Have integration compatibility but you’re only using it for status reporting to your client? Don’t stop there!
Integration doesn’t have to be for the sake translating your work to your client’s platforms. CaseAware Integrate (CAI) is the technological solution to allow our industry’s ecosystem to effectively communicate with various applications and industry partners. CAI allows you to optimize your business processes, reduce your cost and expedite timeline cycles. However, these benefits are all contingent with implementing the right integration with the right partner.
Too often, our law firms are overly consumed with daily challenges of trying to turn a profit instead of focusing on building the business or practicing law. If you’re a master chef, you shouldn’t spend all of your time clearing tables. For this feature update, we’ve selected 4 strategic vendor-partners that help firm’s transform their practice with their value-added services and leveraging CAI to streamline the process.
We’ve done your homework for you—read about our 4 vendor-partners with services every law firm needs, ROI Evaluation, Value Add Analysis and Steps to Implement.
Ready to integrate? If you are a current CaseAware user, open a new support ticket or contact your CaseAware Account Manager if you are a Silver or Gold subscriber.
As seen in Legal League 100 Quarterly | Spring 2019
By Jan Duke, COO
In an environement of shrinking referral volume and increased operational costs, firms are always looking for ways to reduce expenses. With promised ease and increased efficiencies, integrations and automations are the immediate 'go-to' solutions. If smartly implemented, both initiatives reveal amazing results and make good on their promis; however, poor execution quickly results in costly obligations. When integtations and automations are critical to the succuss of any firm, it pays to take your time and do it right. Use the following steps to guide your decisions and yield the best results.
Download an abbreviated version of the Spring 2019 issue of the Legal League 100 Quarterly to read the complete article.
Your case management system is like the Library of Congress for your firm and fluctuating volume with multiple sources of information makes data interpretation cumbersome. When it comes to properly managing your firm and engaging your clients, you need digestible reports at the click of a button. As a CaseAware user, this latest release does just that: provides valuable business snapshots at your fingertips.
Bolt-on reporting platforms are expensive and complicated but with CaseAware's DataGlance you have a powerful alternative that gives you the high-level management reporting you need without the stress of add-on tech.
DataGlance is only the beginning of our journey to provide CaseAware users with a comprehensive Business Intelligence application.
Interested in having data at your fingertips? If you are a current CaseAware user, open a new support ticket or contact your CaseAware Account Manager if you are a Silver or Gold subscriber.
Our Tampa office is now located in Suite 130. Please update our contact info to 1715 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 130 | Tampa, FL 33607
BY SVIATLANA LIASHCHYNA
as seen in Issue-36 of a360inc's Compliance Newsletter
By now, it’s clear that social media and electronic communications are not novelties. Instead, they have become mainstream staples that are used for a large portion of communications, advertising, commerce, and news. Despite all this, it may still surprise some that social media and emails can be used for service of legal process. In August 2018, the Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Rules Committee advised that it is planning to propose to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania the amendment of Pa.R.C.P. No. 430, which governs service by order of the court. This would allow service via email or social media account upon receipt of the court’s order and if service cannot be made under any other rule. Pennsylvania is not the first state in the country to modify its service rules to adapt to technology changes and platforms.
Alternative means of service have been used more consistently and for a longer time than you may realize. Mostly, they have been used by courts in different jurisdictions to effectuate service of foreign defendants based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(f)(3).
BY SVIATLANA LIASHCHYNA
as seen in Issue-35 of a360inc's Compliance Newsletter
In August, the American Bar Association (ABA) amended the Model Rules of Professional Conduct related to legal advertising. The purpose of the modifications is to modernize and simplify the advertising rules for lawyers to reflect changes in the existing legal landscape. In recent years, individual states have modified the advertising rules and this has caused a significant discrepancy in approach to this complex area. In this article, we will summarize the adopted modifications and share some compliance considerations related to legal marketing.
