Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy

by Colette Menaldino

Anonymous, a global cyber-collective, claimed responsibility for taking down various websites, which include the Department Of Justice, Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, U.S. Copyright Office, and Universal Music among others. Facilitated by anonymous individuals, their action was in retaliation to the Department of Justice shutdown of Megaupload after being indicted and charging employees of the company with conspiracy to commit racketeering and criminal copyright infringement.

The charges were based on the current law, 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c) “Racketeering Violation”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b)(1) & 2319(d)(2); 17 U.S.C. §§ 506(a)(1)(A) & 506(a)(1)(C) (criminal copyright infringement).  According to the indictment, the safe-harbor provision provided in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was not applicable to Megaupload.  This safe-harbor protects Internet companies from copyright liability if they block access to allegedly infringing material after receiving notification of its infringement.

According to the indictment, Megaupload “willfully infring[ed] copyrights themselves … [had] actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing … or … know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent … receive a financial benefit …and have not removed, disabled access to, known copyright infringement material from servers they control.” Megaupload is a file-sharing service, allowing users to upload files, and eventually allows others to download the file.  This Hong Kong based company hosted some of its allegedly pirated content on leased servers in Virginia, giving the DOJ jurisdiction to act.

The timing of the charges against Megaupload comes in the middle of a debate regarding proposed legislation in the House and Senate on two bills to further the fight against pirated material, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA or Protect I.P.). Several criticisms of the bills include a violation of free speech, the bills’ broad language, “unnecessary damage to innocent Web businesses”, the bypassing of the safe harbor provision in the DMCA by placing the burden on the website to monitor its content, and the threat of blacklisting.

In response to this proposed legislation several websites, including Wikipedia, Boingboing, Reddit and others shut down their services for one day in protest.  Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, indicated that free speech was the primary reason for the website’s blackout. “The more philosophical point is (that) if you asked me where the Pirate Bay is located and I tell you the answer — it’s at this IP address — that is speech. The Supreme Court has held that code is speech. And it doesn’t matter that it’s done on a computer or done face to face or done in a newspaper, reporting the facts of the world is protected speech.”  Wales credited the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provisions as having “worked very well”.

In an open letter to members of Congress, Harvard Law School’s constitutional expert, Laurence Tribe, contends that SOPA violates the First Amendment. Tribes cites to the prior restraint doctrine, that a court must make a ruling on whether speech is protected before silencing that speech, as well as the broad and vague language which could lead to harmful results.  Tribe recognizes that “ [a]lthough the problems of online copyright and trademark infringement are genuine, SOPA is an extreme measure that is not narrowly tailored to governmental interests.”

In a statement to the House of Representations regarding SOPA, Paul E. Almeida, President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), made it clear that “freedom of speech is not the same as lawlessness on the Internet.  There is no inconsistency between protecting an open Internet and safeguarding intellectual property … the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks.” While U.S. prosecutors are unable to reach foreign websites that traffic copyrighted intellectual property, SOPA and PIPA were to provide a possible solution.  However, due to the extensive protests and meaningful issues raised regarding the consequences of the legislation, the Senate postponed its vote on the bill, “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Representative Smith stated, “The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.”  Additionally, Smith wrote, “There’s no reason that legitimate issues raised about Protect I.P. can’t be resolved”.

by Clay Flaherty

On January 18, 2012, thousands of websites participated in a mass, online protest to raise awareness in the United States regarding two bills currently before the US Congress. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are the offending pieces of legislation, and the online protests against them have drawn participation from many heavyweight digital companies — Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, craigslist, WordPress, Mozilla, and imgur. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also weighed-in with his website’s opposition to the legislation.

Opponents maintain that the law, if enacted, would severely infringe on their ability to communicate and share on the Internet. Both Clay Shirky, a Distinguished Writer in Residence at New York University, and the Khan Academy have advanced this viewpoint in their respective explanations of the legislation. Shirky argues that the law will have the ultimate effect of stifling individual expression over the Internet: “The biggest producers of content on the Internet are not Google and Yahoo, they’re us, we’re the people getting policed … In the end, the real threat [of] the enactment of PIPA and SOPA is our ability to share things with one another.”

