Recent Posts

Archives

Topics

Meta

Webmaster’s Challenge

By administrator | January 3, 2010

Legal Examiner has developed a highly effective method for detecting errors and imperfections on websites. Our 51-point model was designed for legal websites, but with a bit of tweaking it can also be used on most other types of websites.

We hereby invite you to take our Webmaster’s Challenge. To order a free preliminary review for your website, please fill out this short feedback form. Simply write “Free challenge” and the URL you want reviewed in the comments field.

You should receive the free Website Quality Summary via email within 5 business days. The free version is specific enough to make you aware of any problems we have found with your website. Legal Examiner will even walk you through how we review legal websites, step-by-step. You will have the option to order a more detailed Website Quality Report.

Qualifying websites may apply for LegalTrust Certified status. Once we have issued a valid certificate and hosted it on our server, you will create a link to the certificate on you own website. This will prove to your visitors that we have thoroughly tested and approved your website, which will be monitored to ensure continuous compliance.

Topics: Website Review Criteria | No Comments »

Basic Principles for Justice

By administrator | December 30, 2009


§ I. The rule of law

These basic principles are aimed at societies that are genuinely committed to the rule of law as a core component of their chosen governance structure. Such a commitment entails that all matters of a legal nature are to be resolved solely on their merits in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, excluding all subjective factors such as favoritism, financial or societal status from playing any role whatsoever.

The rule of law entails equality before the law and entitlement to equal protection of the law, cf. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Physical and legal persons should have unimpeded access to courts, tribunals, or other legal or administrative authorities capable of resolving legal disputes in a timely and predictable manner. Decisions by the judiciary should be subject to appellate review, and decisions by administrative authorities should be subject to administrative and/or judicial review.

Contracts must be enforceable and property rights be upheld. In criminal proceedings, the government has an obligation to ensure prosecutorial independence, impartiality, and competence, cf. the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. Furthermore, the government must ensure that no one is arrested or detained arbitrarily and that anyone charged with a crime is afforded the rights and protections espoused by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 9-11, including the right to a fair and public trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Anyone has the right to call upon the assistance of a lawyer. In criminal justice matters, the government has an obligation to inform anyone who is arrested, detained, or charged with a crime of his right to seek legal counsel of his choice. Under the circumstances, such persons have the right to receive such services without payment. The government must ensure that lawyers are able to defend their client’s interests effectively and without improper interference, cf. the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

§ II. Separation of powers

In practice, the rule of law is achievable only where the government has been divided into three distinct branches: The legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary. Under such a system, the legislature is the branch of government primarily responsible for making laws, the executive is the branch of government primarily responsible for enforcing them, and the judiciary is the branch of government primarily responsible for interpreting them.

To perform their respective roles effectively, each of these three branches of government must remain independent. This, in turn, requires them to coexist in a constructive relationship based upon mutual respect for their respective roles and the limitations of their respective powers.

§ III. Independence of the judiciary

Section 3.01 The legal framework

The legal framework designed to guarantee the independence of the judiciary needs to be comprehensive, up-to-date, and unambiguous. Courts should be allowed to establish their own rules and procedures, albeit subject to certain guidelines to prevent undue influence or favoritism from within. Cases should be assigned randomly or in some other fair and transparent manner. The rules concerning appointment and promotion of judges also need to be fair and transparent. Any judge must be protected against removal from office except as a result of serious misconduct or inability to fulfill his duties, and then only by a decision issued by a panel of judges in accordance with principles of due process. Dispute settlement mechanisms, review mechanisms, and enforcement mechanisms are required to ensure effectiveness even under difficult circumstances such as political and constitutional crises.

