See:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/06/2667208/firm-that-offers-online-legal.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2011/10/05/silicon-valley-sees-gold-in-internet-legal-services/

What does this mean for lawyers? In this day and age, lawyers have to be concerned about being shut out of the business of law practice all together, as more and more consumers of legal services are looking for alternative ways to meet their legal needs. The Internet has disrupted the legal profession’s near exclusivity to provide legal services by giving people access to legal information which is free. Businesses have been set up to capitalize on this trend, such as NOLO press (how to books on everything from making a will to incorporating a business to getting a divorce), LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer and many more. In other words, the real question facing lawyers is – what business are we in? Are we in the business of providing legal services, access to legal information, both, or something else? Businesses that define themselves as solely providing legal information should arguably not be subject to the same regulations as lawyers, but their services will impact lawyers if the legal profession doesn’t differentiate itself and highlight the value added by the lawyer-client relationship.

When I was very active in the early days of the Task Force, I was part of the team that organized the events which led to Richard’s interactions with the president of the American Bar Association, Alfred P. Carlton before the Federal Trade Commission. In those early days of our Task Force (2001 and on), the ABA started a movement to develop a uniform definition of the practice of law. If ‘how to books’ with interactive CDs supplemented by online help could be brought into the definition of what is the practice of law, then it was thought that these ‘services’ could be regulated. At the time, the Federal Trade Commission, based on anti-competition laws, warned the ABA not to use regulatory efforts to restrain the growth of these types of services.

Here is a resource that Richard compiled previously with links to relevant documents:
“Efforts to Define the Practice of Law by the Organized Bar” – Excerpt from this page: http://www.directlaw.com/Unauthorized_practice_of_law.asp

All of this talk is centered around one aspect of the justice system – legal information. Legal information leads to conduct which has legal implications, such as writing contracts, forming businesses, filing papers with courts and so forth. The issue here is what happens when legal information has either a technology or human interaction add-on that helps the consumer “customize” their legal conduct for their particular circumstance. The question that the legal profession is raising is whether or not this additional “customization” should only occur in the context of a lawyer-client relationship. There are many business out there that say that consumers should be given the choice of whether or not they should have to pay a lawyer for this “customization” – they argue, why not allow for a consumer to get a lower scale of advice, which is more affordable, but doesn’t come within the context of a lawyer-client relationship. Which ultimately begets the question: is access to a lower quality brand of justice superior to none at all?

I will reserve an analysis of this perplexing question for a later post, but will stress the following point, most eloquently summed up by wiser men then I (Bachman Turner Overdrive)- “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet.” Greater access to legal information is only a small step to a greater systematic change to the legal profession that is being induced by technology. Here, we are merely talking about the very initial stages of how the law is practiced- obtaining information. But larger questions are right around the corner, such as where will justice be dealt and under what parameters.

True change to the justice system will come when government goes online – becomes web- based, operating in the cloud, across seamless borders, with harmonized rules. Why does government need to go online? Several factors, including those that have led to companies like LegalZoom gaining such popularity, inform this conclusion. First, technological advances have meant that individuals are able to access legal information online and save costs. Instead of paying law firms thousands of dollars to file articles of incorporation, they can now do the same for $99. Technology also allows the application of the legal information in courts, which constitutes a transition from the offer of customizable legal forms to a practice of law online. The state of today’s technology also allows the adjudication of cases online. The provision of information, application of that information by individuals or online lawyers, and adjudication of cases are all feasible technically, but are being hindered by a lack of buy-in from brick-and-mortar lawyers, adjudicators and bar associations.

Today, of course, consumers will continue to get LegalZoom’s legal information, and lawyers will have to continue to justify their value to keep their clients from asking why they should pay thousands of dollars for legal services rather than use legal information services.

Lawyers are worth it – lawyers bring huge value to the table. They help build valuable relationships, they guide people and businesses through legal challenges. But lawyers do not do themselves a service by trying to stop the legal information transformation that has all ready taken root in the marketplace.

In closing, let me note that after leaving the Reporter role of the elawyering task force, I joined the online dispute resolution community (www.odr.info) and set up Internet Bar Organization (www.internetbar.org). The online dispute community and Internet Bar Organization are working together to help shape an online justice system that promotes access to justice in the digital age.

- Jeff Aresty

The False Ideals of the Web – op ed piece by Jaron Lanier

“The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, which is being considered in the House while the Senate looks at a similar bill, is deemed the worst thing ever. Popular sites like Wikipedia staged a blackout on Wednesday to protest the bills. Google put a black banner over its name. Nothing quite like that has ever happened before. This is extraordinary, because it shows that belief in the priority of fighting SOPA is so absolute as to trump the stated nonpartisan missions of these sites.”

Absolute positions are not the foundation for healthy discourse. Web vigilantism does a disservice to the need to fight the politics of SOPA. Rising above the political discourse is what’s needed; SOPA demonstrates a lack of understanding of the ideals of the web; we need to express these ideals in ways that promote freedom of expression and define new, and fairly negotiated roles, for intermediaries who provide value to the creators of intellectual property.

After a fifty year professional career, Ramón was recognized internationally as an arbitrator. He was a lawyer in schools in Barcelona and Madrid, in the Court of Paris, Honorary Member of the Law Society of England and Wales, and ex-co president of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association, among other positions.

Ramón graduated from the Faculty of Law of the University of Barcelona (1957-1961) and throughout his career he received awards as outstanding as the Medal of Honor of the Col·legi D’advocats de Barcelona, in 1999, the award ‘Dr. Ivo Politeo’, of the College of lawyers of Croatia, in 2005; and the Cruz de San Raimundo de Peñafort, in 2006.

He was also a member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and member of the Spanish Arbitration Club; author of the Report for the Review of the Code of Ethics of the Council of Bar Associations of the EC; and Member and Rapporteur of the Committee for the Revision of the Code of Ethics of the International Bar Association (IBA).

The news has caused great impact in the legal sector and the arbitration world. Bernardo Cremades, of the Spanish Arbitration Court, said Ramón “had been a key professional in the relations of the Spanish legal profession with foreign institutions. As all who were devoted for years to international service, we are talking about a lawyer ahead of his time”.

Ramón was an active member of the American Bar Association International Law Section and supported its many projects, especially those related to the promotion of human rights. Jim Silkenat, president -elect of the American Bar Association, commented that Ramón was a leader in promoting the rule of law around the world and making sure that justice was a reality rather than just a goal.

Ramón was a member of the board of the World Justice Forum. The immediate past executive director of the WJF, Hongxia Liu, noted that Ramón and his family welcomed the World Justice Forum into Barcelona and his lovely home in 2011. At the Barcelona forum, she remembered his message to lawyers everywhere that their first role in the challenging environment of the 21st century was to promote world peace across all cultures.
One of Ramón’s last appointments was as a founding board member of the Internet Bar Organization. Jeff Aresty, president of IBO, noted that Ramon took great joy in working with the young leaders of IBO who were reinventing new ways to make and practice law in cyberspace, especially to promote world peace. He was working on a global set of ethical values for IBO to promote online justice at the time of his passing.