Prior to the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, lawyers were not allowed to advertise their services. In Bates, the court ruled that a lawyer advertising is considered commercial speech, which is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. The decision allowed lawyers to advertise in a manner that is not misleading to members of the general public. The decision also rejected the prohibitions of advertising by lawyers as “an antiquated rule of etiquette.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2018
[DALLAS, TX] CourtXpress, an e-filing service of a360inc, announced today that the organization has expanded its e-filing service to include the state of Illinois. a360inc launched CourtXpress in 2012 in the state of Florida and has since conducted over 1.2 million filings.
CourtXpress is a certified Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP) through eFileIL. With the certification comes an assurance that CourtXpress’ integration with the state’s central electronic filing manager service (EFM) is compliant and that all filings and documents use established standards for uniform filings. Additionally, it completely transforms the way that law firms handle the filings of their pleadings today.
“Ensuring that our technology solutions address the needs of our law firm and mortgage industry clients is a core objective for a360inc. And the convergence of these solutions into one technology platform ecosystem enables our clients to leverage one vendor relationship to achieve a variety of operational benefits. The expansion of CourtXpress into the Illinois market is part of our strategic expansion in the e-filling arena,” said a360inc CEO Scott Brinkley.
“Our core objectives are focused on improving the efficiency and profitability of law firms while ensuring they meet or exceed their clients’ expectations. Every product and service we introduce, including this new service to firms in Illinois, are focused entirely on achieving that objective,” said a360inc COO Jan Duke.
Concierge e-Filing with CourtXpress includes eService, detailed confirmation, receipt documents, and reporting, splitting and organizing filings in accordance with individual clerk requirements, along with expert quality control review. CourtXpress also provides direct integration to a law firms case management system and service of process vendors, eliminating the need to re-key pertinent data. CourtXpress’ Illinois e-filing service is available immediately. Contact Jan Duke for details on single service or bulk discounts for your entire portfolio.
BY SVIATLANA LIASHCHYNA
as seen in Issue-34 of a360inc's Compliance Newsletter
Up until recently, the default legal services industry was used to seeing information security laws and regulations that provided for specific actions that needed to be taken or for penalties for non-compliance with the specific requirements. This month, Ohio passed a state law (Bill SB 220) that took a different approach and encourages businesses to establish stronger information security controls through providing a safe harbor protection to tort actions alleging that failure to implement security controls resulted in a data breach. The new law does not create minimum cybersecurity standards that must be achieved, nor does it imposes any liability on businesses that fail to meet any legal requirements. Instead, the Act enables businesses to use implemented internal cybersecurity programs as an affirmative defense in tort actions raised out of data breaches.
BY EVAN D'ABROSCA
as seen in Issue 1-33 of a360inc's Compliance Newsletter
Foreclosure, bankruptcy, and debt collection law firms may often see requirements related to compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) in their client retention agreements. In this article, we will clarify whether the EFTA requirements apply to default legal services law firms and what internal procedures firms should be implemented to ensure compliance with this federal and client-mandated requirement.
The EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq, was enacted in 1978 to protect consumers engaged in the transfer of funds through electronic methods.
Under the EFTA, an electronic fund transfer means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, that is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, computer, or magnetic tape that instructs a financial institution to debit or credit an account.
BY SVIATLANA LIASHCHYNA
as seen in Issue 1-32 of the a360inc Compliance Update
Recently, the mortgage industry has seen an uptick in litigation and discussions regarding HOA super-priority lien foreclosures and their hidden threats. Currently, most cases related to this topic are filed in the 9th Circuit District due to the court’s decision in Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, where the constitutionality of the state HOA lien foreclosure notice requirements included in NRS 116.3116 was raised. The decision was questioned, and the Nevada Supreme Court accepted a certified question about the interpretation of NRS 116.3116. On August 2, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court, to answer the question, ruled that an HOA is required to give notice to all subordinate interest holders even when such persons or entities did not request a notice. (SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 72931, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 63 (Aug. 2, 2018))
The Nevada court decisions raised concerns amongst mortgage lenders that they may lose their interest in the secured property in the face of the HOA lien foreclosure.
Sharing trends and best practices to help you improve your processes and maximize your profitability.