Technology and Other Reasons to Hire a Boutique Law Firm

reasons to hire a smaller law firm

Tollefsen high school technology

In the not too recent past, the large firm had several advantages: 1) It could afford a large library and the staff needed to keep the library up to date by inserting pocket parts, adding and deleting pages in loose leaf services, and ordering updated copies of the books and materials. 2) It had better technology from document retrieval to word processing allowing superior response time. 3) Its lawyers often had more in-depth experience in the law due to the availability of superior resources and greater numbers. The downside was extravagant bills.

But that was then. Times have changed. Technology has provided law firms, regardless of size, with solutions that have leveled the field. Any firm can have complete electronic libraries and research facilities online through the Internet. There are many new software and hardware solutions that increase productivity and reduce cost. Now the question you should ask your law firm is what technology it has adopted, what experience it has, and how it controls the cost of legal services. Tollefsen Law scores well in all three areas.

Cases in the Press Handled by Tollefsen Law

1982 technology

Tollefsen state-of-the-art technology in 1981

Reasons to Hire Boutique Law Firms

If you hire a technologically savvy, experienced smaller law firm, you can have the former exclusive advantages of large law firms at lower cost and better service. At the right small firm, you can be assured of partner-level experience along with efficiencies often not found in large law firms. Here is a partial list of what you need to ask to evaluate a law firm:

reasons to hire a smaller law firm

Tollefsen technology today

1) Does the firm subscribe to a fixed cost online electronic library so that it does not charge clients access fees for routine legal research? Many firms still charge hourly fees for accessing online libraries in addition to the hourly charge of the researcher.

2) Does its fixed fee electronic library subscription include all state and federal cases and statutes? If not you will probably be charged access fees.

3) Does the firm have comprehensive practice management software that tracks all communication connected to your file (email, telephone, fax, and postal mail) as well as calendaring, documents, and contacts? There are several software solutions available to law firms. If a firm has not made an investment in practice management software, it is likely that the firm has not made a commitment to increase its productivity to reduce costs for clients. It is also more likely that something important to your legal affairs will be overlooked.

4) Has the firm purchased automatic OCR and scanning software that allows it to manage production of discovery requests and productions? If not, it is likely that your costs will increase due to inefficient document management procedures. Discovery is usually the most expensive phase of a case. Software is available which makes it easy to create paperless offices which provide flexible and inexpensive tracking and management of all documents connected to your case.

5) Does the firm have case management software? If not, it is likely that complex cases will be more expensive. In addition, the likelihood that an issue will be overlooked increases. Case management software is used in many federal investigations and cases to provide better issue management, better chronologies, and better courtroom exhibits.

6) Does the firm minimize its office rent and allow its staff and attorney to work virtually from home or does it continue to incur high costs in expensive downtown offices?

Our Fees

Tollefsen Law PLLC is a Leader in Law Office Technology.

Tollefsen Law is a “paperless office.” Documents are scanned and filed electronically. All cases are managed electronically allowing staff to access complete information from any computer any place in the world. Potential evidence is managed by computers and electronically identified with appropriate issues in the case. Declarations, timelines, and trial exhibits become easy to produce and the chance that evidence or arguments are missed is reduced. In addition to in-house resources, Tollefsen Law has searchable access to all state and federal law and cases. It has thousands of treatises and law journals at its disposal. These services are part of TL overhead and are not charged to clients except in extraordinary circumstances and with prior client approval.

Tollefsen Law has state of the art communication equipment including forwarding voice mail by email and forwarding faxes through its fax servers by email to its staff. Staff have IP extension phones in their homes to offer maximum telephone availability. The firm uses a national SIP phone network. Clients are not charged for long distance calls in the United States or Canada.

The following is a partial list of software installed on Tollefsen Law servers: Amicus Attorney Professional/Billing Premium Edition, Master File, Evidence Cruncher, Lotus Notes database, MS Sequel Server, MS Terminal Server, Adobe Acrobat Professional, MS Exchange, and MS Office 2010 Enterprise Edition. Tollefsen Law uses Lexis-Nexis, Loislaw, and other vendors for research services. (The names listed in this paragraph are trademarks and service marks of their respective owners).

