LegalZoom in QualitySolicitors tie-up
US online legal services shop LegalZoom is to come to Britain later this year in partnership with UK network QualitySolicitors, the Gazette has learned.
LegalZoom claims to be the most recognised legal brand in the US and the leading provider of online legal documentation services for small business and consumers.
Under the arrangement, clients will have access to a range of legal products, including company formations, wills, and power of attorney and divorce documents online. Solicitors from 400 QualitySolicitors branches will be available to review or help complete the documents, and provide face-to-face advice and representation. Businesses and individuals will also be able to join subscription-based legal plans, providing a range of online services, backed up by advice from QS firms.
Neither party would reveal financial details of the partnership. QualitySolicitors said LegalZoom would be promoting its own brand through a UK website and TV advertising, but will ‘not be partnering with anyone else’.
LegalZoom’s co-founder, Edward Hartman, said the partnership would improve access to legal services in the UK where ‘so few people know where to turn for legal help’. He said: ‘We will offer personalised contracts for home-building projects and contracts of service for au pairs or nannies – just two common examples where currently people tend not to access legal services.’
QualitySolicitors’ chief executive Craig Holt said: ‘Making high-quality, personalised legal solutions this quick, accessible and convenient has the potential to completely revolutionise the way people and businesses deal with legal needs in the UK.’
Comments
Tie up
Another smart move by Craig Holt and will be interesting to see if this benefits the member firms or not. On the one hand, some may argue it will take business away from them as people will but the docs. On the other hand, it will generate a lot of traffic and possibly follow up work for the law firms in QS portfolio as a document alone may not be what a customer needs.
LegalZoom is not QualitySolicitors
Folks in the UK apparently misunderstand the LegalZoom model. Whereas QualitySolicitors is essentially a referral service that drives clients to registered solicitors; LegalZoom eliminates the solicitor by offering self-help services.
Want to incorporate? LegalZoom sells an incorporation "service" with fill-in forms and the like for use by a self-represented person.
Need a divorce? LegalZoom offers paperwork suitable for your jurisdiction.
The thrust of LegalZoom and similar services is to reduce costs to the self-represented individual by eliminating or minimizing the services of an attorney.
Having been intimately involved in online legal services for the past decade, it is my opinion that businesses like LegalZoom do not drive more business to solicitors; just the opposite.
But you seem to have missed
But you seem to have missed the point, which is that QS is a CMC, and therefore does not care less whether the member firms benefit (as they have to pay their annual fees to QS regardless).
Of course they care if the
Of course they care if the firms benefit. If a firm doesn't benefit from membership, they'll cancel it!
I think this is fantastic
I think this is fantastic news for all QS firms.
DomCoop Why are you being so
DomCoop
Why are you being so negative about this partnership, surely it will bring good things to the people who work at the firms.
Fantastic in what sense? Are
Fantastic in what sense?
Are you being ironic?
According to a Google search
According to a Google search (so it may or may not be right!) LegalZoom are responsible for 1 in 5 new business formations in their home state of California (which has a legal market almost as big as the UK). If they recreate that over here - surely QS firms will then pick up the legal work of most of those businesses. That sounds pretty unironically fantastic for QS firms to me!
Why would it follow that a
Why would it follow that a person who searched on the internet for such terms as "free tenancy agreement", or "start company without solicitor", etc. - i.e. people who have deliberately sought out legal services on the basis that they DON'T want a solicitor - would then use QS?
At best QS may be able to pick up some marketing opportunities to sell to it's panel firms. Or am I missing something?
I think the idea of the
I think the idea of the partnership is that when people want to go it alone but realise the complexities and need help, QS firms will be the first port of call.
Thereby depriving the online
Thereby depriving the online form company of their clients and income. So that can't really be the plan, can it?!
I should think they'd get a
I should think they'd get a nice juicy referral fee...
Fact.
Let's look at this for what it really is. It's an incredible opportunity for the Quality brand and their firms to really keep on top of their game. Quality is high on the agenda for quite a few firms I've been speaking to today, certainly in light of the announcement by the Co-op this morning.
Facts An argument does not
Facts
An argument does not gain strength by being repeated three times, or did you press the wrong button?
When I mention the name "Quality Solicitors" to members of the public and other intermediaries, they quite often recoil- epsecially at the name Quality, since it is perceived as a little downmarket.
