Here at Tech Central, we try to keep in touch with the latest technological innovations and ideas in the legal world, particularly as they relate to law firm promotion and management. In the past, we have written about the importance of blogging and social media as the latest means for lawyers to connect with prospective clients. But an even newer concept is causing quite a buzz in the legal PR world.
A few months ago, Robert Grant Niznik, a recent New York Law School graduate, launched a website affectionately named Shpoonkle that aims to become the eBay of the legal industry. The site allows prospective legal clients to post a description of their legal concerns and then sit back and watch as lawyers bid for the opportunity to assist the clients with their problems. Clients are able to sift through the bids to find one that best suits the services and/or fees they expect.
In its first few months of operation, Shpoonkle saw hundreds of U.S. lawyers and prospective clients register and begin exchanging information and bids. A Canadian version-including a French-language version-went live in late September and already has more than 250 people registered.
Not surprisingly, legal blogs are alive with discussion on this new concept, with lawyers weighing in on both sides. Some applaud the innovative use of technology to connect lawyers with potential clients. In particular, the site has been popular with middle-income clients who earn too much to qualify for Legal Aid, but have difficulty affording the regular hourly rates of lawyers for their legal disputes. In those instances, it can be seen as a new proponent of Access to Justice.
Other critics, however, have been far less supportive, considering Shpoonkle to be a doomed experiment at best, and a dangerous blow to the respectability of the legal profession at worst. Many seem particularly concerned with the auction concept, with lawyers bidding lower and lower to win an account. New York criminal defence attorney Scott Greenfield, on his blog Simple Justice, called it "the elevation of price over quality," and the "next step to the de-professionalization of legal services, where the purchase of legal services is no different than buying a widget at the big box store for the lowest available price."
Others still are more ambivalent, noting that this type of service has been attempted, unsuccessfully, before. A site called Tip-Mart and a later one called LawyerQuotesFast. com (a.k.a. LawyersForLess.com) promised similar services to those now offered by Shpoonkle. Neither site exists today.
Will Shpoonkle gain traction where others have failed? Will clients and lawyers embrace this new use of technology to connect with each other? We'll keep our eye on this issue and let you know. §