Talk Nerdy to Me? Quicklegal is Seeking Crowd-funding for “On Demand Legal Advice Thru Videochat.”

This post is not an endorsement for Quicklegal or its services, nor is it an endorsement for any of the applications mentioned below.  

Technology continues to feed our never-ending desire for instant gratification.  In the New York metro area, applications like Uber or Lyft will pick you up in a car of your choice, with a driver of your choice, from any location, at any time.  If you prefer to stay home for the evening, you have the option of downloading the “Minibar” app – it will deliver alcohol to your home in less than an hour.  Want to enjoy that wine with someone else?  The “Cuddlr” application enables users to meet locals in the area who are (allegedly) interested only in cuddling.  With nearly everything else that we can imagine at our fingertips, it seems inevitable that a consumer with a smart phone, $49, and a burning, discrete legal question at 3 a.m. would eventually have the means available to obtain on demand legal advice.

Sacramento, California-based Quicklegal (www.quicklegal.com), which is currently crowd funding on Indiegogo, recently launched interactive web/mobile application software that enables a user to video chat with a local lawyer almost instantaneously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  $49 gets you a 15 minute video chat session.  For $29, you can send an instant message to a lawyer with a question.  If you want to keep going, you can add more time.  A user picks the area of law, poses a question, and can select from lawyers who have been rated by other users.

This business model is intriguing to me.  From an access to justice standpoint, Quicklegal permits a user actively looking for legal advice to quickly interview a lawyer, while risking less time and economic resources.  That is a strong selling point.

However, the condensed time frame itself raises some concerns.  For example, is there enough time to explain to the client that facts unknown to the lawyer could alter the legal analysis?  The answer to this question is addressed indirectly in the company’s Terms and Conditions in the form of a disclaimer.  Specifically, Section 6.9 states, “Quicklegal is not designed to be a complete solution for every legal issue. Some legal questions are too complex for a Service Provider to answer during the short period of time allotted for the consultation. Use of Quicklegal should not be a substitute for hiring an attorney in all cases.”

In addition, is there a risk that this preliminary consult could give rise to an attorney-client relationship for liability purposes?  According to Section 6.9 of the company’s Terms and Conditions, “No Service Provider shall have any duty to further research, investigate, follow-up, or take other action on your behalf in any way. Your attorney-client relationship with your Service Provider(s) is limited and terminates automatically once your consultation has ended.”  The enforceability of these disclaimers is a matter of local interpretation (in this case, California law) which is beyond my knowledge base, and certainly beyond the scope of this post.

Quicklegal is currently only operating in California, although the company has expressed plans to expand to all fifty states.  It has raised $322 of its lofty $250,000.00 funding goal, with 34 days left in the campaign.

What are your thoughts?

Lawyers…I Just Erased My LinkedIn “Skills Endorsements”. You Might Want To Do The Same.

A few days ago, I went to a networking function sponsored by the local Chamber of Commerce and attended a breakout session on LinkedIn optimization.  I truly enjoyed it.  The presenter, a saleswoman with a background in sales training, explained how she successfully pitched a CEO after a mutual LinkedIn connection made the introduction.  As the presentation progressed, I learned a great deal of useful information – for example, the importance of putting your best self forward online by using a professional photo, creating a witty description to distinguish yourself, using key words to optimize your profile for search engines, and utilizing LinkedIn and your existing connections to facilitate offline introductions. Unfortunately, one portion of the evening made me uncomfortable – the Skill endorsement overview.  The presenter seemed to place significant emphasis on the benefits of this section, encouraging those of us in the audience to invite others to endorse our skills and create engagement on our profiles.  That just did not feel right from a legal marketing perspective, so I went home that night and began researching the topic. LinkedIn’s own help section reiterates the sentiment expressed in the presentation, stating: “Skill endorsements are a simple and effective way of building your professional brand and engaging your network.”  http://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/31888/~/skill-endorsements—overview.  But what about lawyers?  Are we ethically permitted to ask others to endorse us?  Can we allow others’ endorsements of us to remain on our profile? Robert Ambrogi examined this question in May 2013 in an article entitled, “Do LinkedIn Endorsements Violate Legal Ethics?”  Available at:  http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2013/05/do-linkedin-endorsements-violate-legal-ethics.html.  He concluded that Model Rule 7.1’s prohibition against making false or misleading claims might be violated if an attorney allows an endorsement on her profile in a skill set she may not possess.  The analogue to this Model Rule in New York is Rule 7.1(a), “Advertising”, and RPC 7.1 (“Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Service”) in New Jersey. The New York State Bar Association published “Social Media Ethics Guidelines” in March 2014, a 19-page guide (available at http://www.nysba.org/workarea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=47547) (referred to below as the NYSBA Guidelines).  As noted in the NYSBA Guidelines at page 3, endorsements might run afoul of prohibitions against lawyers and law firms advertising that they are “specialists” in a particular field.  The NYSBA Guidelines also point out (at p. 4) that lawyers have an obligation to monitor all content on their website or profile.   Consistent with Ambrogi’s conclusion, we have an obligation to continually monitor those endorsements of our skills to ensure that they are not presenting a misleading picture of our skills or experience. I did not locate analogous guidance by the New Jersey State Bar Association.  However, a comprehensive online article prepared by John D. North, Esq.  entitled “Ethics and Social Media: What Attorneys Need to Know, is available online at: http://www.greenbaumlaw.com/Ethics_Social_Media.pdf.  North’s piece analyzes how New Jersey’s existing framework would likely interpret some of the questions raised by attorneys using social media platforms (among other issues outside of the scope of this post). In the past, some of my connections have endorsed my skills by checking boxes placed in front of them on LinkedIn.  I recall having a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when that happened.  But, in light of the landscape right now – in particular, the scrutiny that lawyers using social media are being subjected to, I made the decision to remove the skills and endorsements section on my LinkedIn profile.  I do not wish to have to sort through endorsements to make a subjective determination as to whether something is accurate or not.  I want to control what information is included in my profile.  And, at bottom, although I have earnestly endorsed others who stand out as exceptional in their respective fields, I continue to question whether there is any utility in these endorsements, at least in the legal profession.

