I can see relationships and clients being everything when we are talking about a flooded market with 2 equally competent lawyers, each charging $250/hour each. Obviously clients are going to take the one who has the better reputation. The existing situation in a flooded market is with too many lawyers all charging roughly the same, its completely normal that what differentiates them is as you put it reputation and client relationships.
But what if one lawyer charges 30$/hour Online vs. 250$ Face to Face, and they both have the exact same degree/BAR qualifications?
This, imho, is a fundamental shift in the market.
it can even be done via webcam.
Would it really make sense from the customer's perspective to hire the far more expensive lawyer in all cases? Would the client really be willing to pay the extra 220$/hour for the supposed reputational benefit? Does the face-to-face lawyer really add 220$/hour extra in value?
Conceivably the client could go to the online lawyer for most of the work/questions, and should things happen to reach the litigation stage, bring things to the expensive lawyer. But from what I've read, things rarely escalate up to going to court. its like 1% of the time. Or if its something particularly sensitive/confidential/expensive, then the face to face lawyer is for sure the way to go. But otherwise, why not go for the much cheaper option?
imagine 20h of work:
20h X $250 = $5000
20h X $30 = $600
that is huge, $4400 difference in cost. If we are talking about an issue that has millions at stake, obviously your going to go based on reputation. But lets say $8 000 is at issue. Are you really going to go for the guy who will cost you $5000? seems kind of idiotic.
Anyway, this is all hypothetical, need to run some market tests to see if there is actual demand and whether the much lower price is enough to offset the face-to-face benefits for potential clients. Maybe programming is the way to go for me, but to me that seems much more likely to be outsourced to Russia, etc... whereas the lawyer HAS to be licensed in the given country/state, making online lawyering, in my eyes anyway, much more sustainable in the long run then say becoming a programmer. The lawyer has a state-enforced monopoly on providing legal advice in a given area; the programmer has no such monopoly.
I may not pursue this, but I have yet to hear conclusive answers about why it can't be done. I understand all the stuff about the current industry being based on reputation, etc... but to me this is all precisely because lawyers have not yet been willing to set up virtual law practices. Is it not possible for an online lawyer to also build a good reputation over the years, just like any other lawyer on online based business? Basically, the market has not changed yet, Everyone is still charging standard high lawyer rates. But that hardly means that it wont change in the future. Small law seems to me to be one of the best online businesses to build, with only 3 years of studies to invest with the potential for making sustainable high income online for the next X years. And you get to be your own boss. Your "inventory" is basically your knowledge/access to books. Plus you get to learn about law, which is in itself useful for business. I'm really not seeing the downside except the high tuition.
I've already read news articles about outsourcing taking place at the large corporate firms, where they are outsourcing the legal work to India rather then giving it to junior lawyers. Why not just take it one further, and use the ability to outsource work as a means to great location independent income via a small firm based in no location in particular. Much better than say, being an English teacher for 7$/hour in south America, why not be an online lawyer for 30-50$/hour and live on the beach in Asia?
But what if one lawyer charges 30$/hour Online vs. 250$ Face to Face, and they both have the exact same degree/BAR qualifications?
This, imho, is a fundamental shift in the market.
it can even be done via webcam.
Would it really make sense from the customer's perspective to hire the far more expensive lawyer in all cases? Would the client really be willing to pay the extra 220$/hour for the supposed reputational benefit? Does the face-to-face lawyer really add 220$/hour extra in value?
Conceivably the client could go to the online lawyer for most of the work/questions, and should things happen to reach the litigation stage, bring things to the expensive lawyer. But from what I've read, things rarely escalate up to going to court. its like 1% of the time. Or if its something particularly sensitive/confidential/expensive, then the face to face lawyer is for sure the way to go. But otherwise, why not go for the much cheaper option?
imagine 20h of work:
20h X $250 = $5000
20h X $30 = $600
that is huge, $4400 difference in cost. If we are talking about an issue that has millions at stake, obviously your going to go based on reputation. But lets say $8 000 is at issue. Are you really going to go for the guy who will cost you $5000? seems kind of idiotic.
Anyway, this is all hypothetical, need to run some market tests to see if there is actual demand and whether the much lower price is enough to offset the face-to-face benefits for potential clients. Maybe programming is the way to go for me, but to me that seems much more likely to be outsourced to Russia, etc... whereas the lawyer HAS to be licensed in the given country/state, making online lawyering, in my eyes anyway, much more sustainable in the long run then say becoming a programmer. The lawyer has a state-enforced monopoly on providing legal advice in a given area; the programmer has no such monopoly.
I may not pursue this, but I have yet to hear conclusive answers about why it can't be done. I understand all the stuff about the current industry being based on reputation, etc... but to me this is all precisely because lawyers have not yet been willing to set up virtual law practices. Is it not possible for an online lawyer to also build a good reputation over the years, just like any other lawyer on online based business? Basically, the market has not changed yet, Everyone is still charging standard high lawyer rates. But that hardly means that it wont change in the future. Small law seems to me to be one of the best online businesses to build, with only 3 years of studies to invest with the potential for making sustainable high income online for the next X years. And you get to be your own boss. Your "inventory" is basically your knowledge/access to books. Plus you get to learn about law, which is in itself useful for business. I'm really not seeing the downside except the high tuition.
I've already read news articles about outsourcing taking place at the large corporate firms, where they are outsourcing the legal work to India rather then giving it to junior lawyers. Why not just take it one further, and use the ability to outsource work as a means to great location independent income via a small firm based in no location in particular. Much better than say, being an English teacher for 7$/hour in south America, why not be an online lawyer for 30-50$/hour and live on the beach in Asia?