Showing posts with label skype. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skype. Show all posts

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Use Skype to Strengthen Lawyer-Client Rapport

It crept up on us slowly, but Skype has become an  indispensable technology in the modern law firm’s toolbox.

A bit of historical context will set the stage:
Launched in 2003, Skype was one of the first mass market freely available forms of internet video conferencing. It took advantage of early developments in Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology to allow users to communicate with each other using their microphones and webcams. Previously video conferencing had been prohibitively expensive for the general public and was largely only used by companies. The burgeoning popularity of broadband over the last few years has led to an increase in the use of a constantly improving VoIP and a surge in the popularity of Skype. Microsoft purchased Skype in 2011 for $8.5 billion, together with its database of some 600 million users.
The Skype-call has become a routine entry in my calendar over the last year or so.  In fact, it is an increasingly-rare week that does not have at least one Skype meeting booked with an out-of-town client.

The videoconference via Skype offers many obvious advantages over the traditional voice call. The opportunity for an eyeball-to-eyeball connection facilitates a much deeper rapport between lawyer and client, and in the process, helps build and strengthen the trust that is the necessary foundation of the lawyer-client relationship. This is  especially important where distance or disability make face-to-face meetings rare or impractical.

Perhaps there is something to be said from the client’s perspective for the opportunity to speak to one’s lawyer from the familiar surroundings of one’s own home or office.  A Skype call allows for professional communications in a context that is a bit more relaxed, convenient and comfortable for the client than a hectic law office.  That lends itself to the better and more natural dialogue that typically emerges.

There is probably a simple explanation for the increasing frequency of the virtual meeting via Skype in my office – we made a concerted effort to offer this option to our out-of-town clients.  Once they were made aware of the availability of virtual meetings, they embraced it, almost unanimously.
Connection glitches can still be an occasional, but generally manageable issue, however.   It’s not perfect, but Skype is very good.

As is always the case with new technologies, the legal profession’s opt-in to virtual videoconferencing will occur somewhat later than the rest of the planet's. The corporate world has utilized videoconferencing to reduce travel costs and maximize efficiencies for two decades.  In the same timeframe,  telemedicine has revolutionized medical care in remote locations, using videoconferencing technologies to diagnose, deliver treatment and even perform complex surgeries. Even our family courts have been considering Skype’s place in parental custody and access applications since at least 2006.

Our clients are already on Skype, connecting regularly with friends and family worldwide. It makes good sense, therefore, that they are increasingly ready to meet virtually with their lawyers and other professionals, using a technology that is already familiar to them, from the comfort of their own surroundings.

Skype, and videoconferencing generally, is truly is the “next best thing to being there.” While it doesn’t replace direct human interaction, it comes close – much closer than the phone call does or can, I’d suggest. Adding to the convenience, free mobile versions of Skype allow lawyers and clients alike to connect with smartphones from anywhere.

Ultimately, it’s hard not to foresee the videoconference eventually replacing the typical office visit with most clients on an increasingly frequent basis.  The opportunity to avoid parking costs, traffic snarls, scheduling difficulties and wait times might ultimately become too attractive an option for our marketplace to turn down.

So here is today’s tip:  Offer your clients the option of video meetings with you via Skype. They are probably already using this technology, and may jump at the opportunity to meet virtually with you, too.

(Cross-posted at SlawTips)
-Garry J. Wise, Wise Law Office

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Social Media in 2010 – No Surprises, Just Evolution

The Scoop, JD Supra's legal marketing blog, has today published its annual year-end summation, What Surprised You In 2010? Perspectives from Legal Professionals.

Today's Scoop post contains excerpts from many, varied contributors to this annual legal thought-fest. The complete, extended commentaries can be downloaded here, in PDF and MS-Word formats.

Canada's representatives this year include Steve Matthews, Jordan Furlong, and myself. Thanks to Adrian Lurssen and the good folks at JD Supra for including my thoughts once again in 2010.