Comparing Tollefsen Law with a Large Firm.

Tollefsen Law has the following advantages over a large firm: 1) We offer personal attention from our senior staff. You will not see your case shuffled off to a junior associate without your express authorization. 2) Every staff member has complete access by computer terminal to all your records including everything done in your file from phone call summaries to pleadings. 3) Our policy is to avoid charges for “extras” like long distance services and on-line research time. We consider most third party expenses (other than court fees and significant duplication charges) to be part of our overhead part of our hourly fees. 4) We have carefully pared our overhead to minimize our costs. We do not try to impress you with expensive offices and furniture. 5) Our hourly fees are 40-50% lower than similarly experienced professionals in large cities. 6) We have no minimum billing requirement reducing the pressure to create large bills. 7) Our lower fees and overhead allow us to take cases we want, not cases we need to pay overhead. 8) We focus on discovery that is really needed to prove the issues rather than conducting expensive “scorched earth” discovery. 9) We have several lawyers with over thirty years of legal experience in business law and litigation. 10) We are committed to increasing productivity and reducing costs for legal services.

To be fair, we must disclose our weaknesses compared to large firms. Tollefsen Law has the following disadvantages compared to large law firms: 1) We do not have as many people to assign to a file. We solve this problem by adding outside counsel as needed. 2) Since we are smaller in number, we may not have experience in every legal issue. We solve this by diligent preparation after full disclosure to the client.

You may be surprised to hear that a smaller firm with the property technology can compete with a big firm.

American Bar Association Technology Resources

There are many good reasons to hire a smaller law firm.

Regulatory Compliance: It’s the Little Things…

Regulatory penalties can be devastating for a company, yet many companies, especially small companies, fail to plan for or devote resources to regulatory compliance. These companies can be confused and incredulous when they become the focus of investigations or sanctions and may delay responding until their very existence is at stake. Proper counsel can help companies understand regulators’ focus which helps them to prepare for and address compliance issues in a timely manner.

Fair Chance – Washington

 Ban-the Box Legislation Fair Chance – Washington h-3695.1-fair-chance-act New legislation beginning to emerge around the country may initially seem counter-intuitive to CFEs. The new laws prohibits employers from asking an applicant about his/her criminal history on a job application or during initial screening and delays that inquiry until after an applicant is determined to be otherwise qualified for the job. There is something in us CFEs that wants to know all but it is becoming clear that many of those caught up in the criminal system have little chance of becoming contributing citizens once they are  branded as a criminal. On November 3, 2015, President Obama signed a ban-the-box (aka “Fair Chance”) executive order addressed to federal agencies (referring to the box to check on an employment application affirming a criminal conviction). According to the National Employment Law Project there are more than 100 cities and counties around the country that have adopted ban-the box rules. Effective October 27, 2015, the New York City Human Right Law was amended by The Fair Chance Act.1N.Y.C. Administrative Code §8-107(11-a) . Guidance which promises vigorous enforcement was published. 2 In December of 2015, Portland, Oregon adopted a Fair Chance Law. Under their version of the law, employers are prohibited from inquiring about or even accessing an applicant’s criminal history from any other source before making a “conditional offer of employment.” This is defined as being any offer that is conditioned solely on the results of the criminal background inquiry or some other contingency that is expressly communicated to the applicant at the time of the offer. There currently is a Ban-the-Box bill...

WA Consumer Protection Law applies extraterritorially

Under the CPA an out-of-state plaintiff may bring a claim.against a Washington corporate defendant for allegedly deceptive acts. Similarly, an out:of-state plaintiff may bring a CPA claim against an out-of-state defendant for the allegedly deceptive acts of its in-state agent.

