The reality of the virtual law firm

Yesterday, legal marketing/social media maven Larry Bodinehosted a two-hour Twitter conversation (or —seriously— “Value Tweet”) on virtual law firms.  Virtual firms, or “virtual law offices”—the terminology appears to be unsettled and the participants seemed to use them interchangeably—are, by Bodine’s definition, “a network of remote lawyers, unified by a small central office, all using email, phone, the web & webcams.”  All of the tweets from the event can be found by searching for “#mhvt.” 

The event featured plenty of interesting, 140-characters-at-a-time discussion about how to define a virtual firm, their use and benefits (for clients and attorneys), the specific practice areas most amenable to a virtual lawyering, and VLO marketing. The host kicked things off by asking: “Are virtual law firms a real alternative to BigLaw?”

Some sample tweets in response:

@LarryBodine With VLF, client reaches atty by phone, email, fax, fedex. Can talk via Skype or webcam. What is the BigLaw advantage?

@stephkimbro: Virtual law firms allow smaller firms and solos to compete with larger firms by providing unbundled legal services

@lancegodardWhy is the current model better? The status quo is people don't trust lawyers. Virt. space is more personable than now.

@ShatterboxVox The issue for client is not VLF vs. trad firm, it is how do I get the results looking for w/ the resources I have.

@jeffrey_brandt What are clients buying? Value? Reputation? I would submit they are buying a result.

Here are few “good examples of successful VLOs” mentioned in the conversation:

•   IllinoisDivorce.com

•   Rice Family Law

•   Olea LLP

•  

Obviously, these firms are simply not in any direct competition with the largest firms.  Though I didn’t read all 30-odd pages of the proceeding’s transcript (tweet-script?), yesterday’s event seemed to be less concerned with those new model firms who are challenging BigLaw in its core strengths, e.g. Virtual Law Partners. 

Of course, at many points, the #mhvt discussion became a forum for cataloguing the various structural flaws and cultural failings of the large law firm model: “not sure if big law has much of a community left” and “biglaw devoid of community, culture, life, sense of humor, etc.”  Greg Lambert of 3 Geeks and a Law Blog pushes back against the idea that “BigLaw is a machine that is slow, deaf, expensive and does nothing by suck the souls right out of anyone that has ever gotten within 50 feet of one of its art laden reception areas.” 

The same people that were complaining that BigLaw was bloated and paid their first year associates too much, were some of the same people that started complaining that it was unfair for BigLaw to cut attorneys and staff, reduce associate salaries, and break out of lock-step promotions. If anything, I'd have to say that the current economy woes have caused BigLaw to act more like a business than it ever has. […]

As for BigLaw firms having 'culture' or 'personality', most of us that work at these firms understand that we got culture and personality up to our eyeballs. … even a sense of humor (MoFo's is pretty apparent.) One recent example[:] Bracewell & Giuliani had a "Master of Everything" position listed on its directory. Apparently, that little bit of information has made the rounds among the senior partners at B&G in the form of a string of email jokes with partners asking who this person is,* and why he or she is not working for directly for them!

See?  Jokes! Moreover, Lambert points out, no major firms have failed since Heller and Thelen and lots of firms have some sort of social media presence.  So there.

                                                                                         -posted by brian

*Isn’t it so obviously Rudy?