UnBundling is becoming more and more popular internationally as clients demand and lawyers begin to embrace creative new, more affordable models for the delivery of legal services.

But, lawyers' apparent reluctance to take (what many perceive to be) a risk - by allowing clients to retain ultimate control of their legal matter - remains a major barrier to the growth of 'limited service retainers' and the public's access to affordable legal assistance more generally.

limited service retainers attract fewer complaints because clients tend to be more satisfied

UnBundled legal services are a "solution to the complex issue of access to justice" says legal risk management specialist LawPRO (the author of this excellent guide for Canadian lawyers considering 'UnBundling' their practice).

UnBundled legal services typically involve; CONSULTATION and/or DOCUMENT PREPARATION and REVIEW and/or LIMITED REPRESENTATION/ADVOCACY

LawPRO says the perception of risk associated with UnBundling is not supported by evidence, which suggests to the contrary that lawyers offering limited service retainers attract fewer complaints because clients tend to be more satisfied - with the lower prices typically associated with UnBundled services, and for having had a greater sense of control over their legal affairs.

Clear communication reduces risk!

Communication issues, according to the New Zealand Law Society's 2015 Annual Report, account for four of the top 10 "types of complaint" made about lawyers each year.

The most common communications-related complaints relate to allegedly inadequate reporting of work done and tasks undertaken by lawyers for their clients. Complainants can also report feeling misled by their lawyer, if the lawyer fails to fully explain their role and responsibilities, and perhaps most importantly their charge-our rates.

YourLaw is collaboration platform designed to improve communication between lawyers and clients.

Letters and terms of engagement (retainers) assume even more importance than usual when a lawyer is providing limited legal services.

The exact scope of the Agreement for limited legal services - specifically what tasks the lawyer is and is not responsible for undertaking - must be clear and unambiguous.

It is essential that clients fully understand and consent to any Agreement for limited legal services.

The following are tips from Canada's LawPRO for lawyers who want to UnBundle without risk. The YourLaw platform has been designed around these and similar risk-reduction strategies that let lawyers maximise the value of their experience and expertise for the benefit of their clients.

1. "Identify the discrete collection of tasks that can be undertaken on a component basis."

YourLaw's client issue intake and provider matching processes streamline lead generation and initial legal triage. We ask clients what they want, and help them figure out what they need, so when we connect them with you, you are both "on the same page" with regard to what services are sought and what tasks need to be done.

2. "Confirm the scope of the limited retainer in writing."

YourLaw lets clients work with lawyers to create limited service retainers that "live" securely and privately online. An intuitive user interface and accessible design displays, for you and your client, the important terms of the limited service Agreement, including; limits on liability, allocation of tasks/division of labour, and terms detailing the termination of the retainer. Because these digital retainers are "living" and archived, it's easy for lawyers and clients to agree on changes or update versions of the Agreement.

3. "Clearly document work and communications."

YourLaw securely documents and archives web-based communications between lawyers and their clients, offering both the added security of a 'paper trail' record of transactions. Task and time management software designed specifically for project-based collaboration helps lawyers and clients keep track of progress, appointments and important dates.

With the right tools, UnBundling is a risk-free, innovative solution to many clients' inability to afford full service legal assistance.

YourLaw makes the creation and management of limited service retainers easy, offering both providers and consumers an internationally unique, easy-to-use and access-to-justice-enhancing communication platform. Connect, create and collaborate in an entirely new way.

Join our mailing list now!

Or email us at contact@yourlaw.co.nz.

You can always raise a complaint with your lawyer directly, or through their firm's internal complaints process.

But, we understand it isn't easy to front up to a lawyer and complain about their service.

Whether you thought your lawyer was too expensive, rude, negligent, and/or just not good enough (we're lucky in New Zealand, there aren't many lawyers like this), you have a right to raise your concerns. In fact, if you're unlucky enough to have been swindled by one of the few truly bad lawyers out there (such as those who engage in fraud and other financial dishonesty) you really should make a complaint - to help prevent others from becoming victims.