Collapse of building for insurance purposes

QUEEN ANNE PARK HOMEOWNERS  ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit corporation,  v.   STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY  COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, June 18 2015 Copy of Case 2015-Queen-Anne-Park-v-State-Farm The Washington Supreme Court held that collapse means substantial impairment of structural integrity. The dissent argued collapse means “collapse”. Part or all of the building fell down. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the court to decide this question: What does “collapse” mean under Washington law in an insurance policy that insures “accidental direct physical loss involving collapse,” subject to the policy’s terms, conditions, exclusions, and other provisions, but does not define “collapse,” except to state that “collapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion?” The insured building was found to have “hidden decay” that  had substantially impaired the walls’ ability to resist lateral loads according to the owner’s inspector. Hidden decay that caused a collapse was expressly covered by the policy. “Construction of an insurance policy is a question of law for the courts, the policy is construed as a whole, and the policy ‘should be given a fair, reasonable, and sensible construction as would be given to the contract by the average person purchasing insurance.”‘1Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha, 126 Wn.2d 50, 65, 882 P.2d 703 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Grange Ins. Co. v. Brosseau, 113 Wn.2d 91, 95,776 P.2d 123 (1989) ). The court held that “collapse” is ambiguous because it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. In this case there were two conflicting rules of interpretation: 1) plain meaning versus 2) favor the insured if...

Waiver Under Washington’s Deed of Trust Act Permitted Where Technical Violations Did Not Harm Plaintiff

Merry v Nationstar –Wn App 324745-III   Background to Deed of Trust In 2007, Sharon Weirich borrowed $205,440 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and executed a Deed of Trust on her real property as security. The deed identified Countrywide as the lender, Landsafe Title of Washington as the Trustee, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” In Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, 175 Wn.2d 83, 93, 285 P.3d 34 (2012), the Supreme Court of Washington held that the MERS registry’s business practices in creating and transferring beneficial interests with regard to mortgages conflict with the requirements of Washington’s Deed of Trust Act. Beginning in 2011 MERS made a number of assignments and changes in ownership of the note, beneficiary, and trustee using the business practices found to conflict with the Deed of Trust Act.  Following these changes, in October 2012, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. served Mrs. Weirich with a notice of default on behalf of Bank of America. The same month Ms. Weirich executed a deed of trust to Thomas Merry. This deed of trust secured payment of a $68,000 promissory note. Ms. Weirich also executed a power of attorney and an assignment of legal claims to Mr. Merry. In December 2012, Ms. Weirich received a notice of trustee’s sale informing her that her property would be sold on April 19, 2013 to satisfy her promissory note she originally gave to Countrywide. However, property was not sold on April 19, 2013 and no sale was rescheduled within the 120-day window...

State Supreme Court Finds Washington’s Anti-SLAPP Statute Violates Right to Jury Trial

On May 28, 2015, in Davis v Cox, the Washington State Supreme Court invalidated the Washington Anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that section (4)(b) of statute unconstitutionally violates the right to a jury trial. The Court further held that, because every other section in RCW 4.24.525 is dependent upon section (4)(b), the provision is nonseverable and the statute is invalid as a whole. The Washington Anti-SLAPP statute was adopted to address and dissuade “lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances”. A defendant may file a special motion to strike any “action involving public participation and petition”. If the action is found to involve “public participation and petition”, the responding party must “establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim”. If the moving party prevails, the statute contains a provision for a mandatory $10,000 civil penalty and attorney fees for instituting a lawsuit in violation of the statute. The focus of the Court’s decision was the standard of proof placed upon the party responding to a special motion to strike. The responding party must “establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim”. The Court held that the statutory language requires a trial judge to make factual findings and adjudicate the claim. Article I, Section 21 of the Washington State Constitution states, “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate”. The Court noted that, “At its core, the right of trial by jury guarantees litigants the right to...