Section 3.02 Freedom from undue influence or interference

Keeping the judiciary free from undue influence or interference by any governmental or other institutions requires a combination of commitment, transparency, and accountability. The commitment not to unduly influence or interfere with the judiciary should be made public and be legally binding. Under no circumstances should the executive or legislature seek to unduly influence the outcome of a particular case that is pending before a court or may come before a court in the foreseeable future. It may be appropriate for the other branches of government to criticize the judiciary and its decisions from time to time, but they must endeavor to do so with respect and always in a format whereby the critique becomes a matter of public record. The judiciary has a particular duty to disclose any attempted undue influence or interference, so that corrective action can be taken and those responsible be held accountable.

Section 3.03 Complete jurisdiction

Giving the judiciary branch jurisdiction over all issues of a juridical nature entails that any affected persons should ultimately have recourse to the court system, even where the executive branch has mechanisms in place to allow for administrative review of its decisions.

Section 3.04 Ultimate authority

Granting the judiciary the exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law is an inescapable consequence of the separation of powers doctrine. Conversely, the judiciary should exercise its authority with objectivity and reasonable discretion, and must never seek to inappropriately expand its powers.

Section 3.05 Adequate resources

Failure to give the judiciary adequate resources to properly perform its functions occurs in too many jurisdictions around the world. Courts are often understaffed, caseloads too burdensome, salaries too low, and office equipment outdated, all of which cause case backlogs and an environment conducive to corruption. Allocation of scarce resources has a significant potential for leading to undue influence, wherefore the courts themselves should have the final say in the matter. As a further bulwark against undue influence and corruption, any special privileges are to be avoided whenever possible, especially those that are unsecured or that are allocated in accordance with non-transparent criteria.

§ IV. Rights and responsibilities of the judge

Section 4.01 Independence

While serving, a judge must remain independent of any political interests, leaving himself free to pursue the search for justice without any prejudice or bias. A judge must remain deeply, unconditionally, and irrevocably committed to solid academic and intellectual principles for analysis, reasoning, and rational thought. A judge must adhere to established principles for legal interpretation, aiming to take into account all relevant legal principles, rules, and cases. His published opinions and decisions must be reasoned and comply with applicable standards.

A judge must immediately notify the appropriate authority of any attempted bribery, extortion, undue influence, or other interference with discharge of his official duties. Such notice must be given in writing or, if an oral presentation is made, be accompanied by a transcript to be provided as soon as possible. The appropriate authority must promptly investigate any complaint and take further action as may be appropriate to protect the judge and to preserve the integrity of the office.

Section 4.02 Terms of employment

As a safeguard against undue influence or interference, a judge should enjoy tenure for life or employment for a fixed, non-renewable period on conditions similar to those offered to his colleagues in comparable circumstances.

A judge must be given a fair salary reflecting his professional background, qualifications, and current position. Any tests or exams must be standardized, and all judges at the same level of the hierarchy and with similar seniority should receive similar compensation packages in principle. Under particular circumstances, incentives and rewards may be offered in accordance with published guidelines. The salaries and any other benefits given to a judge shall be a matter of public record.

Section 4.03 Appropriate conduct

While a measure of individualism inside and outside the courtroom may be permissible, judges should always conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful of the court as an institution. Judges must adhere to any codes of conduct applicable within their jurisdiction.

Judges should enjoy immunity against criminal or civil liability stemming from regular discharge of their official duties. However, each of the following forms of behavior potentially constitute serious misconduct that may be grounds for removal from office or other reprisals: Lack of independence, lack of impartiality, lack of integrity, impropriety, inequality, incompetence or lack of diligence, unethical conduct.

No opinion by the Advocate-General is final, as we may at any time revisit an issue and amend or update our prior findings.

Topics: Uncategorized | Comments Off

Basic Principles for Governance

By administrator | December 30, 2009

 

 

§ I. Transparency

Section 1.01 Availability of information

Provider is responsible for disclosing all relevant information in a manner that makes such information readily available. The formats and methods of communication should match what can be deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

Section 1.02 Stated objectives, none hidden

Provider should clearly state and explain any and all of its objectives. Any persons being directly affected have, and the general public may have, a legitimate interest in obtaining such knowledge, which is a prerequisite for a fair an accurate assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of: (i) such objectives; (ii) the correlation between the measures in question and their underlying objectives.

