(upbeat music)
(audience applauding)
- We are so excited to be here today,
not just because it's Clio,
and we love coming to this conference,
but also because we happen to be passionate
about legal ethics, and about running a modern
law firm, so this is basically
our favorite topic ever to be talking to you.
So, yeah, so let's start.
- Let's do it.
- So today what we're gonna talk about
is we're gonna start by highlighting all those
moments that practitioners are confronted with
on a daily basis where we brush up
against legal ethics, but we don't always knowingly do so
and it can be very challenging for practitioners
to sort of parse what to do in those moments.
so we're gonna start first like sort of in the weeds
of hey, where are these moments surfacing
in our everyday practice?
We're gonna move into how are lawyers
and legal companies innovating around
and problem-solving around some of the
legal ethics that really do keep us
from building the businesses and moving
forward in the way that we want.
So to start, we're gonna start with
one of my favorite examples of legal
ethics mishaps, and this happens to be
Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School
for those of you who don't know him.
He's a very prolific tweeter.
You should definitely follow him on Twitter.
And back in the summer of 2016, August,
right before the election, he loved to tweet,
as everybody did about the election.
This particular tweet got him into a lot of trouble.
He said I have notes of when Trump
phoned me for legal advice in 1996.
I'm now figuring out whether or talk was privileged.
So after he posts this, he obviously has
a lot of followers, basically, the twitosphere blew up.
Does anybody here wanna identify what
they think the problem was with this tweet?
Yeah.
(man speaks off mic)
That's right.
He shouldn't be even mentioning the fact
that Trump would've reached out to him,
so, of course, Twitter blows up, the blogosphere
blows up, Wall Street Journal is reporting on it.
And what do they have to say?
Well, they actually get a quote from a law school professor
not quite as well-known as Harvard Law School
and he probably delighted in this opportunity
to talk about what Laurence Tribe did wrong,
and he said that the issue is not at all whether
Professor Tribe's notes are protected
by attorney-client privilege.
No one, to my knowledge, has subpoenaed Tribe's notes.
Rather, the issue, to be more precise,
one of several issues here, is whether
the notes are confidential.
Privilege is an evidentiary issue.
Confidentiality is an ethical issue.
Tribe's problem is now one of ethics, not of evidence,
and just to dig the knife in like a little
bit deeper and just twist it,
Tribe's, all law students and lawyers should know this,
and while that is probably true,
we all should know that confidentiality covers
all the information we get from a case,
regardless of its source, not just
when our client's talking to us.
The fact of the matter is, Laurence Tribe is not alone.
Many lawyers struggle with these kinds of basic
notions, especially now that we're bringing
our practices online, and we're all of a sudden
talking and being pushed to talk about our practices
in a way that we never had to before.
Okay, so, here's one of the daily things
that we confront, is attorneys are violating
the rules every day, and for the most part, they don't know
and, more problematic is, we're social beings,
right, we're not making our decisions about legal
ethics based upon careful consideration
and we go to the website and we review the rules.
The problem is, we're making these decisions
based upon what our peers are doing,
and when we see our peers engaging in one way
or another, we think, well, you know,
Bob's doing it.
He's one of the best attorneys I know.
It must be okay.
So we're gonna take a look at some of those moments.
This was one of my favorite tragic stories,
somewhat tragic stories, but this is
something that we see all the time.
Betty Tsamis is an attorney in Illinois,
and she is an employment lawyer,
and her client comes to her and says I was let go,
I want you to take a look at my case,
I want to hire you, I want to collect unemployment,
and they discuss the facts of the case and she says
look, based upon what you're telling me,
I can tell you right now that you cannot collect
based upon how everything went down,
and he says, he responds, he's like, I know,
I mean, I've talked to a bunch of lawyers.
I've heard it all before.
I understand what you're saying.
I still want you to take my money.
Please take my money, please do anything you can
to help me to see if there's any possible room,
and this is probably Betty's first mistake in the case,
because she accepts the money, and of course
we all know, never take money from a client
if you don't think you can actually help,
but she does, and not surprisingly, she gets
the file, and, lo and behold, there's nothing to be done.
He cannot collect unemployment, and she delivers
the news, and so now client is unemployed,
out $1,500 with a lot of time on his hands
to go and review the attorney who now is
the focal point of all his anger and frustration,
and so he posts this review: "Tsamis accepted
"a $1,500 fee even though she knew full well
"that a law in Illinois would prevent me
"from obtaining unemployment benefits."
Now, Betty reaches out to client.
'cause she's like this is just not fair.
We talked about this when you came in,
I told you that you couldn't recover,
how could you post this review.
And client says, well, I hear you.
I understand where you're coming from
and he says I'll go ahead and take down that review if,
anyone want to guess what he wanted?
- [Audience] His money back.
- His money back.
This is Betty's second mistake in the case.
She says, this is so hard for attorneys.
I don't know why, especially in this
day and age of online reviews.
Attorneys love to say well I did the work.
They paid for my time, and I spent the time,
even though I told him what the result was going to be.
She does not give the money back.
She goes to Avvo and she says Avvo, this is a problem.
Avvo, of course, as you know, will take down
the review and they'll do an investigation
just to determine whether or not
that attorney-client relationship exists.
All Avvo wants to know is, hey, client,
you wrote this review, can you prove
that this person was your attorney,
and if you signed a retainer agreement
or any kind of document to suggest
that the relationship was there,
the review goes back up, so that happens.
So Betty is now out of options.
She had the review come down.
Now it's back up, what does she do?
She takes to the internet herself.
- [Kimberly] Do not do this. (laughs)
- This is not the way to solve this problem.
She says, "I dislike it very much when
"my clients lose, but I cannot invent
"positive facts for clients when they are not there.
"I feel badly for him, but his own
"actions in beating up a female coworker
"are what caused the consequences he is now so upset about."
- [Kimberly] I Repeat, do not do this.
(audience laughs)
- Do not do this.
Ultimately, this ends in a public reprimand
after more than a year, actually, of litigations.
So now Betty has to hire her own attorneys.
Her attorneys argue, the public feels entitled
to slander a lawyer and they don't realize
they've blown their privilege when they do so.
And of course, this should,
for the lawyers in the room, sound somewhat familiar.
Right, we know that privilege exists,
but then, if they sue you,
there's some rule
where now you get to talk about their case, right?
This sounds familiar.
As it turns out, the rule is,
you need to be in a formal tribunal.
So, if that client had brought her to a formal tribunal,
then she could talk about what
was happening with the case.
As it turns out, the internet is not a formal tribunal.
- Quite public, not formal.
- very public. - Don't do what she did
- Okay, so what do you do?
