Return to Economics of Law Practice 2000 Web page www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/elp00
 

If the Internet can help someone find their ideal car, house, or even mate, why not their ideal attorney? As competition for clients grows increasingly fierce, lawyers are competing for clientele on "case-matching" Web sites like LegalMatch.com, SharkTank.com and MyCounsel.com.

Suppose someone needs a little legal work — nothing too fancy, maybe the probate of a small estate, or a simple trademark registration. She can log onto LegalMatch.com where she will be asked questions designed to replace the traditional (and in some instances cost-prohibitive) lawyer consultation. LegalMatch.com will send her query to a page where hundreds of registered lawyers battle for the business in a competitive bidding process.

Once someone decides they need legal services, they face a labyrinth of choices. Issues such as price, experience, reputation, and personality can bewilder a person seeking legal help. There can be two lawyers in the same building charging wildly different rates for the same services, even for work that is standardized, such as a simple tax return or divorce.

A Web site that offers a package of legal services for a fixed price can reduce or even eliminate the clients’ frustration and guesswork from hidden charges and phantom hourly billing. Such a site could be the best friend of small businesses, wherever they might be located geographically, a one-stop destination for everything from incorporation to lease agreements and other areas of legal specialty.

Today some title insurance companies are turning over all legal work to in-house lawyers. They might find that a Web site like the one proposed just one more opportunity to create additional sources of new business.

Of course, online bidding for legal services has to negotiate a Byzantine thicket of legal and ethical restrictions imposed on the legal profession. The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct dictate what lawyers can and cannot say in advertisements for their services.[1]

Lawyers are ethically prohibited from paying a third party to market their services. They cannot split fees. Thus online legal bidding sites charge either the clients, like MyCounsel.com, or the lawyers, like LegalMatch.com, a flat fee to use their services.

Mycousel.com provides relatively low-posted charges for basic legal services – presumably in the hope that clients will come back when they need more expensive services. For example, a person who needs a will and has basic questions about estate planning can find a lawyer – and answers- from MyCounsel.com for a posted $75. A will for a couple with children is $300. A restraining order is $75. And a lawyer’s representation in court for a DWI case is $1,500.[2]

It takes only a few clicks, a private questionnaire and a credit card to get a case to a lawyer who has been screened by Mycounsel.com for her legal standing and expertise.[3]

"We say what we do and don't do," said Judy Chong, director of marketing communications for Mycounsel.com. "Part of what we do is make the law a little friendlier and less intimidating."[4]

Only a small percentage of people keep lawyers on retainer. When a lawyer is needed, often people flip through the Yellow Pages only after a problem becomes a crisis. They might be much better off if they could easily get preventative legal advice early. But not many people do that. Some do not even turn to an attorney. They have legitimate claims that they simply cannot afford to pursue. Web sites can help close that gap.

Mycounsel.com works on the principle that many legal services can be handled efficiently through e-mail or over the phone for little cost.

By 2001, the Boston company had been a year and a half in development. It is the brainchild of a lawyer, Stan Soper, and a marketing consultant, Nathan Gilliland, they thought of the idea while riding a chairlift in Utah.

Real estate agreements, contracts, advice to small business owners, bankruptcy filings, squabbles between landlords and tenants, DWI arrests and speeding tickets are among the legal issues that MyCounsel.com addresses.

The Web site also has 20,000 pages of general information about the law. For example, under "Arrests/Charges" are articles entitled "What to do if you are charged with drunk driving" or "Preparing for a criminal trail."?

Of course there are important ethical distinctions between legal information and legal advice. The firm has to be careful to post only legal information. Advice requires a lawyer – which Mycounsel.com hopes to provide.

For example, suppose a client wants a will. A click will bring him to a page explaining the services provided, those not included, the number of hours that Mycounsel.com anticipates a lawyer will work at the task, and the number of days within which they guarantee a response.

If the client finds these conditions acceptable he can proceed to a secure area of the Web site to fill out a questionnaire specifically written for that legal service.

Mycounsel.com will then contact the appropriate attorney who reviews the material submitted. If there is a need to exchange more information, Mycounsel.com has a secure e-mail site. Of course, the telephone and office visits are other options in some cases.