If you believe your lawyer failed to meet an acceptable standard of conduct or competence, you can make a complaint to the New Zealand Law Society's Lawyers Complaints Service.

Call 0800 261 801, or email complaints@lawsociety.org.nz.

Lawyers are supervised by the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) and the Rules of Conduct and Client Care (ROCCC), which outline lawyers' duties to clients and the courts.

Your lawyer works for you.

Lawyers owe clients a "duty of care", which means lawyers can be held liable for any losses you suffer because of their failure to meet expected standards of competence and professionalism.

Lawyers will be held to a high standard by the NZLS if they have failed protect your interests. They may be warned, fined, made to repay any money you've lost, or "struck-off" the roll of barristers and solicitors (banned from practising law).

For more information, see a recent article explaining the Lawyers Complaints process in NZLS magazine LawTalk.

Whatever legal services they provide, your lawyer must:

• Act competently, in a timely way, and in accordance with instructions received and arrangements with the client.
• Protect and promote the client's interests and act free from compromising influences or loyalties.
• Discuss with the client the client's objectives and how they should best be achieved.
• Give the client information about the work to be done, who will do it, and the way the services will be provided.
• Charge a fee that is fair and reasonable and let the client know how and when they will be billed.
• Give clients clear information and advice.
• Protect the client's privacy and ensure appropriate confidentiality.
• Treat the client fairly, respectfully and without discrimination.
• Keep the client informed about the work being done and advise when it is completed.
• Let the client know how to make a complaint and deal with any complaint promptly and fairly.

You might consider making a complaint if you think your lawyer has failed to meet any of the duties above.

More specifically, you should consider making a complain if you think your lawyer has:

• Acted despite a conflict of interest.
• Treated you unfairly.
• Not done what they said they would do.
• Involved you in unreasonable delays.
• Given you wrong or incomplete information.
• Failed to reply to phone calls and letters.
• Not kept you informed about the work they are doing for you.
• Charged more than you expected or more than is reasonable.

The NZLS Lawyers Complaints Service will normally only consider complaints against lawyers relating to fees when when the bill is for more than $2,000 (GST exclusive) and is not more than 2 years old.

Unfortunately, if your complaint is about a bill totalling less than $2,000, you will probably not be able to make an official complaint following NZLS procedure. However, you could always think about re-framing your complaint, to make "cost" a secondary factor.

For example; maybe it's not the final size of the bill you wish to complain about, but rather that your lawyer failed to fully explain their fees and charging methods to you before acting... Or maybe you wish to complain because your lawyer has stopped emailing you promptly in reply since you asked for more information about how the final bill was reached...

Think creatively

If you can demonstrate that your lawyer has failed to meet reasonably acceptable standards, it's likely the NZLS will order them to repay all or part of any fees you've already paid. Outstanding bills might be waived or reduced. And, and sometimes this is the most important redress for complainants, the lawyer might even be made to apologise.

Note; complaints against judges are different to complaints about lawyers, and are usually less likely to succeed. That said, if you want to make a complaint against a Judge's conduct, contact the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

YourLaw is currently working on a template letter for making an official complaint about a lawyer to the Lawyers Complaints Service.

Check back soon! Or email us at contact@yourlaw.co.nz.

*Accurate as at 12 July 2016.

What does the “Givealittle” campaign by Blessie Gotingco's family means for ‘Access to Justice’ and the NZ legal system?

Family of murdered Auckland woman Blessie Gotingco have raised more than $150,000, by asking the public to help them potentially sue the Department of Corrections for negligence.

In an open letter to New Zealanders, Blessie’s husband Antonio Gotingco says he wants Kiwis’ help to hold Corrections accountable for the “ineptitude” and “stupidity” that led to his beloved wife’s death. It’s in the best interest of all of us, he says, to ensure that the public is protected from criminals.