What is the best way to deal with these moments,
because, eventually, it's likely
that anybody who's practicing law
is going to get one of these reviews,
and anybody on the business side of things will say
- So you look at this as a better option.
So the reality is we live in a world where you've gonna
have reviews online.
Matter of fact,
you actually want reviews online, right,
but bad reviews happen.
So here's a better option
where you can think about how to respond to it
without breaking privilege,
without breaking confidentiality,
showing that you're a trustworthy attorney.
That you know what, you can learn
from what they've said to you, right?
and take it as great feedback.
So we can read here what Nathan did as an example,
and this is how you want to think about responding
to something and dealing with those friction points
that happen as a modern practice
dealing with, and wanting, online reviews,
and sometimes they're not always the ones
that you would really like and love.
- And in fact, if you talk to a business coach,
a business coach will say you absolutely have to respond.
You cannot leave a negative review just hanging out there.
It's funny, we were just at the Georgia Solo Conference
last week, and talking to somebody who's like,
well, I'm in charge of writing all the rules in Georgia
and you should never respond,
and I was like, well, actually, you have to
respond if you're running a business.
You can't just have this out there
and go unremarked, so this is a great way,
I'm sorry you had this experience at the Smith Law Firm.
We spend so much time helping so many
injured workers get the worker's compensation
benefits they need, perhaps we can sometimes
be slower at returning individual
phone calls than we would like.
It's our mission to stand up for the
average working guy against big insurance companies.
so that does take a lot of time.
We will recommit to helping as many
injured workers as we can, so thank you
for bringing this to my attention.
Who is this author, who is this lawyer speaking to?
- That's a guess.
Who do you think?
- Betty was definitely talking to her client, right?
- Future clients. - Future clients.
- A client's never gonna come back and
hire you and pay you money.
You're talking to future clients.
This kind of response is absolutely
something that I would hire this guy.
I would say hey, that could happen.
This person's reasonable.
- And a thing to think about, too,
as for your past clients, if they are upset,
because when people and things don't go
their way, they're going to be pissed off,
but if you respond appropriately,
if you put back in your mission what your value set are
and really not responding to their anger,
you get a lot more with honey
than you do with anything else, so.
- Okay, so there's a lot of ways
that attorneys run into this.
I like this one as well.
Perkins Coie, if you guys are familiar.
It's a really big law firm.
They represent all kinds of big name clients.
So for a while they're having their attorneys
a bunch of attorneys.
They're all writing their own bios.
This was part of the bio of this particular attorney.
Represented cloud computing provider
in Federal Trade Commission investigation
under Section 5 of the FTC Act
regarding security practices for mobile
access to cloud computing service.
- Does that many anything to ya'll?
- It means nothing to me nor should it.
- It means a little something to me, but not that much.
- I'm not a tech reporter, though, with 50,000 followers.
So Christopher Soghoian tweets after reading that,
"Tech reporters might want to call Dropbox
"and ask them if they've been investigated by the FTC."
There are a lot of firm,
I'm a criminal defense attorney.
My clients, I don't talk about who my clients are.
There are plenty of law firms where
who they represent is public.
You gotta be really careful about this.
As it turns out,
the company that was being investigated in this case,
was not Dropbox.
It was their other client, Box.
Neither client was particularly
happy about this attention on Twitter,
and caused them a lot of trouble.
- So when you're thinking about the friction
that exists and you're trying to build out a modern practice
and wanting to innovate and be creative,
what's one of the things we're all thinking to do?
We're all saying it's time to get rid of the billable hour.
So, like, the billable hour, clients hate it,
attorneys hate it.
It takes up a lot of time to manage it
but what are the friction points
that exist with getting rid of the billable hour?
So, you decide I want to transition to flat fees,
right, that's what I do, I do flat fees.
It's great, but when you're doing flat fees,
you have to consider where does the money go?
Does it go in a trust account, right?
Can I just deposit into my operating account?
Is it okay, what do I put in my retainer agreement?
Fast forward to just recently.
If you're a California attorney,
they just made some additional rules
that make having flat fees even more friction
for you as you're trying to build out a modern practice.
So you're thinking to yourself,
alright, I wanna do this.
I wanna ditch it, but now what?
So, for California attorneys, right now,
you have to consider not only notifying
your clients and giving them the option
of where to put the money,
but it needs to go in your retainer.
You need to open up a trust account in case a client says,
you know what, you can't put it in the operating,
you must put it in a trust account.
And so it's like, you want to be modern, you want to think
what's happening, but the friction exists,
and you have to think about okay,
how do innovate around it.
How do I manage these things
when it comes to trying to move away from practices
that we all don't like.
That our clients don't like.
That don't serve us well
but the rules are there that maybe
cause a bit of a friction on trying to get it done.
- Okay.
So the other business advice we're getting
is we need to talk about
we need to be on social,
we need to talk about
the value we're providing to our clients.
But lawyers are special, right.
We're not like all other businesses.
It's not as easy for us to talk about it.
And this is a great example.
and this is actually local attorney.
I've covered his name and face but this
is somebody from my area.
This is if you are a practicing attorney,
and especially in small or solo law firms,
your social feeds probably have a lot of this.
Especially if you're a criminal defense
attorney, but even if not.
So this is a local attorney.
He's in the parking lot of the courthouse.
That's where this picture is taken and posted.
"Beat a weed case for Carlos this morning
"just by showing up prepared for trial.
"The evidence against us was weak
"and we had a lot of reasonable doubt to work with.
"so the DA offered us a great probation."
Okay, this is an amazing piece of advertisement,
right, like you are absolutely showing your value
and the service that you can provide future clients.
The problem here though.
Why is he brushing up against legal ethics?
Yeah, he's showing a picture of his client,
right, like he's showing a picture of his client,
he's naming him even if it's just the first name.
He's telling the world
he was charged with,
in Georgia DA means you were charged with
a felony possession of marijuana.
Now, can you talk about this kind of stuff online?
Can you get your client's permission?
You certainly can.
What do we need from our clients?
- Informed consent, ya'll.
- Informed consent.
We've all heard of it.
If you actually look up
the definition of informed consent in your rules,
you will be astonished.
You need to, often you need to suggest that
they consult with another attorney
about this issue before making a decision.
The problem here is, the conversation
probably went something like this:
"Yo Carlos?
"Yeah, high-five man.
"I'm psyched, too.
"You're no longer facing years in prison.
"By the way, mind if we snap a quick
"pic so I can post it on Instagram?"
What isn't happening in those conversations
is the likelihood, the reasonable risk
of what could be the outcome of
you saying yes to this.
