LegalMatch Marketing

LegalMatch: Attorney Marketing Made Easy.

How LegalMatch Works

The LegalMatch System works primarily by maintaining a dynamic balance between our Member Attorneys’ expertise and availability, and the number of consumer cases presented on our site. We call this our Allocation Model. Our ongoing commitment to comprehensive advertising and client acquisition marketing continues to expand consumer awareness of the advantages of using LegalMatch’s free services to find the right lawyer quickly, easily and confidentially.

Our highly qualified Member Attorneys know that the best way to develop and focus their practice is to provide consumers with the best way to find the right lawyer. Our strategic presence on the Internet – at the very top of many search engine lists – is underscored by our recognition in the public market place, supported by our reputation in the legal field, and driven by the breadth and ambition our targeted marketing plan. The following four steps outline the consumer acquisition and Member Attorney selection process:

Step 1: Consumers Present their Case at LegalMatch Through extensive client acquisition and market outreach efforts, our LegalMatch Web site assists thousands of visitors every day seeking help with their legal issues. In some areas consumers can also reach us by phone. Consumers present their case via a thorough category specific interview process to secure all the relevant information normally acquired during an initial consultation.

Step 2: LegalMatch Immediately Contacts Member Attorneys with Case Details Instant email notifications are sent to Member Attorneys in the legal practice areas and location consumers have selected. In some high priority instances we will also telephone Member Attorneys. LegalMatch attorney membership is tailored for each attorney’s specific geographic area and area(s) of expertise. Some coverage is defined by jurisdiction. Member Attorneys review the consumer cases that match their skills and availability and select appropriate cases for a response. At this stage in the process, potential clients are NOT given Member Attorney contact information, so consumers cannot call Member Attorneys directly until both parties have shown interest.

Step 3: Member Attorneys Respond to Cases that are of Interest Member Attorneys respond to cases through our system. The consumer is immediately notified by email and/or voice messaging that a response has been made. Consumers may elect, when presenting their case, to have Member Attorneys call them as soon as the Member Attorney submits a response to their case. When an attorney responds, consumers see a detailed Member Attorney profile that describes important information about the Member, their practice and their firm. Potential clients have the opportunity to review various Member Attorneys’ backgrounds, expertise and accomplishments before they speak with them.

Step 4: An Attorney/Client Match Is Made Consumers review Member Attorney Response Messages, talk with Member Attorneys over the phone and sometimes may come in for an office interview or initial consultation. Together, Member Attorneys and consumers agree on the appropriate working relationship. LegalMatch is not involved with establishing Member Attorney fee structures. LegalMatch encourages Member Attorneys to set their fee structures at their appropriate professional level. Member Attorneys may respond to as many or as few cases as they wish.

If you would like to request Membership Information please call us at 1-415-946-0800 or visit http://attorneys.legalmatch.com today!

Rhode Island Bar Association Rules Favorably on the LegalMatch Client Acquisition System.

The Rhode Island Bar Association recently ruled (February 24, 2005) that the LegalMatch model was an acceptable method for attorneys to utilize when finding prospective clients. The RI Bar determined that the annual attorney membership payment to LegalMatch is NOT impermissible fee-sharing and that an attorney’s reply to an interested consumer is NOT a prohibited solicitation. The actual ruling can be found at:

http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/ethics/pdfadvisoryopinions/2005-01.pdf.

Once again, LegalMatch’s client acquisition system has been proven as an ethical, legal, and viable method to match consumers in need of legal representation with qualified, local attorneys. The LegalMatch system continues to grow, with record numbers of monthly consumer cases and attorney membership rising to meet that demand. Thanks to LegalMatch’s patented allocation model software, our system monitors the case load in any given practice area and geographic setting (i.e. a Legalmatch allocation), helping LegalMatch keep a healthy balance of prospective clients and member attorneys. The recent Rhode Island Bar decision affirms LegalMatch’s position as the industry leader in attorney/client services, and suggests that the LegalMatch client acquisition model represents the future in online attorney/client services.

The Advent of the Attorney-Client Matching System.