I receive almost all my reccomendations for business work from accountants, who will not be swayed by this type of marketing but will rely instead on real feedback from their clients.
Have you noticed how often organisations like Co-op, Quality Solicitors and others all claim that they will be the "dominant provider" of legal services in the next few years-they can't all doiminate?
That's fair comment, but
That's fair comment, but you'd have to think there may be some budding entrepreneurs who, if they don't want a solicitor when setting up their business, probably won't have an accountant yet either.
The brand's not going to be to everyone's tastes but at least it's memorable and conveys a message, at least it's better than 'Injury Lawyers 4 U' and such ilk.
Sorry it still reminds me of
Sorry it still reminds me of Christmas time
The market...
In this fragmented market, there is definitely room for more than one dominant brand. My view is that there will be 2-3 dominant legal brands in the UK- with Quality being one of them. I spoke to my wife who is in marketing about this earlier and her view is that the more brands there are marketing legal services in the way that Quality are or the Co-op will be doing, the better. It only emphasises to potential clients etc that things are changing within the market and they will be more inclined to make choices towards the top 2 or 3 (apparantly 70/80% of the public go with a brand over non-brands). The message of convenience and reassurance you get from brands these days is really very difficult to compete with if we are independant firms going it alone. I know nothing about marketing and it bores me to death but my wife has a point.
You assume that the "Brand"
You assume that the "Brand" led approach to providing legal services spells the death knell of the traditional firm.Marketeers would say this wouldnt they?
I beg to differ .The public detest call centres and much of special "brand style" legal services will be provided by call centres/regional hubs.
If Brands are so wonderful why did the Banks fall so spectacularly from grace despite millions being pured into the promotion of banking brands?
Of course the difference with
Of course the difference with QS being that they ARE the traditional firms, rather than large regional hubs like with the Co-op. Each firm retains their autonomy and name (sort of) but the brand means they're a lot easier to find due to the hefty marketing which most individual firms simply cannot afford.
but how long do you think
but how long do you think such firms will keep their autonomy?
Quality Sweets -sorry Quality Law reminds me of the tensions over the EU- there is a perpetual movement of powers to the centre.
So it will come to pass with QS
Firms I have spoken to were approached by QS and refused to join for this very reason
Maybe in a few year's time if
Maybe in a few year's time if they're as successful as they hope but perhaps for some that's a price worth paying to not lose most of your business to the Co-op and other QS firms.
If QS was as good as they
If QS was as good as they say, why do they spend their time sending press releases to the Law Society Gazette (which is about the only publication that will print them), and why do their member firms instruct their minions / operatives whatever they are called to spam the forums on here with marketing gibberish peppered with "exciting", "changing" and the like?
Has it not yet occurred to them that these potential clients of which they continually speak don't actually read the L S G?
presumably because it's you
presumably because it's you they're trying to convince. stick a glossy ad on during X factor or downton abbey and people who know nothing of the legal market will be suitably impressed
(which is about the only
(which is about the only publication that will print them),
You mean apart from the Times, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and the Financial Times?
DomCoop I too have detected
DomCoop
I too have detected some comments emanating from the Darkside on this site
The problem with this sort of
The problem with this sort of branding is that you are only as good as the weakest firm. Whilst I am no fan of the Ombudsman's list and my firm will no doubt at some stage be added to the List along with the rest of the legal profession surely the public's perception of the QS branding will start to be tested as more QS firms are named.
One word of advice for any new start up as the Ombudsman's list is in alphabetical order think of a name after "Q" and as near to "Z" as possible.
I'm thinking of changing my name to "Z&Z Zolicitors"
What does Quality Solicitors really provide?
If you pull away from the hype and press releases predominantly reserved for the legal profession about QS, what does it really bring apart from a garish sign. QS has simply prayed upon a lack of entrepreneurial spirit within the profession such that solicitors are now incapable of marketing themselves and prefer to "buy work in" and have capitalised in hysteria about "Tesco" law.. in reality to step back and look the impact of ABS and deregulation is unlikely to be so far reaching, afterall how many people do you know who have opted for a Tesco mobile phone.. yes they are a competitor in the Market but they are just a competitor and no
more and we all have plenty of them. And yes those who have handed over thousands for their garish sign and short burst of tv advertising will rigorously stand by their "business acumen" of signing up, however the reality is that solicitors and the Gazette talk more about QS than the general public....