Like, maybe someday some attorney will be standing up on
stage and your picture will be on a slide
and telling the world - Or, alternatively,
maybe an employer, maybe you're not supposed to
but maybe an employer's gonna go search
and guess what, in this day and age of social media
that once you put it up there, it doesn't go away.
They see this post.
No, you didn't get arrested, but wait,
you were in trouble for something
related to a felony charge?
Wow.
So as attorneys, we have to think.
We wanna use social media, right.
We wanna do these different things
but we wanna also be responsive to what the future
could look like for our clients.
What the issues that we bump up against
when we're using these tools that we should be using,
you should be using, but how do you creatively use it, yeah.
- [Erin] You need to figure out a way to show your value.
(woman speaks off mic)
- So the question is, does it change if it's a civil case?
The rules do not make a distinction about that
and so what I see often on the civil cases
is civil guys are much more free about it
because they're not thinking,
and I think in civil cases, you may be even
more exposed, because the civil communities,
you guys list like names and money awards
and facts of cases and I'm looking at this
like, did you really have a very
lengthy conversation with your client
about this post on your website?
It's a huge problem.
There's no caveat here.
Just for criminal law, we're much
it's much more sensitive, 'cause, obviously, the issue.
It's hard to imagine anybody would be okay
with telling the world that you are
charged with a felony. - But I want
to also push back, one of the things you see,
you hear a lot of, so, you know,
I do a transactional practice
and you hear a lot of people only talk about
the litigation space, right.
But the same exists in transactional space, too.
You could be telling a lot about your clients,
like we saw with the, if you're working with
big corporate clients and you're just spelling
out what you're doing for them, there might
be things that they don't want people to know about.
Moves that they're trying to make.
So even if we're not even just thinking about
in the litigation space, also in the transactional space.
Be aware, be clear on what you're doing.
Not to say you can't, but if you're
gonna do it, take the right steps to protect yourself.
- So here's another good example.
Now, he's not blowing client confidences,
but, "This is another day of winning in Fulton County!
"Two DUIs dismissed today."
Those are very high blood alcohol numbers.
For those of you who are not DUI defense
attorneys, we have a bunch of local Fulton
County practitioners here, Muhnel, you want
to tell me if you're not done sessions
how you get two DUIs dismissed in one day?
(woman speaks off mic)
No, that's done sessions.
Other way you get.
The way this particular attorney's getting it?
Officer does not show.
That's how you win these cases.
- If you were a future client,
and you saw this, would you be like,
oh my god, I wanna hire this attorney.
You got him off, right.
This is amazing.
- It's great advertising.
You are definitely showing your value, right?
You're telling the world, I'm valuable.
The problem, and you're not blowing confidences,
right, he hasn't named a client, he hasn't told
anything other than the blood alcohol level.
Here's the problem.
This is definitely advertising, so there's
nothing like, oh, this is my private Facebook
page, so this is not advertising.
So I don't have to worry about the rules.
Not true.
There's no state that I'm aware of that says,
oh, if it's your private Facebook page, you're okay.
You're putting this on here for advertising.
The problem is you're not allowed to make
truthful statements that also omit material
facts that could be misleading, right,
so anybody looking at this,
well, I have a Fulton County DUI and it's a .23,
maybe I need to call this attorney.
You're going to be making assumptions
based upon the lack of information, right,
and you know that you're getting that,
like whenever you're trying to make it sound
a little bit better than it is,
that's where you've crossed a line
because had he been honest and said,
another day of winning in Fulton County
when the officers did not show, right.
It's not as effective.
It's not as good at showing your value.
so you need to watch out for this.
This is happening all the time.
This is just constant steady stream
of this right now on social
and everybody's doing it, right.
So it must be okay.
And, in fact, it's not.
Now, what we don't see a lot of is
the Bars reaching out,
this is a very hard-to-keep-up-with regulation,
so we don't see a lot of people
getting targeted necessarily for this behavior.
Although when they do,
Megan will tell you it's usually the competitors.
Your competitors who are gonna turn you in.
But what usually happens in these cases
is you get a complaint about something else.
Something else comes up, client wants
the file back, you didn't give the file back.
Client's mad about something,
and then they start doing the investigation
and they start looking at your presence
online, and all of a sudden, now, you
have new problems with the disciplinary board
because they've discovered that
you're violating these other rules.
So it's not necessary, you can't just say,
oh, well, nobody's gonna turn me in.
I'm gonna be fine.
If it's out there, you're at risk,
even though everybody's doing it.
- And so there are better ways to respond to it.
There are things that we can do.
Again, you have to be on social,
you have to market yourself.
If you're gonna be a modern attorney,
you're gonna drive a modern law
business, you need to be out there, right.
Period, end of story.
But how do you do it better?
You do it like this.
So here's an attorney that did get a good
win for her client, but doesn't have to
put all of her client's information out,
and it still has the same feel and effect, right?
It's still saying I won, right?
No better way to celebrate.
Hey, they're clipping off that ankle bracelet.
Amazing.
So if you're a future client, you're happy.
If you're a past client, sure, but
you don't even have to show who I am,
and I'm not really mad about it
So if something comes,
you've kept the trust with your past client,
you're building trust with your future clients
and you're responding to the rules
and being very intentional about how
you're putting your information up on social.
So like if there's a quick tip out there,
when you're using and engaging in social,
it's to plan ahead.
You don't need, first of all,
don't ever do this in real time, tip.
Second of all, plan ahead.
You can do these things and then
be intentional about how you're utilizing
these tools to help market yourself,
to help brand yourself without violating the rules.
- But be aware of that, I didn't hide her name
because I think she's being very careful.
When I saw this, I was like
this is somebody who's paying attention to the rules.
I knew immediately, and it's very clever and good.
And it's smart. - But like
what happens now?
We love technology.
I can talk about technology all day, every day.
I can tell you about a tool, which one to use,
which one you love, right, amazing.
So tech is a part of building a modern law practice, period,
but there are tools that we have to really think about
and how do we actually use them?
In reality, in our practices, so for,
- [Erin] Or using contact forms.
- We both use those, right. - Tell us
about your case, tell us about you.
Someone from our office will be in touch with you.
- Exactly.
Or like messaging tools, or virtual receptionist.
So all these tools that you're using your practice,
how do you implement them while still
responding to and understanding what
the ethical issues are that present themselves.
So Erin and I both use Typeform.
Anybody out here use Typeform?
- It's a form tool, do you do intake forms,
like Google Forms, Wufu, any of the forms
for automating your process.
Laurie, I think.
- Okay.
So yeah, Typeform.
We use it.