Potentially more disturbing are accusations from both activists that SOPA will subvert the American justice system’s presumption of innocence by shifting the burden of copyright enforcement from holders of copyrights to the alleged violators. From a legal standpoint, the issues run quite a bit deeper. A December 2011 article written by Mark Lemley, David Levine and David Post in the Stanford Law Review, claims that the proposed bills would be “an unprecedented, legally sanctioned assault on the Internet’s critical technical infrastructure” that “violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing … and also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech.”

The two pieces of legislation were introduced by Representative Lamar Smtih (R-TX) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), respectively, and were ostensibly written to address the problem of online piracy. However, what the online protests and a recent condemnation from President Obama’s White House seem to indicate is that something is amiss. Some of the largest supporters of SOPA — the Entertainment Software Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, and GoDaddy.com — have seen their legislative initiative stopped dead in a matter of days. US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his decision to postpone the debate on PIPA on January 20, 2012. Representative Smith subsequently announced that consideration of SOPA would be delayed indefinitely in response to the public outcry.

Although proponents, and once-proponents, of SOPA and PIPA have agreed that changes are likely necessary — many remain resolute that this is only a temporary legislative roadblock. Senator Leahy has been one of the most vocal to continue their support of the legislation. In a statement issued by his office, he lamented that “more time will pass with jobs lost and economies hurt by foreign criminals who are stealing American intellectual property, and selling it back to American consumers.” He also reiterated his commitment to passing the legislation in some form: “I remain committed to addressing this problem; I hope other members of Congress won’t simply stand on hollow promises to find a way to eliminate online theft by foreign rogue websites, and will instead work with me to send a bill to the President’s desk this year.”

It seems unlikely that legislation aimed at combating online piracy is truly “dead.” There has already been a demonstrated willingness to change the legislation to address concerns over governmental “overreach.” Prior to his decision to postpone consideration of the bill, Representative Smith had already capitulated in agreeing to remove an especially controversial part of the bill that would have caused websites accused of copyright infringement to be blocked from the Domain Name System. It should also be noted that SOPA and PIPA are simply the latest in a line of bills attempting to regulate digital copyright entitlements, such as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) introduced by Senator Leahy in September 2010.

by La-Donna Lawrence

Facebook has facilitated reconnecting with old friends, made keeping up with family more convenient and sharing our thoughts and lives as simple as a status update. The social networking site has also made it easier to detect and prove the violation of Protection From Abuse Orders (“PFA”). PFAs are often the first line of defense for someone trying to keep safe from an abusive partner or relative. The order can remove the abusive party from a jointly occupied residence and provide that no contact may occur between the parties for up to three years. PFA orders include language requiring that the abusing party refrain from stalking or harassing the PFA petitioner. Prior to the mainstream use of Facebook, a violation of these PFA provisions would include a phone call, delivering messages to the PFA plaintiff through a third party, mail or traditional harassing behavior or in-person stalking. However, Facebook has armed PFA defendants with new, creative ways to bedevil their past spouses and estranged relatives.

Today, changing your Facebook relationship status to widowed after repeated threats to kill your wife can greatly impact a judge’s finding at a PFA hearing. PFA plaintiffs are increasingly offering screenshots of Facebook activity as evidence of abuse or harassment in order to obtain a PFA as well as proof of a PFA violation. Writing a Facebook status about someone with whom you should have no contact may count as a violation. Some attorneys agree that a post about your former spouse or estranged relative for mutual friends to see may qualify as third party communication because it is intuitive that the poster wanted his or her message to be passed on. Other legal minds believe that freedom of expression ought to protect such a poster. Facebook activities like sending friend requests and wall posts are sure violations of PFAs. In some instances, photos alluding to violence towards a PFA plaintiff may be construed as a violation. This fall, a PFA petitioner in Allegheny County offered as evidence, a Facebook photo post of her former boyfriend with a gun in his mouth with the caption “we gonna go out like Romeo and Juliet.” The petitioner concluded that the defendant planned to kill her and then himself like the lovers in the famous Shakespeare play. In a similar incident, another Pennsylvania PFA defendant posted a diagram of his father-in-law’s house to show how a person could launch an attack and make a clean getaway. His estranged wife, the PFA plaintiff, described the diagram as an accurate depiction of the property and told her legal team that it elicited fear and she felt stalked. Even though the defendant claimed his posts were not intended to threaten or harass the plaintiff, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel, presiding over the case explained that the standard for identifying a true threat is whether a reasonable person would perceive a statement as a threat of death or bodily harm.

