f/k/a . . . the archives

October 3, 2003

Consumers Deserve Better Lawyer Referral Services

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 9:40 am

Lawyer Referral Services have been on my mind the past couple of days, thanks to a little blurb by Dennis Kennedy at elawyerblog, Tom Mighells minimalist pointer at Inter-alia, and a substantive posting from the solo perspective by MyShingle‘s Carolyn Elefant.  They each referred to the Business Week article, ”Online Lawyers: Starting to Click” (by Ted Popper, Sept. 30, 2003).   The article looks at the way potential clients get paired with lawyers — focusing on the use of internet technology at LegalMatch.com and on the reaction to such computer-based competition by bar groups that run traditional lawyer referral service (LRS) programs.    

 

While many bar associations are alarmed by the concept of for-profit referral services, the Business Week article notes that the Utah Bar is considering switching to LegalMatch for the provision of referral services to Utah consumers, thus prompting Carolyn to ask whether bar associations should outsource programs to entities like LegalMatch.

 

At the ABA’s 2000 National Lawyer Referral Workshop, President-elect Robert A. Hirshon noted that bar-related lawyer referral programs receive approximately seven million telephone inquiries annually.  He stated that the volume of calls reflects the public’s need for high quality service and valuable information about legal issues, and underscores the role of lawyer referral services in “helping people to make that first, most important decision about whether or not to contact an attorney.”   In summarzing Hirshon’s presentation, John Busch, Chair of the LRIS Standing Committee, wrote (emphases added):


Hirshon sees “a tectonic shift … so dramatic that it threatens to overwhelm [lawyer referral programs] … or even render them irrelevant.”  Hirshon was speaking of Internet services and new technologies, and he advised, “Rather than curse these new technologies, we must embrace them, capture them for our own purposes. . . . As the public learns over time to access information and services more quickly and efficiently through electronic sources, it is only natural that the same public will turn to these sources for legal advice…We are proud of seven million telephone calls, but who will respond to the 20 to 25 million Web site hits?” he asked.


Hirshon noted concern among LRIS entities about online providers who are more interested in the bottom line than public service. He warned, “The organized bar and your referral programs simply cannot cede the field to for-profit competitors.”


This process is underway, and is highlighted by the [ABA] Standing Committee on Lawyer Referral’s initiative to collaborate with iLawyer.com to establish a national lawyer referral network on the Internet.”  Hirshon described this as the first step in a long-term process.


According to Hirshon, “The goal must be the total integration of LRIS with the emerging technologies. This electronic information should be interactive, giving individuals an opportunity to obtain personalized responses … with a single visit.”   Significantly, the ABA President-elect also urged that the process be made more user friendly, by providing the consumer with:




  1. information about a referral lawyer’s “age, location, hours of operation, language skills, special access needs for the handicapped, educational background, experience or special training.”  And,


  2. information on mediation programs and alternative dispute resolution.

Three years later, the iLawyer.com venture envisioned by Hirshon and Busch is available in all or part of only 5 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Washington).   For most consumers, the traditional bar-run LRS is still the primary resource when looking for a formal referral to a lawyer:   Under such programs, the consumer phones his or her local bar association referral service.   A staff member asks a few questions, and then gives the consumer the name, address and phone number of a lawyer from the appropriate subject panel.  The choice of the referral lawyer is made on a rotational basis — the next lawyer on the appropriate panel gets the referral. 