It's a great tool, it moves people
through the process really well.
But what happened with Typeform a couple months ago?
They had a breech.
- And what does Typeform do?
Typeform actually holds the data,
so I also use Zapier, and we're not
gonna talk about Zapier here today,
but you'll definitely probably hear
about it in the conference.
That's a tool that doesn't hold on to the data.
They don't store it.
They just move data from one place to another,
and then their hands are clean.
Typeform, and all the form tools, they store that data.
They just keep it there.
It's waiting for you in perpetuity.
So that's a huge problem.
So one of the practice tips, you need
to be aware of who's holding the data,
and what I do, 'cause I use Typeform,
I'll go through and I'll delete that data every week.
Like, I have new clients coming on,
they're giving me the information,
and I'll delete it. - But like
when you think about Typeform or something like that
and how Erin and I use it to delete the data
it's still understanding the ethic issues.
Ethical issues, right?
We know we wanna have a modern practice
that engages people quickly,
gets them through our process fast
and so how do we use a tool that might still store this data
and not impact the buyer breech like that?
You go in and you delete things.
You're purposeful and you're intentional.
You understand what the rules say
and you kind of work through it.
But these are friction points, right?
'cause tech is always gonna be a friction point for us.
- And are you getting advice from your SEO consultant?
This is a thing, my SEO consultant's like
of course I'm looking at your contact forms,
your intake, the contact forms from your website.
How will I know you're ROI?
Like how will I know if this is working
if I'm not seeing who's signing up
and who's reaching out to you, and I
was like, you are absolutely not entitled
to that, the rules prohibit you, even
if they're not your client yet.
They're your potential client.
You are not allowed to share that information
with anyone, including your SEO consultant,
or whoever it is that you're using, and they love that data.
And actually, the person that I use,
he's like, Erin, you know, I hear you
talking about this to other attorneys
but I gotta tell you, none of my clients bring this up.
Well, I talk to other attorneys
and they tell me, Erin, my SEO guy
did not bring this up at all.
So it's our duty.
We need to pay attention.
Just because someone's asking for that information,
just because all the other people are doing it,
we are not allowed to share that.
Same thing with virtual receptionists.
I think it's so great to be using them,
but how are they using the information,
how are they storing the information that they get?
What are they doing with it?
Do you have an agreement with them that
they're going to be acting as if they were
a secretary in your office and keeping it confidential.
You want to be mindful.
Yes, embrace technology, but also,
we need to be aware that we're responsible
for this data once we keep it, collect it,
and send it out into the world.
- So like, you're using all this technology
and you're trying to figure out what next,
like what am I supposed to do?
Engage it, use it, understand it,
but one of the things you don't want to do
is you don't want to use Gmail
And so when I say Gmail, I'm not talking about
your firm's name at your firm name dot com,
I'm talking at gmail.com, matter of fact,
I'm gonna take it a step further.
If you're using @ AOL, @ Hotmail,
@ Yahoo, - Any free.
- Any free tool, there's a cost
to using a free tool, because you are
exchanging something to get, for using that free tool,
so Gmail's a great example because as lawyers,
we're ready to get up and do our business,
but we have to think about what are the friction points?
The friction points are using free tools
that are really not meant for the purpose that we're using,
to maintain confidentiality, to have those
higher levels of protection that we need
understand and utilize better.
- And if you're not sure if you're using the free
tool, here's a hint, like, is it Erin Gerstenzang
at gmail.com, 'cause if it's at gmail.com,
then it's free, and what are they doing,
they're using, they're going through that,
they're going through your emails to figure
out what ads are gonna work for you,
and it used to be just algorithms,
it used to be just machines, robots
reading in and trying to match
you with the right advertiser.
Just last month, they released information,
Gmail's like, actually, no, there are people,
this is available for people to read.
I don't know that there are people,
live humans, reading every single
email that you ever have, it was terrifying though
'cause I do have a private email account,
that goes back to like 2004.
Just basically my whole life is in there
and available to Google to do with what they please.
- That's the cost of using a free tool.
- And since they came out last month,
saying that people are reading it,
absolutely, I can't think of a state
in the country that would say
this is okay for client communication.
'cause it absolutely is not
and clients love to use it.
Your clients are gonna be using the Gmail accounts.
You need to tell your clients
hey, this information is not going
to be necessarily private.
- So how do you transition your clients then?
What the ways to say, hey, client,
these tools aren't as secure.
We're having secure conversations
that I don't want to have open to anyone.
It's using secure opportunities.
So, Erin and I haven't been able to test
these, but in a book of law, - First client portals.
The best thing is, Clio has a great client portal.
I don't communicate all the time with my clients
through the portal, 'cause they would hate me,
and probably go find
a different attorney - And I'll say I do.
And I do, so that's a different practice point,
but that's how you really work with your clients.
But these particular tools, we can talk
about client portals in a second
but these particular tools are options for you
as an alternative to think about
how do I securely communicate with my clients?
But, when you're thinking about going
that next step further and using a portal,
what's the advantage and how do you sell it,
because what do attorneys say?
Well, my clients aren't gonna use it.
Well, you explain to them that it's secure,
you explain to them that it doesn't have
to be every single communication, you explain
to them that, you know what, this allows
us to have those one-offs that maybe
you don't want other people to see
really quickly that we can keep between us,
so there's really ways to show the value
of it for your clients and allow you to maintain
ethical rules and obligations that we need
to uphold ourselves by as attorneys.
- So one of the problems,
this also came up last week at the Georgia Bar Solo Event,
and they're going through all these tips,
and they're like, okay, lawyers, you all
have to read the terms of service of
- Let me ask ya'll.
How many people have read any terms of service
of any text tool that they're using today?
Oh, okay, like - And appreciate
the honesty of the rest of you.
- And how long did it take you?
- 15 minutes. - 15 minutes.
It depends, but someone said ages.
The reality is, it might be ages,
and the question is, are you always
reading it every time they send you an update?
Are you keeping up to date?
Do you see the changes?
- And the answer is, no.
The reality is, every single Bar
regulator will tell you you have to do it.
Every article you read is you have to do it.
Really like this art insulation, because it's
basically just the terms of service
printed out and he's put it up.
The longest one there is Instagram.
It's a 60-minute read.
So this is not, when we were standing there, actually,
someone in this room, we were with our friend,
and she was like, I sure hope they don't expect
the lawyers to be getting any work done
if they're reading all the terms of service.
- And if you're gonna be tech-driven,
you're going to have a lot of terms
of service to review, period, end of story.
So here, it's a friction point.
The reality is, we know not everyone
in this room raised their hand.