Many clients do it all via e-mail, because they do not want to bother playing phone tag and otherwise prefer e-mail’s convenience.

If the attorney decides the client needs a different service than requested, she has the option of receiving a refund or choosing to buy the other service. Mycounsel.com has a 30-day satisfaction money-back guarantee. Its Web site also offers customer service. Clients can let Mycounsel.com know if they are dissatisfied with the service.

Mycounsel.com opened its cyber-doors in December 2000 on a trial basis, using 150 clients as a test. They were subsequently surveyed. In March of 2001 the Web site had its official launch with 115 lawyers nationwide. Eventually the company expects to have 250 lawyers or more available if their current staff becomes over-worked by demand.

Mycounsel.com appears to be unique in actually connecting clients with lawyers. Most other legal sites merely refer people to lawyers for a fee, provide directories of attorneys, or provide legal information that is of little or no relevance to the question being asked.

A Google.com search with the phrase "free legal advice" on the Internet provides 1,390,000 Web sites, chat rooms and message boards relating to legal advice. Such creatively named sites such as www.freeadvice.com, www.lawguru.com and www.800wedolaw.com offer free answers to legal questions. The operators of these sites include law firms, law schools, legal aid agencies, and bar associations.

The problem with such a search is that it retrieves sites that range from a former court reporter offering legal advice; to a fictional attorney from the television cartoon The Simpsons (an attorney, Lionel Hutz, who dispenses legal advice from a Magic 8 Ball). Needless to say, the latter is of no serious help.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an approach to online legal advice believed to be more useful than that offered by any present sites. The proposed home page would consist of numerous links to legal categories such as,

• Automobile accidents
• Bankruptcy
• Business operations and ownership[5]

I. An Introduction to Traffic Law

A. Types of Tickets

II. Getting A Traffic Ticket: Overview

A. What To Do if the Police Stop You while Driving

B. Methods Police Use To Catch Speeders

C. Checking Traffic Tickets For Mistakes

D. Effects of Traffic Tickets on Auto Insurance

III. Contesting A Traffic Ticket

A. Fighting A Speeding Ticket

B. Fighting A Parking Ticket

IV. Traffic Court: Overview

A. How to Decide Whether to Defend Yourself in Traffic Court

B. Researching Traffic Laws

V. Repairing Your Driving Record: Traffic School

VI. What to do if You Are Charged With Drunk Driving

VII. Racial Profiling: Reasonable Suspicion To Stop A Motorist?

The user could choose to click on individual topics though appropriate. Of course, there may be topics that the site will not cover. But this is only intended to be an informal learning session.

The purpose of the site after all is simply to help the user determine whether they have a legally valid cause of action or other legal issue, and should consult a lawyer.

As more individuals and companies create their own Web sites, they begin looking for attorneys who understand their needs and problems. An Internet presence is not only beneficial to lawyers in search of potential clients, it is essential. It is a very cost-effective means of communication and marketing. With approximately 64 million Internet users in the United States in 2001, a Web page can position any law firm as one that truly seeks to serve today's consumer. 

"You have to get yourself on the Internet" said Don Tapscott, in an online interview with Entrepreneur Magazine Online. "Five or 10 years ago, managers joked, 'Sure, I use a computer. It's on my secretary's desk.' Today comments like that don't get a laugh. Instead, people think 'What a loser!'[6]

One day an Internet presence may be a necessity for a law firm, but does that mean that online consultations should be the norm? Probably so. The Internet grows each day paradoxically becoming more efficient and more confusing. A correctly maintained Web site can offer quality introductory services for no cost. It can easily become the backbone of a niche market segment. Not many people would use Yahoo.com or Google.com if they had to pay for every search. But since these services are free and very reliable they are the most often-used directory and search engines on the Internet. The same argument can be made for free online consultations. There is nothing too useful about a law firm's Web site that only gives you attorney biographies and office locations. The more reliable and useful an Internet site is the more likely it is to be Bookmarked.[7] Having users bookmark a site is the goal of most Web masters.

