⚠ CRPC 1.18: The Prospective Client Trap
Prospective clients have rights before you ever agree to represent them. CRPC 1.18 creates confidentiality and conflict duties the moment someone consults with you about potentially hiring you. This applies equally to in-person and remote consultations.
The remote twist: Virtual intake makes it easier for people to "consult" with you (a quick Zoom call, an email inquiry, a Calendly booking) without the formality that used to naturally limit these interactions. You can accidentally create prospective client relationships before you realize what happened.
Key Protection: Control what information you receive before you're ready to receive it. More on this below.
(a) A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.
(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.
(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.
❓ When Does a "Prospective Client" Relationship Form?
The key test is whether someone "consults" with you "about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship." This is fact-specific, but the threshold is low.
These Create Prospective Client Status:
- A 30-minute Zoom consultation (even if they never hire you)
- An email describing their legal problem asking if you can help
- A phone call where they share facts about their dispute
- A detailed intake form submission on your website (if you review it)
- A Calendly booking followed by any substantive exchange
These Probably Don't:
- General inquiries about your practice areas ("Do you handle employment cases?")
- Fee and availability questions only
- Form intake data you haven't reviewed yet
- Website chat with clear disclaimers before any information is shared
The most dangerous scenario: Someone calls and says, "I just have a quick question." Then they proceed to describe their entire legal situation in detail before you can stop them. Under CRPC 1.18, you now have confidentiality duties to this person and potentially can't take the adverse side of that matter.
Prevention: Train yourself (and staff) to interrupt early: "Before you share any details, let me get some basic information to make sure I can help you."
📜 The Three Duties You Owe Prospective Clients
| Duty | What It Means | Practical Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Cannot reveal information learned in the consultation | Even if you don't take the case, you can't tell anyone what they told you |
| No Use Against Them | Cannot use information to their disadvantage | Can't use their disclosures to benefit an adverse client |
| Conflict Limitation | May be barred from adverse representation | If you receive "significantly harmful" information, you're potentially conflicted out |
CRPC 1.6(a) requires that a lawyer "not reveal information protected from disclosure by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) unless the client gives informed consent..."
The confidentiality obligation attaches to prospective clients through CRPC 1.18(b), which incorporates the former client confidentiality standard from CRPC 1.9.
⛔ Prospective Client Disqualification: How It Works
Here's the scenario that keeps litigators up at night:
- Person A calls you, describes their employment dispute in detail
- You decide not to take the case (wrong practice area, conflict concerns, whatever)
- Two weeks later, Person B (Person A's employer) calls wanting to hire you for the same dispute
- Can you take it?
The answer depends on what Person A told you. Under CRPC 1.18(c), you're barred from representing Person B only if:
- Person B's interests are "materially adverse" to Person A (usually yes in a dispute)
- It's the "same or substantially related matter" (definitely yes)
- You received information that "could be significantly harmful" to Person A
That last element is the key. If Person A told you their litigation strategy, their worst documents, their bottom-line settlement number, or their witnesses' weaknesses, you almost certainly received "significantly harmful" information.
CRPC 1.18(d) provides a limited exception: If you personally received disqualifying information but other lawyers in your firm didn't, the firm may still take the adverse representation if:
- The prospective client and affected client both give informed written consent, OR
- You are "timely screened" from participation and receive no fee from the matter, AND written notice is promptly given to the prospective client
This makes it critical to control who in your firm receives prospective client information before conflict checking is complete.
🛡 Protecting Yourself in Remote Intake
The remote environment creates specific vulnerabilities because it's so easy for people to contact you and share information before you're ready.
- Website contact forms include disclaimer about no attorney-client relationship until engagement letter signed
- Calendly booking page warns against sharing confidential information before consultation
- Intake questionnaire asks only for conflict-check information first (names, entities, opposing parties)
- Confirmation emails reiterate that no relationship exists yet
- Conflict check completed BEFORE substantive consultation
- Phone/Zoom opening script establishes limitations before they start talking
- Declined representation letter sent promptly to prospective clients not retained
The safest approach for remote practice is two-stage intake:
Stage 1 (Pre-Consult): Collect only conflict-check information. Names of all parties, general nature of dispute, rough timeline. No strategy, no documents, no details you couldn't learn from public records.