If I'm sitting here being honest,
I cannot read them all, all the time.
But what do I do?
There's certain provisions I'm looking for.
There's certain things I may ask about.
- And if you're not reading them,
we need to be aware of how are we vulnerable here,
this service that we're using, how we're using
our client's information, where could these
vulnerabilities be where we're exposing
our clients or our practices.
Okay.
So those are the friction points
where lawyers are doing a lot of the wrong thing.
I also want to talk about this workaround,
and I've dubbed it the Shabbat approach.
One of my favorite things about being Jewish
and Judaism is that we're very legalistic.
There's a spiritual component, but frankly,
the primary focus is, are you following the rules?
That is a focus.
And so for those people who celebrate,
or who observe Shabbat, that means on
the weekend, you're not supposed to be
working, you're supposed to be reflecting
with your family, work traditionally
was defined as lighting a fire and putting out
a fire, and that's been interpreted, that rule,
that law, has been interpreted in modern day
to the use of electricity, so you're not
allowed to flip on a light or turn off a light
because somehow, that's work based upon an old definition.
But we're very legalistic, right, so
we have workarounds to those rules.
What is one of my favorite Shabbat
workarounds, I lived in Jerusalem for a while.
In Jerusalem, most businesses are Shabbat-friendly.
You live in a high tower in Jerusalem?
You need to get on the elevator?
That's right.
Elevator stops on every floor.
Nobody's pushing the button to engage in work,
to cause that electricity, to cause that
light to go on and to cause that thing to move,
you can use timers, you can set all of your
devices on timers, as long as you're doing
it before Shabbat starts, you are good to go.
- Isn't being on an elevator considered work?
- Isn't being on an elevator considered work?
- No, it's not.
And so these are legal workarounds.
Now, are they following the letter of the rule?
Absolutely.
Are they following the spirit of the rule?
No. - No.
- No, they're not.
If you can have your TV go on to watch
the game because you set a timer,
this is basically just a normal day,
but, we as Jews, we're very legalistic, so it's okay.
So similarity, that is not showing up,
similarly, in the text space,
we have a lot of innovative companies and lawyers
who are following the letter of the rule
even if not the spirit, and if that,
you know, in Judaism, those are God's rules.
We're pretty much stuck with them.
But in the regulatory space, we're lawyers.
We self-regulate.
We can actually make better rules.
So here's some examples - Here's one.
It should saw LAWCLERK but it's LAWCLERK,
so law clerk's here, go check them out.
A great tech tool that's really trying to
respond to the needs, particularly around
solo and smalls, right, so you're working,
you're doing your work, you have all these
clients coming in, you're getting frenzied,
a lot of things to do, and what happens?
You might start turning around, turning away work.
But why do you want to do that?
You're trying to build a practice
that you're trying to grow
and gain as much revenue as possible
so that you can do other things in your life.
So what does LAWCLERK do?
They come in and they answer and they say
we can provide you additional support to help
you grow your practice, so instead of you
needing to turn away a potential client,
you can use our service, but how do they
actually define the service, how are they
taking the Shabbat approach, working around it?
Like to still stay within the rules,
but not really focusing on the spirit of it.
- You're gonna hire an attorney.
We're gonna call them a paraprofessional.
- Exactly.
Go ahead, sorry. (laughing)
- They're gonna draft documents
but it's gonna be under supervision,
what's the rule that we're worried about here?
is the unauthorized practice of law,
If you're gonna tap into the national network
of lawyers who do work in one particular
state, and they're not barred in that state,
that could be a problem
unless we call them a paraprofessional.
Unless they're not gonna directly, necessarily
engage with the client.
So this is a great Shabbat workaround.
Here, I think I had a question over here.
Okay.
- And I'll say, here's a reality of this.
This is how a lot of firms practice, right?
Solo and smalls have a hard time thinking
of ourselves practicing this way
but it's being very intentional.
So they develop a technology tool that's saying
hey, the rules say attorneys can't do
unauthorized practice of law across different states,
so instead, they brought you in as a paraprofessional,
not attorney, your practice, you still
represent the clients, you still have
all the advice, but you have the support to help
you grow strategically and intentionally.
And then you have another tool like Thervo,
or another company like Thervo.
- Do you guys get these emails?
I get these emails from, I've never signed
up for Thervo, I get these emails like
every week, multiple emails.
They're like hey, there's a new client.
They might need your help.
Would you like to bid on it?
And how do they work around it?
Thervo's actually not just legal.
It's for any kind of service.
The rule that we're worried about
in this particular example is - Anybody know?
- Fee sharing, exactly.
Right, because we can't, as lawyers, pay referral fees,
we can't share our fees for somebody bringing
us the client, so what does Thervo have,
and I don't actually think,
I don't know why this PDF is showing
I don't think that they've actually
I don't think that Thervo's actually been looked at
by the regulators, they're also sort
of flying under the radar 'cause they're
not straight ahead just for lawyers,
but they say, oh, okay, well, you're
going to pay us, you're going to buy
Thervo credits from us and spend those
Thervo credits to bid on this work,
so they're somehow doing this workaround,
potentially more successfully than Avvo
was able to do it when they discontinued
their service, but Avvo had a service
where they were basically doing the same
thing, but they were just taking a percentage
of the fee that you quoted to the client,
and that was shut down as being fee splitting,
so Thervo has got this Shabbat workaround,
but how different is that than the service
that Avvo was providing, the spirit
of the rule is in question there.
- So then you have, this is another company,
tech company enabled by a law firm called Atrium,
so you can go check them out.
They're in existence, they're working right now.
But what are they doing?
So it's the same idea, so they are trying
to raise money to be more modern
and to drive better,
more valuable services for their clients.
- They're technologists.
Not lawyers.
They're like, we have this great technology
where we're gonna read documents really fast,
we're gonna have robots that read documents
really fast, - Speed up that process.
- A lot of the work that lawyers do,
but like how would you get technologists
to invest in building this tool if
they can't share in the profits?
So Atrium did this great thing where
they have two companies.
- So Atrium has a tech tool that speeds
up the process, it gets you through,
that for a transactional space
you know, drafting contracts takes a long time,
closing deals takes a long time.
Clients hate that, and they feel like
if we're billing by the hour, it's gonna really raise fees,
so they really automated and streamlined it
through a piece of technology, - And
then they licensed that. - Right.
Atrium, the law firm.
- Atrium the tech company is owned by
a bunch of technologists.
They licensed the software to the law firm,
the law firm, there's a law firm lawyer,
where you do at the end have a lawyer
looking at it, but all of the law firm
profits get funneled back to the technology
company through their licensing agreement.