Attorney's documents posted on the Internet are accessible to hundreds of millions of potential clients. The information's' popularity is only limited by the public's awareness of its accessibility and content. Hypertext documents provide an effective method to present information to the general populace. Creating World Wide Web documents and registering the site with larger Web sites improves the availability of the documents to a client base larger than the circulation of many major newspapers.[8]

Transferring documents online takes little time and saves money. A fact of life is that postal or courier services sometimes suffer late deliveries, damages, or even losses. If a document transfer on the Internet fails, it is simply sent again; the cost of the transfer is the same. Most, if not all, Internet access providers do not charge by the raw number of bytes transferred across their link unlike other commercial information services.[9] Therefore, an unlimited number of messages can be sent for a flat-fee. The major benefit of a self-diagnostic system is its low cost. Legal Opinion.com, for example, costs about forty dollars and allows a person to get legal advice from a licensed attorney

State bar associations handcuff attorneys by limiting how they advertise.[10] In most states, systems that act as referral services for attorneys have already been deemed liability free. It seems only logical that attorneys would want to participate in these services.

Historically, legal consumers relied on referrals made by friends, family members, and business associates. A free consultation site allows clients to solicit information critical to their situation directly from the attorneys themselves.

The problem is that even though Web access can be virtually free and cheap, demographically its users are not those in need.[11] Thus, the site may simply be a cheaper option for those who can afford legal services instead of a viable alternative for those who cannot.

Legal advice is commonly too expensive for the average citizen making it a luxury which some cannot afford.[12] Nationally, as little as one-quarter of low-income and one-third of middle-income households are having their legal needs met.[13]

The targeted users of this service are the low to middle-class. Wealthier consumers have the means to pay for an attorney and are generally more accustomed to seeking legal advice. Those of more modest means generally do not have computers or the leisure time to surf for legal advice.[14] Therefore, because the poor are not likely to use the Internet, the site does little to close the gap between those who need legal assistance and those who can afford it. But, in the end, that is no reason to not make the site.

The prohibitive cost of legal services is only one reason many people do not receive legal help. Some feel that seeking help is futile, while others exercise self-help or simply do not consider a situation to be a problem. A free consultation Web site may remove the barrier of cost for some. It is an alternative that includes rather than excludes attorneys, and thus, is more beneficial because it matches lawyers with clients.

The answer to meeting the needs of the poor for legal representation does not lie at the doorstep of unlicensed neighbors, relatives, or friends. Rather, at the doorstep of the bar itself, which needs to merge the current overabundance of lawyers, with the underrepresented needs of the poor.

But how can someone in need of legal services who is characteristically a victim of the digital divide benefit from a service that they may not even have access to in the first place?[15] The answer is simple; public libraries commonly have computers equipped with Internet access for members of the local community.[16] All someone would have to do is know where their local library is and how to point and click a mouse.

A self-help Web site serves to "demystify" the legal profession. Aside from being relatively cheap, self-help information also provides exposure to the law; increasing access to justice by informing the public about certain areas of the law, and thus empowering them as well. An informed person is a better client and feels more in control because she is familiar with the law.

Policy also favors allowing access to legal self-help information. Restricting access to information, and especially legal information, undermines democracy because power is concentrated in the hands of the few, precluding citizens from handling their legal problems. The American Association of Law Libraries opposes bans on self-help materials because they consider it "a threat to the rights of both the publisher and consumer."[17]

Denying access to justice is not merely a theoretical defect in the administration of justice; it has deep practical ramifications. People who lack knowledge of the law often see it not as a protector, but as an enemy which evicts them from their flat, victimizes them as consumers, cancels their welfare payments, binds them to usury, and seizes their children. This is why it is important that legal information is accessible to everyone.

Accessing information over the Internet is much faster on most occasions than transmissions and transfers via fax or postal courier services. You can access information from countries around the world and make interactive connections to remote computer systems just about anywhere.

The Internet’s interactive nature is both an asset and a liability. It provides increasingly specific service and information. Unfortunately, an increase in the interactivity of a legal self-help Web site is raising it to the level of practicing law.