My contribution to the mix, 2010 – No Surprises, Just Evolution, is reproduced below.
- GJW
****

2010 – No Surprises, Just Evolution

There were no great surprises in 2010 for lawyers who’ve had their fingers on the pulse of the social media world - just a natural progression.

The once-radical thought that there is a bona fide professional use for social media in the legal profession has been mainstreamed and normalized. Lawyers’ participation online has exploded into an ever-increasing offering of blawgs, tweets, and social media updates.

In fact, as I suggested in an October 2010 post, Social Media and the Legal Profession: Where are We Today?, the primary challenge ahead is no longer about participation; rather, it’s about integrating our multi-platformed online presentations:
Once you have a website and blog, are on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, etc., how do you tie it all together - with the least amount of extra hands-on effort - into a cohesive, seamless and consistent presence that establishes a brand or identity that is both authentic and digestible for readers?
In a natural, logical evolution, the modern world continues to pull lawyers and our courts into this tech-centric 21st century.

Within the last year or so, courts in Canada, the UK, Australia and the USA have permitted journalists to live blog, text-message and tweet from the courtrooms. Canada’s Supreme Court has recognized that bloggers are afforded “responsible journalism” free-speech protections; similarly, bloggers have been held accountable for defamatory publications that have crossed the line.

In some cases, courts have authorized service of legal documents via Facebook. Facebook, itself, has responded to document-retention and electronic discovery requirements by introducing a Download Your Information feature, enabling retrieval and local storage of each user’s Facebook content. Privacy advocates won a series of public battles over the protection of private information on social media sites. Courts have ordered “virtual child visitation” via Skype. And, in Ohio, judges received a green light to “friend” lawyers on social media sites. In South Carolina, Florida and other jurisdictions, it is not so clear.

Looking ahead, this evolution will no doubt continue in 2011.

In the legal profession, greater attention will be focused on the ethical do’s and don’ts of lawyers’ social media participation. We will consider whether blawging should count toward lawyers’ mandated CLE requirements. And our courts and governments will struggle with (and attempt to draw defined lines in the sand) in this brave new world of instant communications, democratized access to publication tools, and blurred distinctions between the public and the private.

Finally. the emerging WikiLeaks debate – is it journalism or espionage? - is likely to be the spark at the center of a crucial, dramatic discussion ahead that will do much to define where we, as a society are heading, online and offline.

It will continue to be fascinating to watch the developments unravel in real time.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Same-Sex Marriage by Skype?

A same-sex couple from Texas has been disappointed to learn that its D.C. marriage by Skype, conduced by an official in Washington while the couple remained in its home state, has been rejected by the D.C. Superior Court.

As same-sex marriage is prohibited in Texas, the couple sought to formalize their marriage under District of Columbia law. That jurisdiction, along with Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, permits gay couples to marry.

Same-sex marriages have been recognized throughout Canada since July 20, 2005, and was in effect in most provinces from 2003.

CNN comments on the Texas case, which ultimately is of most interest for its holding that a Skype conference cannot establish a necessary physical presence in a jurisdiction:
But the court said its notice had nothing to do with the gender of the men and everything to do with the location of their ceremony.
Marriage statutes in the District of Columbia (dating back to 1901) requires marriages to be celebrated within the jurisdictional and territorial boundaries of the city," Marie Robertson, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Superior Court, wrote CNN in an e-mail. "Both the officiant and the parties to the marriage must be physically present at the ceremony performed in the district."
Though video conferencing allows people to interact in new ways, such technology raises tricky questions about what it means to be present in a legal sense. Describing themselves as "accidental activists," Reed and Walkup now find themselves part of the new legal tangle.
Also see Family Law Prof Blog, which notes this case today.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, November 15, 2010

Skype, Webcams and "Virtual Visitation" in Ontario Separation and Divorce

PostMedia's Misty Harris has a comprehensive article today on "virtual" access and family law visitation in the Skype Age. I was happy to contribute a few thoughts to her piece, A digital leap in parental rights: 'virtual visitations' becoming the norm in divorce settlements.