Section 1.03 Overstatement of certain elements

Provider’s presentations of its stated objectives for the measures should be balanced, and overstatement or unwarranted emphasis upon certain elements is to be avoided.

Section 1.04 Behavior indicative of corruption

Under no circumstances should the outcome of a decision, application, or the like be conditional upon rendering of payment, performance of any act, or any omission that are not clearly displayed.

Section 1.05 Who is responsible

Provider should clearly state the name of at least one person who is responsible for implementation of the measures.

Section 1.06 What are the implications

It is to be expected that measures are introduced as a result of careful deliberation taking into consideration the full consequences. Provider should clearly state all the implications, whether positive or negative, associated with the measure.

Section 1.07 Review mechanisms

In many cases, ensuring compliance with subjective and objective standards for good governance cannot be left entirely to the person or persons responsible for their implementation. Structural separation may be required to ensure fairness. Provider should clearly explain whether it has in place any review mechanisms such as compliance officers or review boards, and should provide contact information relating thereto.

Section 1.08 Remedies

Provider should clearly state any remedies available to Client, such as the right to file a complaint, seek redress or monetary compensation. Furthermore, a sufficient amount of guidance should be offered so as to allow Client to exercise such remedies freely, including – but not limited to – eligibility requirements. Complaints or claims should be handled professionally, in a timely manner, and free of charge.

Section 1.09 Free from error

To be reliable and useful as a legal instrument, measures should be free from errors such as spelling and typing errors, inaccurate cross-references, translations of poor quality and dubious validity, or grammatical errors.

Section 1.10 Free from ambiguity

To be reliable and useful as a legal instrument, the measures should be written clearly and articulately so as to avoid any ambiguity about their proper meaning. Where the outcome depends, wholly or in part, on personal judgment or other elements of a discretionary nature, Provider should furnish an amount of information sufficient to enable Client to ascertain whether such decisions are reasonable, consistent, not arbitrary, and not open-ended.

Section 1.11 Up-to-date

To be reliable and useful as a legal instrument, measures should be up-to-date so as to avoid any misunderstandings or misleading information. To ensure this, Provider should diligently ascertain whether the measures adequately reflect any changes made elsewhere within its organization.

Section 1.12 Comprehensible

To be reliable and useful as a legal instrument, measures should be reasonably easy to understand so as to avoid any misunderstandings, confusion, or misleading information.

Section 1.13 Adequacy of references

To be reliable and useful as a legal instrument, measures should be accompanied by references to any laws, administrative measures, internal policies, and other materials of direct relevance.

Section 1.14 Adequacy of information

Provider should furnish an amount of information adequate to enable Client to understand its rights and obligations, including – but not limited to – written records and/or oral presentations pertaining to all key elements involved. Whenever possible, such presentations should be made in Client’s language-of-choice. Whenever warranted, Provider should encourage Client to seek independent professional advice prior to making any commitments. Misrepresentations – whether oral or written, explicit or implied – are to be avoided under all circumstances.

§ II. Non-discrimination

Section 2.01 Conflicts of interest

Persons or institutions with a conflict of interest are generally unable to render sound judgment or make decisions that meet basic requirements for good governance. Conflicts of interest, whether apparent or evident, are therefore to be avoided. A person or institution must disclose any real or potential conflict of interest in a timely manner.

Section 2.02 Preferential treatment

Provider has an obligation and a responsibility to apply its measures in an equitable fashion. Undisclosed preferential treatment, as well as preferential treatment based upon criteria that are non-transparent, constitutes discrimination and is to be avoided under all circumstances.

Preferential treatment may be justified in a narrow set of circumstances, provided that: (i) the criteria for differentiating are clearly and comprehensively explained; (ii) preferential treatment is applied diligently to ensure that it does not go further than what is required and warranted to fulfill the stated criteria; (iii) such preferential treatment does not violate basic norms of fairness and decency.