As lawyers disseminate information electronically, reaching people without regard to geographic boundaries, the ABA regulated issue of the unauthorized practice of law arises. With few exceptions lawyers are only authorized to practice law in jurisdictions where they are licensed.[18] Certain communications on the Internet may subject them to liability for unauthorized practice of law.[19] Addressing this inquiry requires a two-stage approach. First, conduct that constitutes the practice of law must be identified; and second, it must be determined whether conduct identified as legal practice is unauthorized.

What constitutes the "practice of law" is not easy to define. Traditionally, the definition of "practice of law" has been left to the individual states, which have taken different approaches.[20] The Model Rules do not define the practice of law, but recently, the ABA Multidisciplinary Practice Commission posited the following definition for use in addressing multidisciplinary-practice (MDP) concerns.[21]

Under either a typical "practice of law" standard or the MDP definition, a lawyer expressing legal opinions or providing legal advice to an electronic-discussion participant in a chat room would be practicing law.[22] In this situation, the question of the attorney-client relationship would also be raised, as would the question of whether the lawyer is giving advice about the law in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not licensed to practice. However, stepping back from a substantive chat-room situation to e- mail or a Web site, what constitutes the practice of law is less clear. Posting information on a Web site, arguably, would not constitute the practice of law. [23]

As noted by the Nassau County, New York, Ethics Committee, "[a]dvertising out of state is not practicing out of state."[24] But e-mail communications, as contrasted with Web site postings, could raise practice of law claims, depending on the nature of the contact.

In Indiana, unauthorized practice is being used as a basis to sanction out-of-state law firms that send "solicitation letters to accident victims in violation of the rules governing such letters in the state where the victim resides."[25] Although rejected by the Supreme Court of Florida when adopting its new advertising and solicitation rules in December 1999, a proposed Florida rule took the position that it had jurisdiction over lawyers who advertised or solicited for legal employment in Florida, even if those lawyers were not admitted to practice law in Florida. The proposed Florida rule provided that "lawyers, whether or not admitted to practice law in Florida, who solicit or advertise for legal employment in Florida or who target solicitations or advertisements for legal employment at Florida residents, are engaging in the practice of law."[26]

The rules went on to state, however, that they were not applicable to advertising not intended for dissemination in Florida and not concerning the provision of legal services in Florida.[27] The proposed Texas rule provided that lawyers not licensed in Texas, who marketed their services in Texas, would be subject to potential unauthorized-practice-of-law sanctions.[28] This is but another example of how our traditional legal ethics rules based on individual state implementation fail to mesh with contemporary communications.

Ultimately, courts must decide whether using an interactive Web site is more like "reading a book," in which case accessing the site would be protected, or "talking to a person," which would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Self-help legal software poses two problems that are unique in the field of self-help materials. The first problem stems from the advanced technology that legal software utilizes. The second problem is that it is difficult to create software that is widely applicable yet sufficiently user-specific.

Quicken gives legal advice concerning documents and selects an appropriate document for the user, the UPLC alleges that this amounts to "interaction" with a "cyber-lawyer" and thus, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.[29] Because it actually analyzes users' problems, some argue it is performing a legal task. Others find this conclusion ridiculous. "What practices law? Does the software practice law? Does the disc? Is that practicing law? Is the hardware practicing law? These are ludicrous questions, but the whole thing is ludicrous.

Aside from interactive capabilities, it is difficult to create a program that is broad enough to be marketable and precise enough to address the specific needs of the user. The result is that often programs are created with a "one-size-fits-all mindset."

Simple transactions may be fraught with unforeseeable problems and abstract sub-issues. While self-help legal software can provide some measure of protection by providing the user with variations of standard documents, the computer’s analysis cannot consider existing subtle and intricate nuances between conflicting case law and public policy issues.

The UPLC therefore claims that the forms created by legal software such as Quicken are "incorrect and misleading."[30] 

Of equal importance is the concern that an unintended attorney-client relationship will be established over the Internet.[31] This concern is important because of the potential for conflicts between cases and already heavy caseloads. Lawyers must be particularly careful when using chat rooms and e-mail to avoid creating unwanted attorney-client relationships. Lawyers and law firms must also guard against receiving confidential information that could result in subsequent disqualification.

