In the course of trying to get some background information on a local lawyer I’d never heard of recently, I stumbled on a website called Law Guru. I hated it from the outset because of the name, but that’s just me and is no reason for anyone else to think ill of it. An email sent out by Law Guru, on the other hand, provides a really good reason.
Dear Member Attorneys:
It has always been our mission to improve and increase the public’s access to affordable and reliable legal information and resources. In early February we wrote that we were developing a new system that in addition to allowing users to continue to submit free questions like they always have, would also allow our users to choose to pay a small fee to have access to additional features for their legal question (e.g. expedited answers, privacy options, enhanced communication with the attorney, etc.). Participation in this new paid system by our member attorneys would be purely optional and would have the potential to provide them with a nice additional revenue stream.
We received a significant response to this announcement. Most loved the idea, but others expressed concerns regarding such ethical issues as fee-splitting and attorney-client relationships. Because LawGuru has always been about our community of lawyers, we listened and took the concerns very seriously. Over the last four months, we hired some of the nation’s leading ethics attorneys and with their help, reexamined and redesigned the system to address these concerns.
Today we are happy to announce the introduction of LawGuru Answers! The key difference between this process and the process described in our February message is that now the users submitting paid questions and the answering attorney will be entering into a limited representation agreement which will create an attorney-client relationship which is limited in both scope (only involves the answer to the question) and duration (ends when the answer is delivered to and accepted by the user). Although a recent phenomenon, these types of agreements (also known as unbundled services) are gaining popularity and believed to be an integral part of the future of legal representation.
And I thought Avvo Answers had problems. I wouldn’t even imagine anyone coming up with this. Not in my wildest dreams. The founder of Law Guru, Bahman Eslamboly, apparently has a different vision than I do. This may well be his wildest dream.
So the deal is that users submit legal questions on a website, pay the fee (which is no longer fee splitting, because they now take one fee and split into two), and await an answer. On the other side of a computer, it gets sent to a lawyer who indicates that he wants to answer these questions for a fee, and he’s got 2 hours to do so. If he isn’t around, the question gets kicked to another lawyer of a similar level of hunger and desperation.
Are the lawyers appropriate, competent, interested? I dunno. I’m sure Law Guru will explain that they are highly qualified. I bet if they were highly qualified they wouldn’t be answering questions on Law Guru. How much do they charge per question? How much goes to the lawyer? What’s required in return? Research? A cogent answer? A correct answer?
And what of the questions? We’ve all seen the type and quantum of information that non-lawyers provide when the want an answer to a very important question. It’s never adequate, and often only partially accurate.
And when the lawyer responds and things don’t work out, whether because the lawyer is an incompetent buffoon or the question omitted salient facts?
The social media folks keep telling me that law is going to be different in the 21st Century, though none has ever explained what the heck they are talking about. Is this what they are referring? If this is the future. I pass.
Yesterday, Carolyn Elefant posted at My Shingle about lawyers getting referrals from a business named Foreclosure Solutions, one of those companies that purports to help consumers avoid foreclosure run by non-lawyers. The gig involved signing and filing pleadings while the company tried to renegotiate mortgage loans. It landed the lawyers in hot water.
So the deal is that users submit legal questions on a website, pay the fee (which is no longer fee splitting, because they now take one fee and split into two), and await an answer. On the other side of a computer, it gets sent to a lawyer who indicates that he wants to answer these questions for a fee, and he’s got 2 hours to do so. If he isn’t around, the question gets kicked to another lawyer of a similar level of hunger and desperation.
Are the lawyers appropriate, competent, interested? I dunno. I’m sure Law Guru will explain that they are highly qualified. I bet if they were highly qualified they wouldn’t be answering questions on Law Guru. How much do they charge per question? How much goes to the lawyer? What’s required in return? Research? A cogent answer? A correct answer?
And what of the questions? We’ve all seen the type and quantum of information that non-lawyers provide when the want an answer to a very important question. It’s never adequate, and often only partially accurate.
And when the lawyer responds and things don’t work out, whether because the lawyer is an incompetent buffoon or the question omitted salient facts?
The social media folks keep telling me that law is going to be different in the 21st Century, though none has ever explained what the heck they are talking about. Is this what they are referring? If this is the future. I pass.
Yesterday, Carolyn Elefant posted at My Shingle about lawyers getting referrals from a business named Foreclosure Solutions, one of those companies that purports to help consumers avoid foreclosure run by non-lawyers. The gig involved signing and filing pleadings while the company tried to renegotiate mortgage loans. It landed the lawyers in hot water.
