A story recently came across my desk about a complaint filed in Missouri against LegalZoom, alleging that LegalZoom engages in the unauthorized practice of law and requesting class certification. What caught my interest on this matter is not so much the facts of the case, but the context under which it has arisen. (Read about it on LawVibe.com)
LegalZoom's core model is very straightforward - select a form, and answer a questionnaire, which will drive the completion and delivery of said legal form to the user. Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog, describes the issue well in his review of the same case:
"The use of forms is not the practice of law, and to the extent there is any practicing of law here it would seem to me to be in the choice of form to be used. I have always understood the LegalZoom process was dictated based on an attorney who created the form and then provided the created form to be used passively in defined circumstances. I don’t see that as being the practice of law, although LegalZoom would certainly be better off if they did not have a real person doing the transcribing work. Still, the work of a scribner has never been considered the practice of law."
To be fair, the complainants allege that LegalZoom's customer service staff are the ones who actually provide legal advice, a question of fact yet to be determined.
What I find most compelling, however, is how the case is framed. According to LegalZoom's petition for its removal to Federal court, they have served over 14,000 Missouri residents in a five-year period, generating over $5,000,000 in sales. In various blogosphere commentaries of this case, most seem to focus on this fact, and as LawVibe themselves point out, the disruptive nature of this player in the legal industry. And therein lies the rub!
I see most of this noise as yet more professional protectionism. I understand it and where its motivation comes from - in the need to protect the profession and the status quo - but I'm troubled by it. I also think that LegalZoom and other "disruptive players" have the momentum on their side. In an industry challenged at its very core since the start of this Great Recession, all consumers - corporate and retail alike - are looking for alternatives to get fair and balanced legal services at reasonable costs. There's much more to the call for the "end of the billable hour" than merely a sound-bite. Furthermore, LegalZoom provides a alternative venue for the provision of commodity legal services. We're not talking about bet-the-company stuff here! So is this really all just about sour grapes?
LegalZoom represents new and innovative thought, an injection of new ideas to a stale business model. My humble opinion is that this industry needs much more of that, and judging by the palpable discourse throughout the profession over the past few months, these disruptions are on their way en masse!