One lawyer has said that to talk about legal matters in public chat rooms is to invite disaster.[32] In online chat groups or conference areas, participants do not necessarily know each other. In addition, lawyers using these means to answer legal questions should, at a minimum, include a disclaimer that legal advice is not being given, the information exchanged is not confidential and no attorney-client relationship exists.[33] One approach is to post warnings not to provide confidential information.[34] Disclaimers are normally used to minimize risk. While it may be extreme to bar all participation in on-line chat rooms or discussion groups, lawyers should guard against creating an attorney client relationship and refrain from providing legal advice when answering legal questions over the Internet because of the anonymous nature of the audience.

Disclaimers are attractive to lawyers because they bolster avoiding liability for answers to questions that may subject the lawyer and his firm to suit.[35] Opinions differ on the viability of disclaimers and other efforts used to avoid committing other ethical violations in electronic communications. Some lawyers believe any electronic communication must be prefaced with a disclaimer that the communication is not advice and the recipient of the information should not act on it without first conferring with an attorney.[36] Others do not believe disclaimers are necessary or even helpful to avoid the associated risks.[37,38]

Disclaimers should comply with the ethical rules applicable to advertising and promotion.[39] William Hornsby believes that a disclaimer provides that in the event the information on the Web site is not consistent with the rules governing the communications of legal services the law firm is unwilling to accept the representation of clients who are generated as result of this Web site.[40]

Jeffrey Kuester, who chairs the NetEthics Committee of the State Bar of Georgia's Computer Law Section, wrote the following sample disclaimer:

This Web page is a public resource of general information that is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete and up-to- date. However, this Web page is not intended to be a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice. Thus the reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel in the reader's state. The owner does not intend links on the Web page to be referrals or endorsements of the linked entities, and the owner of this Web page will not accept referrals for employment from unregistered referral services. Furthermore, the owner of this Web page does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this Web page in a state where this Web page fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the use of Internet E-mail for confidential or sensitive information is discouraged.[41]

Everyone knows that the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Now technology poses a troubling new dilemma: What do we call a client who has a Web site for a lawyer? Well, we might call him unlucky. The prison-yard repartee can be heard now:

• Inmate No. 1: So, what are you in for?
• Inmate No. 2: Bad luck. My Web site formed an attorney-client relationship and on top of that practiced law without authorization all without me knowing.
• Inmate No. 1: Tough break. Was that Windows or Macintosh?

But really, which is more pathetic: Lawyers worried that they can be replaced by software, or clients hoping that software can replace lawyers?

On the one hand, lawyers are just trying to protect their turf. If an unsophisticated layperson can get a perfectly good initial consultation on a Web site for free, then they probably will not want to pay a lawyer. On the other hand, some Web site's cites were not trustworthy enough to allow me to complete this paper without incident. Entrusting a Web site with more important matters, such as a lease or my potential multi-million dollar case is frightening. Lastly, anyone who has ever filled out any kind of a registration form on the Web knows that it is not flawless. Those who use them take their chances.

The opportunities for lawyers in these turbulent times have never been more challenging. The laws governing e-commerce have yet to be written, as legal ethicists warn that some of the Internet legal services may be already violating ethics rules against fee-sharing, offering legal advice without a license, and the solicitation of clients. Lawyers need to be vigilant about the dangers posed by new, unconventional rivals, yet they must also take immediate steps to acquire new skills that will enable them to use emerging technologies in ways that exceed client expectations.

1  For discussion of the history of lawyer advertising, see Lori B. Andrews, Birth of a Salesman: Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (1980).