Stage 2 (Consult): Only after clearing conflicts, allow the full consultation where they share everything.
This way, if a conflict exists, you never received "significantly harmful" information and can represent the other side.
💻 What About Website Intake Forms?
Many California lawyers use detailed intake forms that ask for extensive information before any consultation. This creates risk.
The Conservative Approach:
- Initial form collects only: Name, contact info, parties involved, general matter type
- Conflict check happens before any substantive form
- Detailed questionnaire sent only after conflicts cleared
- Clear disclaimer that submitting the form creates no relationship
The Moderate Approach (what most lawyers actually do):
- Collect more detailed information upfront for efficiency
- Include robust disclaimers
- Have staff review for conflicts before attorney reviews substance
- Accept some conflict risk for intake efficiency
If your website auto-responds to intake form submissions with anything that sounds like you're taking action on their matter, you're creating relationship expectations. An auto-response that says "Thank you for contacting us about your legal matter. We will review your information and contact you shortly" reads differently than "This is an automated acknowledgment. No attorney-client relationship exists. We will contact you if we are able to assist."
⚖ Conflict-Safe Consultations: The 3 Questions Before You Open Your Mouth
The goal is to identify conflicts before you receive disqualifying information. Once someone tells you their litigation strategy, their worst facts, or their confidential business information, you may be conflicted out even if you never represent them.
Remote intake makes this harder because: (1) people contact you more casually and share information faster, (2) you may not have real-time conflict-checking capability during a Zoom call, and (3) written intake creates a paper trail of information received.
❓ The 3 Questions Before You Open Your Mouth
Before any substantive discussion, get answers to these questions:
💡 Why These Specific Questions?
| Question | Why You Need It | Common Mistakes |
|---|---|---|
| Full legal name + prior names | People get married, divorced, use professional names. Your conflict database may have them under a different name. | Not asking about prior names; accepting nicknames |
| All opposing parties | You need to check not just the primary opponent but any co-defendants, third parties, witnesses who might be adverse. | Getting only the main party name; missing corporate affiliates |
| General category only | Knowing it's "an employment dispute with XYZ Corp" is enough to check conflicts without receiving harmful information about the merits. | Letting them tell you the whole story before checking |
People are eager to tell their story. They've been thinking about it, they're frustrated, and they want to unload. You need a polite but firm way to slow them down.
Magic phrase: "I want to hear everything, but I can't do that ethically until I confirm I can represent you. Let me ask you three quick questions first."
Framing it as an ethics requirement (which it is) makes people more willing to comply than if it seems like bureaucratic inconvenience.
🔍 Conflict Checking in Real-Time
For remote consultations to work efficiently, you need real-time or near-real-time conflict checking. Options:
Solo/Small Firm Options:
- Clio Manage: Cloud-based conflict check, accessible from any device
- MyCase: Conflict checking built into intake workflow
- PracticePanther: Cross-references contacts and matters
- Spreadsheet method: Keep a searchable master list of all parties from all matters (works but scales poorly)
During the Consult:
- Collect the three screening questions
- Put the caller/client on a brief hold or say "give me one moment"
- Run the search in your conflict database
- Return with a clear answer
Never proceed with a substantive consultation planning to "check conflicts later." By the time you check, you may have already received disqualifying information. The conflict check must happen before the substantive discussion, period.
⚠ Common Conflict Patterns in Virtual Practice
Certain conflict scenarios come up repeatedly in remote/virtual practice:
Scenario: You represent Acme Corp in transactional work. Someone calls wanting to sue Acme Subsidiary LLC, which you didn't know was affiliated with Acme.
Prevention: When onboarding corporate clients, get a list of all affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies. Add them all to your conflict database. When screening new matters, ask specifically about corporate relationships.
The Remote Angle: International clients (common in virtual practice) often have complex corporate structures across multiple jurisdictions. Don't assume a similarly-named company is or isn't affiliated.
Scenario: Someone facing litigation consults with every good lawyer in town specifically to conflict them out from representing the opponent.
Protection: CRPC 1.18(e) provides that a person who "communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer, without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship" is not a prospective client.