According to Mr Gotingco, Corrections never properly monitored Blessie Gotingco’s killer Tony Robertson after releasing him from prison five months earlier (he’d been locked up for abducting and indecently assaulting a child) and it was inevitable he would commit a heinous crime.

“While it is our fervent hope that no other family will experience the horror and tragedy that we have gone through,” the “Justice for Blessie” “Givealittle” page reads, “there is no guarantee unless we get our acts together…”

While challenging Government decisions and policies in court is usually expensive and beyond the reasonable financial means of individuals, the Gotingco family has successfully appealed to the collective coffers of the New Zealand public for help, “even if it is only $1”, to “investigate what really happened and should have happened in the ‘management of’ this criminal”.

They hope to gather enough evidence to launch a civil claim against the Department of Corrections for failing to uphold their duty of care to protect the New Zealand public from violent offenders.

“Together let us show them power to the people,” Mr Gotingco pleads. “We ALL deserve better.”

Where previously Blessie’s family would have been unlikely able to afford the costs of suing the Government, the power of “crowdfunding” to source legal fees – preliminary and for trial – has given them a chance to try. And to the benefit of us all, as members of the public entitled to protection from crime, probably.

“Democratising”, an unlikely verb, is overused by marketers in many ‘information age’ industries these days, but it’s use is apt and almost amusing – if it hadn’t taken such an awful tragedy to inspire the innovation – in this context; because crowdsourcing public-interest litigation legal fees is essentially “democratising democracy”.

Because it’s a fundamental part of democracy, and the Western democratic (Christian, Mr Gotingco would say) system we pride ourselves on, that citizens can access without impediment the courts of justice, that we can rely on the rule of law – to which government must be as equally accountable as the individual.

Crowdsourcing funds for legal investigations and fees, with the promise of a general public benefit, is a pragmatic modern response to the forces that have made access to lawyers so generally unaffordable.

However the Gotingcos go with their “Givealittle” campaign – and they’ve done incredibly well the past few days – this highly public approach to legal fee fundraising will stimulate further interest in new ways to make lawyers and justice more accessible, which will be a realisation of the promise of democracy – the rule of the people – and the rule of law.

While principally a “connection, communication, and collaboration” platform for clients and lawyers, and a place to freely learn about law, YourLaw is also designing and building a low-risk crowdfunding system for those with legal needs who can’t otherwise afford to try meritorious cases that are in the public’s interest.

The "cloud" is in many ways the future of computing.

Without getting technical, suffice to say this:

Information that was previously locked in your various digital devices can now be securely stored online and accessed from anywhere at any time.

The cloud can put a law practice in your pocket.

http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/01/silver-lining-playbook-security-advantage-cloud/

Law Technology Today recently discussed "Paperless Trials, Legal Collaboration and the Benefits of the Cloud ", and concluded that online technology can achieve "dramatic productivity and cost efficiencies for legal professionals and their clients".

We agree.

With YourLaw, whether you are a lawyer or a client, you save time, money, effort and stress, as you proceed toward achieving a legal goal/solving a law-related problem in the "cloud".

It's all about utilising leading 21st century technologies to improve communication and collaboration, and reduce costs, between people with legal needs and the professionals who can help them.

Litigation services market specialist Clare Foley explains how the cloud can help teams of lawyers to streamline their collaborative efforts, for example:

"It might mean establishing logical threads among a variety of documents and passages and document types, and then drafting and revising annotations and commentary that clarify the importance of those relationships."

YourLaw's goal is to make legal services more accessible to non-lawyers - who can also benefit from cloud-based collaboration.

• "Cloud infrastructure is designed to handle dramatic changes in computing requirements easily and automatically, without adding to onsite infrastructure."

• "Authorised users [lawyer colleagues, or lawyers and their clients] can complete tasks from one cloud workspace."

• "Every user has 'round-the-clock' access to the same tools and materials via a Web-based interface on whatever device they happen to be using."

• Exchange ideas in one safe place ... no longer rely on email ... or endless rounds of phone tag... "Send email notifications alerting designated users to the addition of new annotations or commentary."