Liability for Opinions – Omnicare

Putting Omnicare v Laborers District Counsel in Historical Perspective Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund et al. Argued November 3, 2014—Decided March 24, 2015 Copy of Decision: 1503-Omnicare Overview The author is a Certified Fraud Examiner and is critical of the common law involving fraud and deceit. Too often the common law allows the taking of money from victims through hyper-technical defenses and faulty logic. Most of this comes from the lack of sympathy the judges have shown for the fraud victim through the history of the development of the law of misrepresentation. One example is the liability for opinions expressed in contrast to facts expressed. The general common law allows the person who takes money through a false expression of opinion to keep the money if speaker believed her opinion. Omnicare, in the context of a registration statement, moves the law in a positive direction by creating liability for a factual omission imbedded in the opinion that would be necessary to correct a false impression. Even though the Supreme Court did not delve in the history of the law, the 2015 Omnicare decision moved the court in a positive direction. The law on opinion testimony as fraudulent may be traced to the 1889 House of Lords decision of Derry v. Peek.1Derry v. Peek, (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas. 337 (House of Lords) which limited liability for misrepresentation to fact patterns involving scienter. Derry excluded from the definition of “scienter” misrepresentation made with an honest belief that the fact represented was true. Although Derry was seemingly accepted be most United States courts and was adopted by the...

Fraud on the Market

Although the Oregon securities law statute does not on its face require proof of scienter (intent to manipulate, deceive or defraud), the Oregon Court of Appeals read the requirement into the statute if the theory for relief is fraud on the market. Copy of the decision: 150211-Oregon-v-Marsh-&-McLennan In 2003 the legislature amended the Oregon securities law to provide a good faith defense from securities law violations for secondary violators (one who materially aids or is a control person) and to eliminate the defense for sellers and all those in a fraud on the market case. The court reasoned the legislature did not provide a good a good faith defense for those who material aid (or control the issuer) in a fraud on the market case because it assumed that federal securities law applied. That meant the participants are liable because of their culpable intent to defraud and a good faith defense would not make sense. Even though ORS 59.137 does not require scienter by its terms, that is what it means. In a fraud on the market case, Oregon law is the same as federal law under SEC Rule 10b-5. Whatever one thinks of the Oregon Court of Appeals “correcting” the words of the statute, there is a troubling use of language in the case. The court distinguishes fraud on the market from “direct, face-to-face securities transactions”. This is not a valid description of the distinction. Either type of securities transaction can occur in face-to-face situations. Telephones have been available in Oregon for over 100 years and private issuer transactions are often sold over the phone without any face-to-face meeting.  One of the...

Business Liability for Foreseeable Harm

McKown v Simon Property Group, Supreme Court of Washington, March 5, 2015 Decision:  050405-McKnown-v-Simon-Properties After 40 years of practicing U.S. law, I have grown to appreciate the gift we received from our colonizing parent, the common law. The civil law systems suffer from the same rigidity that all statutes impose: one size fits all. The legislature drafts a statute as a solution to a perceived problem not understanding how it might be unjust in a different fact situation. The common law can smooth out these injustices by providing court-made law which reacts to the facts and needs of justice in a particular case. The negatives of the common law system that has decisions made by juries include unpredictability and indefensible awards. The common law has invented tools to minimize the negatives. One of those tools is “foreseeability”. It allows a court to claim that no one could have foreseen the harm so the defendant is not liable. Foreseeability is often the only legal barrier protecting a business from liability. Unfortunately it has proven to be a two-edged sword. The limits of foreseeably was highlighted in McKown v Simon Property Group. On Sunday, November 20, 2005, Dominick S. Maldonado walked into the Tacoma Mall and opened fire on shoppers and mall employees, injuring seven people. Maldonado wore a dark trench coat concealing a MAK-90 rifle and an Intratec Tec-9 pistol, and carried a guitar case filled with ammunition. McKown, an employee at one of the retail stores, tried to stop Maldonado, but was shot and wounded. Simon Property Group owned the Tacoma Mall. Under Washington Law, the Tacoma Mall is liable to McKown...

Failure to Reconvey: Quiet Title Without a Quiet Title Action

What do you do when a seller fails to reconvey the title to property following payment of the loan, then dies? Failure to reconvey puts a cloud on the title that must be quieted. Quiet title actions can be drawn out and expensive. Is there a way to obtain a quiet title without the quiet title action? This article explores four possible tools for obtaining a quiet title outside a traditional quiet title action.