 

From the consumer’s point of view there are several major problems with the traditional LRS model, the cumulative effective of which is to make the service only slightly better in most instances than using the Lawyers by Practice section of the Yellow Pages:


  1. For the most part, so long as they are members in good standing of the bar, lawyers self-select for inclusion on the panel under a legal practice area or specialty.  (E.g., Utah application merely contains the statement, “I hereby swear that I am competent to handle and will accept referrals made in the following matters,” which are checked off in boxes.   Similarly, the Boston Bar requires a demonstration of experience only in the fields of bankruptcy, employment and tort law.   The City of New York Bar, on the other hand, requires that the applicant list three matters handles and a writing sample in each major subject panel requested by the lawyer.)   An LRS operating under the ABA’s Model LRS Rules Governing Lawyer Referral and Information Services is expected to establish experience criteria for each subject panel.   The ABA Lawyer Referral Directory has links to LRS programs in each state, and indicates whether the program is operating under the Model Rules.  The savvy consumer should go to the bar association’s website and find the requirements for lawyers wishing to join the LRS panel.
  2. Only one name is given for any single legal problem — the name that pops up next on the rotation, not the lawyer who would otherwise be most appropriate. 
  3. No relevant information about the lawyer is given, merely the lawyer’s name, address and phone number is given.

Under this regime, the consumer basically has to go through a blind interview with the referral attorney, and either choose on the basis of that one interview or entail significant transaction costs to compare lawyers.   As the bar groups surely know, the dynamic would be very different, if the referral program gave the consumer background information on several lawyers (e.g., experience level, educational background, hourly fee rates, special office hours or language skills, etc.), who are experienced in the relevant practice area .   For one thing, the lawyers would know that they are actually (dare we say it) competing with eachother for the client’s business.  For another, the client would understand that all lawyers are not equal — not interchangeable, depending on the luck of the rotational draw.  

 

The situation would also be far more consumer-friendly, if each bar referral service complied with the advice quoted above from the ABA’s Hirshon (to give callers information about mediation and other alternative forms of dispute resolution) and with the analogous requirement in Rule II of the Model LRS Rules that:



A qualified service shall be operated in the public interest for the purpose of referring prospective clients to lawyers, pro bono and public service legal programs, and government, consumer or other agencies who can provide the assistance the clients need in light of their financial circumstances, spoken language, any disability, geographical convenience, and the nature and complexity of their problems.


While I would be happy to hear of exceptions, I believe that few, if any, bar assocation referral services would send a middle class caller to services other than private attorneys, unless there is a statute or court rule mandating that mediation be first attempted.   (For example, the Utah State Bar declares – right in plain view — that the immediate objective of its LRS is “to assist the general public, by providing a way in which any person who can afford to pay a reasonable fee for legal services be referred to a member of the Bar.”)

Another drawback of the traditional LRS system, which appears to continue in some of the iLawyer.com programs, are the referral fees.   There is, of course, the upfront fee paid by the client to the LRS program ($25 to $35) for the initial consultation with the attorney.   However, in some programs there is a fee paid by the lawyer to the program that is both significant and hidden from the client.   For example, the Boston City Bar takes a “remittance fee“ of 15% of all fees earned by the lawyer from the referral over $500.   Similarly, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York charges an “additional referral fee“ that is 5% of the first $10,000, plus 10% of the next $40,000, plus 15% of the amount over $50,000.

The NYC bar agreement states that “Each Panel Member agrees not to charge any additional fees or to increase his or her fee for the purpose of compensating for the amount due the Service under the percentage formula outlined above.”  And, ABA Model LRS Rule V also forbids charging a referred client combined fees and expenses that exceed the total charges which the client would have incurred had no referral service been involved.  Call me suspicious, but I don’t know how such a prohibition could or would ever be enforced.  It’s just too easy to capture some of the referral fee by “working a little more” for the referred client.



  • Given the fact that the NYC bar program is part of iLawyer.com, I’m a bit surprised to see the following item in iLawyer’s FAQ:   Q: Do the lawyers pay you to get cases?  No. We do not enter into any fee arrangement with the lawyer. Nor do we accept any money from the attorneys for the appointment we schedule for you.  

A program like LegalMatch seems to offer a number of advantages to consumers, besides the convenience of 24-hour availability online.   For example, it is clearly a benefit that “qualified, pre-screened attorneys compete for your business” and the consumer “can review each attorney’s LegalMatch Profile, describing the attorney’s education, experience, specializations, representative clients, and much more,” before deciding who to contact.  This assumes, of course, that (1) LegalMatch lives up to its claim that it enforces ”demanding qualification standards for member attorneys” (see LegalMatch’s “Services Page“), and (2) that the service attracts a sufficient number of qualified lawyers. 