§ III. Consistency

Section 3.01 Subjective consistency

Provider should exercise due diligence to ensure consistency between its measures and its own stated policy and other internal regulations, prior as well as current. Any derogation should be clearly identified and explained.

Section 3.02 Objective consistency

Provider should exercise due diligence to avoid adopting measures that are inconsistent with broadly accepted policy objectives and regulatory standards. Any derogation should be clearly identified and explained.

Section 3.03 Consistent administration

Provider should adopt administrative procedures to ensure that all like situations are handled equally as far as time, cost, quality etc.. Where this is not possible due to foreseeable or unforeseeable circumstances of an exceptional nature, Provider should clearly state the nature of the problem as well as its plans for solving it.

§ IV. Proportionality

Section 4.01 Subjective proportionality

Provider must clearly state its reasons for imposing any obligations or restrictions upon Client. Provider must also ensure that any restrictive measures are no more burdensome than what is required to meet its stated objectives. Furthermore, Provider must ensure that any restrictive measures fulfill only their stated objectives.

Section 4.02 Objective proportionality

Provider should exercise due diligence to ensure that the obligations or restrictions imposed on Client are no more burdensome than broadly accepted policy objectives and regulatory standards would permit. Any derogation should be clearly identified and explained.

Section 4.03 Compensation or other relief

With respect to restrictive measures, Provider should make available to Client adequate compensation and/or other forms of relief to offset any burden. Where relief is warranted, Provider should take reasonable steps to ensure that the remedies are made readily available to Client, that no undue burdens are imposed upon Client to seek such remedies, and that Client receives in a timely manner a sufficient amount of information concerning all important aspects including – but not limited to – eligibility requirements, deadlines, and monetary limitations.

Section 4.04 Application of restrictive measures

Whenever possible, restrictive measures should be preceded by fair notice and be implemented gradually during a reasonable introduction period.

Section 4.05 Disproportionate or undisclosed side effects

Provider should exercise due diligence to avoid any undisclosed side effects. Where side effects are unavoidable, these should be clearly identified and explained, and every reasonable effort should be made to minimize them.

Section 4.06 Warnings, notices, disclaimers

Provider must clearly display warnings, notices, and disclaimers as appropriate. Provider should not, however, use such measures indiscriminately. Such measures should be used conservatively, not to unduly limit Provider’s responsibilities and obligations towards Client or to impose undue burdens upon Client.

§ V. Efficiency and effectiveness

Section 5.01 Suitability and adequacy (subjective)

Provider should adopt only measures that are suited and adequate to fulfill their stated objectives. Such measures should be implemented with a view to efficiency and effectiveness.

Section 5.02 Suitability and adequacy (objective)

Provider should design its measures to comply with and be compatible with broadly accepted policy objectives and regulatory standards. Any derogation should be clearly identified and explained.

Section 5.03 Not unenforceable, ambiguous, or open-ended

Provider should carefully design its measures to ensure their enforceability. Conversely, Provider should avoid adopting any measures that are legally unenforceable, ambiguous, or open-ended.

§ VI. Miscellaneous

Section 6.01 Best practices

Provider should consistently fulfill its obligations and responsibilities in a timely and courteous manner, and comply with any applicable codes of conduct. If meeting its obligations becomes impossible due to exceptional circumstances, Provider should clearly state so and offer compensation or other remedies, as may be appropriate.

Section 6.02 Mitigating circumstances

Provider may be excused from non-fulfillment of certain requirements and from non-compliance with certain standards where this is a direct consequence of unavoidable circumstances or obligations imposed upon Provider by others, notably an official act of government.

Section 6.03 Aggravating factors

Certain forms of conduct may be considered an aggravating factor, such as: (i) repeated non-fulfillment of obligations and responsibilities; (ii) evasive behavior such as failure to respond or prolonged response time; (iii) willful concealment or misrepresentation of material facts; (iv) unethical conduct.