Practical Tip: If someone's consultation seems strategic rather than genuine (they don't ask about fees, they insist on telling you details before you can stop them, they don't seem interested in actually hiring you), document your concerns contemporaneously.
Scenario: You represented Client A years ago in Matter 1. Now Client B wants to hire you in Matter 2 against Client A.
Analysis: This is governed by CRPC 1.9 (former client conflicts) not 1.18, but your intake process needs to catch it. You cannot represent Client B adversely to Client A in the same or substantially related matter without Client A's informed written consent.
Remote Practice Issue: Virtual practices often serve clients across wide geographic areas over many years. Your former client database may be large and include people you've never met in person. Rigorous conflict checking is essential.
✨ The "Magic Words": Giving Value Without Creating Representation
During a consultation, prospective clients want value. They want to know if they have a case, what their options are, and whether you're the right lawyer. But if you give too much specific advice, you risk creating representation expectations even if you never send an engagement letter.
I use conditional language throughout consultations: "If I were to take this case, the first thing we'd need to do is..." This provides value while constantly reinforcing that no representation exists yet.
At the end of the consultation, I explicitly state: "Everything we've discussed today is for your information in deciding whether to hire a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer yet, and I won't be taking any action on your behalf unless we sign an engagement letter."
📄 Documenting the Non-Engagement
When you decide not to take a case, document it and notify the prospective client promptly. This protects you in several ways:
- Prevents the prospective client from thinking you're working on their case
- Starts any limitations period for malpractice claims
- Creates a clear record if there's later a dispute about representation
- Reminds them to seek other counsel (especially important if deadlines are approaching)
💰 Remote Fee Discussions: Getting Paid Without Getting Disciplined
California requires written fee agreements in most circumstances, and the remote context doesn't change that. What it does change is how you communicate fees, collect payments, and handle trust account deposits when you never meet the client in person.
Key Rules: CRPC 1.5 governs fees generally. Business & Professions Code 6147 requires written contingent fee agreements. B&P Code 6148 requires written agreements when fees will exceed $1,000. CRPC 1.15 governs trust accounts.
(a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unconscionable or illegal fee.
(b) A fee is unconscionable when, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee is so excessive as to be unconscionable.
Comment [1] notes: "The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include... whether the fee is fixed or contingent... the amount involved and the results obtained..."
📝 Written Fee Agreement Requirements
| Situation | Written Agreement Required? | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Contingent fee | Yes - mandatory | B&P Code 6147 |
| Fees expected to exceed $1,000 | Yes - mandatory | B&P Code 6148(a) |
| Fees under $1,000 | Recommended but not required | B&P Code 6148(a) |
| Corporate client | Recommended but not required | B&P Code 6148(d)(2) |
| Existing client on new matter | Recommended for each new matter | Best practice |
It is the duty of an attorney to "respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services."
This also requires communicating fee-related information. B&P 6148(b) specifies that the written contract must include: (1) the basis of compensation, (2) the nature of legal services to be provided, and (3) the attorney's responsibility for legal services.
📋 What Must Be in the Written Agreement
California law specifies minimum contents for fee agreements:
- Basis of compensation (hourly rate, flat fee, contingency percentage, hybrid)
- Nature of legal services to be provided (scope of representation)
- Responsibilities of attorney and client
- How costs and expenses will be handled
- Whether costs are advanced by attorney or paid by client
- Billing frequency (for hourly matters)
- Client's right to terminate (and consequences)
For Contingency Agreements, also include:
- Contingency percentage at each stage (pre-suit, post-filing, post-trial, appeal)
- Whether percentage is calculated before or after costs deducted
- Statement that fee is negotiable (per B&P 6147)
- What happens if client terminates or matter resolves without attorney
📊 Fee Structure Comparison
Hourly Fee Arrangements
Written requirement: Yes, if expected to exceed $1,000
Retainer rules: Advance fee deposits must go into client trust account until earned. You cannot deposit retainer directly into operating account.
Key terms to include:
- Hourly rate for each timekeeper (associate, partner, paralegal)
- Minimum billing increment (0.1 hour typical)
- When invoices are issued and payment due dates
- Evergreen retainer provisions (if applicable)
- Interest on overdue balances (if charged)
- Right to withdraw for non-payment
Remote practice tip: For international clients, specify currency and payment method clearly. Wire transfer fees and currency conversion can create billing disputes.