Alright, so this is a great Shabbat workaround
where you actually have innovation, you can raise money.
They have a ton of money right now
pouring into them and you have outside
investors, but this is really a workaround.
How different is this than what we're
so worried is gonna corrupt the legal
system by allowing non-lawyer ownership?
This is a great example, but it's also
very limiting because we're small
and solo law firms, we don't always have
quite that flexibility that they do.
Okay, so for our last Shabbat workaround,
'cause we're gonna run out of time, military spouse waiver.
This is like a really cool thing that's
being promoted and I so agree with Linda Klein.
This is where, if you're married to somebody
who's in the military, and you're a lawyer
and you have to move from state to state
to state, and now you have to take
a bunch of Bars and you basically
now can't practice as a lawyer
because you're also trying to raise
a family, like game over.
So now there's this waiver where Bars
can admit people who are the spouse
of people who are in the military, which I love.
I think that's so great.
They just send in an application and
they say hey, please Georgia, please accept me,
and Georgia looks at it and determines if you're fit.
It's really cool. - But
what does this bring up?
It's worked really well for a military spouse,
right, we're okay with doing it
in this particular area, but then,
if we're okay with it because we realize
it doesn't impact our client or consumer
which is the goals of the ethics rules,
right, where's the line?
Where do we go from there?
- Right, if it doesn't hurt the public
to have military spouses do it, it
shouldn't hurt the public to have anybody else do it.
So this is another example of where we
really need to be pushing back on this regulation.
These restrictions don't make sense in the modern world.
There's plenty of other compelling stories about
people who have to move state to state.
It shouldn't just, if it doesn't hurt
the public for military spouses, it shouldn't
hurt the public for anyone else.
- So let's talk about this.
Uber.
Everybody knows Uber.
Uber, Lyft, all these great services
that came and that said we're going
to innovate before you're even ready for it.
Before it's even thought of as something for you to do.
So, Uber saw an issue, taxis, hard to get.
How do we get on-demand ridership?
Let's develop that out. - The more
modern version of like the bird,
did you guys have bird scooters?
We got the bird, they bring in these
scooters, they just drop 'em off in your city
and they're like city council, catch up.
We have no rules about where the birds
are supposed to be.
How to use them,
and they're just scooters for everybody,
so that's the uber-ization effect.
- So let's talk about where we started.
So, running a virtual law practice,
is anybody here a virtual attorney?
Okay, so, okay, great, I do know a couple that are in here.
So I started my practice as a virtual attorney.
When I started, it was still at the forefront.
It was not something very accepted,
and quite honestly, I wanted to really
stay underneath the radar, because I knew
I was doing it differently, I knew clients
liked it, I knew I didn't want to have
all that huge brick and mortar cost
to really drive up my fees for my clients, but guess what?
The Bars weren't there.
People were not ready.
The rules really didn't respond to it.
Matter of fact, the rules said we
have to have a bonafide office in a lot of states.
Asterisk, some states still have these rules.
Sorry for ya'll. - This is actually
the first time she's admitting this in public.
Legally concerned like, oh my gosh,
am I pushing the envelop, is this okay?
But this is also the modern world,
where, obviously, this should be okay.
- Right, and so we're thinking about,
okay, virtual practices, it was something
that people really weren't accepting before.
Fast forward, now, I did that years ago,
years, years, years ago.
- Regulation has caught up.
For the most part, we have the bars
like hey, there's power in numbers.
You cannot, it's better for clients,
it's better for attorneys, we don't
need big huge desks and a secretary,
and we don't need that traditional notion of practicing law.
That's not the value we deliver to clients.
That's not how we help the public.
So the rules have, for the most part,
caught up, but, so that's the historical
example of what it looked like in the past.
We have all of these new companies and services
that are pushing the envelope today doing
really cool stuff that regulations
still have yet to catch up with.
- So we'll talk about subscription services.
So we talked about, figuring out,
ditching the billable hour,
getting away from these type of things
and so you have attorneys that are saying
the rules maybe don't talk about
how subscriptions work in legal
but we're gonna still do it.
Why?
Because clients want it,
attorneys like it, and it allows you to provide value
without doing the inconsistent income
that we typically have in law firms.
Moving beyond. - The the rules are still
pushing back on flat fees.
I mean, they allow them,
but there's still a lot of pushback,
nevermind subscriptions.
Like subscription appears nowhere in
most of your state's rules.
- And then you have things like unbundled, right,
so like, unbundled services are other options
for people to think about as alternative ways.
- So unbundled, for those of you
who don't know is like,
hey, maybe my client just needs
like a little bit of help from a lawyer.
A lot of us probably spend time on
the phone giving that little bit of help for free.
Like, oh, you really don't need a lawyer,
but here's what you do need to know.
So, helloDivorce is one of my favorite companies,
Erin Levine out of California.
She has a fantastic product.
She would be here today, except
she's doing something really cool at Duke right now.
So, but she breaks it up, hey, maybe
you want a do it yourself divorce,
maybe you want like just a little
bit of help in this direction.
Maybe you just want resources of
what you need to know to gather it all.
Maybe, eventually, you go through this
and you say, actually, no, we thought
it was gonna be uncontested.
It's not
and you need to get a lawyer.
But this is how consumers wanna shop.
Consumers know that they can figure it out online.
Consumers know that LegalZoom
is often as good as hiring a lawyer.
They are looking for this.
It's not only competitive,
but it's better for your practice.
It allows you to provide more value to more people.
I get to brag for a minute on my sister.
Another example of sort of unbundling
and coaching, my sister, Jenny Gerstenzang, who's here,
practices in San Diego, and she was a former
public defender and now has a private practice.
Well, as it turns out, in California,
people arrested even on misdemeanor,
small, minor stuff, you can get the public
defender, but you don't get to talk
to them until your first court date.
That may not sound like a big deal,
except, private people who get out
of jail and can afford to hire private attorneys,
they meet with their attorney the next day.
And then, that first court date
doesn't come for months sometimes.
Private attorney, you walk into court
on the first day, if you've gone to the right class,
you've done the community service.
you may get your case dismissed on that day.
So people with money have the luxury of
only having to go to court once.
They get their case dismissed.
They're ready well in advance.
The public defenders, because of
how the rules work, public defenders
are literally not allowed to talk
to these people until their first court date.
- So then you have opportunities like
what Jenny's doing, where you're coming in
and you're saying clients need things
that maybe are not always legal services,
or they need some assistance to get them
through the process to move through the system.
- They just need a 60-minute phone call
with a lawyer to tell them how can I get ready
so when I walk in on that first day
and meet with my PD, I have the same thing
that the private clients have.
