First, a little background. I started this post on the first day of the Minnesota State Fair, thinking that it would be a humorous piece that threw around references to this year’s latest batch of food on-a-stick.  Between then and now, though, I reflected a bit, especially as news about traditional legal services continued to go south. With Minnesota Lawyer running a story about non-existent business for new attorneys, LaVern Pritchard providing a long list of what’s ailing the profession, and the ABA Journal reporting on “major cash” being funneled into enterprises that try to draw legal services away from law firms, I was decidedly glum.

At about the same time, I received an email from an attorney from a legal services organization,  inquiring about partnering with the MSBA in developing automated forms for pro se parties. It was a good idea, centered around using technology to help deliver legal services to low-income people. Yet, that same day on the MSBA’s solosmall and family law list servs, lawyers lamented the fact that even modest income folks are going the DIY way, filling out forms as best as they can, sometimes making it work and sometimes making it worse.

No longer will your website only provide information about your services, it will provide services.The profession is decidedly mixed on what to do.  Some lawyers are taking advantage of it, some are actively working against it, but most seem to be slogging forward without much change.

Enter law on-a-stick. Law on-a-stick is, as with most food on-a-stick, something rearranged and repackaged, often putting together seemingly impossible combinations or concepts, like spaghetti and meatballs on-a-stick and salad on-a-stick. Law on-a-stick is portable, easily available, and readily understood, at least as to what you are doing and what the client is getting. Here’s what else it looks like:

• It is available 24/7. No longer will your website only provide information about your services, it will provide services. Consumers or clients (you pick the nomenclature) will access and complete forms online, download guides, and get feedback and advice from you about legal issues, all electronically. Are you up and working 24/7? No way. But your website makes it seem that way. After all, does LegalZoom sleep?
• It has simple pricing. Notice the use of the term “pricing” instead of fees. Again, it’s a nod to the consumer, who very quickly wants to know the bottom line. Want a blank form with detailed instructions? Fifty bucks. Want a form with a final review by an attorney? One hundred bucks. Want the estate planning package? Five hundred smackers, with a clear list of what you get. Want hour-to-hour pricing? We can do that on our premium or platinum price plan, at two hundred bucks an hour.
• It is participatory. We cannot do all the work ourselves. That’s where the consumer, er client, comes in. You don’t fill in forms and interview the client, or even go to court. The client fills in and reviews much of the information online. And with limited scope services as a central part of the concept (known as the “Starter Package”), the client goes to court. What do you do? You provide and review the materials and give the consumer what you are trained to provide: advice and counsel.
• It is transparent. Whoa. Transparency? This is the attorney-client privilege we’re talking about. No, I’m not talking about eroding that privilege, but I am talking about making the practice of law much more transparent so that consumers understand it, see how it works, and participate more fully. Law on-a-stick lays out all the core legal options in a clear and understandable way.
• It is irreverent. Okay, this is really my personal preference. I’m currently a huge fan of two online services that use humor to deliver their products: MailChimp and WuFoo. When I send out an email through MailChimp (an email marketing service) I get a confirmation from MailChimp as follows: “That was indeed a fine piece of work. You totally deserve a raise.” Who is to say that humor and irony won’t work for legal services, at least in making us less stuffy, more understandable, and more human? Will it always work? No way. But it can work in small and effective doses, not to highlight someone’s legal problems but to give a consumer a genuine but humorous pat on the back for using your services.
• It is non-litigious. I’m not sure how law on-a-stick can be easily applied to litigation. But it will shift the focus of service away from litigation and more toward preventative work, as litigation will only continue to be more and more expensive to consumers and an option only after all other options have been exhausted.

Law on-a-stick embraces the commodification of legal services and takes advantage of the clear signs that consumers (whom we used to call potential clients) are walking away from attorneys and into the arms of all sorts of pseudo legal service providers, including pro se help centers, online form generators, and retail “doc in a box” outfits. It means making the legal profession more human by looking around at successful service-oriented businesses and capitalizing on what works, particularly what works with increasing use of online delivery of content.

Will it work for everyone? Nope, not at all. But it could work for lawyers whose bread and butter are those bread and butter individual matters: probate, family law, estate planning, real estate, and even misdemeanor criminal matters. With the quickening march toward commodification of legal services, there may not be much left to lose.