² http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/market/bizstori/my_counsel030101.shtml

^{3 Id.}

^{4 Id.}

^{5 Other examples include:}

Construction

• Family disputes
• General questions

• Injuries to yourself or your property
• Intellectual property
• Landlord and tenant
• Medical insurance

• Minor criminal offenses
• Probate, wills and trusts

• Real estate buying and selling
• Traffic and driving offenses

^{7 Bookmarking is a command that makes a Website easy to access by just pointing and clicking with out having to search the Web for it or type in the URL.}

⁸ http://www.cmcnyls.edu/bulletins/InetUp.HTM stating that, (A poll by Business Week reveals that 40 million people are browsing the Web, up from 21.5 million one year ago. The survey also shows that nearly 50% of Internet users are adults aged forty and older. Narrowing the gender gap between users, women now make up nearly 40% of all Internet users. However, Internet use is still dominated by whites, which make up 85% of all Internet users.

⁹ http://serverwatch.internet.com/servers.html

¹⁰ http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/seminar/papers/rappaport.htm

¹² http://www.gov.nt.ca/Publications/Handbook/07.htm study found that, (In 1997, the typical Internet user can be described as:

Male:

* 65% - 70% of users are male (based on a consensus of seven research sources), although female users are growing at a faster rate.

* The median age is 32 years old

* 70% are between 18 - 44 years old

* 70% of users have a college degree

* 63% are white collar workers

* The median household income is $60,000

* 41% of users report that they are married

* 41% say they are single

¹⁴ http://www.afn.org/~afn54735/legalneeds1.html

¹⁵ http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp5391017.html

^{16 About the Digital Divide: In just about every country, a certain percentage of people have the best information technology that society has to offer. These people have the most powerful computers, the best telephone service and fastest Internet service, as well as a wealth of content and training relevant to their lives.}

^{There is another group of people. They are the people who for one reason or another don’t have access to the newest or best computers, the most reliable telephone service or the fastest or most convenient Internet services. The difference between these two groups of people is what we call the Digital Divide.}

^{To be on the less fortunate side of the divide means that there is less opportunity to take part in our new information-based economy, in which many more jobs will be related to computers. It also means that there is less opportunity to take part in the education, training, shopping, entertainment and communications opportunities that are available on line. In general, those who are poor and live in rural areas are about 20 times more in danger of being left behind than wealthier residents of urban areas. That conclusion is from the} Falling Through the Net report published by the Commerce Department in July 1999.

17 http://www.research.umbc.edu/~bertot/ala97.html

18 http://www.nolo.com/texas/rights.html

19 There are limited exceptions to the licensing restriction, such as appearing pro hac vice, or, "for this turn only." With the permission of the court, lawyers are sometimes permitted to represent clients in jurisdictions where they are not admitted to practice. There is no right to appear pro hac vice. See Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 442 (1979). In fact, "[i]n some jurisdictions, the attorney must enlist a local attorney as co-counsel. This requirement is to assure compliance with local procedure and provide accountability to the court, although some argue that it is really an economic device to protect the local bar." Mortimer D. Schwartz et al., Problems in Legal Ethics 35 (1997).

20 See Catherine J. Lanctot & James E. Maule, The Internet--Hip or Hype? Legal Ethics and the Internet (on file with author). An Oregon formal opinion held that it was permissible for a lawyer to offer an online information system to the public in a for-profit joint venture with a non- lawyer. See Oregon State Bar Ass'n, Formal Op. 1994-137, [1997 Transfer Vol.] 9 Nat'l Rep. Legal Ethics (Univ. Pub. Am.) OR: opinions 2 (1994). The opinion found that the following factual situation did not constitute the promotion of the unlawful practice of law:

Lawyer wishes to engage in a joint venture for profit with a non-lawyer to offer an online legal information system to the public that would provide information not only on substantive law issues but also on procedural and jurisdictional matters, such as identifying applicable rules, fees, and forms. The purpose of the proposed online information service is not only to enable users to handle some legal matters themselves but also to advise them when they should contact a lawyer. When accessed through a computer terminal, the online system would pose questions to the user and generate responses derived from the system's database, without the direct participation of an employee. The service would provide the user with a file consisting of the system's questions, the user's responses and the information the system had provided. The proposed enterprise does not involve the sale or distribution of legal software. Id.