PFA defendants will have to be calculated when they update their statuses to reflect their emotions and careful about how they interact with mutual friends. Since Facebook has become a staple interface for many, that online space has become tangible and tampering with it can be construed to be just as intrusive as meddling in traditional spaces. Facebook has become a trending source of evidence in not only PFA cases, but in large number of diverse legal matters. Facebookers, take heed when you post.

by Jennie Ryan

Authorities in the United States shut down 100 rogue servers last month in a response to what officials say was a massive international malware scheme designed to redirect computer users to links which were unrelated to those on which they intended to click.  Working closely with foreign officials, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation located the rogue servers in several American cities, including Chicago and New York. The malware is thought to have affected over 4 million computer users across the globe and as many as 500,000 individual, business, and government users in the U.S. alone.

Seven individuals, six Estonian nationals and one Russian, were each charged in the Southern District of New York with five counts of wire fraud and computer intrusion. One of the co-defendants was charged with an additional 22 counts of money laundering in relation to the scheme. The Estonian suspects were arrested by Estonian authorities while the Russian suspect is still being sought by police. If they are convicted, they face possible sentences of up to 30 years in prison.

The term ‘click hijack’ references the manner in which the infectious malware redirects unsuspecting internet users. When a user whose computer has been infected with the virus clicks on a link they are directed to unrelated advertising websites. These advertising sites pay fees for traffic to their websites. Redirection to those websites resulted in as much as $14 million dollars in fees for the suspects behind the ploy. ‘Click hijacking’ is a particularly nefarious and subtle form of cybercrime, and many users will never become aware that their computer is infected.

The suspects are also accused of engaging in advertising replacement fraud. It is alleged that they used their rogue servers to replace legitimate advertisements with ones that would earn them money. According to the indictment, the defendants laundered money from their exploits through Rove Digital, an Estonian corporation.

The investigation into the ‘click hijacking’ operation began in 2009 when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) discovered a virus on 100 of its computers according to Paul Martin, NASA inspector general. The discovery and closure of the rogue servers marks an important victory in the fight against cybercrime. According to Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, “[t]he international cyber threat is perhaps the most significant challenge faced by law enforcement and national security agencies today, and this case is just perhaps the tip of the Internet iceberg.”

by Katie Hopkins

On December 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Samsung. This injunction would have prohibited Samsung from selling its Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Droid Charge phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer until Apple’s claims were adjudicated at trial.

Samsung is the leading manufacturer of smartphones worldwide, having passed Apple in the third quarter of 2011. Samsung had approximately 24 percent of the global smartphone market in the third quarter, nearly nine points higher than that of Apple. However, Apple continues to dominate the worldwide tablet market. iPad sales are expected to account for approximately 73 percent of worldwide tablet sales in 2011.

Apple sued Samsung in April of 2011, claiming infringement on both design and utility patents. The motion for preliminary injunction focused primarily on the design patents. Apple claims Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets are slavish copies of Apple’s iPhone and iPad products. However, Samsung asserts its products are a result of natural advancement in technology.

Friday’s ruling was not a major surprise because of the high burden Apple faced in order to prevail on the motion and the reluctance of courts to remove products from the market before a full adjudication of the claims. To prevail on its motion, Apple needed to demonstrate: (1) some likelihood of success on the underlying merits of the case; (2) that irreparable harm would have ensued if the ban was not granted; (3) that the balance of hardships weighed in its favor; and (4) that the public interest is served by granting its motion.

The court opined that Apple established a likelihood of success, but infringement remained a close decision. The court stated that Apple failed to clearly identify how an injunction would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed because other manufacturers might be the major beneficiaries of an injunction. The court also determined that public interest does not weigh strongly in the favor of either party because the protection of patent rights and a company’s right to open competition fall within the ambit of public interest. Lastly, the court determined the balance of hardships weighed in favor of Samsung because of the devastating effect of removing a product from the market, especially if wrongfully removed. Thus, weighing these factors, the court denied Apple’s injunction.

This win for Samsung came just in time for the profitable holiday season. Nevertheless, the decision was not all bad news for Apple, as the court stated that Apple has demonstrated a likelihood of success in the underlying infringement suit.

