 |
| |
|
Summer 2006 Attorney Newsletter
|
Welcome to the Summer 2006 issue of The Legal Chamber, the official LegalMatch Member
Attorney newsletter. At LegalMatch, connecting the right attorney with the right client is our
mission. Included in this issue is the recent Texas Bar opinion specifically allowing LegalMatch
to operate in Texas, the Federal Trade Commission opinion specifically stating that the way
LegalMatch operates is consistent with existing legal ethics rules, the predicted expansion of
Online Legal Matching in 2007, and the Top Ten Jury Verdicts of 2005.
First, a bit of trivia... Supreme Court History
Which case declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution?
(find the answer to this question at the end of this newsletter)
In this issue:
What you need to know:
Texas State Bar approves automated online legal matching services
The Professional Ethics Committee of the State Bar of Texas recently released Opinion 573
in support of permitting Texas lawyer participation in for-profit Internet websites that
help match attorneys with people seeking legal representation.
An earlier opinion by the Texas Ethics Committee, issued in October 2005, might have been
read to preclude any for-profit Internet legal services from operating in Texas. The Texas
Ethics Committee has now made clear that its earlier opinion concerned only legal matching
services that could exercise discretion in deciding which potential clients to match with
which lawyers.
The Texas Ethics Committee declared that a legal matching service — such as LegalMatch —
is permitted if it does not use discretion, but instead automates the process of matching
potential clients to attorneys using geography and legal subject areas. Removing individual
discretion removes ethical concerns that arise when non-lawyers "steer" or "run" cases to
lawyers for profit. Instead of "steering" clients to lawyers, LegalMatch uses the Internet
to help lawyers and clients find each other.
top
What you need to know:
FTC was asked by LegalMatch to voice their opinion on Online Legal Matching, and they have
The Federal Trade Commission recently released its position regarding the great potential of
online legal matching services to benefit consumers seeking legal counsel. The FTC determined
that online legal matching services have the potential to lower the costs of obtaining information
about the price and quality of legal services.
In a seven-page letter dated May 26, 2006, from the FTC Offices of Policy Planning, Bureau of
Competition, and Bureau of Economics, the committee wrote to the Professional Ethics Committee
of the Texas State Bar giving their opinion on whether or not it is ethical for Texas attorneys
to participate in online legal matching services. Bar Association Ethical Rule 7.03 prohibits
lawyers from paying a non-lawyer to solicit clients, except for paying normal advertising fees.
The question at hand was: Does Rule 7.03 also prohibit lawyers from participating in online legal
matching services? The opinion of the FTC, supported by three different internal departments and
agreed to by a unanimous vote of commission members, is "No, it does not."
For a detailed copy of the FTC's opinion letter regarding this matter (in Adobe pdf format), please
visit the following URL:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/05/V060017CommentsonaRequestforAnEthicsOpinionImage.pdf
top
What you need to know:
Online legal searches are expected to double by 2007, with more to follow
The manner in which attorneys locate and pre-screen qualified clients is undergoing a revolution
as the legal services category continues to grow at a record pace. Currently, over $70 billion is
spent annually in the U.S. by individual consumers on legal services, and that number is expected
to reach $82.5 billion by 2008 (source: Euromonitor International). Driving the revolution in
client acquisition is Online Legal Matching (OLM). Over 4 million consumers conduct online searches
for legal services each month. By 2007, an increase to over 7 million searches per month is expected.
["The Internet and Daily Life," Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C. August 11, 2004]
This is clear evidence that the legal industry will most likely follow the financial services,
media & entertainment, telecommunication and travel industries, each of which have been
revolutionized by the Internet. Consumers are embracing these new ways of conducting business
as they prefer to make empowered and informed decisions, quickly and from the comfort and
safety of their own homes; their search for a lawyer ought to be no different.
The revolution of client acquisition has made serving the interests of the legal consumer and
the legal community simultaneously, a much simpler task. Both consumers and attorneys are now
recognizing real advantages in non-traditional methods of locating one another, such as Online
Legal Matching. OLM allows consumers to present their legal cases in a confidential manner to
qualified, prescreened attorneys in their geographic location who, based on a consumer's specific
needs, practice the required type of law.
top
What you need to know:
The top ten jury verdicts of 2005
from Lawyers USA, 41 West St., Boston, MA 02111
#10 — Family Wins $61.2M in Rollover Case
In the ninth loss for Ford Motor Company in Explorer model rollover cases, a Florida jury
awarded $61.2 million to the parents of an 18-year-old boy who was killed in a 1997 accident.
#9 — Jet Pilot Wins $64 Million for Age Discrimination
In early December, a Los Angeles jury found that PrivatAir — an aviation company
specializing in private airline services — wrongfully terminated Captain Doyle D. Baker
on the basis of his age, defaming him in the process and causing extreme emotional distress.
#8 — $65 Million for Electrocuted Sixth-Grader
Three years after a jury acquitted a Florida company of criminal manslaughter charges, a
civil jury hit the outdoor advertiser with a $65 million verdict for the electrocution of
a sixth-grade boy.
#7 — $65.5M To Widow in Estate Planning Case
In February, a prominent Houston-based law firm and a Texas bank were slammed with a $65.5
million verdict in a complex estate planning case that involved major conflicts of interest.
#6 — Small Promoter Wins $90 Million against Giant
In a David and Goliath type tale, an Illinois jury awarded an events promoter $90 million
— most of it in punitive damages — against one of the nation's largest entertainment
promoters, Clear Channel Communications of Chicago.
#5 — Beer Vendor Held Liable in $135 Million
In the largest liquor liability verdict in the nation, a New Jersey jury last January found
the beer concession at Giants Stadium in New York liable for a drunken football fan who caused
a car crash that paralyzed a 2-year-old girl.
#4 — $164 Million Verdict (Slashed to $5 Million)
Moments before a Florida jury returned with its $164 million verdict last July, plaintiffs'
attorney Arthur Tifford agreed to a high-low agreement that capped the defendant's liability
at $5 million.
#3 — Texas Jury Awards $253 Million from Vioxx
Plaintiffs scored a major victory in the ongoing Vioxx litigation last August when a Texas
jury awarded $253.1 million in the first trial.
#2 — Overdose Leads to $606 Million Verdict
In what may be one of the last massive medical malpractice verdicts in Texas, a state jury
awarded $606 million — including a remarkable $600 million in punitive damages —
to the family of an 82-year-old cancer patient who died after receiving an overdose of
chemotherapy drugs.
#1 — Billionaire Investor Awarded $1.45 Billion
In 2005's largest verdict to an individual plaintiff, a Florida jury last May ordered Morgan
Stanley to pay $1.45 billion to investor Ronald O. Perelman for defrauding him in the sale of
his Coleman camping gear company.
top
Trivia Answer:
Which case declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution?
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute that it considered
repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided
over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary
— and in particular, the Supreme Court — to determine the constitutionality
of the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the
current power of the Supreme Court.
Look for more trivia and more LegalMatch news in the next issue of The Legal Chamber.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| Copyright 1999-2006 LegalMatch.com. All rights reserved. |
|
|
