American Prepaid Legal Service Institute

Wayne Moore's full two-part article about his approach to expanding your law practice

Many solo practitioners and small firms need more paying clients. And, many people with legal problems never use lawyers. The question explored by this article is: How can these lawyers convince these people to use their services?

A few years ago this question would have been interpreted to mean: How can these lawyers deliver services that are more affordable and accessible? This interpretation derived from the prevailing view that the barriers to hiring lawyers were cost and the inability "to find a good lawyer." It turns out that this conclusion is wrong.

Studies conducted by the ABA and others conclude that the major problem is that many middle-income people who need legal help decide not to contact lawyers. They either go elsewhere, solve the problem themselves or do nothing at all. Thus the real question that must be answered is: How can lawyers convince consumers who are not inclined to legal help from lawyers to use their services?

While it may appear that these two questions are really the same, their answers are fundamentally different. The response to the first question focuses on the lawyers' methods of practice, productivity and marketing techniques, which ultimately decide cost and accessibility. The answer to the second question focuses on consumer behavior and how this behavior can be changed.

The need to change consumer behavior suggests that the solution may be a clever marketing campaign that convinces these consumers to contact lawyers or contact a resource that can find them a good lawyer such as a lawyer referral service or legal services plan. However, existing research indicates that this approach is likely to fail. This conclusion is supported by comparing the results of the 1977 and 1994 ABA Legal Needs Surveys and the developments in legal services delivery that took place during that interval.

Between 1977 and 1994 there was a virtual explosion in the marketing and delivery of legal services. During this period, legal clinics were born, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed lawyer advertising, the prepaid legal services movement took off, and a host of other innovations such as private lawyer referral services and legal hotlines came into being. Yet the studies' results indicate that all these changes only affected the way 6% of consumers found their lawyers. One could therefore draw the conclusion that consumer behavior regarding the use of lawyers is not easily influenced by marketing or innovative delivery techniques.

The better approach is to study what these consumers actually do when confronted with a legal problem. The 1994 ABA Legal Needs Survey found that 38% try to solve the problem on their own and 20% get help from someone who is not a lawyer. The rest don't do anything. Unfortunately the legal needs research doesn't explore who these non-lawyer helpers are or what self-help techniques are being used. But, other available information sheds light on these self-help techniques and non-lawyer helpers. For example, the self-help law book business is doing well, many people are purchasing computer software to prepare legal documents, and the independent paralegal and document preparation businesses appear to be alive and well. Websites with legal information and document preparation capabilities receive significant traffic.

Thus, while these consumers are not contacting lawyers, there is considerable evidence that they are contacting sources of legal information and document preparation. And, these sources appear to be making good money in providing this information and service.

The reaction of lawyers to this situation has often been to discourage consumers from settling for a "substandard" substitute for lawyer services - largely to no avail. Instead of opposing this consumer behavior, what would happen if lawyers tried to accommodate it and respond positively? Why can't lawyers profit from selling books, software, document generation services and the like, instead of ceding this market to non-lawyers?

Lawyers could probably provide these services better than non-lawyers. They could direct consumers to the right book or piece of software for their needs and steer them away from inferior products. They could train and monitor the quality of the services of document preparation staff.

The likely reaction to this suggestion is disbelief at asking lawyers to provide what appear to many as ancillary services at best. It is perfectly reasonable for many people, particularly those of limited means, to first want to try to address a legal problem on their own. And most lawyers would agree that these consumers should try to gather as much legal information and advocacy tools as possible for this self-help task. If these consumers can resolve their own problems, they should be congratulated. If they can't, they may decide to turn to the professional services of a lawyer for help. If they do seek a lawyer, their self-help experience would have created two benefits for the lawyer. First, these clients should now have the background to better understand the lawyer's advice. Second, they will probably better appreciate the value of the lawyer's services.

Lastly, if a lawyer helps these consumers with their self-help effort, the consumer is probably more likely to retain this lawyer when the self-help effort fails. This is another reason why lawyers should facilitate, rather than oppose a self-help approach.

Admittedly, lawyers are likely to have several legitimate concerns about supporting self-help activities, including possible exposure to malpractice claims if the consumer suffers a negative consequence and the loss of business from current clients who now chose to pursue the self-help route. The malpractice issue has been raised in connection with most other innovations in legal services delivery. When legal hotlines began, there was concern that telephone advice would generate many malpractice suites. Yet I am unaware of any such lawsuit in my 17 years of operating and supporting legal hotlines. Hotlines essentially provide self-help guidance to consumers and they are usually very grateful for the help and do not blame the hotline services if the help doesn't result in positive outcomes. Similarly, someone is unlikely to sue the seller of a book or piece of software (with the proper disclaimers) when it doesn't do the job.

It is true that some current clients may opt for self-help services, but in the balance, lawyers should ultimately receive more business. One fear of non-users of lawyers is that lawyers will provide more services than they need. The fact that many lawyers continue to charge by the hour, rather than a flat fee, fuels this mistrust. Many consumers would be impressed by a lawyer who offered an inexpensive approach before undertaking full representation.

Lawyers willing to embrace this new idea might consider adding a "law store" component to their practice. By this I mean, the "law store" office would have two parts. The front of the store would be devoted to self-help services and managed by a non-lawyer employed by the firm. The back portion of the store would be lawyers' offices.

The store would be located in a strip mall or other business district that has walk-by traffic. The self-help portion of the store would contain legal books, software and forms for sale. The centerpiece of this portion of the store would be a document generation service. In accordance with a schedule of fees, a customer could: (1) sit at a computer in the office and generate a wide range of legal pleadings and documents using a document generation software, (2) complete a detailed intake form and have the office staff generate the pleadings or documents by entering information from the form into the document generation software, or (3) receive a password, go home and access a password controlled web-based document preparation software. The software would be easy to use requiring the user to only answer a series of questions. If the customer generated the documents themselves, the cost would be 50-70% of the cost charged if the office produced the documents. An additional amount could be charged if the lawyer was asked to review the prepared documents.

There is a considerable profit margin in document generation services. For example, a document- generation service in Connecticut charges the following rates: Divorce -$ 349; Bankruptcy-$ 199; Incorporation-$ 399; Living Trust-$ 399; Wills-$ 99

Yet the cost of having the customer or office staff generate the documents is a fraction of this amount. I estimate that if a solo's "law store" prepared nine of these sets of documents a day (five produced by the clients and four by the store staff), the gross income could be $ 20,000 per month. Net income from the sale of books, software and forms could be another $ 3000 per month.

The investment in converting to a law store is not out of reach for many solos and small firms. A store with 700-900 sq ft of space should be sufficient for a solo. There should be four workstations for customers, each equipped with a computer, monitor and telephone. Two to three printers should suffice for the whole office. The non-lawyer store manager would need similar equipment. One would also have to invest in an inventory of software and books. Some commercial vendors are currently developing the web-based document generation systems that would be needed to operate this law store.

I would be happy to work with one or two API members who are interested in testing such a model and connect them with a vendor of document generation software, if necessary. Please contact me at WMoore@aarp.org.--12/5/03