Banks, businesses, bloggers, all are moving their operations to the cloud - for all the reasons above, and the security benefits it brings.

The cloud isn't just a fad. It's a substantial development in the way information is stored and accessed. Much more than just "silver lining", the cloud is the future of computing, and with YourLaw the future of legal service delivery too.

Much has been made in recent times of robot lawyers.

The development of artificially intelligent computer programs and "machine learning" does signal a massive shift in the way lawyers will likely work in the future. But 'robots' are not about to take over the wider profession any time soon.

Law is incredibly broad. It touches on every aspect of society. Robot lawyers, though, are built to perform (exceedingly accurately and efficiently it must be acknowledged) narrowly-focused information processing tasks, the limits of their 'intelligence' or ability to 'learn' defined absolutely by their code and creator (computer programmer).

It's not surprising, really, that A.I. is making some, usually more 'traditional', lawyers fearful - if not for their jobs, for the "exclusivity" and reputation of the profession.

"A 'robot' with the right to audience in court? Preposterous!"

Most of their fear misses the point. Computers are already helping people to solve their lower-value legal problems.

Joshua Browder's online appellate lawbot costs nothing to use, and boasts a 40% success rate at getting people off their local council parking tickets.

All users are required to do is answer some basic questions - a series of automated prompts - like: "were you the one driving?" and "was it difficult to understand the parking signs?"

Then the website automatically creates a customised letter of appeal, that users mail to the court.

Read more from Business Insider UK.

"Bots can automate some of the simple tasks that human lawyers have had to do for centuries" [at significant and increasing costs, she might have added].

"Although the bot can only help file claims on simple legal issues — it can't physically argue a case in front of a judge — it can save users a lot of money."

"In the future, people won't likely need to hire lawyers for simple legal appeals. They'll just use a bot."

"Simple" is the word to focus on for now.

We are not close to seeing robot lawyers standing in court and cross-examining human (and probably other robot) witnesses.

We're a long time away from creating robots with emotional intuition, human empathy or an awareness of self and other.

But, some complex tasks that are routinely performed by lawyers (typically with the help of other experts, eg. accountants) are capable of being done better, faster and infallibly by "smart" computer programs.

Bankruptcy law, for example, an area of practice that has just welcomed a robot into it's professional ranks.

Ross, “the world’s first artificially intelligent attorney” built on IBM’s cognitive computer Watson, was designed to read and understand language, postulate hypotheses when asked questions, research, and then generate responses (along with references and citations) to back up its conclusions. Ross also learns from experience, gaining speed and knowledge the more you interact with it.

But you must interact with it. Ross won't solve anyone's legal problems on (his?) its own.

'Robots' can be thought of like tools for lawyers, rather than colleagues. They help lawyers do work for clients, they will not take on clients on their own.

We are witnessing the 'organic' rise of the robot lawyer. Organic in the same way it was natural that carpenters would embrace the hammer once it was invented. The integration of smart systems and artificially intelligent machines into legal practise is only natural, and will continue as lawyers become more used to working with 'robots' in the best interests of serving their clients.

'Robots' are beginning to enter the profession and disrupt those parts of it that are ripe for change; for automation and adoption of 21st century digital efficiencies.

But the admission of "iRobot QC" remains a distant, though not necessarily dystopian prospect.

Authors Richard and Daniel Susskind last year released a somewhat controversial, but anecdotally accurate, account of what they believe will be The Future of the Professions, including the practise of law.

Here are some excerpts from the introduction to their book, subtitled How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts [all emphasis added by YourLaw]:

• "Our main claim is that we are on the brink of a period of fundamental and irreversible change in the way that the expertise of these specialists is made available in society."

• "... increasingly capable systems will bring transformations to professional work that will resemble the impact of industrialization on traditional craftsmanship".

• Citing sociologist T.H. Marshall, in 1939: "[t]he professional man, it has been said, does not work in order to be paid: he is paid in order that he may work."