A program like LegalMatch seems to make a lot of sense from the attorney’s perspective, too, unless the attorney is afraid to compete head to head for specific clients.   If properly run, such a service can give lawyers, in LegalMatch’s words, “a solution that quickly and efficiently filters cases to them that fit in their schedules and expertise.”   The attorney gets to decide when he or she wants to make a client an offer of service, rather than seeing who happens to turn up at the end of a phoneline as an LRS rotation selection. 



  • I like the fact that the very first section of the LegalMatch consumer application form asks whether he or she has a preference as to the level of attorney experience — and notes that more experience is likely to mean higher fees.  On the other hand, I was a little put off to see that LegalMatch tells attorneys:  ”We encourage quality competition, not price – in fact member attorneys are often advised to raise their rates to better reflect their expertise.”   That policy needs a re-write.

Carolyn at MyShingle worries that a service like LegalMatch will charge a fee that is too high for a beginning solo to pay.   If a bar association is shifting its entire program to an entity like LegalMatch, the sheer numbers involved should produce both Bar negotiating power and economies of scale that would reduce the subscription fee considerably.   Also, some bar groups appear to charge more than a “nominal” fee to join traditional LRS programs.  For example, Utah charges $250 a year, the Boston Bar requires a $400 membership in their association, plus $95 to join the panel, and the New York City Bar charges a base fee of $200.   In addition, as pointed out above, some bars are receiving hefty referral fees from the lawyers, and LegalMatch does not charge such fees.   [If a neophyte solo is so inexperienced, unsuccessful, or unable to budget, to afford joining a program like LegalMatch, perhaps subsidizing said solo is not such a great idea.]   


As for the iLawyer.com program, it offers some promise as an improvement over traditional LRS programs (including online 24/7 convenience), but also has some of the old drawbacks.   The iLawyer website FAQ states:



 ”Based on your description of the legal problem, Bar Association staff determines the appropriate area of law and considers their list of attorneys experienced in that area of law.   From that list, the Bar Association contacts attorneys until they find an experienced attorney who can help.” 


Contacting the attorney in advance to help assure a good fit and good timing is a plus.  However, it appears that iLawyer neither offers the consumer additional information about the lawyer in advance nor offers more than one lawyer to choose from in deciding who to first consult.


Consumers deserve better referral programs than currently available through the vast majority of bar associations.   Even if bar associations fail to embrace new options like LegalMatch, I’m glad to see that LegalMatch is out their giving consumers more choice and prodding bar groups to improve their programs.   The fact that an online referral system is for-profit is not a particular problem for me –  just about everything bar associations do is primarily for the profit of their members, despite any non-profit pretensions. 

UPDATE (10-27-03): See Declarations & Exclusions Blog  Should Clients Bear the Risk When Attorneys Risk Going Bare? for a discussion on informing the client when an LRIS lawyer drops his malpractice insurance.


 