Following the ruling, Samsung asserts that the court’s decision confirms that “Apple’s argument lacks merit,” while Apple reiterates its position of protecting its products and patents. The case will go to trial in July 2012.

by Ashley N. Wood

Jessica Mpafe lived in Minnesota and wanted to serve her absent husband with divorce papers, who was believed to be living in Africa. No physical address for him was available. Jessica offered service by means of publication in a newspaper, but the court informed her it was a waste of time and unlikely her husband would ever see it.

So what did Jessica do?

She served her husband with the divorce proceedings using Facebook. The judge wrote an order authorizing Jessica to serve notice of process by email, “Facebook, Myspace or any other social networking site.”

In May 2011, the Minnesota court upheld the judge’s order, becoming the first court in the United States to uphold a “publication on the Internet” as an acceptable service of process, so long as it followed the same “information and timing requirements that would go into a newspaper.” The court also instructed Jessica that if her husband contacted her she must “make every effort to provide him with the summons and petition. Otherwise, the information posted via [any Facebook, Myspace or other social networking site] shall be sufficient service.”

While this is just one isolated case, the idea of service of process by Facebook or other social networking sites is not a far-off reality. In fact, several countries have already ruled in favor of using these websites over the more expensive and archaic methods of newspaper ads. Australia started the trend in 2008 when the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court granted a default judgment on a loan and allowed it to be served by private message to the defendants’ public Facebook pages. Following several failed attempts of service, the attorney found the woman’s Facebook page and used its details, including that her partner was listed as one of her “friends,” to persuade the court to grant permission to serve process on the social networking site.

Canada, New Zealand, and, more recently in March 2011, the United Kingdom, all allow a plaintiff to serve a summons on defendants’ Facebook pages. The New Zealand court, for example, explained its allowance by highlighting that the defendant engaged in online banking, used email to correspond with friends and had a Facebook account.

While this may seem preposterous, Facebook acts like an electronic newspaper that follows the defendant wherever he travels. Like a newspaper, which is an acceptable form of service of process, the general public may view the notice on the individual’s public wall (depending on privacy settings). Facebook may also be more beneficial than print because it allows users to post images or scanned PDFs of actual court documents via HTML links, and monitor a user’s activity on the site. Once received, the very act of deleting such links could indicate a defendant’s notice of process. A plaintiff might also tag a defendant through a post on Facebook. If he were to untag himself, this action could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of summons.

Facebook as a means of service is not without limitations. Plaintiffs must demonstrate they have attempted service by other, more “traditional” means. Plaintiffs must also have identifiers to indicate the targeted online profile does, in fact, belong to the person sought to be served (such as date of birth, email addresses, or known online friends). Finally, a plaintiff must show the defendant visits such sites regularly, which can be demonstrated by the activity on his or her Facebook wall.

While the idea of service via Facebook seems to be unusual to many in the U.S. today, the increase of its use and acceptance as a valid form of process around the world indicate that social networking sites will soon be the new way of service of process for those hard-to-reach defendants.

by Laura Gomez Martin

The increased popularity of smartphones leaves many mobile phone users vulnerable to information privacy breaches.  According to the Pew Internet and American Life project, it is estimated that 30% of American mobile users have a smartphone, as opposed to a traditional cell phone. While these devices may be beneficial and convenient, they are quickly becoming targets for hackers. In the summer of 2011, ‘The News of the World’ tabloid shut down after allegations by law enforcement that the magazine had a history of hacking into the cell phones of high profile individuals. In October of 2011, 35-year-old Christopher Chaney of Jacksonville, Florida, was indicted on charges of accessing computers without authorization, wiretapping, and aggravated identity theft. It is alleged that he hacked into the computers and smartphones of more than fifty celebrities.

High profile individuals and celebrities are not the only targets of those hoping to exploit smartphone vulnerability. Smartphones used by the general population are increasingly becoming a lucrative target for hackers. Many individuals use their cell phones to check their e-mails, send texts, check their bank account balances, and make purchases and payments. Some users take advantage of virtual wallets, such as Google Wallet, which store credit cards right on your phone for convenience. The threats faced by smartphone users vary from the simple breach, such as hacking into the users voicemail, to the more complicated installation of viruses and worms that allow information to be read and sent to other devices. Besides taking personal data, some hackers are able to access the camera, speakers, and GPS signals from a user’s phone.