Flat Fee Arrangements
Written requirement: Yes, if expected to exceed $1,000
Trust account issue: Flat fees paid in advance are generally client funds and should go into trust until earned, UNLESS you have a written agreement specifying the fee is "earned upon receipt" and explaining the implications of that.
Key terms to include:
- Exact scope of what's covered by the flat fee
- What's explicitly NOT covered (appeals, unexpected litigation, etc.)
- When the fee is deemed earned (upon receipt vs. upon completion)
- Refund policy if engagement terminates early
- Whether additional flat fees apply to scope expansions
Remote practice tip: Define deliverables clearly. "I'll form your LLC" is less clear than "I'll prepare and file Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State, provide a basic operating agreement template, and obtain your EIN."
Contingent Fee Arrangements
Written requirement: Mandatory under B&P 6147. No exceptions.
Required statement: "The fee is not set by law but is negotiable between attorney and client."
Key terms (all mandatory):
- Statement that fee is negotiable
- Percentage at each stage (pre-litigation, post-filing, post-trial, appeal)
- How costs are handled (who advances, gross vs. net calculation)
- What "recovery" means (gross settlement, net after liens, etc.)
- Client's right to void within reasonable time after signing (Probate Code)
Prohibited: Contingent fees in criminal cases and most family law matters.
Remote practice tip: B&P 6147(a)(3) requires "a statement as to how disbursements and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or settlement of the claim will affect the contingency fee and the client's recovery."
Hybrid Fee Arrangements
Examples: Reduced hourly + success bonus; monthly retainer + hourly overage; flat fee + contingency on additional recovery.
Written requirement: Yes (multiple requirements may apply)
Key terms to include:
- Clear explanation of each fee component
- When each component is triggered
- How components interact (is hourly credited against contingency?)
- Which trust account rules apply to which component
- Worked examples showing how fees would calculate in different scenarios
Remote practice tip: Hybrid arrangements are more likely to create confusion. Include numerical examples in the engagement letter: "If we recover $100,000 after 40 hours of work, the fee would be calculated as follows..."
💳 Remote Payment Collection
Collecting fees remotely requires attention to both ethics rules and practical mechanics.
Client funds must be held in a trust account separate from the attorney's operating funds. This includes:
- Advance fee deposits (retainers)
- Flat fees paid before services completed (unless "earned on receipt" agreement)
- Settlement funds
- Expense advances
Commingling client funds with attorney funds is a disciplinable offense even if no harm results.
Payment Method Considerations
| Method | Trust Account Compatible? | Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Wire transfer | Yes | Provide trust account details for advances; operating account for earned fees. Verify wire instructions by phone to prevent fraud. |
| ACH transfer | Yes | Same as wire. Lower cost but slower. |
| Credit card (LawPay, etc.) | Yes (with proper setup) | Ensure processor is configured to deposit into correct account. Processing fees are your expense, not client's (typically). |
| PayPal / Venmo | Problematic | Commingling concerns, delayed availability, chargeback risk. Most ethics opinions discourage for trust funds. |
| Check | Yes | Remote clients can mail checks. Allow for clearing time before considering funds available. |
| Cryptocurrency | Unclear/risky | No California ethics opinion yet. Volatility, conversion complexity, and custody issues make this inadvisable for trust funds. |
If a client pays a $5,000 retainer by credit card and the processor takes a 3% fee ($150), what goes into trust: $5,000 or $4,850?
Answer: The client paid $5,000. That's what they're owed credit for. If only $4,850 hits your trust account, you need to make up the $150 difference. Credit card processing fees are a cost of doing business, not a client expense (unless your fee agreement explicitly provides otherwise, which is unusual).
Services like LawPay, Clio Payments, and similar lawyer-specific processors are configured to handle trust accounting properly. They can:
- Route trust deposits to trust account and earned fees to operating
- Hold funds until you authorize deposit (important for chargebacks)
- Integrate with practice management software for reconciliation
- Provide client-facing payment portals
If you're accepting credit card payments for retainers, use a service designed for lawyers. Generic payment processors create trust account problems.
🌍 International Client Payment Issues
Virtual practice often means international clients, which creates payment complexity:
- Currency: Specify that fees are in US dollars. Currency fluctuation risk is the client's unless you agree otherwise.