• And more recently, sociologist Eliiot Krause: "professional work can be profitable if it is organized in capitalistic forms, forms that no longer place the person who needs the services as the first priority. This trend seems to be leading to a redefinition of what professions are, from something special to just another way to make a living".

• "... might there be entirely new ways of organizing professional work, ways that are more affordable, more accessible, and perhaps more conducive to an increase in quality than the traditional approach?"

• "If we break down professional work into more basic tasks, it becomes apparent that much that goes on today under the umbrella of professional service is in fact routine and repetitive."

• "... it is not the expertise itself that is in short supply; it is experts who are thin on the ground. The limitation here is in our current method of organizing and delivering professional work, which often requires in-person, face-to-face interaction".

• "Clients are calling for new operating models in professional firms. This is not driven by an abstract interest in strategy, but rather by the view that many professional services are inefficient, too costly, and have yet to be subject to the overhaul that the great majority of other industries have endured."

• To adapt the old judicial aphorism — the services of the professions, like the Ritz, are ‘open’ to all."

Not only a handsome couple, father and son Richard and Daniel Susskind are also successful academics and convincing authors.

Here are some more thoughts, excerpted from The Future of the Professions:

First, the Susskinds assert something particularly interesting to us at YourLaw, who are dedicated to helping you to achieve your own successful legal outcomes when possible. YourLaw puts the law in your hands.

• "It can often be empowering for human beings to solve their problems by using their own knowledge or with insight that they acquire through research and inquiry. ... there is satisfaction and self-respect to be gained from grappling with some straightforward problems on one’s own, or with the help, say, of some online service. ... there surely are psychological benefits from striving to engage and understand the nature of a difficulty, from being better informed, and from taking some responsibility for one’s problems."

  • "The corollary here is also significant—that excluding people from understanding their problems and from engaging in their resolution can be disempowering".

  • [As traditionally organised, the professions] "... often discourage self-help, self-discovery, and self-reliance; and they can unnecessarily inhibit or even alienate individuals who, once equipped with better insight, would benefit from engaging and participating more directly in their problems".

• "... in a technology-based Internet society there will be a wide range of new ways to create and share knowledge that are more affordable and accessible, and ... the benefits of embracing these different methods will greatly outweigh the disadvantages".

A decade ago the Financial Times released its first special report on innovative lawyers, which ranked the work of European legal organisations "during a time of great change in the industry".

As FT editor Lionel Barber recalls, back then, just a decade ago, "many many in and outside the profession said innovating was not what lawyers did".

"...just two leading legal firms expressly cited innovation as a value on their websites. Now almost all do."

"The work of lawyers was transformed by the global economic crisis in 2008," Barber says.

• "Ten years ago, few firms thought they would outsource work. Now nearly all the top firms have an offshore or low-cost centre."

• "Firms have gone from outright scepticism to embracing technology that can deliver much greater value to clients."

• "... in another 10 years’ time, many firms might well be using artificial intelligence to power some of their legal advice."

Concluding his opening editorial, Barber - a highly respected journalist, not a lawyer - remarks, with sage impartiality:

"This may reduce the size of legal organisations but it might also place the focus even more closely on the tailored, innovative advice that the best lawyers have built an expertise in providing."

Read the 10th edition of Innovative Lawyers here.

The New Zealand Law Commission has been aware of the rise in numbers of self-represented litigants for more than a decade.

In its 2003 report NZLC R82, "Dispute Resolution in the Family Court" the Commission devotes an entire chapter to self-represented litigants, and discusses problems they might pose for the efficient administration of justice.

Examining similar developments in comparable jurisdictions - Australia, Canada, and the USA - the Commission also considers possible solutions (that is, ways to support self-represented litigants to better navigate the legal and judicial systems).

It reports:

• More people are choosing to represent themselves in the Family Court, and their numbers are likely to go on increasing.

• There is a group of people who do not meet legal aid criteria but cannot afford a lawyer.

• Self-represented litigants generally demand more time and resources from judges and Court staff than represented litigants.