21 See Report of the Comm'n on Multidiciplinary Practice to the ABA House of Delegates, Prof. Law., Spring 1999, at 1, 6 n.2

22 [A]n MDP professional would be presumed to be practicing law if the individual:

• Prepares any legal document, including any deeds, mortgages, assignments, discharges, leases, trust instruments or any other instrument intended to affect interests in real or personal property, wills, codicils, instruments intended to affect the disposition of property of decedents' estates, documents relating to business and corporate transactions, other instruments intended to affect or secure legal rights, and contracts except routine agreements incidental to a regular course of business;
• Prepares or expresses legal opinions;
• Appears or acts as an attorney in any tribunal;
• Prepares any claims, demands, or pleadings of any kind, or any written documents containing legal argument or interpretation of law, for filing in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal;
• Provides advice as to how any of the activities described above could be accomplished in accordance with applicable law; or
• Furnishes an attorney or other person to render the above services.

²⁴ A law-firm Web site that is passive and offers nothing other than general information and advertising has been held not to constitute sufficient contact to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the firm. See Typical Law Firm Internet Web Site Does Not Yield Personal Jurisdiction, 15 Laws. Man. on Prof. Conduct (ABA/BNA) No. 9, at 212 (May 26, 1999) (citing Remick v. Manfredy, No. 99-CV-0025 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 1999)). Nassau County (N.Y.) Bar Ass'n, Comm. on Prof. Ethics, Op. 99-3 (1999). The panel noted that Internet advertising is not problematic as long as the jurisdiction(s) in which the lawyer is licensed to practice are identified. See id.

25 See Keith Forkin, Web Pages as Lawyer Advertising (on file with author).

26 Fla. Rules of Prof. Conduct Proposed Rule 3-1.3 (1998) (emphasis added).

27 See Fla. Rules of Prof. Conduct Proposed Rule 4-7.1(b). A condition to the rules' inapplicability is that the advertisement be "broadcast or disseminated in another jurisdiction in which the advertising lawyer is admitted" and that the advertisement comply "with the rules governing lawyer advertising in that jurisdiction." Fla. Rules of Prof. Conduct Proposed Rule 4- 7.1(b). South Carolina Supreme Court Rule 418, titled "Advertising and Solicitation by Unlicensed Lawyers," requires lawyers who are not licensed to practice law in South Carolina but who seek potential clients there to comply with the advertising and solicitation rules that govern South Carolina lawyers. See South Carolina Adopts Novel Court Rule on Ads, Solicitation by Out-of-State Lawyers, U.S.L.W., July 6, 1999, at 2006.

28 See Forkin, supra note 19.

29 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/exhibits/1999031701_uplc_v_parsons.html

30 Id.

31 Elizabeth Wasserman, Lawyers Market Their Wares Via World Wide Web, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Jul. 17, 1995, at 1A.

32 Maureen Castellano, Policing Cyberspace, N.J.L.J., Apr. 8, 1996, at 1. Comment attributed to William Voorhees, vice chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Special Committee on malpractice insurance.

33 The Internet is Virgin Territory, PA. L. WEEKLY, Apr. 1, 1996, at 7.

34 David Johnson, Professional Responsibility, COUNSEL CONNECT, Jul. 22, 1996.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Some attorneys believe disclaimers merely give comfort for attorneys. Todd Woody, An Internet Free-For-All, CONN. L. TRIB., Jun. 10, 1996, at 26. The comment is attributed to Jonathan Rosenoer, Vice President of Internet Services for North communications and formerly Executive Editor of California Counsel Connect.

39 Web pages should include the same disclaimers and information as other ads. Alicia Philley, The Bar as Cybercop; Despite Criticism; The Ad Review Panel Prepares To Patrol The Internet, TEX. LAWYER, Oct. 16, 1995, at 1.

40 Carol Sanders, Rush To Marketing Via Internet Could Snare Law Firms in Web of Advertising Rules, CHIC. D.L. BULL., Nov. 17, 1995, at 1.

41 Jeffrey Kuester, Attorney Sites Can Avoid Violations of Ethics Rules, NAT'L L.J., Aug. 12, 1996, at B11.

42 Todd Woody, An Internet Free For All, CONN. L. TRIB., Jun. 10, 1996, at 26.

44 Id.