We previously touched on the topic of access visitation via Skype at Wise Law Blog a year ago - on November 16, 2009, to be exact.

To note up on developments since then, we conducted a a search of CanLii's Ontario database and found sixteen Ontario Superior Court cases in 2010 (to date) in which Skype has been referenced

Skype has clearly entered the mainstream and is commonly-proposed as an alternative means of facilitating parent-child contact in child mobility cases where one parent seeks to move with a child to a distant location.

The availability of "virtual access" has rarely proven to be a decisive, single factor in mobility cases. In most instances, however, the Court does appear to view it as a mitigating option that has good potential to reduce some of the harm of geographical separation between a parent and children.

Nonetheless, the law regarding child mobility continues to be governed by the "best interests test" set out by the pre-Skype Supreme Court of Canada, in its 1996 ruling in Gordon v. Goertz.

Accordingly, while Skype and video-chatting provide a new and appealing option, they do not on balance change the fundamental parenting equation favouring maximum parental contact with both parents, where possible. As I said in Ms. Harris' article:
"A video chat is not a substitute for doing homework with a child, it's not a substitute for holding your child's hand and it's not a substitute for watching your child play baseball or do ballet," says Wise. "These are all vital components of the relationship."
In the Appendix below, I've set out brief snippets from a some of these 2010 "Skype cases," to enable readers to canvas the Judge's actual comments in decisions related to webcam and Skype access.

These excerpts will illustrate the Court's current, highly situation-specific approach.
- Garry J. Wise

.........................................................................

A P P E N D I X
QUIGLEY J.:
[22] Elena's assertion that the father-child relationship can not only be maximized but enhanced by technological tools, does not in my view take into account the sixteen hour time difference between New Zealand and Kingston. The time difference alone will mean the child's contact with Alexei will be at awkward hours either for the child or for the parent, and would necessitate a complicated schedule. Such schedule would necessarily preclude the daily and weekly involvement in the child's activities that exists in the current contact between child and father. A further complication in this case is that the child's school holiday times, apart from Christmas vacation, would likely not coincide with normal school vacation times in Canada
SPIES J.:
[135] Mr. Hibbert testified that if Braylon lives in Singapore, he will only be able to travel to Singapore to see him once per year for a couple of weeks, if Ms. Escano allows this. The agreement reached in Singapore was that Mr. Hibbert would not have to pay child support. If his cost of traveling to Singapore is taken into account in any future application for child support, that could provide Mr. Hibbert with more funds available to travel to see Braylon but that is not an issue before me and I make no determination as to how a court would decide that issue. As Mr. Hibbert is self employed and has employees, on his evidence he would have flexibility for planned time with Braylon either here or in Singapore.

[136] Ms. Escano has a webcam and would allow telephone and email access. I have no doubt that she would, as she did so when she was in Singapore in 2009. Mr. Hibbert is willing to use Skype but said he did not want that to be the nature of his relationship with Braylon. That is understandable. Ms. Escano also admitted that phone and webmail access is not the same and that she would not be happy with this. This would be necessary, however, assuming Mr. Hibbert is in Toronto and Ms. Escano is in Singapore, regardless of who has custody of Braylon. As Braylon gets older, this means of communication would become more meaningful.

[138] Having considered all of this evidence with respect to their respective parenting plans, I find that Mr. Hibbert’s plan is not realistic..... Given Ms. Escano’s success in finding a job in Singapore before, I find it probable that she will be able to resume working and provide financial support to Braylon. In any event, her parents are prepared to support her.
FRANK J.:
[72] Contact between parent and child is not limited to being physically together. Technology makes it easy and inexpensive to be in contact both orally and visually. The Ben-Tzvi’s are accustomed to using webcam and voice communications through the internet. They are able to speak long distance without time limit at no cost through internet programs such as Skype. Photographs can be sent almost instantaneously, also at no cost.