- Wire fees: International wires often incur fees on both ends. Specify who pays. Typically structured as "client pays sending fees, attorney pays receiving fees."
- OFAC compliance: You cannot receive funds from sanctioned countries or individuals. This isn't just a bank requirement; it's federal law.
- Source of funds: For large retainers from international sources, be alert to potential money laundering red flags. Lawyers have reporting obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act in certain circumstances.
Classic scam targeting lawyers: Someone sends a check for more than the quoted fee, asks you to wire the "excess" back. The original check bounces after you've sent real money.
Prevention: Never refund by wire. Never accept more than quoted. If a client "accidentally" overpays, return funds by the same method received after the payment fully clears (10+ business days for international checks).
📝 Engagement Letters for Virtual Practice
Virtual practice requires engagement letters that address issues in-person practices can ignore. When you've never met the client, may never meet them, and all communication happens electronically, your engagement letter needs to address: identity verification, electronic communication protocols, file security, jurisdiction limitations, and scope boundaries.
A well-drafted engagement letter for virtual practice is longer than a traditional one. That's not inefficiency - it's protection.
💻 Virtual-Practice-Specific Provisions
Beyond the standard fee terms covered above, virtual practice engagement letters should address:
(a)(3) A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
In virtual practice, "communication" takes on heightened importance. Establishing protocols upfront prevents later disputes.
Identity Verification
- Client's identity has been verified by [method: video call + ID review, notarized documentation, etc.]
- Client confirms they are the person identified in this agreement and authorized to engage counsel
Communication Protocols
- Primary communication method (email, phone, client portal)
- Expected response times (e.g., "within 2 business days")
- Confirmation that email is acceptable for confidential communications
- Time zone for scheduling purposes
- Video conference platform to be used
Electronic Signature Authorization
- Client authorizes electronic signatures on this agreement
- Client authorizes attorney to file documents with electronic signature where permitted
- Process for obtaining client signature on documents requiring it
Scope Limitations
- Geographic jurisdiction limitations (California law only, specific courts only)
- Practice area scope (specific matter, not general legal counsel)
- Tasks not included (appeals, enforcement, related matters)
- No local counsel responsibility if in-person appearance required
Technology & Security
- Client acknowledges risks of electronic communication
- Client agrees to use secure passwords for portals/shared folders
- Document sharing platform identified
- Client's responsibility to protect their own access credentials
Remote-Specific Logistics
- Client's physical address for service of process and court filings
- Process for obtaining wet signatures if required
- Handling of physical documents/originals
- What happens if in-person appearance becomes necessary
📃 Sample Engagement Letter Clauses
One of the most important virtual practice clauses addresses what happens when something requires in-person presence. I include language like:
"If any matter requires in-person attendance (court appearance, deposition, document signing), we will discuss the best approach, which may include: (a) engaging local counsel in your jurisdiction at your expense, (b) arranging for attorney travel at your expense, or (c) seeking court permission for remote participation. We do not maintain local counsel relationships and cannot guarantee availability of local counsel on any particular timeline."
This prevents the client from assuming you'll magically appear in person when needed, and prevents you from being stuck with an impossible commitment.
✍ Engagement Letter Delivery and Execution
For remote clients, the engagement letter signing process itself needs to be thought through:
- Send the engagement letter: Email with PDF attached, or use DocuSign/similar for signature
- Explain the document: Brief cover email or Loom video walking through key terms
- Collect signature: Electronic signature platform preferred for audit trail
- Collect retainer: Provide payment instructions (include trust account details for advance deposits)
- Confirm receipt: Once both signature and payment received, send confirmation email that representation has begun
- Calendar the file: Open matter in practice management, set up folder structure, calendar any deadlines
Don't start substantive work until: (1) engagement letter is signed, (2) retainer is received and deposited, and (3) conflicts are cleared. The pressure to "get started" is real, especially with remote clients who expect instant service. Resist it.
Exception: True emergencies (imminent deadline) may justify limited work before full engagement, but document the emergency, limit the work, and complete the formalities immediately after.