Section 6.04 Benefits of compliance

Compliance with these guidelines seek to prevent public and private service providers from: (i) imposing any undue burden upon their clients, (ii) engaging in manipulation, willful concealment, deception, or activity indicative of corruption; (iii) being viewed as inconsistent, sloppy, unprepared, not resourceful, or unprofessional; (iv) being viewed as engaging in willful depravation of their Clients’ rights, bias, or other forms of discrimination; (v) being viewed as behaving antisocially.

Compliance with these guidelines may thus protect a service provider’s public image as a reputable organization, preserve a healthy relationship with its clients, and reduce its exposure to lawsuits and other formal complaints.

No opinion by the Advocate-General is final, as we may at any time revisit an issue and amend or update our prior findings.

(c) Copyright 2005-2009 by Morten Rand. All rights reserved.

Topics: Uncategorized | Comments Off

Guidelines for Websites

By administrator | November 12, 2009

Compliance with the following guidelines may protect and enhance a legal service provider’s public image as a reputable organization, preserve a healthy relationship with its existing and prospective clients, reduce its exposure to complaints, and enhance the overall effectiveness of its website and related services.

1) The law firm should make its website readily visible on major generalized search engines, on various specialized search engines, and possibly also on various portals and directories maintained by third parties as well as those maintained by a legal network or the like to which the law firm belongs.

2) To be reliable and useful as a source of information, the website should enable visitors to familiarize themselves with the most important aspects of the law firm. Certain legal and organizational facts are indispensable, including information about the firm’s legal structure, memberships, the size and rank of legal staff, contact information for legal staff, and contact information for administrator.

3) A responsible law firm will not knowingly expose its online visitors or others to legal jeopardy or uncertainty. Provider should clearly state and explain any and all of its terms of use pertaining to the website and related services. Provider’s privacy policy should state whether and for what purposes it collects personal data from its visitors, whether and for what purposes such data may be shared with third parties, and what measures are in place to safeguard such data against misuse and inaccuracies. Provider’s IPR policy should identify any copyrighted and trademark-protected content on its website, then clearly and unambiguously explain the rights and restrictions that apply for use, copying, and distribution of such content. Provider’s terms of use should also identify and explain any other measures of legal significance such as subscription fees, registration requirements, and disclaimers of responsibility.

4) The law firm should design, operate and maintain its website and related services in a manner that consistently ensures a fruitful, pleasant, safe, and smooth experience for the vast majority of its visitors. Hyperlinks must be visible, descriptive, and functional. Web pages must load fairly quickly and display properly in all major browsers. Text must be readily legible, and graphics must not cause undue distraction. Interactive contents should be functional without requiring the typical user to install special software.

5) A law firm’s website constitutes an integral part of its overall image. Therefore, the site should emphasize the values, areas of expertise, and achievements that the firm considers most important. If it chooses to publish legal content on its website, such information should be easy to find, for example by providing a convenient overview.

6) To be reliable and useful as a source of information, all contents on the website should be relevant, unambiguous, up-to-date, free from errors, comprehensible, adequate, transparent, and consistent.

7) A reputable law firm must never knowingly publish information that is inaccurate, inconsistent, misleading, or otherwise flawed.  Reputable law firms must be responsive to criticism, correct any errors in a timely manner, and implement sufficient quality assurance mechanisms to ensure acceptable website quality at all times.

No opinion by the Advocate-General is final, as we may at any time revisit an issue and amend or update our prior findings.