"Rise of the Machines"

It is, of course, not surprising that the Internet would provide the substrate upon which a solution could be developed to solve the competing concerns of (1) helping the middle sector of the population gain access to good legal counsel, and (2) protecting this same group from unscrupulous attorneys, misleading advertising, shoddy work, and high-pressure solicitation tactics.

In 1999, the first attorney-client matching system was conceived by the founders of LegalMatch, and a historical advancement in legal marketing began to emerge. While the original vision is still at the core of the system, it has evolved based upon experience since its launching. One of the objectives of the original vision was to effectively reach the middle sector of the population, and help these clients make informed decisions and retain competent counsel, while providing the best possible consumer-protection, thereby achieving the objectives of the ethics rules that govern attorney advertising and solicitation.

The LegalMatch system is a nation-wide double-blind matching system. It is new and unique, and is therefore not one of the four traditional vehicles of lawyer advertising; consequently, the LegalMatch system is not subject to the second tier of ethics rules. As explained in more detail later, the LegalMatch system, and others like it are not a: (1) Lawyer referral program; (2) Pre-paid legal services plan; (3) Joint or cooperative legal advertising; or (4) Directory listing service.

In addition, LegalMatch was designed to achieve the objectives of the “general” rules of the first tier and, for the reasons discussed below, participating LegalMatch attorneys do not violate the ethics rules regulating lawyer advertising and solicitation.

The 70% Solution.

The Problem of Reaching the Middle Sector of the Population

Lawyer referral programs have been in existence for years, and represent probably the best solution to connect clients with lawyers in an industrial-age economy, which was based primarily on paper and the use of the telephone. In the time since 1977, lawyer advertising has eroded the effectiveness of lawyer referral services. For example, both the Tennessee State Bar and the Colorado State Bar had lawyer referral programs, but dismantled them in the 1980’s because of competition from lawyer advertising.

However, thirty years of lawyer advertising has not adequately solved the problem, as that problem was identified in a dissent in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350, 402-403:

“The problem of bringing clients and lawyers together on a mutually fair basis, consistent with the public interest, is as old as the profession itself. It is one of considerable complexity, especially in view of the constantly evolving nature of the need for legal services. The problem has not been resolved with complete satisfaction despite diligent and thoughtful efforts by the organized bar and others over a period of many years, and there is no reason to believe that today's best answers will be responsive to future needs.” Emphasis added.

So, even though the ban was lifted on attorney advertising, it is still a wide-spread problem that the middle group of the population is restricted in finding competent counsel. On the one hand, the lowest income bracket can access a number of different programs designed to subsidize their legal needs (pro bono programs and legal aid clinics, among others). On the other hand, the highest income bracket usually has the education and resources to locate and retain effective counsel.

While advertising since 1977 has helped make inroads into this middle group of the population, the very factors that drove the Bates decision are still prevalent today:

“As the bar acknowledges, ‘the middle 70% of our population is not being reached or served adequately by the legal profession.’ ABA, Revised Handbook on Prepaid Legal Services 2 (1972). Among the reasons for this underutilization is fear of the cost, and an inability to locate a suitable lawyer. Advertising can help to solve this acknowledged problem: Advertising is the traditional mechanism in a free-market economy for a supplier to inform a potential purchaser of the availability and terms of exchange. The disciplinary rule at issue likely has served to burden access to legal services, particularly for the not-quite-poor and the unknowledgeable. A rule allowing restrained advertising would be in accord with the bar's obligation to ‘facilitate the process of intelligent selection of lawyers, and to assist in making legal services fully available.’ ABA Code of Professional Responsibility EC 2-1 (1976).” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350, 376-377. Emphasis added.

Because of the history of lawyer advertising, and the restrictions on regulating commercial free speech, there has emerged a two-tier system of ethical regulation: The first tier is composed of a set of “general” rules that apply to all forms of attorney advertising and solicitation. The second tier is composed of additional rules designed to regulate specific advertising vehicles that have arisen over the years to connect clients with lawyers.

