Assessing the potential of online legal advice
Will firms lose money as a result of providing legal advice over the internet?
January 21, 1999 at 07:10 AM
2 minute read
One of the most common concerns among lawyers looking at passing on their precious legal know-how to an online advice system is that they will lose work as a result.
Olswang IT director Tim Hyman says the worry is whether firms will jeopardise traditional face-to-face work by selling expertise online.
"In the short term you might gain clients and make money, but in the longer term how can you assess which clients would have used you anyway? You could have lost out."
This is where Richard Susskind's concept of the "latent legal market" comes into play.
Susskind argues that a huge number of commercial clients are reluctant to pay premium face-to-face rates for certain types of standard advice, but would be happy to pay cheaper rates for an online consultation.
Certainly this is the thinking at Clifford Chance, where Christopher Millard and Mark Ford, the lawyers responsible for the NextLaw system, see their data protection advice system as tapping in to a latent market.
"This is work that clients might previously have ignored, even though, as the system will advise them, they could conceivably face imprisonment for failing to comply with data protection regulations," says Millard
But at Linklaters, Paul Nelson believes latent markets are of little relevance to Blue Flag.
"This is a high quality service which works in tandem with our existing investment bank practice.
While the latent market might be appropriate in some situations, it doesn't apply to Blue Flag," he argues.
However, Nelson does agree that real lawyers will not lose out because of virtual lawyering systems.
"The system does away with the repetitive transaction-based work and frees up lawyers to do the more innovative stuff," he says.
"Rather than taking work away the system supplements it. The marketing benefits of having a virtual lawyer sitting on the client's PC all day with the Blue Flag masthead on the screen are considerable.
"My practice area has doubled in size since we introduced Blue Flag."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readSingapore Oil Tycoon Appeals 17.5 Year Prison Sentence In Fraudulent Trading Case
Charles Russell Speechlys Opens in Milan to Focus on Ultra-High Net Worth Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firm Real Estate Strategy: Attorney Offices Are Out, Conference Rooms Are In
- 2AI Governance In Practice
- 3Section 1782 Practice Pointers From Recent Decisions
- 4Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 5Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250