[73] I accept Ms. Ben-Tzvi’s evidence that she believes that Timor should have regular contact with her father. I accept that Ms. Ben-Tzvi would co-operate in facilitating this.

....[75] Failing that, it is open to Mr. Ben-Tzvi to return to Israel when he completes his studies in four years. He has no family, business or financial ties binding him to Canada.

[76] In all of the circumstances, the principle of maximizing contact does not prevent Timor’s return to Israel.

[81] In this regard, Gordon (at para. 24) requires that I take into consideration the willingness of the custodial parent to facilitate the child’s contact with the non-custodial parent. The Mother has made a proposal for how the Father would see the children. I have no reason to believe that she would not follow through with her proposal and, given the fact that she acted as a support person in the past, I am satisfied that she wants to ensure that the children will have a good relationship with their Father. I would therefore expect her to comply with an access order particularly as this court will retain jurisdiction to make the final decision with respect to custody and access. In any event, the Mother intends to remain in Canada and she could be compelled to comply with an order if necessary. I appreciate that access is more difficult as the children are young and unable to travel on their own. Furthermore, even with the Mother’s proposal for access there will be a negative impact on the Father’s relationship with the children over the next few months. The Mother’s proposal, however, does allow for regular visits and the Father has the financial means to travel to PEI if he wishes. Furthermore, the Mother has offered to permit the children to communicate with their Father on a daily basis by video telephone such as Skype. The time remaining on the contract and to the end of June 2011 when Sofia’s school would end is only ten months. Although there would be an impact, with a generous impact schedule, and given the fact the children have already bonded with their Father, in my view his close relationship with the children could be maintained.
SCOTT , J.
[1] Mobility is the issue for consideration in this matter. Specifically, should Laura Cochrane, the mother of nine year old twins, Jacob (“Jake”) and Samuel (“Sam”) who were born on March 23, 2001, be permitted to relocate them to the United Kingdom where she intends to move for reasons related to work and an anticipated marriage to a British citizen or should they remain in Grimsby, Ontario with their father James Graef and his new wife?

[41] With respect to access, her proposal is that the children would be with the respondent during their holidays from school, plus extended additional time if the respondent would travel to the U.K. and work from there either by way of his computer or by attending at his company’s office in Tewkesbury. Specifically she has proposed the following:

....[42] In addition to the above, there would be telephone contact along with all the technical gadgets that might supplement that including webcam, the magic jack, skype, etc. Both children would have their own computer so that they could talk to the respondent whenever they wished. She adopted as well the idea that the respondent has in his plan of providing video recordings of the various activities of the children....

THE ORDER

[68] Both parties have asked the court to make an order at this point for joint custody. ... Primary residence shall be with the applicant.

....[70] There will be access to the children by the respondent on the following basis:


...(g) reasonable telephone and webcam access.

SPIES J.
Disposition

[97] For these reasons, I make the following orders, which replace the various temporary orders made by Goodman J. and Frank J. in this proceeding with respect to access:

g) While the Mother is in PEI with the children pursuant to the terms of this order, she shall bring the children to Toronto, to permit the Father to have access to the children as follows:

....(13) While in PEI, the Mother shall ensure that the children have regular contact with the Father by Skype at least every other day.

QUINLAN J.:
CONCLUSION

[176] Ms. Borowski shall have sole custody of Tatyana Prokopchuk, born August 7, 2003.

[177] Ms. Borowski shall be permitted to move to Alberta with Tatyana.

[178] The week-about schedule currently in place shall continue until Ms. Borowski leaves for Alberta.

[179] Mr. Prokopchuk shall have liberal and generous access which shall include the following:

(i) Mr. Prokopchuk shall have unlimited and unobstructed telephone and Internet contact with Tatyana. Tatyana shall have privacy during all phone conversations with her father and shall be allowed to speak to her father on a phone in her bedroom. Ms. Borowski shall ensure that Tatyana has access to Skype or a similar program to allow face-to-face Internet contact with her father.
- GJW