Analysts say that there are some personal measures that users can take to protect themselves. Among these measures is the installation of a password protected home screen; this password should not be discernable from any other publically available information (birth date, name, etc.). Another measure that users can take is to never open e-mail or texts from unknown numbers – as such messages can carry the spyware necessary to steal personal information. Besides the personal security measures that smartphone users can take, antivirus companies are now starting to focus on protecting smartphone data.McAfee recently introduced a package that would protect a user’s smartphones, tablets, and computers.

Due to the personal information stored on these devices, protecting smartphone users from growing threats is important. Lookout, a mobile security startup company, says that up to a million people were afflicted by mobile malware in the first half of 2011.  According to Lookout, the threat for Android users is two and a half times higher than it was just six months ago. Other devices, such as iPhones, are also vulnerable; in November of 2011, a researcher discovered a bug in Apple’s operating system that would allow hackers to take control of iPhone apps and use them to steal photos, contacts, and send messages. As a result of smartphone vulnerabilities, the U.S. legal system could see an influx of cases related to wiretapping and identity theft caused by cell phone breaches.

by Cheri Williams

Spokeo is social network information-gathering website that aggregates data from many online and offline sources (such as directories, social networks, photo albums, mailing lists, government databases, real estate listings, and business websites).  It purports to know extremely personal information regarding the individuals listed on its site, for example: satellite views of your home, credit status, religion, property wealth, estimated value of your home, and other private information.

In the beginning, you could search for anyone as long as you knew their name, phone number, and/or email address.  However, within the past year, they have updated the site to include a username search.  This search scans across dating sites, blogs, social networks, photo albums, and other web services to find online profiles with comparable usernames.

So, why is this legal?

The Center for Technology Democracy and Technology has already petitioned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Spokeo for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  However, Spokeo claims that it does not originate the information that it collects.  It only gathers public information from other online databases.

Furthermore, it is only a crime to sell credit reporting information without proper authorization according to the FCRA.  Nevertheless, Spokeo has been able to get around this by not reporting the actual score, but by reporting a general credit score of either high or low.

Spokeo states that its mission is to “help people find and connect with others, more easily than ever.”  But, many individuals view this site as a criminal’s playground.  The biggest concern is that it will make it easier for criminals to access personal information and enable cyber-stalking and online impersonations.  Even more, Spokeo provides “credit estimate” and “wealth level” information, as well as mortgage value and estimated income on its site — even though much of the information seems to be inaccurate.

Recently in July 2011, a class action suit has been filed against Spokeo for publishing and marketing false and inaccurate information.  In Purcell v. Spokeo, Inc., the plaintiff seeks claims for the violation of the FCRA, Unjust Enrichment, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  Spokeo’s motion to dismiss has been recently denied by the court.

Also in May, in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., the district court granted in part and denied in part Spokeo’s motion to dismiss the claims that it violated the FCRA.  Spokeo’s main argument was that it is not a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA.  The court found that the plaintiff created a “plausible inference” that Spokeo was a consumer reporting agency subject to the FCRA by demonstrating that Spokeo regularly accepts money in exchange for reports that “contain data and evaluations regarding consumers’ economic wealth and creditworthiness.”

Yet, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) has come to Spokeo’s defense.  Their advice being: “If you don’t like your information showing up to ex-spouses, potential bosses, bill collectors, and the curious masses, don’t provide it to social networking sites.”  But, even if you do not use Twitter or Facebook, Spokeo may still gather personal information from other databases.

Nonetheless, you are able to opt-out and remove your listing from the site.  The link is accessible from the “Privacy” link on the bottom of the home page.  You will need to find your listing, copy the URL, and fill out the required information.  When listings are opted out, a permanent flag is placed on the listing so that it does not reappear on the site.

Short of living in a cave and never using the internet again – or federal law – all internet users will have to accept that Spokeo may be here to stay.

by Colette Menaldino

The fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 established the standards for the “Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”  The International Committee of the Red Cross has an international mandate for its work, provided by the 1949 Geneva Convention.  The ICRC, an independent and neutral organization, assists in the protection of victims of war and “promotes respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation in national law.”

In 2009, the ICRC published guidelines to clarify what international humanitarian law says about civilians directly participating in hostilities and to identify civilians who lose protection against direct attack.  Although the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance is not legally binding, it provides persuasive authority to further protect civilians in time of war.  This interpretation is paramount in an age where technology is used to replace human actions and where civilians and militants may not be readily discernible.

The fourth Geneva Convention protects “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”; however, civilians who assume a continuous combat function may be direct participants.  Concerns have been raised over whether targeted killings undergone by the CIA’s drone strikes violate international law because the killings include unidentified persons, potentially civilians.

