Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Claims LegalZoom Is Practicing Law Without a License
Bob the Super Hamste writes "Fortune has an interesting piece about a federal class action law suit against LegalZoom claiming that its software is illegally practicing law without a license. The law suit seeks to recover money from LegalZoom for every resident in Missouri who has used LegalZoom regardless of how satisfied the users were of the service. Currently Missouri law states that an individual who paid money to a non lawyer for legal services is entitled to sue the provider for 3 times the amount paid."
And who wins here????? You guessed it, the LAWYERS!!!!
Their documents might hold up in court, but their company may not.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What do you call a bus full of lawyers going off a cliff?
A comedy.
What if there's an empty seat?
A tragedy!
Practicing law without a license? But that would make these people who wasted nearly a decade on getting their law degree redundant! Better fire off a lawsuit (good thing they're good at this kind of thing)!
By Missouri law-
"Missouri's statutes define law practice as, among other things, "the drawing or the . . . assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting . . . [legal] rights."
So if I, all by myself, draws up a will, I'm breaking the law? According to TFA, every single page on the website has disclaimers that this is not true legal advice. Another interesting facet is if found guilty, would this affect EULAs?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I wonder if they could win their case by pointing the software in question at the litigation against it Watson style?
My guess is that's not what LegalZoom does, but...
Still, makes me wonder what was the driver for this lawsuit. Did someone get burned because the software screwed them?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
i would bet that some lawyers are suing because they lost out on those businesses.
No kidding - the twits filing the suit admits they weren't harmed by the service and just wants to reclaim their fees x3. This definitely qualifies as a top ten all time frivolous class action suit.
That's pretty dumb. As far as I know, LegalZoom isn't practicing law so much as providing people with templates for documents where they can fill in bits that they want and delete other bits they don't want. This is not the same as giving people legal advice, or engaging in an attorney-client relationship with anyone.
Besides, if this is successful, it'll have a detrimental effect to authors and publishers who publish books with legal templates (Draft your own Will books, for instance), most of which are for really simple stuff like wills or simple contracts. It's going to deny the poorest people access to making these documents because it's going to force them to seek attorneys who are often too expensive.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs. the State of Missouri just announced that the case will be heard by their new AutoCourt software.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I'm suing WebMD for practicing medicine without a license.
I disagree with that, they got lucky that they weren't harmed by it. They were still defrauded, assuming that LegalZoom did as alleged.
It's an obvious attempt at a chilling effect to destroy the site. I very much doubt that the idea to do this came from the plaintiff - the American legal profession will have been searching for an excuse to get a ruling against this site and now they've found a jurisdiction and willing shill.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Lawyers dont like competition and are very good at suing cause thats what they do. I just watched a great doco on the dodgy legal tactics going on in the states called 'hot coffee' based on the well known McDonnalds/coffee lawsuit. Very much worth a watch.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
The statute was obviously intended to deal with fake lawyers - yes there are people who will brave the social opprobrium of claiming to be a lawyer in exchange for money. However, provided that the website doesn't itself produce wills, deeds or other legal instruments, it should be in the clear.
This is a grey area - the law could have benefits in preventing the automatic generation of, say, RIAA-type fishing expedition claim documents. It would be interesting if a real lawyer were to comment on the EULA issue; there is probably a good reason why it is excluded.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Yes, but this is hardly the correct solution. The correct solution would be to fix the system so that one can't just pay whatever one wants for attorneys even if the amount is grossly disproportionate to what the other side can afford.
Good thing that practicing law without a brain is still allowed.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So... does this mean they can sue every publisher of a legal advice book?
Like Nolo Press, home will kit sellers, "Incorporating for Dummies," etc?
I've read that in other countries the legal language is nowhere near as obscure and cryptic, that that is unusual to the US, and designed as a deliberate obfuscation by lawyers so as to make it REQUIRE a lawyer to do anything.
This space available.
Okay, so apparently some people read a law that might state that LegalZoom is an illegal service. So they have filed suit to claim their triple damanges bonus reward. I wonder -- did they get their filing papers from LegalZoom to do this? I think it would be more than a little amusing if this were the case.
Web MD is next for practicing medicine without a license. Or, the whole thing is insane. Cant think of a third option.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
You're entitled to claim 3x the fees you paid a non-lawyer for legal services.