I just want a 30-minute, 60-minute
phone call with somebody to get me prepared.
So legal coaching is one of those examples
of unbundling where you're providing
real value in a place that the system
really just can't because of the way the rules are written.
- So we have a lot of examples,
but I'm gonna speed through them a little
bit so you guys can kind of see what it
looks like when people are saying
we're gonna push through.
We're gonna be the Uber of our industry,
Because you know what, we wanna do things different,
we wanna modernize.
We wanna serve more people in different ways.
Enter a divorce attorney.
This is a divorce attorney who said,
you know what, I'm in my family law
practice doing all these great things,
I meet all these great people,
but what am I realizing,
that I'm actually learning a lot about the process.
A lot about what's working for them
and what's not working for them,
and so how do I serve my clients better?
- And what doesn't?
- Good relationship. - Right.
So how do I come in and I say I want
to serve my clients a little bit differently.
Or maybe not even people who are my clients.
Serve another part of what they are.
Think about people holistically.
Enter dating coaching.
Dating coaching, right, you're an attorney
that has a lot of knowledge, and you provide
a different service that is still like adjacent
to what you're doing, and it's pushing it forward.
The question is, is it legal services?
No, maybe not.
But is it utilizing your legal knowledge
to provide a service that your clients need?
So, the law, if we want to stay in the traditional
way of thinking of the law, it's gonna be
really hard to push forward.
But if we wanna take a holistic approach,
what's happening for our clients,
how do we respond to them.
We can provide a lot of service across that range
and provide a lot of value that's
not always just I'm gonna help you get that divorce.
It's gonna say, how do I help you
move on with life after.
And, you know, it's new,
it's different, but it's part of what can happen.
- What is the core of what we do as lawyers?
We help people solve problems that
they cannot solve on their own.
That, fundamentally is why they come
and hire us and talk to us, so figuring out
a way, we are expanding the definition
of where we provide that value far
faster than regulation can keep up with.
- So then you have things like this.
I'm gonna speed through a couple of these.
So we have attorneys that are helping
other attorneys figure out how to develop new products.
We have attorneys that are providing services
to clients that are saying,
hey, you wanna do it yourself?
I'm gonna show you how to do it yourself
and you don't have to engage me.
So, enter Megan, right.
If you wanna learn how to build a product, go watch
their talk tomorrow about building a product as an attorney.
But this is an ethics attorney,
an ethics attorney that sells a product.
Pushing the envelope forward, saying
you don't always need to engage me.
It's understanding where our client's at.
Where they are on that spectrum,
that everything that clients need
is gonna be our service, right?
- And lawyers always think we can do it ourselves, right?
Even now, I have like pain about the idea
- But not even just lawyers, people.
All clients.
That's how the legal zooms came into play, right?
People feel they can do some things
on their own, and the reality is, ya'll, they can.
Right, we hate to say it, but sometimes,
actually, you can, so why not provide them what they need?
Why stop your revenue generation from happening
because you simply say no, I have to be the one to do it.
No, instead, provide them these services,
so then you have people like contract
shop that's doing it and that's really
thinking about how to hone in on her industry
and be very industry-specific.
So when they think about her, they're thinking about
- Contract Shop,
she sells, it's sort of like legal zoom,
but she sells it to creatives.
So she's like hey, do you need a contract that
addresses, you're a wedding photographer,
you need a contract that speaks just to that,
and she actually does as a business,
Christina Scalera is really smart.
She goes where she's rare.
Like, we all here at this conference,
we're in a room of lawyers, the conferences
that she goes to, she's the only lawyer in the room,
and they love her, and they line up,
but she's figured out a way to unlock this value to people.
She spends her time where she's rare
and she provides this value specifically to those clients.
It's a brilliant business plan.
- So then we have like another,
forward-thinking, pushing the envelope,
firm of practice, so Brooke.
Brooke is in this thing.
I'm gonna point to her here, right.
My virtual dot lawyer.
So what is my virtual dot lawyer doing?
They are licensing.
Maybe that is blowing your minds and you're
like oh my gosh, where are we going,
but the future of law is pushing beyond
what we typically think about how we serve clients,
how we engage attorneys to build practices
that they love that they want to be a part of,
that's designed for them and designed for
the client, and so what are they doing?
They're saying, hey, do you not like
running all that operations stuff in your practice?
Do you want to be behind a great
business, behind a great brand?
Do you want to help get that support
while you can still do what you do
and love serving your clients?
Well, come with us.
You can license it for us.
But then, finally, let's go to where we're not in the U.S.
- What's the future look like for legal in the U.S.?
Let's look outside, because, as it turns out,
the U.S. is really slow right now.
Which is terrifying because the legal market
is not necessarily just a U.S. market.
It is a global market.
- And if you see, - for a lot of practice.
- So this, Ernst & Young is a great example
to say where are things going?
So the big four accounting firms, they are
consistently buying up all types of legal
service providers to provide holistic approach
of responding to the needs of their clients.
So yeah, they're doing a lot of things
that you would've thought attorneys used to do.
We all know doctor review sits out there.
No one wants to do it.
But guess what, those guys are gonna pick it up,
they're gonna streamline it, and they're
gonna take that money that big
business used to give to a firm.
- Mackenzie can't wait to start taking over big law duties.
These companies are coming, and they are coming hard,
and they're competing for better and global markets,
and they're gonna come after us.
Okay, so, who else is regulating?
Does that mean regulation needs to be scrapped?
As it turns out, the modern world has also
brought these new regulatory forces.
So, for example, this is very, actually, current.
Avvo had just recently paid $50,000
in fees to the New York Attorney General
because apparently this is a space that
the Attorney General also is in, and,
actually, New York is very far ahead.
They've been cracking down on false
reviews as well and fining individual
businesses $50,000 for posting false reviews.
But New York Attorney General was interested
in Avvo because when they looked at how
they're representing their product,
they found like, well, this isn't
exactly fair, so, here's her comment.
When seeking legal advice, consumers
most often turn to the internet,
and directories like this have an obligation
to ensure consumers know what they're getting.
My office will continue to protect New York
Consumers and ensure that they get transparency
and accurate information that they deserve.
Here's what they did to Avvo.
They said not only are you gonna pay us money,
you're gonna remove the rankings from
attorneys who do not claim their profile.
Attorneys have been up in arms about that
for the last however many years.
Disclose limitations of ranking
systems, like these are based
upon what the attorney provided.
No longer refer to the rating system as unbiased.
Will have any forms posted to the site
reviewed by a qualified lawyer.
Here's what's important.
The Attorney General is doing what we have
normally reserved for our regulatory
bodies in each individual state,
and this is actually good news.