22 Comments

  1. David:
    Thanks for the additional informative post. My comments were spurred in large part by extensive discussion of Legal Match on the solosez listserv. (By way of background, I should add that I linked to the archives generally rather than citing individual messages. Even though the ABA considers comments of listserv posters to be owned by the ABA (and the ABA has made those comments available at its site), I did not consider it appropriate to link to specific comments intended for the solosez group). In any event, the experience of participants in the listserv with Legal Match has been uniformly unfavorable – complaints ranging from referral of completely frivolous cases to payment of a large fee, as I said, on the order of $900 or so, to join – although, as I understand, the cost depends on area. Further, the experience of participants did not match with the expectations provided by company reps. I also recently saw on the site that Legal Match has cut back on refunds the initial charge but will allow attorneys to participate for another year.
    I also have to take issue with your suggestion that lawyers who can’t afford to spend $900 to join an untested service should perhaps not be able to participate. Solos and small firms have limited operating budgets – for example, I pay dues to three bars, two voluntary bar associations along with sections within those bars and membership to two professional associations – with several others I’d like to join. I also attend several conferences, CLE events and luncheons each year. It’s not that I can’t afford to pay $900 to get clients, but it’s a trade-off – will my $900 be better spent on a completely unproven service which may never get me clients, on a professional marketer, a yellow pages ad – or other networking events. It’s in that context, that I suggest that the $900 is a lot to ask.
    In addition, the service provided by a referral service is a two way street. It’s not just the lawyer who benefits – clients do also. So why should the lawyer pay the entire fee? For instance, I’d rather sign up for a referral service and offer a couple of free consultations a week instead of paying a large admission fee. In that way, clients benefit from getting some free service and I would benefit by potentially having access to clients.
    Finally, I should add that I had no idea that either the Boston Bar’s or NYC’s referral programs included additonal referral or remittance fees. However, I do understand that the Boston Bar does have a very successful referral program and that it does generate real cases and income for participating lawyers. In addition, I don’t have as much of a problem with lawyers paying money after they’ve collected a fee. I primarily take issue with requiring up-front payment for a service which is not only untested, but which has been criticized by many who have used it.

    Comment by Carolyn Elefant — October 3, 2003 @ 6:35 pm

  2. David:
    Thanks for the additional informative post. My comments were spurred in large part by extensive discussion of Legal Match on the solosez listserv. (By way of background, I should add that I linked to the archives generally rather than citing individual messages. Even though the ABA considers comments of listserv posters to be owned by the ABA (and the ABA has made those comments available at its site), I did not consider it appropriate to link to specific comments intended for the solosez group). In any event, the experience of participants in the listserv with Legal Match has been uniformly unfavorable – complaints ranging from referral of completely frivolous cases to payment of a large fee, as I said, on the order of $900 or so, to join – although, as I understand, the cost depends on area. Further, the experience of participants did not match with the expectations provided by company reps. I also recently saw on the site that Legal Match has cut back on refunds the initial charge but will allow attorneys to participate for another year.
    I also have to take issue with your suggestion that lawyers who can’t afford to spend $900 to join an untested service should perhaps not be able to participate. Solos and small firms have limited operating budgets – for example, I pay dues to three bars, two voluntary bar associations along with sections within those bars and membership to two professional associations – with several others I’d like to join. I also attend several conferences, CLE events and luncheons each year. It’s not that I can’t afford to pay $900 to get clients, but it’s a trade-off – will my $900 be better spent on a completely unproven service which may never get me clients, on a professional marketer, a yellow pages ad – or other networking events. It’s in that context, that I suggest that the $900 is a lot to ask.
    In addition, the service provided by a referral service is a two way street. It’s not just the lawyer who benefits – clients do also. So why should the lawyer pay the entire fee? For instance, I’d rather sign up for a referral service and offer a couple of free consultations a week instead of paying a large admission fee. In that way, clients benefit from getting some free service and I would benefit by potentially having access to clients.
    Finally, I should add that I had no idea that either the Boston Bar’s or NYC’s referral programs included additonal referral or remittance fees. However, I do understand that the Boston Bar does have a very successful referral program and that it does generate real cases and income for participating lawyers. In addition, I don’t have as much of a problem with lawyers paying money after they’ve collected a fee. I primarily take issue with requiring up-front payment for a service which is not only untested, but which has been criticized by many who have used it.