So... did they pay the software itself money? Did the software give any of the money to it's owners and creators (who might be lawyers) or did it keep it all for itself. And if so, what DID the software do with all that money?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Great point. Does WebMD really have their license to practice medicine? How about FreeCreditReport having having a CPA license? For that matter...is Wikipedia legal in Missouri? All of these sites are available to help, at the users discretion. None of them guarantee accuracy though all of them are regulated to a point where their usefulness outweighs their potential inaccuracies. If you don't like it, hire a real lawyer/doctor/accountant/nerd.
IANAL, but I play one on the Internet... ;) This makes sense, playing devil's advocate. Can I start up a website, make up documents for wills, divorce, etc. and have no legal background? Without an in-state attorney to produce the documents, I have no standing to say that they will be legal in that state.
I would hope that LegalZoom has an in-state lawyer actually verifying these documents.
I8-D
Forced licensing is and always has been a tool for limiting competition, under the guise of protecting the consumer. And here we see, yet again, the consumer is actually hurt, not helped.
Does LegalZoom have a template for filing class action lawsuits?
Every occupation wants state-backed occupational licensure. They _tell_ you it is for reasons like
- only a licensed plumber has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to drink fecal matter .. well wait a minute.. Oh right, that the way to to win cases is to not go to trial but to settle... and failing that, to play golf with the Judge prior to the hearing.
- only a licensed electrician has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to lick 2 or more live electrical conductors at once
- only a licensed pharmacist has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you do not take all of the pills in the bottle at once
- only a licensed lawyer has taken the rigorous training required to understand that
Occupational Licensure is incumbent protection. It's a racket, it drives up wages artificially, and I don't see that it has any impact at all on quality of services delivered.
There are no lawyers anywhere in the world who are worried that someone might get "bad legal advice" from this software. But the legions of folks who got through the state bar and do unintersting mundane tasks like real estate purchase agreements, wills, adoptions, etc, don't want their gravy train to be impacted.
What's a lawyer to do? Write some laws, of course.
All you need to know about the state, the law, and the lawyers is that Jesus came to this world to tell a bunch of lawyers that they were ruining everything. He didn't have anything bad to say about the romans who actually invaded and tortured people. He was pissed off at the lawyers.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
+1, informative.
I thought it was just something wrong on my end.
LegalZoom is only a software tool. Clearly the people posing as lawyers in this case are the customers who bought LegalZoom and used it to draw up lawyer like documents.
The solution seems obvious to me. All the users of LegalZoom must pay themselves the mandatory compensation amount. Less a cut of course for the lawyers who so helpfully pursued the class action for them.
LegalZoom is not based in Missouri. Since the company is not based in Missouri, only a federal court has jurisdiction.
So this applies to any software used to write a legal document without license to practice law? What about the fat ass corporate lawyers who inevitably have their assistants or paralegals type up all of the documents, and then just put pen to paper and collect their fee? Any assistant who used Word, Notepad, TextEdit, whatever...would technically be guilty as well as the software they used?
This is some frivolous shit here...I hate lawyers.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
No kidding - the twits filing the suit admits they weren't harmed by the service and just wants to reclaim their fees x3. This definitely qualifies as a top ten all time frivolous class action suit.
Actually I'd guess it's more a move by lawyers in Missouri to drive LZ out of the state by making it to expensive to do business there. For many attorneys, simple legal documents are there bread and butter and if people start using low-cost DIY sites the attorneys stand to lose money or will be forced to lower prices.
Attorneys have been good at fighting any move to introduce competition - years ago they fought over advertising and even now limit what can be said. They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Of course, what they are doing is not unique to the legal profession. I just wish engineers had been clever enough to figure out a way to do the same thing so that "Engineer" could only be used by a "real" engineer. Yes, there are P.E.s but in most engineering jobs a P.E. is just a fancy title, not a job requirement.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
June 30, 2*bzzt*.