It's good news to see that there are
other agencies that are perhaps
even better-suited to be engaged in this kind of regulation.
That's a pretty big fine.
Astroturfing is one of New York's favorite things
to go after as well, is like, hey, you cannot
post false positive reviews on your site.
Yelp is getting better at finding, identifying
them, Google is great at identifying them,
and if you're in New York, you can get fined
a huge amount of money for it.
- We'll speed through a little bit of her story.
- So we're gonna quickly go through,
but here's the Anya Cintron Stern, and she
was an attorney who did something silly when
she was a brand new public defender
and she apparently was a great public defender.
I've had people come up to me after
presentations and be like, I know this lawyer.
But what she did essentially was,
it was a murder trial, and her client was
in jail, and the family brought in
clothing for him to change into so
he's not sitting there in a jumpsuit,
and as they're pulling out the clothing
to inspect it, they hold up leopard
print underwear, and her being the
millennial that she is thought that
was pretty funny and so she snapped
a quick picture and posted it to her
private Facebook page that said proper attire for trial?
Within 24 hours, the judge had learned
that this had been posted on Facebook,
he declares a mistrial, she is unceremoniously fired,
and this is what her boss had to say about it.
She said when a lawyer broadcasts
disparaging and humiliating words
and pictures, it undermines the basic
client relationship and gives the appearance
that he is not receiving a fair trial.
I tend to agree with that, but I also
agree with some comments on the ADA
that said, hey, look, this is how
the modern world communicates.
This is embarrassing.
To my knowledge, there was no disciplinary
action taken against her, but, it probably
would've been better for her if that had
been the biggest outcome for her.
Luckily, she seems to have landed
on her feet, but I will tell you as
of 12 months ago, this is something
that happened in 2012, as of 12 months
ago, this is what Google was reporting
when you searched her name.
Three of the top entries involved this story,
because what happens when an attorney
does something embarrassing?
As it turns out, we're a country
that loves to laugh at attorneys messing up,
so it hits every single major news outlet.
And every time there's a new story,
they recycle that old story
because they say,
remember Anya Cintron Stern,
for years, the only thing that dominates
Google when you Google her name is this.
This is more powerful than any public
reprimand in any jurisdiction across the country.
Now, I am happy to report, because,
as I said, to the best of my knowledge,
she's actually a fantastic attorney,
she is recovering, and as of about
a week ago, she had, this is actually
a week ago, it's now starting to dissipate,
and we're now starting to see more stuff
that's relevant to her work, but this
is what's scary and motivating attorneys to stay in line.
- So let's kind of like, get ya'll
to say, okay, we know him.
If you don't know him in the news,
you've seen him in the news.
You understand - Aaron Schlossberg.
- But where do we go from here?
What's next?
How do we figure out how to move forward,
how do we really figure out how
to practice ethics, keep practicing
while maintain and abiding by the
legal ethics and pushing them?
So one of the things you want to do is get involved.
Get on Twitter, get on Meetup,
get on Facebook groups where people
are actively having these discussions
about how to do it, how to be creative
around your practices, right?
- Here's a disconnect.
I'll tell you when I joined the legal
tech community and I tried to then have
legal ethics conversations with my practitioner
friends, they're like, I don't,
like, never, legal ethics never come up,
if you're a practitioner
and you're hanging out with other practitioners,
we're never talking about legal ethics.
That's not the problem.
Legal tech is obsessed with it
and talking about it all the time.
We need to bridge this gap.
Part of the way we bridge this gap
is we need to have a voice.
These rules don't all make sense, really.
We need practitioners to be talking about this more.
Join Meetup groups, join Facebook
groups, share those stories.
- Join Masterminds.
Like, join things that allow you to have
that broader conversation
to think about your business.
To be creative in your business
but then where you can have that legal hat,
that ethics hat always be a part of your conversation.
One of the other things is to embrace technology.
I know we talked about reterms.
here are the fears about being a part of technology,
but listen, I'm gonna sit here and
tell you stop hating on legalzoom.
Embrace them.
Why?
Because everything they do, you can do, too.
If they're proving the model, then you
can go out there and say how can I then
innovate even beyond what they're doing,
because there's things that we can't do
that they can't do, right, so be able
to say technology is there.
It's going to make us better.
How do we embrace it and keep moving on.
Then, you know,
get to the tools and read about
where people are talking about these things.
We can talk, we can look at our peers
- Interesting, fun, good break in your work.
Go read the stories, go to above the law,
read lawyerists, right brain law, ABA journal,
they're obsessed with these issues that,
my practitioner friends, it's just not on their
radar, and I get it 'cause we're busy
actually practicing law, and actually
learning the case law that's relevant
to our practice, but we need to be engaged,
because when we're not, we end up with regulations
that don't make sense for people
who are actually on the front lines
actually practicing law
and not just talking about it.
And finally, one of the last things
you can do is, one of the projects
that we're working on is data-driven ethics,
and this is, in part, a way to collect
information about what's actually
happening on the ground, what is occurring
between attorneys and clients,
and also, what we're trying to do
is get attorneys involved.
Let's get engaged.
Let's start.
There's power in numbers.
- The end thing about this, and what
we want you guys to take away is
that we have to be a part of the conversation.
Like, the rules are there, they're always gonna be there.
How do you navigate around them?
Sometimes you're gonna stay with them,
but sometimes, you know,
you're gonna push forward.
You're gonna be like the innovators in our industry
that is saying we're not gonna stick with
the traditional model.
We're gonna push it beyond where it's at
because that's what clients want.
We wanna start responding to what our clients want
and go back to being the problem solvers that we are.
- So, with that, thank you
and if you have any questions,
we'll be sticking around if you want to talk.
(audience cheers) (audience applauds)
(upbeat music)
For more infomation >> DRINK LEMON AND OLIVE OIL THEN WAIT FOR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR BODY - Duration: 4:46. 
For more infomation >> Volkswagen Touran 1.6 TDI SCR Highline - Duration: 1:14. 
For more infomation >> Opel Vivaro 1.6 CDTi 145pk L1H1 Irmscher - 082-200 - NAVI - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> Seat Leon St 1.4 EcoTSI 150PK FR 18 inch/Navi/Clima - Duration: 1:09. 
For more infomation >> Maxi Big King, A- Seventy - Red Social [El Patrón Del Trap] - Duration: 3:33. 
For more infomation >> Bernard Félix: accordéoniste de Terre-Neuve - Duration: 4:03. 
For more infomation >> Whitman teacher wins $25K Milken Award - Duration: 1:39. 
No comments:
Post a Comment