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Policy Statement on Websites

By administrator | October 8, 2009

 

 

 

§ I. Preamble

Legal services are migrating to the web, making it increasingly difficult and impractical to separate a firm’s online presence from its underlying quality as a service provider;

The average consumer is presumably unable to critically evaluate the correctness or incorrectness of information on a legal content provider (LCP) website. Therefore it is our contention that to be trustworthy as a whole, a website needs to be accurate in all of its detail. Conversely, if a website contains inaccurate, false or misleading information, it is not to be trusted in its entirety until such issues have been addressed;

It is our belief that where significant issues are detected, these may be symptomatic of a fundamental problem with the service provider, requiring a measure of continuous monitoring even after the issues have been resolved;

We believe that a fair, transparent, and numeric website quality ratings system can greatly contribute to enhancing the quality of a website for the benefit of consumers, the legal community, and the website operator alike;

We believe that an advisory system for legal websites, based upon fair and transparent criteria, will benefit consumers and others;

We believe that websites are designed in a manner that puts the operator at an advantage compared with the visitor;

We believe that the true quality of a website can only be understood through careful evaluation over a period of time, including any related service.

 

§ II. Website Quality Review

 

Section 2.01 Website Review Criteria

As a contribution to ensuring consistently high quality among legal websites, we have adopted a set of specific criteria that we recommend any LCP to observe. Currently there are 51 such criteria subdivided into the following categories: Accessibility; Image; Content; Regulatory Compliance.

Requirements are defined as preconditions that must be fulfilled. Accordingly, non-fulfillment of a requirement would lead to a negative rating immediately. The service provider would be well-advised to address such concerns immediately, and should bring this to our attention so as to enable us to revisit the issue.

Preferences are defined as priorities that should be fulfilled in order to provide a good experience for the user as well as an effective use of the provider’s website and related activities. Non-fulfillment of a preference may or may not lead to a negative rating immediately; however, it is likely to lead to a negative rating eventually after the service provider has been notified and been encouraged to remedy the situation, yet failed to do so.

The distinction between requirements and preferences is not always self-evident. In case of doubt, we have tended to view the issue from a user’s perspective. It is the practical implication that a concern will tend to be classified as a requirement, not merely a preference, if the imperfection is either of significance to a substantial percentage of the actual or likely future users of the website or, even though it affects only relatively few users, is likely to result in substantial inconvenience for those being affected by it.

In general, lack of time, technical expertise or financial resources will not qualify as exculpatory or mitigating factors. A service provider is expected to know its business. However, it will be taken into account whether or not the service provider could reasonably be expected to have avoided the problem and whether the provider, once the situation has been explained, has exercised every reasonable effort to remedy the situation quickly. On balance, we will endeavor to avoid being too lenient towards the advocate while also resisting any temptation to exaggerate minor issues.

 

Section 2.02 Website Review Mechanism

To facilitate improvement of any number of legal websites, we have developed a Website Review Mechanism consisting of continuous website monitoring, analysis, ratings, notification and consultations.

 

Section 2.03 Website Advisories

To keep consumers and others well-informed about the trustworthiness of legal websites, we will issue an advisory for any such website that we have reviewed.

“Distrust” will be used to characterize websites that are currently found to be in material noncompliance with these Principles and/or in breach of one or more of the Indispensable Principles listed below.

“Trust” will be used to characterize websites that, although not perfect, are currently found to be in substantial compliance with these Principles and thus deserving of a measure of trust as further specified therein.

“Trusted & Certified” implies substantial compliance with these Principles as well as the LCP’s acceptance of continuous website monitoring and redress mechanisms for any complaints or concerns.

 

§ III. Indispensable Principles

 

Section 3.01 Accuracy

 

(a) Standards and Enforcement

Any disclaimer notwithstanding, visitors must be able to rely upon the accuracy of all information posted on LCP’s website, or the site loses its credibility as a whole. LCP needs to make a consistent good-faith effort to avoid publishing any incorrect, insufficient, or misleading information on its website, including the individual websites of all of its member firms. It needs to put into place effective quality control mechanisms, including continuous monitoring and strict enforcement to quickly correct any errors or misinformation on its member firm websites.

(b) Legal Facts

LCP should be consistent in making a clear distinction on their website between (A) licensed attorneys versus legal associates, paralegals and the like, and (B) partners/owners versus employees.