• They have more questions about Court procedures, may be less organised in presenting their evidence and argument, and are often unaware of relatively complex procedural steps and requirements.

• Unrepresented litigants need clear, accessible information about the law, the Court system (procedure and etiquette), how to prepare their case (complete documents and forms) and respond to the other party’s case, support services and alternative dispute resolution. Some would clearly benefit from basic legal advice.

Concluding that self-represented litigants are disadvantaged by not having a lawyer, and can pose an impediment to the efficient administration of justice, the Commission said:

The best solution for self-represented litigants ... is to make legal representation more widely available. For others, helping them help themselves may be best.

The report goes on to mention (remember, this was 2003) the then-very new model of delivering "unbundled" legal services - of the kind that YourLaw is designed to help you retain.

• "Unbundling refers to providing legal services and support at the point in proceedings when they are most needed."

• "It is based on the concept of a bundle of legal tasks for a proceeding, some of which a self-represented litigant can deal with, and some of which are best undertaken by a lawyer. The self-represented litigant still does some, or even most, of the work and retains control."

• "Unbundling can reduce client costs, and the delays and inefficiencies of self-representation."

  "We recommend investigating the unbundling of legal services so some litigants have the option of partly or mostly representing themselves, but can also get legal advice when they need it."

At YourLaw, we believe unbundling is an obvious solution to the problems posed by people going to court without a lawyer.

That's why we help clients and lawyers to manage the limited retainer (contract for services) between them.

Whoever you are:

YourLaw puts the law in your hands!

For her PhD thesis “Going to Court without a Lawyer: Litigants in Person in the New Zealand Civil Courts,” former lawyer-now-Dr Bridgette Toy-Cronin interviewed self-represented litigants, judges and lawyers.

This is what she heard:

"There is a difference between access to courts and access to justice. Self-representation allows access to courts, but access to justice within the system is an entirely different matter."

"It is one thing to get in the door and another having the ability to get the necessary resources or advice to understand the legal system"

"...more litigants in person are entering a system that was primarily designed for represented litigants."

"Self-representation is a constitutional principle"

As reported by the New Zealand Law Society, Ms Toy-Cronin found that self-represented litigants often felt confused by the system, and had real difficulties accessing assistance and legal information when they wanted or needed it.

many would prefer to be represented, or at least to have legal assistance

Most self-represented litigants interviewed said they decided not to retain full legal services to help them with their case because lawyers' charges can "mount up very quickly and outstrip what people anticipated it would cost, and importantly what they can afford”.

Self-represented litigants save in legal fees

So, why don't even more people decide to "go without" a lawyer when they find they have a legal need?

"Fundamental aspects of our system of justice are built upon the assumption that parties will be legally represented”, as one eminent New Zealand judge has put it.

In most situations, lawyers provide valuable help to people who need to navigate the often complicated and confusing legal system.

YourLaw provides invaluable help to lawyers, so they can help you, on your terms.

The rise in self-representation in New Zealand and other Common Law courts has become mainstream news.

While the legal profession has long been wary of a steady rise in the number of people electing to handle their legal affairs without the support of a lawyer, the general public are starting to notice now too.

In a Stuff.co.nz article, Fairfax Media's justice reporter Matt Stewart attributes the following statement to New Zealand Law Society President Chris Moore.

Spiralling court costs and legally savvy litigants training up online are among factors driving a reported upswing in people self-representing in the nation's courts.

The "old model no longer exists" Mr Moore acknowledges.

"The Law Society will always support the right of anyone to represent themselves.

"What is at the heart of the matter is the need to make changes to the system..."

We at YourLaw are proud to be a part of that change.

In its first public statement of 2016, the New Zealand Law Society stated that the rise in self-represented litigants - people who handle their legal issues at least partly without the services of a lawyer - indicates that justice is not readily accessible to many in New Zealand.

...we must start developing and trialling some initiatives. The price of inaction will be a continued increase in the number of people who lose the fundamental right to a justice system which is open to all regardless of their income.