File this story under “What were they thinking?” That was my first reaction when I read this disciplinary decision, Cincinnati Bar Association v. Mullaney, in which three lawyers were sanctioned for partnering up with Foreclosure Solutions, a non-lawyer company which referred the lawyers foreclosure cases (yes, that’s right – cases where folks were about to lose their homes!) for $125, then $150 a matter.
Would you sell your ticket for $125? While the Law Guru letter doesn’t state how much they are paying per answer, I can’t imagine it would be more than that. Likely less. Maybe even much less. Just how desperate can one get to be willing to take the risk, and do the harm, for a few bucks?
Edit: We now know exactly how much LawGuru will spend to buy it’s lawyers’ souls:
Suddenly, $125 to sign and file pleadings sounds pretty good. Although, they probably require the attorney signing pleadings to spell his name correctly. LawGuru imposes no similar burdens.
Even if you are one of those lawyers who can’t manage to get a client, even though you’ve carefully followed the 13 steps to legal success via twitter and twinkies, and see this as your last chance to pay for dinner, try to maintain some dignity please. This is as humiliating as it gets, for all and to all. A new low for what used to be known as the legal profession.
Edit: We now know exactly how much LawGuru will spend to buy it’s lawyers’ souls:
Cost. The cost of a paid question will be initially set at $29 for all legal areas. This will include the venue fee of $11 to LawGuru.com and a $18 fee to the attorney who answers the question. The attorney fees will be paid monthly via check or PayPal.
Suddenly, $125 to sign and file pleadings sounds pretty good. Although, they probably require the attorney signing pleadings to spell his name correctly. LawGuru imposes no similar burdens.
Even if you are one of those lawyers who can’t manage to get a client, even though you’ve carefully followed the 13 steps to legal success via twitter and twinkies, and see this as your last chance to pay for dinner, try to maintain some dignity please. This is as humiliating as it gets, for all and to all. A new low for what used to be known as the legal profession.
Just so we’re clear, these non-lawyer schemes cannot survive without the aid and cooperation of lawyers. If we refuse to become complicit in these schemes, they die and go away. Only through our complicity can they exist. We can stop these things from happening by refusing to be party to it. We can stop them.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fee for Advice Sites Pose Traps for the Unwary
Originally, I intended to simply file an approving comment on Simple Justice blogger Scott Greenfield’s cautionary expose about Law Guru, but Scott’s post is so important, that it demands additional circulation. Scott reports on a new initiative by Law Guru.com,…
Rare indeed is the client who can pose a question that can be answered with meaningful and useful information. Being a lawyer means not just being able to answer questions, it means knowing what the relevant questions are. I can’t see how an answer to a incomplete, off-point question is worth even $29.
It is nigh impossible to give meaningful legal advice without first fleshing out the facts. I peruse these websites, and have never seen a question that contained enough information. As often as not, the question seems to miss the real issue entirely.
Beyond giving general information and recommending that the questioner go speak to a lawyer for real, there’s not much more one can say in an answer. It’s bad enough when it’s free — it seems like a total waste of money to pay $29 just to have a lawyer tell you he needs more information.
Finally, the Nightmare. The Beast. Maynard’s Law.
Might have some application work for much of the insurance defense bar, though; it has a built-in passion for mediocrity.
Query (and serious one): Why not train paralegals both develop and try PI cases (on both sides–plaintiff and insurance defense). Paralegals could do a large percentage of these disputes from A to Z. Not all. But a lot of them. 80% and maybe more.
If it seems like I generally look down on the PI bar, the answer is that I generally do. So should you. This is the lowest of the low for often non-obvious reasons. Start here: clients as mere equipment in a game played by lawyers with built in conflicts on both sides.
I have been there and seen it, ‘Bubba. And I have asked insurance companies to fire the attorneys they assigned to clients’ cases covered by insurance. Sometimes twice in one case. It’s the least I can do.
And how does LawGuru define “one question”? This reminds me of Monty Python’s “argument clinic”:
“I’m sorry, that’s two questions, not one two-part question, so if you want me to go on advising you you’ll have to pay another $29.”
“No, it’s not.”
I love that skit.
I’ve participated in lawguru for years. I regard it as part of my pro bono activity. Most of the questioners just can’t afford a lawyer. Even an answer that points out some of the issues, without offering answers, may be helpful.
With the recent change in its structure, noted by your post above, I’m not so sure about participating. No way will I accept the “for pay” questions, for the reasons mentioned by the post and earlier comments. Worse yet, the “free” questions are now restricted, in that if another lawyer is considering answering, no one else may. And if 2 hours have passed since the question was posted, it expires!