Pakistani drone strikes, and recently the killing of a U.S. teenager in Yemen during a U.S. drone strike, have spurred these concerns.  The former legal advisor to the U.S. State Department, John B. Bellinger III, stated: “The U.S. spends a lot of effort attempting to minimize collateral damage and is abiding by the international law principles of distinction (ensuring a target is a lawful military target) and proportionality (the military case outweighs the risk to civilian life.)”  Notwithstanding, the White House initiated a review of the CIA drone program after an increase in disputes.  The Wall Street Journal, reflecting months of reporting, reported that although the review did not result in disapproval of the CIA program, there were noted changes in the protocol of making strike decisions.  A senior official stated, “there is a recognition you need to be damn sure it’s worth it.”  Other U.S. officials maintain the program’s bar for specified targets has always been high and the program “remains as aggressive as ever.”

These drone strikes are either “signature” or “personality” strikes.  The targets of a “personality” strike are known terrorist leaders.  The targets of a “signature” strike are groups of people the U.S. identifies as fighters, although the identities may not be always known.

Human Rights First, a nonprofit, nonpartisan international human rights organization, raises the issue of whether the CIA’s “signature” targeting, killing groups of unidentified individuals merely because it believes they’re associated with terrorist groups, meets the legal requirements.  Although drone technology may have increasing accuracy of targeting and surveillance, there has been a call for more transparency in the drone program that assures legal compliance, which may prevent a loss of international support and exposure to legal liability.

by Robert Morgan

Google Ventures recently placed an $18.5 million bet on the evolution of the legal market.  This development represents the latest signal that the combination of a weak economy and advancing technology is finally promoting change in an industry known for moving at a glacial pace.

With its investment in Rocket Lawyer, which offers free legal documents and a network of attorneys to provide legal advice online, the technology giant provides one of the latest examples of the paradigm shift in the delivery of legal services.

Rocket Lawyer, and similar services such as LegalZoom, seek to capitalize on clients’ unwillingness and inability to pay increasingly skyrocketing legal fees in an economy that forces a tightening of expenses.

Both companies, however, represent only a sample of the new model for delivering legal services.

For example, Axiom, provides its corporate clients with an alternative to traditional law firms.  By doing away with standard brick-and-mortar law offices, Axiom competes with BigLaw firms by primarily outsourcing their attorneys to corporate legal teams that would traditionally hire outside counsel for projects and other legal needs.

They are able to be competitive because technology allows them to maintain a “virtual law office” wherein attorneys can stay connected to each other, and to clients, while primarily working either at home or at a client’s office.  This model eliminates the need for expensive offices, extensive support teams, and other fixed costs that typically drive up the price of legal services.  Axiom typically hires talent from top law firms, and claims  to offer the same expertise as a traditional firm at a fraction of the cost.

Furthermore, solo practitioners have also recently begun to take advantage of these changes.  Not only has technology made operating a small or solo practice online more accessible, but consumers also seem increasingly willing to deal with attorneys without meeting them face-to-face.  Firms such as Kimbro Legal Services or Rachel Rodgers Law Office operate in a space somewhere in between document providers and Axiom.  They typically offer a set of “unbundled” legal services in a particular practice area, generally for a flat fee.

Using the latest technology frees solo practitioners from the typical constraints of maintaining an expensive office space and staff, and provides alternative career prospects in a tough job market.

The legal community, however, has not always been willing to accept these new methods of providing legal service.  LegalZoom has come under fire in several states by being accused of providing unlicensed legal advice.  Although the company maintains that its free service does not constitute legal advice, these states have challenged that proposition.  It remains to be seen how much opposition LegalZoom and RocketLawyer will face moving forward.

On the other hand, most state bar associations, including Pennsylvania, accept that technology allows attorneys to provide advice solely over the Internet.  However, some states, such as New Jersey, have issued rulings requiring that an attorney at least maintain a bona fide office at which his or her clients may meet them.  Such rulings do not bar attorneys from engaging in e-lawyering, but attorneys utilizing such a practice must blend it with a traditional law office.

Clearly, technology has changed the model for delivering legal services.  The various forms of online legal services may still be developing, but alternatives to traditional law firms should remain a viable option both for clients seeking legal services and attorneys trying to establish a niche in their careers.