Quite Right, Couldn't Have Put It Better Myself....
Craig Holt has continually made the comparison between the current legal services market and that of opticians in the 80's. When deregulation of that market came, large brands came into the market and now dominate the high streets.
But what no one apparently seems to realise is that brands like Boots, Vision Express, Spec Savers offer huge economies of scale (in some cases franchise opportunities), centralising buying stock and shipping it from (again centralised) distribution centres.
Marketing is controled by 'head office' and the business case is undeniable. But where is the similarity with QS? There is no centralised back office, 'stock' is in fact the QS firms own staff marketing, what marketing?
It really is the last act of desperate men (and women) who think this will be the silver bullet to kill the beast that is a changing market. Why would you hand over a fixed portiona of your turnover for some garish signage and little else? Firms I have spoken to cannot see a demonstrable upturn in business volumes as a result of joining QS. That's hardly surprising given the lak of marketing and the weak business prowess of those running these firms. If they had any real business accumen, they would use that QS fee to devlope their own businesses themselves.
They are the lowest part of the chain in the market and must fail in the long term.
QS offers economies of scale
QS offers economies of scale as well. Due to the number of firms they can negotiate for, they've got some decent agreements with PII, utilities and IT providers amongst others.
In terms of what else they offer, I think having your web site show up on the first page of Google is pretty important.
"That's hardly surprising
"That's hardly surprising given the lak of marketing"
You mean apart from the £5m TV campaign?!
The whole thing's about
The whole thing's about branding though isn't it. Tesco mobile are competing against Orange, O2 and so on, whereas Tesco legal would be competing with Thomas, Richard & Harold LLP.
And when do the general
And when do the general public ever talk about solicitors except when they need one? Fact is people will remember the adverts on TV. Look how many sad individuals have watched it on YouTube, it's ludicrous.
depends who the genral public
depends who the genral public mix with
Who looks for the cheapest builder?
I have picked up clients
I have picked up clients throughly fed up with "call centre law" type firms
One young couple said to me it had been a horrendous experience with nobody knowing the nuances of their matter- there is a limit to what you store on a computer
Good advice is the best advert for a true professional
QualitySolicitors aren't the
QualitySolicitors aren't the cheapest and there are no set prices on costs - bear in mind they're the same firms as before just with a new name and signage.
For the same reason, these aren't call centre type firms. Seems that attempting to compete with the co-op etc has led to some confusion over the model they're actually operating. Having said that, there is a 'conversion centre' at the QS head office, but that merely refers the individual to their local QS firm rather than giving legal advice.
QS
I agree with the previous poster in that QS will only be as good as the weakest firm associated with them. If your firm has an excellent reputation in commercial litigation and is part of the QS brand, how will it impact when another QS firm who is only a few miles down the road (they are popping up everywhere, aren't they?), makes an error which is spread throughout the local business community, or ends up on the esteemed and ever increasing Ombudsman's list, and goes down? I think that there is a real danger that your firm is going to be perceived as being part of that. Control of public perception is paramount. Work is out there, we no longer work in an industry where a high street presence will suffice. You have to go out there and get it. Any amount of mass marketing ("stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap") will not suffice - there may be volumes of referrals, but what about the quality of them? It's no longer just about sitting behind a desk as you will lose out - network, network, network. There is no subsitute for meeting people. This is something that actually gives us the edge over the big brands I think.
QS Model
"Seems that attempting to compete with the co-op etc has led to some confusion over the model they're actually operating"
No, painting your offices black and bright purple with silly, patronising cartoons and the use of the word "Quality" is what gives people the idea that they are cheap and chearful call centre cowboy outfits.
Unenterprising snobbery
Unenterprising snobbery typical of the legal profession - displayed by those who will be working for the Co-op in five years.
You seem to be getting mixed
You seem to be getting mixed up, there. Calm yourself down a bit.
Not you say I am "unenterprising" and "snobbish". But then you refer to me working for the Co-op in five years as if that is an insult.
But surely the crux of your argument is that working for the Co-op is great!