The old model allowed as many lawyers as wanted to post answers, and did not expire.
I think the change is a disservice to clients/questioners and to lawyers.
n fairness to LawGuru, I received an answer to my complaint from them within hours of my sending it.
They will be changing how the “free” questions will be offered, so that any attorney can answer a free question at any time without an exclusive hold or expiration.
The “free answers” are as bad, if not worse, than the paid answers for the same reasons as Avvo answers, which has been previously discussed at length here. It’s dangerous, and no competent attorney should participate, encourage or enable garbage like this. This is not pro bono. This is self-promotion at the expense of competency.
If you want to answer people’s questions for free, then invite them to your office, obtain an adequate understanding of their problems and offer them advice if you are competent to do so. Pro bono is wonderful, and I strongly encourage, but do it right and do it in a way that benefits the clients. Don’t do free answers on Law Guru unless your purpose is to promote yourself at the expense of integrity, competence and the unfortunate individuals who don’t understand why these free advice sites are dangerous.
Ah. So it’s faux bono, not pro bono.
It all depends on your intention in participating, and the disclaimers, clearly communicated, that the answer is NOT legal advice.
I agree that some of the participating lawyers on LG are self serving and barely even acknowledge the subject before saying “call me.”
There are others who give thoughtful answers.
LG is not the extent, or even a small part of the pro bono service I do. I also do not just recast legal matters for which I do not collect my fees as pro bono. I provide totally free legal services to clients who have been income-qualified by pro bono agencies.
Not that I’m being defensive.
But being high and mighty, having only black and white views of the world, and not seeing the gradients, just make for superficial opinions. In my view.
Not that you’re being defensive…
When it comes to integrity and competence, there is no alternative to black and white, Miriam. Honesty and integrity are not wiggly lines, where you get to flop wherever it suits your self interest, and spread delusional crap to pretend to be a great humanitarian. I’m very happy to hear the good works you do pro bono, and had no reason to expect anything less of you.
But please don’t expect anyone to buy your utter load of crap that you give free answers on Law Guru because you only want to help people. If you believe that, you’re either a liar, delusional or an ignoramus. Attacking me to cover your butt isn’t going to make you less so. That you don’t grasp the problem with these freebie sites, however, makes me wonder whether your giving advice, for free ot otherwise, offers much benefit.
You are obviously defensive. And you have good reason to be.
I participated somewhat regularly – never requesting that the person contact me directly, but hoping I added some value. I am gone with the recent changes and I may even delete my profile from the site. I did not use the site for clients, and it is not worth even a .00001% risk that a malpractice/bar issue arises. I have checked some of the other regular posters in the area and see little to no participation by them after the switch. I expect the regular soliciting lawyers (personal injury, employment, wc, etc.) will keep going but maybe that is just a bias based on most of their responses. I would not be surprised to see profiles and answers have coupons, $xx off the bill, etc., to get past the LawGuru fee.
“Most of the questioners just can’t afford a lawyer” according to Miriam. I doubt that LG vetted process of the financial means of the questioners that hit on it. And if not, I assume that many or most of them can pay a consultation fee, face-to-face with a specialist in an office, for however long it takes, which is the right way. I assume that they can pay — but they won’t. You know how people are about money.
So. Whoever can’t afford advice, doesn’t get advice. Just like whoever can’t afford to get represented, doesn’t get represented. IMO. Unless of course I decide to work for free.
But you cannot develop a face-to-face relationship on these sites. Therefore you cannot know enough about a questioner on which to base a rational decision whether to work for free, or for that matter for a fee-split $18 per question, the idea of which makes my hair stand on end.
We are professionals. I for one avoid being used.
These problems are among the raft of other practical and ethical problems.
I’m not an attorney. I love LawGuru. Sometimes you just want to know what the rules are in your state. And it’s very entertaining if nothing else. Reading the answers to deadbeat parents (“Yes, you must provide financially for your young spawn”) and criminals (” Maybe you should just go to that hearing before you get you dumb thrown in jail”) is very amusing. And I always learn something I didn’t know before. It may not be great representation, but it does provide a service
This is where the concerns differ between lawyer and non-lawyer. You find it entertaining? Do you know if the information is sound or utter nonsense? If you plan to rely on legal information in conducting your affairs, would you be more concerned that it entertain you or was correct and accurate?
Are you seeing the issue? Would you love LawGuru as much if a very entertaining bit of advice landed you or your child in jail?