💻 Platforms & Tools: The Ethics-Compliant Tech Stack
California lawyers can use cloud-based tools for client intake, scheduling, document signing, and communication - but with duties of competent selection and reasonable security.
Key ethics opinions: COPRAC 2010-179 (cloud computing), COPRAC 2020-203 (electronic signatures). The theme: Technology is permitted, but you remain responsible for competent selection, reasonable security measures, and client confidentiality.
The California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct addressed cloud computing in Formal Opinion 2010-179:
- Lawyers may use cloud-based services to store client data
- Must make reasonable efforts to ensure confidentiality is maintained
- Should stay competent regarding technology risks
- Consider vendor's data handling, security measures, terms of service
- Have ability to retrieve data and terminate relationship
This 2020 opinion confirmed that California lawyers may use electronic signature platforms for client engagement letters and other legal documents:
- Electronic signatures are legally valid under UETA and ESIGN
- Lawyer must ensure security of signature process
- Should use platforms with authentication and audit trails
- Client must consent to electronic signature (typically in the document itself)
- Consider whether specific transactions require wet ink (real property, certain court filings)
🔧 The Intake Tech Stack
| Function | Tools | Ethics Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling | Calendly, Acuity, Cal.com, Clio Scheduler | Booking pages visible to public; don't include confidential info in meeting descriptions. Consider whether meeting types reveal client matters. |
| Video Conferencing | Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Webex | Enable waiting rooms, passwords, and host controls. Disable recording unless client consents. Warn about screen sharing privacy. |
| E-Signature | DocuSign, Adobe Sign, HelloSign, PandaDoc | COPRAC 2020-203 confirms permissibility. Use platforms with authentication and audit trails. |
| Document Sharing | Clio, ShareFile, Dropbox Business, Google Drive | Use business-tier with enhanced security. Set appropriate sharing permissions. Consider client portal vs. shared folder. |
| Payment Processing | LawPay, Clio Payments, Headnote | Use lawyer-specific processors for proper trust accounting. Avoid generic PayPal/Venmo for trust funds. |
| Practice Management | Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, Smokeball | Cloud storage of client files requires COPRAC 2010-179 analysis. Most major legal PM tools are acceptable. |
| Intake Forms | Clio Grow, Lawmatics, Typeform, JotForm | Include disclaimers about no relationship. Consider what information you're collecting before conflicts cleared. |
📅 Calendly Setup for Lawyers
Calendly (and similar tools) are extremely useful for remote intake, but require proper configuration:
- Add disclaimer text to booking page: "Scheduling a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship"
- Require invitee questions for basic conflict info (name, opposing party, general matter type)
- Do NOT ask for detailed case facts in booking form
- Set buffer time between meetings for conflict checking
- Configure confirmation email with consultation preparation instructions
- Include reminder that no confidential info should be shared before consultation
- Require acknowledgment of consultation fee (if charged) before booking
- Integrate with calendar and video platform (Zoom integration preferred)
📹 Zoom Setup for Consultations
Video conferencing requires specific security configuration:
Account Settings (Admin Level)
- Enable waiting room by default
- Require meeting password
- Disable "Join before host"
- Disable file transfer in chat (or limit to host)
- Enable end-to-end encryption (E2EE) if needed for sensitive matters
Per-Meeting Settings
- Disable recording unless client consents and recording serves a purpose
- Disable participant screen sharing (you control what's shown)
- Lock meeting after client joins to prevent intrusion
- Be aware of what's visible in your background
✅ DocuSign and E-Signature Best Practices
California has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), codified at Civil Code 1633.1 et seq. Combined with federal ESIGN, this provides:
- Electronic signatures have the same legal effect as wet signatures
- Electronic records satisfy writing requirements
- Parties must consent to electronic transactions (consent can be in the document)
- Certain exceptions exist (wills, trusts, family law documents in some cases)
For lawyer use of e-signature platforms:
- Use business-tier accounts with enhanced security and audit trails
- Enable authentication - require signers to verify identity (email, SMS code, knowledge-based authentication for high-value transactions)
- Retain completion certificates showing signature timestamps and IP addresses
- Consider what requires wet ink: Real property documents (varies by county), some court filings, notarized documents
- For court filings: California courts generally accept e-filed documents with /s/ signatures; check local rules
California authorized remote online notarization (RON) effective January 1, 2030 under Civil Code 1181 et seq. Until then, documents requiring notarization must use in-person notaries.