It is driving forward an innovative and rich range of client-centred, customer-focused aggressive marketing synergies and directional strategies thus acquiring full third-party intelligence solutions, isn't it? (Or similar bollox that people come out with who think they can profitably run a law practice, but funnily enough spend their time selling "courses", "lectures" and "workshops", and not running law practices)
Ironic when it is yourself working for (or presumably wishing you could work for) QualitySolicitorsPalmers or whomever it is?
Mr / Ms Anonymoous @13.23....
ya booh sucks na na na na na!! On a more serious note... why are you so determined that those that do not subscribe to the QS model are wrong and doomed to fail just because we disagree? I started up a niche commercial practice 3 years ago that, even in this climate, is doing very well, thanks. As I mentioned in my previous post, I love meeting people and they are the key to getting the work. Well, that's just my opinion anyway.
your comment lands like a
your comment lands like a missile to shatter the compact mass of a one-sided opinion
Not mixed up, I was
Not mixed up, I was insinuating that practitioners who share your view would wind up working for the co-op through necessity.
DomCoop
Dom - are you Dominic Cooper of I E Legal in Prescot, Merseyside? I'm curious as it would appear you
have so few clients/real work to do that all you do is post your nonsense on
every page of this site. I guess the number of your posts speaks volumes...
At least DomCoop has
At least DomCoop has something to say, unlike you
I'll show my age. QS reminds
I'll show my age. QS reminds me of pink shield stamps. And they were very downmarket, Pricerite used to give them out.
The plain fact is that the QS
The plain fact is that the QS brand is the last chance saloon for those who can't or won't take responsibility for the future success of their own businesses and every practice I know that has been seduced by this nonsense is the sort of practice that was either treading water or on a downward trajectory.
You really can not polish a turd
The real 'plain fact' is this
The real 'plain fact' is this is the usual tired misinformation peddled out by those luddites such as yourself fearful of what is likely to come to pass in the legal profession. My firm has joined QS recently having had record profits (despite the economic circumstances) for both of the past two financial years. QS will, we are confident, allow us to build on this success and grow ever further and faster. We were, contrary to your assertion, persuaded by the calibre of other firms we saw had joined in the past couple of months - the likes of BHP in the NE, FDR in the NW and FJG in the SE;: all strong, large regional firms. Our move is not failing to take responsibility for the future of our business - it is grabbing the initiative by both hands and doing something bold and what we think is the right thing to ensure we continue to succeed.
Plain Facts The reality is
Plain Facts
The reality is that you had to resort to abuse in support of your assertion that anyone who does not agree with you must be a "Luddite"
This tired cliche was often used by New Labour obsessives to justify their widespread constitutional vandalism
The lawyers in the USA are far more powerful and successful than you will ever be but this has been built on a platform of a strong professional ethic- not by hitting sales targets with the sole interest of being a legal services salesman
Will QS firms be offering a
Will QS firms be offering a three rings service?
Will they be wandering round all Supermarkets with their Ipads touting for business??
I want to know when I meet such an individual will they conduct an interview with me on the spot or will I be ripped off back at the office of the QS firm?
I can imagine the scene I wander past the aubergines and suddenly my deep thoughts are interrupted by the cry "discretionary trusts- 3 for the price of two! "
Why shouldnt doctors do the same thing?
I have to wonder how, and
I have to wonder how, and why, the legal profession turned in on itself and started internecine warfare. This hasn't happened with accountancy-which hasn't gone down the ABS route. Is there a connection-if so why?
I personally do not care who delivers my legal services (and I was a solicitor) provided they are competent. I always understood that an experienced "paralegal" (they used to be called secretaries) was better at some aspects of law than a newly qualified solicitor, because they had absorbed that experience from the experienced solicitor. They also understood when they didn't know the answer-and would politely advise the client that the matter needed the personal attention of the solicitor who was engaged at the minute but would get back to them as soon as possible.
This seems to have been replaced with inexperienced "caseworkers" (what does that actually mean in reality?) with a computer programme and targets.
Was the abolition of scale fees the end of professionalism-because then fee targets became supreme?
Discusss.
It's all getting terribly
It's all getting terribly personal on here isn't it? The fact is, quality of service is paramount and those that give a good service (provided they are prepared to go out there and get the work) will get the business and also get repeat business. Time will tell as to which model works most effectively.