New ABA Blueprint tool designed to increase solo, small firm efficiency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
blueprint-15col.jpg (Courtesy of

As American Bar Association President Linda Klein traveled the country to meet with attorneys from dozens of states just before she took office, she noticed a common theme in her conversations with solo and small firm practitioners. Administrative duties are eating into time that could be spent practicing law, the attorneys said, and because they don’t have a large staff, they’re forced to handle those duties themselves.

Klein was struck by that common concern, so when she took office as ABA president in 2016, she began working on the development of a program that could alleviate some of that administrative burden. That program became ABA Blueprint, an online legal tech marketplace tool launched in November 2016 meant to enable attorneys working at solo and small firms to quickly and easily find legal technology that meets their firms’ needs.

“Blueprint, at its core, is an ABA-member benefit that helps solo and small firm lawyers cut through the noise and find the tools they need to run a more modern and efficient practice,” said Chad Burton, CEO of CuroLegal, a legal tech firm that collaborated with the ABA on the creation of Blueprint.

One of the most frequent comments Klein heard during her time as president-elect was that it is difficult for attorneys at solo or small firms to wade through all of the various software available for legal professionals to determine which programs best meet the needs of their firms. Elizabeth Cox, a partner at Cox & Koons LLP and 2017 chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Practice Task Force, agreed. She noted the process of searching out legal tech tools is not only overwhelming, but also time-consuming.

At larger firms, support staff members are often hired based on their professional background, such as technology or human resources, to handle those specific administrative areas, Burton said. But at solo and small firms, Cox said those responsibilities often rest on the attorneys’ shoulders. While her firm employs paralegals to help ease the administrative burden, she and her partner still have a hand in other non-legal tasks, such as processing payroll and maintaining their office building.

“It eats into the time of practicing law, and it also eats into family time and into weekends,” Cox said. “It has to be a labor of love. You have to be called to do this.”

dimos-jim-mug Dimos

Using their own experiences as attorneys, ABA Deputy Executive Director Jim Dimos said he and the CuroLegal team tried to develop software categories within Blueprint that would address the most common needs within the legal profession. For example, Blueprint provides access to digital credit card processing services, QuickBooks for accounting, Office365 for client contact information and Clio, a law firm practice management software that includes features such as billing, accounting and document automation.

Additionally, Blueprint can point attorneys toward other more law-specific tools, such as software to expedite the e-discovery process and marketing tools to grow a firm’s business or presence in a community, Dimos said.

Such legal tech tools can be beneficial, Cox said, but problems arise when multiple software offer the same or similar services, which forces her and other solo and small firm practitioners to take additional time to compare the products. But with Blueprint’s “Build Your Firm” option, attorneys can answer questions about their individual practices, and those answers are used to generate a suite of suggested legal tech tools aimed at meeting the specific needs of their practices.

Blueprint’s ability to customize the selection of applications to an individual practice is what sets the program apart from other legal tech tools, Burton said. And while technical tools are generally beneficial, Blueprint also offers ABA members a live chat feature that enables them to get their questions answered immediately by a real person.

Aside from increased efficiency, Dimos said one of the biggest benefits of Blueprint to solo and small firms is financial.

Investing in legal tech tools has a significant financial impact on law firms, especially solo and small firms, so the decision to purchase practice management software is not made on impulse, Dimos said. Additionally, there are already costs associated with being an ABA member, so Dimos said the Blueprint team worked to negotiate discounts that would make purchasing software through Blueprint a worthwhile investment.

For example, the money saved by purchasing the Clio software through Blueprint as an ABA member would be enough to cover the cost of ABA dues, Dimos said. But those discounts are only available to members. Others can access the Blueprint site, but price reductions would not be available.

Dimos cites Blueprint’s financial benefits as part of the reason for the program’s initial success. Since it went live in early November, Blueprint has been rolled out “from sea to shining sea,” he said, reaching attorneys across the country.

Feedback about the ABA’s newest web tool has been positive, but the product development team is already looking toward improvements for the next Blueprint iteration, Dimos said. For example, the ABA recently discussed Blueprint during a continuing legal education program hosted by the Maine State Bar Association. While in Maine, the team allowed attorneys to test out the web tool and offer suggestions for improvements.

Some ideas for future Blueprint versions include practice-specific tools, Dimos said, such as features designed for specific types of firms, such as intellectual property, trusts and estates, or corporate lawyers.

That ongoing evolution will further distinguish Blueprint from other legal tech tools, Burton said, because many legal software developers roll out new programs without a plan for continuous development.

“We’re not trying to make something static and stale,” Dimos said. “We may add products or may take products out if they’re not popular. We’re listening to users as to what they want.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.