Why Websites that Match Clients to Lawyers Are A Bad Idea
I came across this posting by the FCC today. The post isn’t really clear, but it appears that a few FCC folks have concluded that legal websites that match clients to lawyers should be permitted. I am not exactly sure why the FCC would weigh in on a state matter that is out of their jurisdiction, especially since they apparently do not know what they are talking about.
According to the FCC letter, the FCC concluded that legal matching websites would help reduce the cost of legal services for legal consumers. Apparently the thought is that by using these websites lawyers will bid down their hourly rates in an effort to get legal clients. This is a very simplistic and unrealistic conclusion.
The reality is that by allowing middlemen websites to impose themselves between legal consumers and lawyers, they are creating a scenario where the middlemen websites can charge lawyers exorbitant costs to use their services. Since law firms must pass on their expenses to legal consumers by way of their hourly billing rates, the exorbitant costs will be passed on to consumers of legal services. Thus, the only thing that websites that match clients to lawyers will have accomplished is to make the middlemen websites rich.
But the analysis shouldn’t end there. By sanctioning such third party websites that match clients to lawyers, states would be creating a situation where there is an unregulated middleman between the legal consumer and legal counsel. The result will be a whole host of unregulated middlemen who are able to solicit legal consumers in ways that attorneys cannot do themselves. This would only serve to encourage middlemen websites to step up their aggressive and often unethical marketing practices. We have already seen evidence of this in the aggressive and sometimes illegal online marketing by many of the largest legal matching type of websites.
If that is not bad enough, these non-lawyer middlemen will most likely compromise the attorney-client privilege. Without the attorney client privilege, clients who submit their legal concerns to a legal matching website may find that the information that they submitted to the website could be used against them in court. I can envision this information becoming standard fare in litigation discovery requests.
The bottom line is that attorney regulation is a state matter. For the most part, states have opted not to permit middlemen internet marketing websites to drive up the costs of legal services or to compromise the attorney client priviledge.
According to the FCC letter, the FCC concluded that legal matching websites would help reduce the cost of legal services for legal consumers. Apparently the thought is that by using these websites lawyers will bid down their hourly rates in an effort to get legal clients. This is a very simplistic and unrealistic conclusion.
The reality is that by allowing middlemen websites to impose themselves between legal consumers and lawyers, they are creating a scenario where the middlemen websites can charge lawyers exorbitant costs to use their services. Since law firms must pass on their expenses to legal consumers by way of their hourly billing rates, the exorbitant costs will be passed on to consumers of legal services. Thus, the only thing that websites that match clients to lawyers will have accomplished is to make the middlemen websites rich.
But the analysis shouldn’t end there. By sanctioning such third party websites that match clients to lawyers, states would be creating a situation where there is an unregulated middleman between the legal consumer and legal counsel. The result will be a whole host of unregulated middlemen who are able to solicit legal consumers in ways that attorneys cannot do themselves. This would only serve to encourage middlemen websites to step up their aggressive and often unethical marketing practices. We have already seen evidence of this in the aggressive and sometimes illegal online marketing by many of the largest legal matching type of websites.
If that is not bad enough, these non-lawyer middlemen will most likely compromise the attorney-client privilege. Without the attorney client privilege, clients who submit their legal concerns to a legal matching website may find that the information that they submitted to the website could be used against them in court. I can envision this information becoming standard fare in litigation discovery requests.
The bottom line is that attorney regulation is a state matter. For the most part, states have opted not to permit middlemen internet marketing websites to drive up the costs of legal services or to compromise the attorney client priviledge.
| comments: 0 permanent link email article to a friend: go back |
