December

E-Lawyering: Automated Document Software "So Last Decade"

Now that we are approaching 2010, I thought it appropriate to look back at a specific legal technological trend that has not worked. Automated document preparation, or what some refer to as "Robo Lawyering", has not provided greater access to civil legal services. Automated legal document preparation is not innovative, it is simply quick and ineffective.

ELawyering for 2010 and Beyond

ELawyering practicioners for 2010 and beyond must adapt to the reality that people want personal attention. The future elawyer knows how to leverage current technology to provide a unique and personal client experience.

ELawyering Trends for the Future

The following is a list of some of the trends that future successful legal web applications will share:

Attorney/Paralegal prepared documents
- This does not include any form of automated document technology. People want the expertise of a legal professional, not software.
Applications not brochure sites
- Brochure style legal websites will not survive. Advanced functionality must be incorporated or utilized as a 3rd party SaaS solution.
Site/Application Optimization
- Elawyering web applications will be optimized in all aspects. The overall design of the site will be tightly integrated with the core functionality of the application. The look and feel of the applications will be contemporary and fresh Legal Web 2.0.
Personalization/Customization
- Elawyering applications will be highly customized. The client experience will be unique to each and every client. This includes next-generation, highly intelligent questionnaires. These questionnaires will reach far beyond the duplication of a paper-based intake form.
Real-World Modeling
- Elawyering applications will closely model complex real-world processes.
Niche-Based/Jurisdiction Specific
- Successful elawyering applications will be jurisdiction specific. One-size-fits-all "software in a box" solutions will not be capable of competing in a niche-based market. In addition, large-scale conglomerates will not be able to compete with online boutique elawyer applications.

1/6/2010 4:13:43 AM #

I think this statement in this blog post is very confusing:
"This does not include any form of automated document technology. People want the expertise of a legal professional, not software."
1. It is true that consumers want legal advice and legal expertise, but only a lawyer can provide legal advice. You seemed to lump "paralegals" and "attorneys" all into the same category as a legal professional. I believe that independent paralegals can make a great contribution to access to the legal system for the average consumer, but unfortunately their role is very limited by state UPL rules. The degree of specialized expertise that a non-lawyer can provide is very limited, unless you want to be in violation of UPL rules, when the client needs legal advice.

2. I am not sure what is meant by "automated document technology" in this statement and why you don't think it is a necessary component as part of a lawyer's elawyering web site. Web-enabled automated document technology can be very robust, generating intelligent questionnaires that capture all critical facts from the user which in turn generate state specific and client responsive documents, ready for the lawyer's review, further analysis and legal advice, and amendment if necessary. It is the combination of web-enabled legal document assembly together with the lawyer's advice role that results in a true elawyering service that is truly responsive to the client's needs and which can be produced efficiently and with reasonable profit margins. I think you will agree, the value of this kind of technology-assisted legal service is much superior to LegalZoom, when an attorney is involved in the process and is capable of providing legal advice and further guidance. But the capacity of capturing the client's facts through the web browser in an intelligent questionnaire that is linked to a document assembly engine is a critical productivity improvement. In my opinion it is not correct to state that "automated document assembly" has no place in elawyering applications in the future.

Richard Granat |

1/6/2010 8:04:52 AM #

I understand your point Richard. It is not my intention to lump paralegals and lawyers together, as they each have their distinct attributes. However, I do feel that both are legal professionals and have much to offer the future of e-lawyering and online delivery of legal services. There are states that already allow limited practice by non-attorneys as well as those who are in the process of allowing such work. Recent Civil Legal Needs studies show a severe lack of access to affordable civil legal assistance by the average consumer. Eventually, the public desire for expanded access to legal services will force such changes on a widespread basis. However, the work of an attorney is better served as an advocate in non-routine matters, and can never be replaced by a non-lawyer.

I believe that automated document assembly is definitely efficient for lawyers and should be used as a back-end utility. I do not believe it is useful as a client-facing technology. Essentially, the attorney would be doing the exact same thing, but as a back-end procedure. My approach would be to let the application ask the questions and identify the issues, thus allowing the attorney to receive high quality, relevant information specific to the particular case. In my opinion, shielding the client from the automated aspect of the document preparation gives a more personal touch.

MatthewPitts |

E-Lawyering: Automated Document Software "So Last Decade"

Published in De Novo

Sponsors

Follow Me

Thanks for Reading

Link List

Blog Information

E-Lawyering: Automated Document Software "So Last Decade"

Published in De Novo

Sponsors

Follow Me

Topics

Thanks for Reading

Tag Cloud

Link List

Blog Information