Bona Fide Office Rule in New Jersey: No Virtual Law Firms
New Jersey is one of the few states that has what is known as a “bona fide office” rule. A NJ Bar Committee recently endorsed the role and this has created a lively debate within the legal blogosphere. [ See ABA Journal Article ].
“Virtual law offices” violate the state requirement for a bona fide office, according to a joint opinion by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and the Committee on Attorney Advertising. See Opinion ACPE 718/CAA 41.
Rule 1:21-1(a) requires that a New Jersey attorney maintain a bona fide office for the practice of law.
For the purpose of this section, a bona fide office is a place where clients are met, files are kept, the telephone is answered, mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries and to ensure that competent advice from the attorney can be obtained within a reasonable period of time.
The purpose, according to the opinion, is to make sure lawyers are available and can be found by clients.
The Committee quotes on a 1994 Opinion:See Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 19, 138 N.J.L.J. 286, 3 N.J.L. 1821 (September 19, 1994):
“A so-called “virtual office” does not qualify as a bona fide office. A “virtual office” refers to a type of time-share arrangement whereby one leases the right to reserve space in an office building on an hourly or daily basis. Accordingly, an attorney’s use of a “virtual office” is by appointment only. The office building ordinarily has a receptionist with a list of all lessees who directs visitors to the appropriate room at the appointed time. Depending on the terms of the lease, the receptionist may also receive and forward mail addressed to lessees or receive and forward telephone calls to lessees.”
“As noted above, a bona fide office is, in part, a place where “the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries . . . .” R. 1:21-1 (a). A “virtual office” cannot be a bona fide office since the attorney generally is not present during normal business hours but will only be present when he or she has reserved the space. Moreover, the receptionist at a “virtual office” does not qualify as a “responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf” who can “answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries.” Presumably, the receptionist can redirect a telephone call to the attorney lessee of the “virtual office” much like an answering service, but would not be privy to legal matters being handled by the attorney and so would be unable to “act[] on the attorney’s behalf” in any matter.”
Note that this is a “1994″ Opinion that was published before the Internet affected every aspect of American society. Stephanie Kimbro in her post of this topic correctly points out that the Committee is solely focused on “physical office sharing” arrangements and not the concept of the “Web-based virtual office” that is designed to serve clients exclusively over the Internet. A pure “virtual law firm” that operates solely on the Internet, has the capacity of offering legal services at much lower fees, because of less “friction” in the transaction, resulting in increased access to the legal system for clients who can’t afford the the high fees of a traditional legal practice.
Carolyn Elefant in her blog, MyShingle thinks the rule is moronic because it is out of touch with modern Internet technology, increases the cost of running a solo practice, which therefore increases the costs to consumers who are looking for lower priced legal services. She argues that the ruling discriminates against work at home parents with child care responsibilities, Although “home offices” are permitted, provided the address of the home office is published.
Brian Tannenbaum, who writes the blog My Law License, agrees with the opinion because he states that he is a “traditionalist”, consumers should not be telling the legal profession how to practice law, and cites the Florida bona fide office rules where he practices, as another good example of a state that is seeks to maintain high standards of legal practice.
Josh King, AVVO General Counsel and Vice President for Business Development, agrees with Carolyn Elefant, that the impact of this ruling is to increase the overhead of solo practitioners and the cost of legal services to consumers.
This issue has been debated or a long period of time. In a 2002 article in the New York Times it was reported that the real reason for the rule is to keep lawyers who are a member of the New Jersey bar, but who practice elsewhere, such as Philadelphia, from encroaching on the territory of “traditional” law firms in New Jersey.
One Philadelphia lawyer commenting on the rule stated:
“In this age of Internet, e-mail, overnight delivery, and faxes, we’re dealing with people all over the world, and this clearly is a protectionist stance,” said Leonard Bernstein of Reed Smith, a Philadelphia-based law firm. “The New Jersey lawyer is an anachronism that is out of step with the times, and the rule should be changed.”
What was true in 2002, is even more true today. The Internet is changing the way legal services are delivered and for solos and small law firms to remain competitive with non-lawyer online legal service providers like LegalZoom, who continue to take market share from solos and small law firms. This is a blow to innovation in the delivery of legal services. I wish the Committee would have examined more closely developments in Internet and information technology generally as these developments are providing the platform for a new way of delivering legal services.
The Opinion reinforces the market position of established law firms who already have made an investment in physical offices and continue to offer legal services based on a high cost, bill by the hour economic model. The “traditional” model works best for certain kinds of cases and certain kinds of clients, but our market research shows that millions of consumers are turning their backs on the legal profession and searching for lower cost alternatives, often on the Internet. It is interesting that none of these considerations enter into the analysis of the NJ Bar committee. It is as if the Committee is stuck in 1994 and is unaware of the changing patterns of legal service delivery that are being driven by the Internet.