Evening officer! Can you please just give me a sec? I need to consult with my mobile phone…

A Kickstarter project is hoping to raise $50,000 to develop a mobile App that will provide users with location-based, real-time access to traffic stop laws and reciprocity laws regarding the carrying of weapons.  The “Arresting Mobile App” FAQ describes itself as “the Navigator, Garmin and Tom Tom for inter-jurisdictional laws, proper protocol, and reciprocity agreements.”   The Arresting Mobile App Kickstarter campaign clarifies that the App is intended as a learning tool, not as a quick fix during an actual arrest (or as a source for legal advice after an arrest).

Kickstarter is one of a number of growing crowd-funding websites where entrepreneurs like E Maria Shelton Speller, the creator of the App, can pitch ideas to the public and raise funds in exchange for customized perks.  Anyone interested in this App can, for example, contribute anywhere from $5 for a “shout out” on a social network to $5,000 for a Sponsorship.

It remains unclear whether the App will come to fruition, however, based on the level of funding to date.  The campaign ends in 16 days.

Legal Disruptors applauds the Arresting Mobile App for its stated commitment to making the App free – any technology that encourages its users to learn about laws impacting them in a cost-effective and engaging way is consistent with the idea of providing equal access to justice.

Happy Anniversary Legal Services Corporation

Legal Service Corporation (LSC) is celebrating its 40 year anniversary.

LSC, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, is the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans in the nation.

Legal Disruptors acknowledges LSC for its commitment, through its operation of the Technology Initiatives Grant (TIG) program, to invest in programs which seek to use technology to meet the civil legal needs of low-income people.

In 2012 and 2013, LSC sponsored a “Summit on the Use of Technology to Expand Access to Justice”, the aim of which was to focus on ways to use technology to provide all Americans some form of effective assistance with essential civil legal needs.  Read about the Technology Summit here.

Fixed Raises $1.2 Million For A Mobile App That Fights Your Parking Tickets For You

Can a mobile App replace the need for a lawyer? A San Fran start-up named “Fixed” has a team of “Ticket Heroes” who will review photos of parking tickets in search of errors. They are hiring, with hopes of expanding across the country. And, while the Fixed website claims that a law degree would be “nice to have”, it is not required.

New Jersey Courts App

 

New Jersey Courts’ free mobile App is available for download for both iPhones (named “New Jersey Attorney”) and Android phones (named “New Jersey Judiciary Attorney”).

With information such as news feeds, court directories, Rules of Court and Evidence, and even suggestions for Places to Eat via Yelp (yum!), it is no wonder New Jersey Courts were recognized as one of the top ten court websites in 2014.

Forum for the Advancement of Court Technology Names Top Ten Court Websites

The Forum for the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) ranked 2014’s top ten U.S. court websites.    Check out the rankings here.

As a New Jerseyan*, I am proud to share that the New Jersey Courts made the list.   I am also delighted that I found out about the FACT ranking in the Judiciary News section of my NJ Attorney App.

---

* While researching how to properly designate my State of residence, I just learned that a “demonym” is the term used to describe residents of a particular locale.  Source: Wikipedia (“demonym”).

Georgetown University Law Center Launches “Center on Privacy and Technology”

One of the areas of law  I am particularly interested in is internet privacy.  Browsing history is becoming more and more relevant in litigation.   Any attorney who uses email and the internet (to be covered another day, there are, in fact, still attorneys out there who do not use either) should have a basic understanding of what privacy means, and how it has the potential to impact clients, their business operations, potential investigations involving their internet activities, and litigation.

Georgetown Law (my alma mater, for purposes of full disclosure) just launched a Center on Privacy and Technology.    With an emphasis on examining the “intersection of privacy, law and technology”, some areas the Center will concentrate on will include: studying the impact of government surveillance, analyzing the use of “Big Data” collection in making decisions about individuals, and delving into privacy issues raised by disruptors who are developing technology such as wearables, health apps and biometric authentication.  Very interesting stuff.

The Center’s first Executive Director will be Alvaro Bedoya, Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy and to Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.).

Go Hoyas!   Check out the link to the press release here.