For remote clients needing notarization now:
- Use a mobile notary service in client's location
- Embassy/consulate notarization for overseas clients (apostille may be needed)
- Some transactions can use acknowledgment or verification by declaration instead of notarization
🔄 Integration Workflow
A well-integrated remote intake workflow might look like this:
- Website: Contact form with disclaimer (Typeform/JotForm) collects basic conflict info
- Response: If potential fit, send Calendly link for consultation booking
- Calendly: Collects additional screening info, confirms consultation fee, sends Zoom link
- Pre-Consult: Run conflict check before meeting
- Zoom Consultation: If proceeding, discuss scope and fees
- Post-Consult: Send DocuSign engagement letter + LawPay payment link
- Upon Signature + Payment: Open matter in Clio, send confirmation email
- Ongoing: Share documents via Clio client portal, communicate via email with Zoom check-ins
Many lawyers use Zapier or similar tools to automate handoffs between platforms (Calendly booking triggers Clio contact creation, DocuSign completion triggers LawPay invoice, etc.).
Ethics consideration: Automated workflows that move client data between platforms should be reviewed for confidentiality. Ensure all connected platforms meet your security standards, and be aware of what data is transmitted in automations.
🤝 Intake Optimization Services
Running a virtual practice requires getting intake right. A leaky intake process loses clients, creates ethics risks, and wastes time. A streamlined process converts consultations to engagements efficiently and safely.
What I Can Help With
- ✓ Intake workflow audit and optimization
- ✓ Calendly/scheduling system configuration
- ✓ Conflict-check protocol design
- ✓ Engagement letter drafting for virtual practice
- ✓ Payment processing setup (trust accounting compliant)
- ✓ Intake form optimization (Clio Grow, Lawmatics, etc.)
- ✓ Declination letter templates
- ✓ Staff training on prospective client protocols
Engagement Options
- ✓ Intake Audit (2 hours): Review your current intake process, identify risks and inefficiencies, provide recommendations
- ✓ System Setup (project-based): Configure Calendly, engagement letter templates, payment processing, conflict protocols from scratch
- ✓ Engagement Letter Drafting: Custom virtual practice engagement letters for your firm
- ✓ Ongoing Consulting: As-needed availability for intake and ethics questions
In-person practices have natural friction that protects lawyers: People have to show up at your office, sit in a waiting room, fill out paper forms. This friction naturally limits who becomes a "prospective client" and how quickly information flows.
Virtual practice removes all that friction. Anyone can email you, book a Calendly, share documents via Dropbox, and expect instant responses. This is great for accessibility and efficiency, but it means you create prospective client relationships faster and more casually than ever before.
Getting your intake system right means designing that friction back in - intentionally, in the right places, to protect yourself while still providing excellent client service.
⚠ Common Intake Problems I See
What happens: Website intake form asks for detailed case facts. Lawyer reads the form, doesn't take the case, and is now potentially conflicted out of representing the other side.
The fix: Two-stage intake. First form collects only conflict-check info. Detailed questionnaire comes only after conflicts cleared.
What happens: Lawyer has a consultation, decides not to take the case, and just... doesn't follow up. Prospective client thinks they're being represented. Deadlines pass.
The fix: Systematic declination letters sent within 48 hours of decision not to proceed. Template-based for efficiency.
What happens: Client seems ready to engage. Lawyer starts reviewing documents, drafting strategy memos, "just to get a head start." Engagement letter never gets signed. Now what?
The fix: Hard rule: No substantive work until (1) engagement letter signed and (2) retainer received. Practice management configured to enforce this.
What happens: Lawyer uses same engagement letter template from 2010 for remote clients. Doesn't address electronic communications, scope limitations for remote practice, or jurisdiction issues.
The fix: Virtual-practice-specific engagement letter templates with the provisions discussed in the Engagement Letters tab.
CRC 3.1010 authority, exhibit handling protocols, defending from anywhere without being in the room.
CRC 3.672 deadlines, RA-010 mechanics, and showing up remotely without missing procedural steps.
COPRAC ethics opinions on cloud tools, remote work security, and using AI without violating confidentiality.