In fact, the ruling is not in the consumer interest. The ruling will raise law firm costs and restrict competition in the legal profession in New Jersey, and raises costs to consumers. The United Kingdom recently reorganized the legal profession by taking the subject of law firm regulation away from the legal profession and putting it in the hands of an official who would be more sensitive to consumer needs and interests. Perhaps it is time to do the same in the United States. If state bar associations make regulatory decisions which in fact are designed to maintain the status quo of established law firms within their states, at the expense of consumer interests and innovation in the delivery of legal services, perhaps it is time for more fundamental change in the way the legal profession is regulated.
[thanks to kaseido and richard granat via cc]
Self-Destructing Toilet: Woman Sues Trump Taj Mahal
Toilets are dangerous.
I didn’t know that. But know I do. They can put you in jail. They can give you serious injurious. I officially call for a ban on toilets and I expect all our loyal readers to join us in this mission to eliminate this scourge from the Earth.
But really, there’s been a recent upsurge in lawsuits involving everyone’s favorite bathroom fixture. You might recall the lady who screamed at her toilet and was almost put in jail. The brief rundown of that post was that a lady was getting irate and furious about her overflowing toilet. She started shouting expletives around and calling for her daughter to get a mop to clean the mess up. Neighbor is a police officer, calls the cops on her, and she gets cited for disorderly conduct.
Now the toilet strikes again. Its blood-lust cannot be controlled, you can only hope to contain it. And Donald Trump is pissed.
The self-destructing toilet incident
Jean Ciocci, a 74 year old woman from Philadelphia, was staying at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. She decides to use the toilet in her room. CRACKKKK! The toilet breaks away from the wall – taking her down with it! Can you even imagine sitting on a toilet and it tears away from the bathroom wall? I mean, you sit down, its your private time to relax and get away from the world, and boom, you’re on the floor with a overflowing toilet on top of you. To add injury to insult, she suffered serious injuries which resulted in a disability in her arm. That’s major toilet damage!
She sued the Trump Taj Majal.
The result
The Trump Taj Mahal Casino believes it to be hard for Jean Ciocci to be able to prove her case. Even after this statement, they decided to settle with Ciocci for $1.2 million dollars – Ciocci accepted.
“I think the Trump casino behaved responsibly in terms of recognizing that the toilet wasn’t properly mounted and by offering a fair settlement in this case. We’re hoping she’ll be able to use some of this money to make improvements to her house so she’ll be able to get around,†said Daniel J. Mann, who is Ciocci’s lawyer.
When will toilets stop their destructive warpath? Stop the madness!
No Sex Offenders with Candy on Halloween
Trick or treat, give me something good to eat.
Unless you’re a sex offender, in which case you’re going to jail.
There’s a law in New Jersey that forbids sex offenders from giving out candy on Halloween. That means Lester down the street won’t giving out chocolate yum-yums this year.
Don’t think this law is only going to affect a small number of people. Did you know there are 2,200 sexual crime offenders registered in the state of New Jersey?
It makes you think though, how many of these sex offenders used candy to lure children? Did any of them poison food or candy and then give it to them? Did they somehow put some sort of date rape drug in candy or food?
It seems the main goal is to prevent the contact between children and sex crime offenders. It’s a very reasonable concern. Most parents are already wary of their children coming into close contact with strangers, now add the fact that these strangers are convicted sex offenders and that concern raises to another level. People nowadays are scared to let their children out alone and if they know a convicted sex offender is out there then they’re even more scared.
Do sex crime offenders commit their crimes again? If they’ve paid their dues to society shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else?
Let’s get some facts. The term for repeat offenders is recidivism and the rate of repeating the crime is recidivism rate. The problem with getting accurate numbers here is that the rate for actual reporting sex crimes is very low. Victims of sex crimes are twice as likely to tell friends and family than they are to go to authorities, like the police. And then we look at the actual sex offenders. A study performed lie detector tests (polygraph) on sex offenders in prison who had committed their crimes on less than two known victims. The researchers discovered that these offenders actually averaged 110 victims and 318 offenses. So there is a major problem with under-reporting sex crime offenses.
How are they going to keep tabs on these sex crime offenders to make sure they aren’t giving out candy?
There will be at least sixty parole officers and members of the 12 district officers patrolling and checking on the offenders. Sixty officers versus 2,200 sex offenders? Hmm, seems like there’s a number disparity here. But with police departments already stretched so thin, it’s a tough situation for police departments. Officers have to be patrolling other areas where public safety may be at risk also.
Classic Public Service Announcement Video:
