database of boilerplate / sample /
template legal docs that people can contribute to. I guess their point is that
small firms can pool their resources, just like a big firm is just a group of
lawyers sharing their resources. A big firm would have a big bank of forms
that other lawyers can utilize to save time.

However, as a small firm I can signup with a form building product from
Westlaw and have highly detailed, quality forms available, knowing they are
kept up to date with relevant changes in the law, and I get a form building
component that asks me questions and replicates data to save time and make
things easy. The cost for a product like this for one user access to a group
of practice area forms is around $160/month.

As for curated Q&A... I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like skilled
practitioners will share their expertise in practice quides. There are already
plenty of these out there though. Pretty much every practice area has a
practice manual that has processed the law into digestible, practical text.
Yes, you have to pay, but if you really having paying clients you shouldn't be
trying to skimp on $200/mo for access.

If I have invested hours of my time into building a custom legal document for
a client, I'm not going to share that with other lawyers for free, either.

------
chalst
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.

------
grabeh
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
CoI maybe drives most referrals from larger firms, but from small firms,
capacity will be a major factor.

~~~
grabeh
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.