NIKE, CA - LegalZoom announces on the anniversary of a certain lawsuit's filing that they have increased the powers a corporation has in being considered a "person". LegalZoom has declared themselves to be the first corporation to pass the bar exam and be awarded status as a lawyer. This will coincide with a new payment plan that will use your International Internet Identification Code, IIIC, to bill you per minute visiting the website.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
It is unethical for websites like WebMD to suggest that I take Benadryl for pollen allergies or Ibuprofen for a headache. How can they claim to be providing adequate medical advice? I should sue them for suggesting well-tested remedies to common conditions instead of requiring me to visit a doctor in person to receive identical recommendations.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Every occupation wants state-backed occupational licensure. They _tell_ you it is for reasons like
- only a licensed plumber has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to drink fecal matter - only a licensed electrician has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to lick 2 or more live electrical conductors at once - only a licensed pharmacist has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you do not take all of the pills in the bottle at once -
While I agree that licensing laws protect wages, and in many cases are ridiculous - does it really matter if your barber is licensed? - there are also valid reason for licensing some professions
A license indicates a level of understanding of the basics of a profession - a plumber or electrician knows code and some of the reasons behind it so you get proper water seals and safe circuits installed. A pharmacists understands drug interactions and, assuming you use the same one, can catch incorrect prescriptions or potential adverse reactions with drugs you are already taking; they are a second line of defense to ensure your safety.
Of course, professions also seek licensing to minimize competition and increase barriers to entry.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Frivolous, maybe...but definitely not trivial, and ABSOLUTELY not ignorable. Industries often resort to the legal system to protect themselves from overcrowding or obsolescence. Try starting a cab company in New York for instance...most people can't, and those who can will take decades to make back the seed money.
This is clearly lawyers trying protect their industry via the state legal system, and they may win...in which case LegalZoom may give Missouri the finger and bar Missourans from using the site, while Missouri's legal profession is protected. Once that happens, many other states (whose legislatures and federal elected officials are slanted heavily toward the legal profession) will follow suit and/or tweak their laws to push out sites like LegalZoom. End result: We all go back to spending $200/hr for everyday legal needs.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
As a forms respository, it serves some purpose. If you have a problem, say needed a simple will, you can find a form that will allow you to present your will in the proper style to be recognized by people who know what a will is supposed to look like and what it is supposed to contain. And if all you need really is a simple will, then you got what you needed at a really cheap price.
On the other hand, there is nobody to tell you when you cross the line from needing a simple will to needing something more complex. So you have a simple will and think everything is fine. The same problem comes with every other sort of form they offer. If the form they cough up is all you really need it is a great and cheap service. But there is no judgement about what else might be needed. For that some sort of creative thought or at least more than just a passing familiarity with the local laws is needed.
Sure, lawyers cost money and you can hope until your dying day that you never need one. But as many people have found out, when you need a lawyer the first criteria should not be cheap. If you already know enough to be able to tell when you need a lawyer vs. a form repository then LegalZoom is a great service - but there are free form repositories so you don't need to use LegalZoom to get a standard lease form. What LegalZoom really has is advertising which your local library (another form respository) doesn't have. If you listen to much radio (ugh!) you will hear endless ads for LegalZoom - but you never hear an ad for the library. In that way LegalZoom is far more effective at gathering your support than the library is.
Maybe libraries should start advertising?
I disagree with that, they got lucky that they weren't harmed by it. They were still defrauded, assuming that LegalZoom did as alleged.
Look, the only people being harmed in Missouri by Legalzoom are the lawyers who can't charge $200/hr (or whatever the rate is) to make a basic will or incorporation filing. I wouldn't be surprised if these defendants who weren't harmed are either lawyers themselves who want LZ to not to business in the state or they're stooges for said lawyers.
Let me get this straight. These people are bringing suit because some software gave them legal advice?
So they are essentially taking the position that the software is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice.
So they are implicitly positioning the software as a legal person (the agent that gave the advice, presumably
by assessing input from the plaintiffs and making its own decisions about what advice to give.)
So they should be petitioning to sue the software itself. (And good luck collecting from it.)
Trying to sue whoever wrote the software and whoever operates it and gives it a server and power is
kind of like suing the parents and the landlord of the person who did you wrong.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What a bunch of knee-jerk reactions! Lawyers are evil because they are lawyers. They must have evil motives for everything they do. Bull!
Haven't any of you worked with a real freakin' lawyer? Do you know how much scrutiny they go under, the ethics courses they have to take as required by their school and/or bar association? How many of you have the possibility of getting barred from your profession for doing something unethical? No one makes a developer learn about the ethics of their profession, and have no governing body to license them, yet a single rogue programmer can do a hell of a lot more damage than a single lawyer.