In the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, it is a violation of law and professional standards for anyone who is not a licensed attorney to use the title “attorney” or such similar titles for business purposes. By allowing this practice on its website, a LCP is engaging in unethical, unlawful, and unprofessional conduct.

Similarly, it constitutes an unfair marketing practice when a LCP states on its website as partners one or more individuals who are not partners within a conventional legal and economical definition. The distinction is not merely a matter of choice of words; it reflects the firm’s size from an economical and legal point of view in informing clients how many lawyers there are to shoulder the financial burden and bear any liabilities. Thus, by making itself appear bigger than it actually is, LCP misleads prospective clients about a material fact.

Deliberate blurring of the traditional definition of what constitutes a partner in a law firm is also a breach of professional etiquette. We are concerned that were this practice allowed to continue uninterrupted, it might well spread throughout the legal community, which would come at the expense of the lawyers who have indeed earned the right to call themselves a partner. The deterioration of said standards, which have served the legal community well for several generations, would hurt both clients and the legal community as a whole.

 

Section 3.02 Legal Content

Visitors to LCP website need to be able to rely upon the accuracy of its legal content, of which the timeliness plays an important part. Article dates must not be automatically updated, falsely conveying the impression that they are up-to-date. This could lead to problems for a person who is mislead into relying upon the information being current when in fact the material may be outdated. Any LCP engaging in such a practice is willfully deceiving its visitors, in clear violation of its duty to provide current and accurate information.

The practice is also unfair to colleagues at other firms who struggle with providing up-to-date legal content on their websites. As any lawyer would know, doing so is time consuming, and the amount of recent legal articles a lawyer can provide may be a significant competitive factor. Thus it is claimed that LCP that provides automatically updated content is engaging in anti-competitive conduct.

We are concerned that were this conduct allowed to continue, it could well spread to other firms for obvious competitive reasons. This could tarnish the reputation not only of the firms themselves but of the legal community as a whole, once clients and visitors come to realize that they have been purposefully misled by attorneys.

 

Section 3.03 Responsiveness

As an important part of the legal community, LCP will be held to the highest standards. It has a duty to listen and respond to any legitimate criticism in an adequate and timely fashion.

No opinion by the Advocate-General is final, as we may at any time revisit an issue and amend or update our prior findings.

Topics: Legal Profession | No Comments »

Ratings are here

By administrator | August 9, 2009

We finally got to the point where we would like to be, namely the place where we can say that we have ratings readily available. 20 firms have been rated so far, with many more to follow over the coming weeks and months. We’ll be sure to keep you posted about these developments.

Meanwhile, let us take a few moments to reflect upon the ratings process itself. Here are some of the tools that we use:

Many concerns go into drafting a balanced review. The first time around, we need to take the time to familiarize ourselves with the website, to come to understand its basic structure and the underlying ideas. This is why we prefer to visit the website repeatedly prior to making the actual review. When we are ready, we go through the checklist one by one, examining each and every web page to the extent possible, taking detailed notes as we proceed. On some later occasion, we will return to the website, double-check our findings, decide upon the scores, and adjust our findings as necessary.

The most basic reviews take about two hours, not including report writing and creation of graphs, charts, and the actual ratings table. All things included, it would be fair to say that the simplest reviews take about 4 hours, and the more complex ones can take 10 hours or more.

Topics: Legal Profession | No Comments »

Ratings versus excellence

By administrator | July 30, 2009

A high score is not synonymous with a great website, nor is a low score synonymous with a poorly designed website. The reason is that our 51 Website Quality Criteria were developed to show whether any website - minimalist, complex or somewhere in between - has been successfully implemented in its present form.

A simple website may give us little to criticize, and will thus receive a high score regardless of whether or not it is "great." If it lacks clarity and key information, however, like minimalist websites often do, this will naturally lead to a lower score initially.

A complex website with many pages, much content, or advanced features requires a substantial effort to successfully implement and maintain over time. Such sites often give us much to criticize, leading to a lower score initially.

Our ratings are not final judgments, but indicators that additional work needs to be done. Our detailed critique and specific recommendations will enable any law firm to significantly enhance its website with minimal cost and effort. Leaving the fundamental design and other core components intact, the website can be made perfect by fixing any obvious errors and addressing other shortcomings.

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Levels of trust

By administrator | July 13, 2009

While our ratings system was designed to help law-related websites improve, it also enables us to alert visitors to potential problems areas. Lack of transparency, privacy policies, terms of use, copyright, and truth in advertising are of particular concern because they may affect not only the user experience but also the rights of consumers.

These issues are discussed in-depth in the general report and in the specific evaluation reports where they occur. As a supplement, we have developed an advisory and certification system in accordance with the Advocate-General’s Principles for Websites.

Topics: Legal Profession | No Comments »

A perfect website for your law firm

By administrator | June 30, 2009

This paper intends to validate and elucidate the Advocate-General’s Basic Principles for Websites, the 51 Website Quality Criteria, and the various methods that Virtual Law Center has developed to critique and improve upon law-related websites.

Based upon this model, we are presently in the process of reviewing a number of law firms around the world, beginning with 20 firms in June-July 2009 with many more to follow over the coming months. The reviews are thorough, each taking approximately 3-4 hours, some even longer all depending on the size and complexity of the site. Law firms come in all sizes and flavors, ranging from the sole proprietorship to mid-sized firms, to major corporations, to chains of independent firms. All of these types of firms are included in our survey from the onset.

Our critique aims to motivate as many law firms as possible into coming into compliance with the Advocate-General’s Basic Principles for Websites, which will benefit the law firms, their visitors, and the legal community. Our approach is one of frank critique by legally trained reviewers, based upon an objective set of criteria. All of our Website Quality Reports come with a complete set of detailed, illustrative recommendations. To safeguard our independence, we do not offer consultancy services, but the most critical problems can often be fixed with little effort or expense.

The focus of this paper is to make parts of our research available to a wider audience. As shown below, a law firm’s website may speak volumes about what it stands for, how trustworthy it is, and what its strengths and weaknesses are. When a sufficient number of websites are reviewed and then compared side-by-side, patterns begin to emerge:

The casual visitor to a website, whether a lawyer or a layperson, has scant chance to discover these issues on their own. Therefore, we will provide on this website a set of practical tools to help the general public judge for themselves:

Topics: Legal Profession | No Comments »

Website Quality Reports

By administrator | June 22, 2009


Our Website Quality Survey, a general study, has gone far in outlining (elucidating) the criteria that all law firms would be well-advised to follow in constructing, maintaining, and optimizing their website.

The model described in our Survey was deliberately designed to serve as a practical tool that enables us to reliably, effectively, objectively, and pointedly review any specific law-related website. We consider this to be a valuable service to those lawyers who are interested in improving their website for the benefit of themselves, the legal community, and consumers. Thus, as a supplement to the Survey we are writing an ever-growing number of Website Quality Reports targeted at individual law firms. These reports, available for purchase by anyone, include the following elements (51 point analysis, ratings table, illustrations, specific recommendations).

All quality evaluations were performed by lawyers, since it is our belief that a law-related website can only be reviewed in-depth by a professional who knows from personal experience what is to be expected, what is most important, and where something doesn’t seem to add up. But the reviewers tried to see it from various points of view. When in doubt, the reviewer turned to focus groups for feedback, so that the findings should fairly represent the widest viewing angle possible. Where practical, it will be noted whose perspective was used, such as inconveniences experienced by an unskilled user or errors that only a legally trained professional would presumably detect. Similarly, it may be noted who, if any, are primarily inconvenienced or harmed by an error and thus who has the most to gain by fixing the problem.

We are confident that the lawyers, having already invested substantial resources into building and continuously improving their websites, will recognize the reasonableness of our findings and the practical usefulness of our recommendations.

Topics: Legal Profession | No Comments »


« Previous Entries