It's a bold and brave statement, which YourLaw applauds.

If even lawyers recognise there is something wrong with the legal system, it's time to ask questions and make a change.

One answer is YourLaw.

YourLaw helps clients and lawyers to work differently, together, to achieve outcomes both will be satisfied by.

Contact us to find out more.

Unbundled legal services have been given the following definition by the Law Society of Upper Canada:

Unbundling of legal services refers to the provision of limited legal services or limited legal representation. It is the concept of taking a legal matter apart into discrete tasks and having a lawyer or paralegal provide limited legal services or limited legal representation, that is, legal services for part, but not all, of a client’s legal matter by agreement with the client

John-Paul Boyd, executive director of the Canadian (Canada is a few years ahead of NZ, when it comes to supporting and encouraging unbundling) Research Institute for Law and the Family, puts it in other words.

unbundling takes the bundle of tasks involved in the normal start-to-finish carriage of a file and breaks it down to an à la carte menu of offerings from which the client can pick and choose according to his or her needs and budget

Retaining a lawyer on limited terms - asking them via YourLaw to unbundle their usual/traditional full legal service - means they spend less time on your file, and you spend less money on them.

What's more, lawyers benefit from unbundling too.

A former family lawyer, Boyd writes favourably of his own experience offering of unbundled services, noting that he often liked that sort of limited retainer more than his full-service files.

"These sorts of limited-scope files are in and out of your office quickly and never run the risk of becoming dog files," he says.

"The work is usually easily accomplished and enjoyable; and, accepting further work is always discretionary."

What's more, clients tend to pay their bills, because, under personally-tailored limited service retainers, they can afford to, he says.

"It’s good for the client, who gets what he or she is looking for within a determinable amount of time at a fixed or predictable price and is directly responsible for the management of his or her case.

"It was good for me, as the work was always remunerative and carried very little risk of massive receivables accumulating, and was a welcome change of pace from my comprehensive service files."

To Boyd, offering unbundled services to clients who needed legal help but couldn't entirely afford it, is an obvious and lucrative idea-whose-time-has-come that both lawyers and people with legal needs should consider.

YourLaw helps you take control.

By doing some of the legal work yourself, using YourLaw, your lawyer saves time and you save money.

In a recent Slaw article, John-Paul Boyd shares his view of the problems inherent in what he calls the "comprehensive service billable hour model", which has traditionally been the standard model of practise in New Zealand.

1. Very few people with legal needs can afford the comprehensive (full service) billable hour model.

2. From a consumer's perspective, the existing model is highly unsatisfactory.

It's the nature of law and legal issues to be uncertain, which unfortunately tends to make legal bills uncertain in size, also. All lawyers can usually assure you of is their hourly rate, and an estimate (and how's that justified, anyway) of the time they will take to complete their undertakings.

Dr Julie McFarlane, already mentioned in the YourLaw blog, observes that many litigants resentfully owed lawyers money long after their legal issues had been resolved, which was generally paid back over a long time in instalments.

3. Surely lawyers wouldn't, but ... doesn't the billable hour model encourage a laggardly or inefficient practise (at least from the client's point of view)?

4. People naturally value progress achieved more than than time spent.

"over time the ratio of time to results can get seriously bent out of whack. This is especially likely in high conflict files, where the number of letters, affidavits and applications to address a problem are so grossly disproportionate to the importance of the result"

Full service billable hours may be tradition, but limited scope retainers are an affordable model of the future, Boyd says.

Whether you are a client or lawyer, UnBundle with YourLaw to save!

The times-they-are-a-changin' for the legal service industry, as indicated by the New Zealand Law Society's (NZLS) recent release of a guide that encourages lawyers to offer limited service retainers - like the kind YourLaw helps users create and manage.

Guidance to lawyers acting under a limited retainer - NZLS, Jan 2016.

The NZLS says limited retainers are a way to reduce costs for clients who can't afford full legal representation.

Distilling the entire document to four words: be clear and reasonable!