The vast majority of lawyers are folks who worked long and hard to get their degrees so they can make the simple stuff in life simple, because most folks are idiots when it comes to working with one another. Don't like contracts law? Then find some other way to make folks not try to cheat one another. Don't like law suits? Find some other way to keep companies from screwing with their customers and hiding behind the corporate wall. When you do, we'll all be there. Until then, the lawyers do a damn good job of it, and I'm sick and tired of folks maligning an entire profession for the bad work of a few.
You go to a lawyer when you want to buy a house, and 3 years later find out the previous owners lied and the foundation was rotten. You go to a lawyer when you want to start a company and want to make sure that one person doesn't go off and bring it all down by their own mistakes. You go to a lawyer when the system has run you over and you don't know how to stand up for yourself.
Yeah, it should all be simpler. Folks should be able to do it all themselves. That's the complications of the making of the laws, not the folks who practice it.
It isn't just the writing of the will that is involved here. If the lawyer has written the will, then he/she gets more money from the estate later during probate. There are times when a lawyer is a good deal, but for something simple as I leave everything to one or two people...
You mean they were lucky they were not harmed from advice received indirectly by an attorney? Hate to tell you this, but if this is illegal, so is most of the legal profession (as tons of legal advice is issued under "guidance of an attorney", which exactly what you get with the service). Additionally, I would be absolutely amazed if there isn't a disclaimer which basically states, if in doubt, contact an attorney. This service is not a replacement for an attorney. Typically these services double as a referral service. Not exactly surprising.
So basically, if you were injured, its extremely likely its because you're a complete fucking idiot too stupid to realize you shouldn't play in the highway.
Completely fucking frivolous. I hope this guy, and his lawyer, gets thrown under the bus and made an extreme example.
The Bar exists because without it anyone could claim to be a 'lawyer' a. That sued t happen and the fraud was incredible, but not nearly as incredible as the amount of people who lost because the person they went to didn't actually know the law.
Laws aren't magic. Anyone can learn what they are and how they work. However every case is nuanced, so interpetation applies to a specific case needs time to understand.
Many people do there own 'lawyerly' services.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To argue that occupational licensure is incumbent wage protection is to ignore the fact that any qualified person can apply for and be issued a license.
Better yet you gave some crappy examples:
I would hire a licensed plumber or electrician because he is recognized by the state as being familiar with local codes pertaining to plumbing / electrical wiring.
I would use a licensed pharmacist because he is certified by the state to have the educational requirements to safely dispense medication to the public.
I would use a licensed lawyer because he is certified by the state to have the educational requirements to practice law instead of someone who pretends to know about law on slashdot.
Occupational licensing is one method your state and local government uses to protect consumers from "fly-by-night" operations.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
It may take a couple more years before Missouri gets hammered by the feds for violating the Sherman anti trust act if they let this dog and pony show get away from them. They were put on notice years ago that their state law is too vague. Even if legalzoom loses and pays 15 mil in damages, they will probably make it up in free ads and new revenue.
You do know this was field by people who aren't lawyers, right?
"Occupational Licensure is incumbent protection. It's a racket, it drives up wages artificially, and I don't see that it has any impact at all on quality of services delivered."
that's just wrong. You might want to look at history a bit before looking so damn stupid. All those came about because of massive consumer ripoffs and fraud.
If you are correct, then other states wouldn't have change there laws to allow this service, or made exception for people filling out there own legal documents.
But hey, you keep you head in your ass and continue to not apply logic, face, and rational change your 'opinion'.
Well, the people who made up the story of Jesus by picking and choosing which letters to 'accept' may have hated lawyers, Jesus OTOH, probably never really existed.
OTOH, maybe I can use a deity excuse? Well, my Savior, Zues, tricks women into have sex with him, so it's ok for me to use a roofie.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of course, what they are doing is not unique to the legal profession. I just wish engineers had been clever enough to figure out a way to do the same thing so that "Engineer" could only be used by a "real" engineer. Yes, there are P.E.s but in most engineering jobs a P.E. is just a fancy title, not a job requirement.
Canada guards the title engineer. You can't use "engineer" unless you're a P.Eng and you can't be a P.Eng unless you have a degree. Graduates from diploma mills are allowed to use the title "technician".
Certain types of engineers are restricted titles (Civil Engineer for one). These "protected" titles require licensing from the state as you are taking on legal liability and responsibility for your work. Architects and Doctors fall into this same category.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
If WebMD gave you a scalpel, they'd probably need a license. If FreeCreditReport audited your books for you, then they'd need to get a CPA. If anything, LegalZoom is more like H & R Block - if you have a straightforward problem, it's fine. However, if you make a mistake on your LZ document or your H & R Block tax return, you are the one on the hook - criminally or civilly- not the provider. Despite the common conception, these providers do not give you legal (accounting | medical) advice. "Legal advice," like "medical advice" means "In my professional judgment, you should do X, Y, and Z. If I have been negligent or reckless you can sue me for malpractice." In contrast, the magical docu-tron takes a few input variables, consults a database of canned responses and says "Most people will need to do A, B, and C." In this case, it is hard to tell if LegalZoom has been billing itself as an on-line legal alternative. If they are, they might be on the hook for unlicensed practice of law.
STOP USING Chrome 12.0.742.112 OR SOME SHIT U NOOB!
Care to read the summary?
Merely telling someone what the law says is *not* practicing law.
Representing someone in court is *certainly* practicing law.
There's a lot of grey area in between.
How about analyzing a client's situation, reviewing applicable law, advising the client of their legal options, and recommending a course of action? That's what most lawyers do. That sounds like "practice of law" to me.
But if *that's* illegal (for a non-lawyer), then wouldn't it be illegal for me to tell my driving student, when he is approaching a red light, that red means stop, and that he should stop?
Your comment is true, except for an incorrect emphasis. The last line... "Of course, professions also seek licensing to minimize competition and increase barriers to entry."... is the primary reason for licensing, and the other paragraphs talking about ensuring competency are only a minor reason they exist.
How were they defrauded? Did LegalZoom not do what they said it did?
Some states in the US do as well.
Next up:
Law students that host study groups
Books that law students study
The Constitution
News Reporters
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
If legal zoom offers legal advice and WebMD offers medical advice.... then people should sue that site also since you can diagnose yourself without a license....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
LegalZoom advertises a great deal on talk radio, where I am, and all the advertisements I've heard from them have made it very, very clear that they specifically are not lawyers. They do not represent an individual in any cause, they do not provide counsel, and strictly speaking, they do not provide legal advice. All they do is write legal documents, which the client must ratify elsewhere. I would compare this service to a draftsman drawing his own plans independently, then providing them to a client with the understanding that the client must find an architect to sign them, before putting them to use. I can't imagine that this law suit will bear fruit for the claimant.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
I'd like the court to explain why, in any other class action suit, the victim can lose hundreds of dollars and gets maybe $3 back. But in a case that costs lawyers to lose business, the class action suit can get the "victims" three times what they actually paid.
years ago they fought over advertising and even now limit what can be said
Keep in mind that fight was not just about competition. Many good lawyers were mad at being seen in a bad light by the endless commercials for 'the strong arm' or whatever those late night clowns like to call themselves. The end result was that advertising is fine, but don't make a mockery of the profession while doing it.
Many states say you can't sell your services (claim to be an engineer) or put "engineer" or related words in the name of your business unless you are a licensed engineer. Your employer can give you a title of engineer, but that is basically internal and meaningless. "Professional Engineer" is a regulated term. See your state board for details. If you feel someone is misappropriating the term, you should report it - they may be subject to criminal charges, similar to someone pretending to be a lawyer.
Damn wage protections. Like those stupid licensed Civil engineers. Anyone should be able to design a building for occupancy by the public. If that building falls down in a 20mph wind and kills everyone inside it doesn't matter because licensing isn't about making sure they are knowledgeable but in fact wage protection!
And what about those barbers and manicurists, who cares if they don't know what they are doing and they sever a major artery while shaving your, or the manicurist triggers an infection that results in your hands being amputated. It's just wage protection.
Plumbers are the worst in this, it shouldn't matter that if they don't know what they are doing the sewage will back-flow into the sinks or that if they calculate pressure wrong the pipe could explode and kill anyone standing next to it. Just stupid wage protection.
Electricians are just as bad, who cares if turning on a light switch could electrocute you. That they might electrify your toilet so that attempting to use it could kill you is only a minor problem, just wage protection!
And pharmacists, after all they only count pills, it shouldn't matter if two different doctors prescribe drugs that will kill you if taken together. That's your fault for going to separate doctors. And those drugs that have to be mixed in the pharmacy? Why you just hire some 15 year old to eyeball it. Doesn't matter if they get the dosage wrong and your arm dies. Minor problems, it's all about wage protection!
You are a FOOL. License in any profession exists because at some point in the past someone was either killed, maimed or severely harmed. Ensuring that certain professions are staffed by not only knowledgeable but competent people is essential to life safety of the general public because the general public isn't smart enough to see a bearing wall and ceiling sagging that indicates a design flaw that will result in the roof caving in and killing the occupants. That you can't see why licensed professions exist should point you to where YOUR problems lie.
I am a lawyer and a Slashdot regular. I am used to the abuse that my profession receives on these boards. A lot of it is justified. A lot of it is not. The following is not legal advice, but merely my observations.
The rules regulating the Unauthorized Practice of Law in each jurisdiction are among the strictest there are. I happen to agree with them because hiring someone to give you personal legal advice who isn't authorized to practice can -easily- cost you serious money, and at worst, it can effectively ruin your life. It's like that with many professions, although lawyers tend to have the most elaborate rules because, well, they're lawyers. Based on my limited, non-researched knowledge of this situation, I don't think LegalZoom qualifies as "practicing law" simply because the Judge will view it as a complex form database.
This case will hinge on three issues:
1) What constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in Missouri? This issue is easy because there's a statute. From the article: "Missouri's statutes define law practice as, among other things, "the drawing or the . . . assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting . . . [legal] rights."
2) Has that statute been interpreted by authority? Yes, there is at least one that favor's LegalZoom's stance. From the article: "On its face that language certainly sounds broad enough to cover what LegalZoom does. But in 1978 the Missouri Supreme Court effectively narrowed that language when it reviewed a case in which Missouri bar authorities sought to punish the sellers of a divorce kit that consisted of nothing but blank legal forms and instruction booklets for filling them out. The court ruled that merely marketing such materials did not amount to practicing law absent "personal advice as to legal remedies or the consequences of flowing therefrom.""
Here's another really interesting Missouri case that seems to disfavor LegalZoom: (1992) Escrow companies may not prepare or complete nonstandard or specialized documents such as contracts for deed, special warranty deeds, leases, lease-purchase agreements, easement agreements, well agreements, trustee deeds, wraparound notes and deeds of trust or any other document that requires the exercise of judgment or discretion, because such activities constitute the practice of law or doing business of law in the state, In re First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. banc).
3) Does LegalZoom "merely market such materials [as blank legal forms and instruction booklets]"? Or does it go so far as to give you "personal advice as to "legal remedies or the consequences..." This is where the case will be decided, and it depends on interpretation. Does bit of code asking a series of X questions qualify as giving personal advice? LegalZoom tends to ask pretty detailed questions that certainly help to refine each customer's needs. Something that asks "How many children do you have" is probably not personalized advice; however, something that asks "How many children do you have? Do you want to create a Trust account for your son? Do you want it to be a Spendthrift trust? What limits will there be on the divestment of funds?... etc." starts bordering on personalized legal advice that "requires the exercise of judgment or discretion" and the consequences therein.
Again I am not qualified to pass a judgment on this case as I have not fully researched the relevant law. I think the judge can rule either way pretty easily. My gut feeling is that this case will be thrown out and there will be no recovery.
Interesting case nonetheless. I figured this would happen in at least one state sometime soon, especially as LegalZoom bigger and their forms got more in-depth.
What is the definition of qualified person? Your assertion would be true if anybody could take the test and be certified if they were competent. electricians generally must spend 4 or more years as a union apprentice before being allowed to take the test. Same thing with plumbers. Lawyers must have completed an accredited law degree before they can even take the bar. Ohh, and they have to join and pay dues to the bar. In case your not noticing the pattern, you must pay a lot of money to the guilds(bar, unions, etc..) before you're even allowed to attempt to show your competence. I'm not a certified electrician , but I've had to spend a lot of time doing electrical work in my house because multiple "competent" "quality controlled" certified electricians did shoddy work for the previous owners of the house. I'm just glad I live in a union unfriendly state so it only takes an BS in Electrical Engineering to get around the unions.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
...You go to a lawyer when you want to buy a house, and 3 years later find out the previous owners lied and the foundation was rotten. You go to a lawyer when you want to start a company and want to make sure that one person doesn't go off and bring it all down by their own mistakes. You go to a lawyer when the system has run you over and you don't know how to stand up for yourself...
Everything you listed are things people really need lawyers for. Does the young couple with no children and no assets in an uncontested divorce need lawyers? No, they need a form and a service that files that form with the court. Does someone who just wants to leave everything he has to his son need a lawyer? No, a will form in a standard format for his state is all he needs. The majority of health problems are things like a twisted ankle or the sniffles. You don't need a doctor to tell you to take it easy for a couple of days and take some asprin. Most regular people don't have anything complicated that a para-legal or some pre-formatted forms couldn't handle for them.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
Where are you going to find lawyers who would support that? It's not in their best interest.
If the company that runs legalzoom.com does not have a physical presence in Missouri, then how can they be sued under Missouri law? Does every website operated within the US have to meet the requirements of all 50 states plus federal law? Or do websites only have to meet the state (and federal) requirements where they have a physical presence?
I'm curious as to how this works.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Many states say you can't sell your services (claim to be an engineer) or put "engineer" or related words in the name of your business unless you are a licensed engineer. Your employer can give you a title of engineer, but that is basically internal and meaningless.
And that's the issue - "engineer" is an essentially meaningless term from a professional standpoint.
"Professional Engineer" is a regulated term. See your state board for details. If you feel someone is misappropriating the term, you should report it - they may be subject to criminal charges, similar to someone pretending to be a lawyer.
True - but very few engineering jobs require a PE - and even then the PE often only has to sign off on work, not do the work. If the engineering profession had made having a PE a requirement to practice engineering salaries would be higher due to restricted supply. It would also limit firms from being able to import labor or export work because of the requirement for a PE.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I can hire someone and give them the title "vice-admiral" within the company, but that does not mean anything. Many things do not require an actual engineer's stamp on them, but it is the company's loss if the design is bad. Certain projects do require being sealed, and when an Engineer signs it he is taking responsibility for the design. Please refer to your own state's licensing board for more information.
While I agree that licensing laws protect wages, and in many cases are ridiculous - does it really matter if your barber is licensed? - there are also valid reason for licensing some professions
A license indicates a level of understanding of the basics of a profession - a plumber or electrician knows code and some of the reasons behind it so you get proper water seals and safe circuits installed. A pharmacists understands drug interactions and, assuming you use the same one, can catch incorrect prescriptions or potential adverse reactions with drugs you are already taking; they are a second line of defense to ensure your safety.
A licensed barber understands the basics of hygiene and knows how to properly disinfect their shears, combs and other equipment.
That being said, I think most fields should allow unlicensed practitioners, with a strong caveat emptor warning. (Note: I may have used a Latin phrase but this is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Nor do I want to cut your hair.)
I can hire someone and give them the title "vice-admiral" within the company, but that does not mean anything. Many things do not require an actual engineer's stamp on them, but it is the company's loss if the design is bad. Certain projects do require being sealed, and when an Engineer signs it he is taking responsibility for the design. Please refer to your own state's licensing board for more information.
I'm not sure what your point is other than to reinforce my statement that the engineering professions failure to require licensing in order to market your self as an engineer or provide engineering services results in more competition and leads to lower wages. Sure, a handful of engineering work requires a stamp but that is a very limited subset of what is considered "engineering."
I guess licensing matters if your a civil - where all you need to know is "Poop floats. Concrete must be reinforced. You can't push rope." and have a license to practice.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Lawyers, doctors, public teachers unions, drug companies, banks, insurance companies, government employee unions, drug cartels, the prison industrial complex - all colluding with government to limit our freedom, expand their power, and raid our wallets.
More and more, I've been thinking about the US as the old Soviet Union. Of course not as bad, but with systemic problems limiting freedom and flushing money down the toilet, while the corrupt kleptocracy running the place manages to fish a few dollars out of the bowl before the flush.
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oh nifty, I actually didn't know about them. Although it appears New York requires at least a year of law school, and Maine requires 2/3 of a law degree completion. So, they're in my "iffy" pile. So, we have: California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington that don't require law school...
Of course, good luck finding a lawyer willing to apprentice you. :(
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
I find your knowledge and accuracy to be refreshing. :) Thank you!
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS