Once upon a time there were two solo practitioners.  One of the solo practitioners embraced the technological advances that eliminate a brick and mortar office for a virtual practice; while the other leased office space.  One used case management software that eliminated the need for physical file storage; while the other had cabinets brimming over with files.  One used a cell phone app to accept credit card payments on the go, while the other only accepted cash and checks.  Which do you think has a higher risk of being the subject of a disciplinary or malpractice claim?

Generally speaking, their risk is likely the same.  They both probably service clients who are individuals (as opposed to businesses and corporations) with personal problems like criminal law, domestic relations, probate and real estate.  These areas happen to be the top practice areas grievances docketed by the ARDC in 2010.  Further, the kind of claims raised by individual clients mostly involve problems with the attorney-client relationship: (1) neglect; (2) failure to communicate; (3) fraudulent or deceptive activity, including lying to clients and (4) excessive or improper fees, including failing to refund unearned fees.  These individual clients usually have little recourse other than to submit a request for investigation to the ARDC, whereas businesses and corporations, on the other hand, simply move on to another firm that is more responsive to their needs.

Challenges

Both lawyers in our example probably struggle with the operational aspects of running a business.  Law school teaches students how to think like lawyers, but they don't teach students how to run a practice.  Prideful solo practitioners assume that running a business is something that they can learn as they go, only to find themselves in way over their heads.  Consider that two of the most frequent areas for malpractice claims against solo practitioners arise from practice mismanagement and lack of specialization.  They are both probably equally challenged in trying to navigate the ethics rules as well.  Consider that the Illinois Model Rules of Professional Conduct were amended in 2010; the rules governing client trust accounts were amended in September 2011; and the ABA's Commission on Ethics 20/20, which is studying the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation, has issued new opinions this year on the ethical issues relating to lawyer websites, email communications, and cloud computing.

While their respective risks may be equal, there are some other differences between our two solo practitioners that are worth noting:

One solo practitioner routinely answers the phone, returns phone calls and emails, and leaves voice mail messages that explain any long absences from the office.  The other solo practitioner returns some phone calls, but not consistently and not all the time. 

One routinely explains what services are offered and the fees, often more than once to make sure the client understands. The other rushes through client meetings and appears too busy.

One responds to any concerns raised by clients and addresses them directly.  If mistakes are made, they are corrected immediately.  The other practitioner runs from the difficult or disgruntled client and hopes to get the representation over as quickly as possible. 

One seeks ethics counsel when encountering an ethical problem to ensure that nothing will harm the client.  The other relies on intuition to resolve ethical dilemmas.

One only accepts matters within the firm's area of competence.  The other one accepts all cases based on the amount of billable hours the matter will generate. 

Now which of our solo practitioners do you think has the higher risk of being the subject of a disciplinary or malpractice claim?

Treat Clients with Respect

Clients who are treated with dignity and respect are less likely to bring a disciplinary or malpractice claim.  All attorneys, not just solo/small firm practitioners should spend time thinking about they they treat their clients in the delivery of legal services.  Routinely ask yourself two questions:  How can in enhance the client's experience in working with me?  If I had a legal problem in my area of competency, would I want to work with me?  Simply put, the solo practitioner who puts clients first is the one with the lower risk of being the subject of a disciplinary or malpractice claim.