I was recently talking with a lawyer who said that a good portion of the law is just going through a legal process. He said that when he teaches a new lawyer about a process he first explains how to do it, then lets the lawyer do it with his oversight, then let’s him go on his own. So if you had a site that walked a non-lawyer through the same process with lawyer oversight, it seems you would reach the same result. This is what eLawyering is about. Richard Ganat is doing this as explained in article in the Wired magazine. Here’s a quick explanation:
Granat, who runs his own law firm and cochairs the American Bar Association’s task force on elawyering, has designed and marketed a number of Web tools that walk people through common legal procedures. He created a child-support calculator, for example, which assists couples going through relatively amicable divorces. There’s also a tool to help people decide whether they need Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. These widgets then generate legal forms, which may be reviewed by a licensed attorney who can make suggestions or offer advice over the phone.
Granat predicts this will be the way law is practiced in the next five years or so. I think this will happen when you can get lawyers who think this way with programmers who can make it happen. These two groups just don’t seem to bump into each oher that often.
I wanted to announce that I’ve started a new ethics and compliance consulting company called Vellum LLC. This is a pretty exciting step in my career and I look forward to all of the opportunities that it will provide. I especially look forward to the opportunity to helping improve companies. I believe that ethical companies are stronger and last longer. I want to be a part of helping companies achieve that goal.
There are a number of times where I’m in a discussion with my wife and she’ll say, “you’re thinking like a lawyer.” It’s as if she snaps her fingers to get me out of a trance. Here’s how the trance sounds: “The law says ….” “Do you know what the legal risks are?” “What about litigation?” “You need to do this to protect yourself from a lawsuit.” “The law could be looked at this way or it could be looked at another way.”
But the snap of the fingers is a reminder to me that there is so much more than thinking like a lawyer. After-all we’re all human. We’re born with an innate sense of right and wrong. We know what honesty is. We know what fairness is. We know what compassion is.
But why do lawyers forget about all this and become some focused on the threat that someday the contract, the statement, the email, or something else may end up in court. I think that it’s important to explain to clients the legal risks, but the advice should not stop there. It should also include a discussion about honesty, fairness, compassion, and the like. You’ll be a much better lawyer for doing so.
That’s what the University of Michigan Health System does (see MSNBC article). They admit mistakes up front and offer compensation before being sued. And guess what? They’re saving lots of money with this approach. More importantly, they’re creating good will and good feelings with their patients. Think about the time they save. The time spent going to depositions and to court. The time spent managing outside counsel. The time spent gathering records for interrogatories. On top of that, this approach removes the anxiety and stress of a lawsuit.
This all is very good legal advice. I’m sure the lawyers explained the legal risks associated with this approach. I’m sure they made the hospital aware of the laws. I don’t know if they advised the hospital on this approach, but if they did, it looks like it has achieved good results. To me that seems much better than advising them to prepare for the battle of litigation.