The key point to the article here is this blurb...

"Citing a requirement that no client may be charged too high a fee, the committee said that, while a lawyer may accept a cryptocurrency, it must immediately be converted to U.S. dollars."

I understand their reasons for doing this. But since the cryptocurrency must be converted to USD immediately, they're not really paying you with bitcoin... they're paying you using bitcoin. The end result is that you'll have USD in hand. Which, in effect, is pretty much the same thing as someone giving you a money order, and then cashing it. They may hand you a money order, but you need to convert it either to cash, or digits in your bank account in order for it to be useful to you.

So the way I see it is that they basically said "One bitcoin is the same thing as a $4,236.92 money order". Cheque, money order, cash voucher, or bitcoin... the result is all the same. It must undergo a conversion process to become USD in order to be complete.

I'm not saying this isn't a good breakthrough for crypto. I'm just saying that it only marginally validates the use of such currencies in the context of legal services.