The four primary vehicles of regulated lawyer advertising are:

(1) Lawyer referral programs;
(2) Pre-paid legal services plans;
(3) Joint or cooperative legal advertising; and
(4) Directory or yellow page listing services

Dear Jurisprudence:

The New Rules Of Engagement

To address the current framework of rules that govern attorneys’ ability to attract and to enter into engagements with clients, it is necessary to understand the history and background of the regulation of attorney advertising. Against this backdrop, the purpose and reasoning of the current framework of rules can be better understood, and the benefits of online legal matching methods can be better appreciated.

In short, attorney advertising is a form of commercial free speech that is not only protected by the US Constitution, but which is necessary to fulfill the obligation of the legal profession to reach the middle sector of the population with the information that they need to select and retain competent legal counsel.

The primary limitations on attorney advertising are found in the ethics rules promulgated by the state government through the court branch, and which are designed to protect unsophisticated consumers from sophisticated over-reaching by lawyers motivated by pecuniary gain.

It is the heat from these two competing considerations that has forged the current framework of ethics regulations that govern attorney advertising; however, no free market-based solution has arisen (until LegalMatch) that has proven it can successfully reach the middle sector of the population, while sufficiently protecting the consumer. Online legal matching systems are not only ethical, they are a long-overdue solution to a difficult problem that has plagued the legal industry for centuries.

LegalMatch (www.legalmatch.com) is the pioneer of the online legal matching methodology and by far the biggest online legal matching service in the U.S.

Good “history of attorney advertising” citing is found in a White Paper presented by the American Bar Association in July 1998, entitled, “A Re-Examination of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Pertaining to Client Development in Light of Emerging Technologies”.

A summary of a portion of this white paper follows:

Lawyer advertising and solicitation were common and generally lawful in the Nineteenth Century. In 1908, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) adopted the first national standards for ethical conduct governing lawyers, entitled the Canons of Professional Ethics. Canon 27 banned lawyer advertising, permitting nothing more than business cards. Solicitation was also banned. The bans, along with the other provisions of the Canons, were generally adopted by the highest courts of the individual states, becoming effective and thereby controlling the conduct of lawyers. While directory listings and very limited advertising became acceptable over time, the bans continued for nearly seventy years.

In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350, that it was unconstitutional for states to impose bans on lawyer advertising, inasmuch as the First Amendment-based doctrine of commercial free speech prevented the government from prohibiting such communication. The Court found that states had the right to impose regulations and, indeed, had the obligation to do so to the extent it was necessary to protect consumers. However, the persistent problem that the middle 70% of the population were not locating competent counsel actually created an obligation for the legal profession to reach out and educate, and the state bar organizations, as an agent of the supreme court of each state, had an obligation to foster such communication and education, and could not ban it.

It then became the responsibility of the bar organizations to set new standards governing the rights of lawyers to advertise. Within six weeks of the Bates decision, the ABA had adopted a set of regulations and amended the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, which had replaced the Canons in 1969. The initial code provisions precluded television advertising, targeted mail solicitation and any advertising not done in a dignified manner. (For various reasons, none of these delineated media limitations continue to exist today.) Notably, the ABA retained the ban on in-person solicitation. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court found the ban on in-person solicitation to be a constitutional limit on commercial speech, indicating that lawyers are trained in the art of persuasion and that clients in need of legal services may be emotionally vulnerable to that persuasion.

In 1983, at a time when many states were still in the process of formulating rules to govern lawyer advertising, the ABA completely revamped its rules of ethics. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Model Code as the national standards which states were urged to adopt. The Model Rules departed from the Code in format and substance. Instead of the Code's two-tiered ethical considerations (EC's) and disciplinary rules (DR's), the Model Rules had one set of standards. The Rules are similar to the DR's in that they set the floor of minimally acceptable conduct. Any action falling below the standards set in the Rules subjects the lawyer to discipline. Since 1983, forty-one states have adopted the Model Rules.

For a variety of reasons, all states have some features of the provisions in the Model Rules that govern lawyer advertising and solicitation, but few states have the complete provisions verbatim.

But there's still a gap in reaching the majority of the population – the middle 70% - and properly connnecting them to the appropriate attorney’s.

Solving this problem has proven to be much more difficult in practice than in theory.

Stay tuned for the next installment as we evaluate this divide and consider what to do about it.