    Comment by Carolyn Elefant — October 3, 2003 @ 6:35 pm

  3. Our firm had great success using the LegalMatch service!
    We are dealing with personal injury matters. I must admit that at first we were skeptical about the service but decided to give it a try and put the necessary budget toward the service. This turned out to generate for us many profits that greatly out waited the initial investments. I must say that I can totally relates with other attorney’s concerns, as I was a bit concerned my self with retrieving and using this new concept. However, the stream of clients I have received and keep receiving after almost two years with the Legalmatch service turned greatly beneficial. LegalMatch provide a very useful concept for enhancing your cliental base while providing me with a reliable service. I always find that there is someone to talk to at the legalmatch office to handle any of my compliant. They seem to always handle my concerns immediately and on the few times that they were not able to, someone did contact me promptly to resolve any issues.
    I would honestly recommend using the service as an attorney who was looking to enhance its practice and was willing to make the initial investment rather then just throw my budget away on wasteful phone books ads, magazine ads and referral service. Its important to understand that through LegalMatch I get clients straight to my desktop after they have been reviewed by the LegalMatch stuff which allows me to choose the clients and cases I want to handle and definitely save me valuable time, which later I can invest into my clients in providing them with better service and outcomes.

    Comment by Mark E. — December 22, 2003 @ 1:34 am

  4. Our firm had great success using the LegalMatch service!
    We are dealing with personal injury matters. I must admit that at first we were skeptical about the service but decided to give it a try and put the necessary budget toward the service. This turned out to generate for us many profits that greatly out waited the initial investments. I must say that I can totally relates with other attorney’s concerns, as I was a bit concerned my self with retrieving and using this new concept. However, the stream of clients I have received and keep receiving after almost two years with the Legalmatch service turned greatly beneficial. LegalMatch provide a very useful concept for enhancing your cliental base while providing me with a reliable service. I always find that there is someone to talk to at the legalmatch office to handle any of my compliant. They seem to always handle my concerns immediately and on the few times that they were not able to, someone did contact me promptly to resolve any issues.
    I would honestly recommend using the service as an attorney who was looking to enhance its practice and was willing to make the initial investment rather then just throw my budget away on wasteful phone books ads, magazine ads and referral service. Its important to understand that through LegalMatch I get clients straight to my desktop after they have been reviewed by the LegalMatch stuff which allows me to choose the clients and cases I want to handle and definitely save me valuable time, which later I can invest into my clients in providing them with better service and outcomes.

    Comment by Mark E. — December 22, 2003 @ 1:34 am

  5. Very nice blog.

    Comment by Milen — September 1, 2005 @ 7:24 pm

  6. Very nice blog.

    Comment by Milen — September 1, 2005 @ 7:24 pm

  7. Baby Sleep

    Comment by Team Sleep — September 10, 2005 @ 12:06 pm

  8. Baby Sleep

    Comment by Team Sleep — September 10, 2005 @ 12:06 pm

  9. Gold Prices

    Comment by Gold Necklace — September 17, 2005 @ 10:54 am

  10. Gold Prices

    Comment by Gold Necklace — September 17, 2005 @ 10:54 am

  11. Roof Trusses

    Comment by How To Shingle A Roof — September 20, 2005 @ 3:17 pm

  12. Roof Trusses

    Comment by How To Shingle A Roof — September 20, 2005 @ 3:17 pm

  13. Boxing Ticket

    Comment by Boxing Class — September 20, 2005 @ 7:38 pm

  14. Boxing Ticket

    Comment by Boxing Class — September 20, 2005 @ 7:38 pm

  15. Jedi Costume

    Comment by Authentic Star War Costume — September 27, 2005 @ 8:07 am

  16. Jedi Costume

    Comment by Authentic Star War Costume — September 27, 2005 @ 8:07 am

  17. Hobby Horizon

    Comment by Center Hobby — September 27, 2005 @ 8:14 am

  18. Hobby Horizon

    Comment by Center Hobby — September 27, 2005 @ 8:14 am

  19. Charlie Chocolate Factory Game

    Comment by Medicine Hat — October 3, 2005 @ 10:51 am

  20. Charlie Chocolate Factory Game

    Comment by Medicine Hat — October 3, 2005 @ 10:51 am

  21. Charlotte Hotels

    Comment by Frankfurt Hotels — January 23, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

  22. Charlotte Hotels

    Comment by Frankfurt Hotels — January 23, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress