Is it improving access to justice?
Daniel Lublin's weekly column in the Metro News was a caution to the public about buying legal services over the internet. The article highlighted a situation where a business got "burned" by using a "contract" form they had purchased online. They thought they could save money by not paying for the lawyer's time.
The companies that provide forms (such as DynamicLawyers.com, lawdepot.ca, megadox.com here in Canada), all have the same general philosophy; that some people just can't afford a lawyer's services, and by providing forms they are providing them with some level of access to justice.
As pointed out by Sapna Mahboobani, there are varying degrees of online legal services - from forms, to lawyer prepared forms, to online lawyer services. An online lawyer is a service where the client only consults with the lawyer virtually (by email, skype, etc.) Again, the idea for the public is that with an online lawyer there is an expected cost savings.
But wouldn't the public be better served if the legal industry in Canada moved towards the unbundling of legal services?
Andrew Feldstein asks a pertinent question in a recent video blog:
...why shouldn’t individuals retain lawyers on a limited retainer basis and have them complete the work which they do not want to or are unable to complete on their own?
Could an alternative lawyer-client relationship not help provide access to better justice for those individuals who typically can't afford comprehensive legal services but are in desperate need of help?
