Unauthorized Practice of Law
ByHaving researched this a bit lately, I thought I’d pull together all of the links I discovered on ethics committees efforts to use the unauthorized practice of law strictures to shut down websites and publishers like LegalZoom, Nolo and TotalAttorneys. These disputes usually involve an overzealous ethics committee threatening or filing suit against a website or publisher for educating the public as to what transactional lawyers do for a living. Personally, I think clients are better off being well educated.
I do think the ethics committees make a few good points, though, namely:
- Websites and publishers shouldn’t hold themselves out as being the equivalent of a legal service from an attorney. Good legal service is at a much higher level than a template or form, and to contend that they are equivalent is simply wrong.
- Websites and publishers should not mislead customers into thinking that just because attorneys prepared general forms and templates, that means that they will work for the customer given his or her unique circumstances. That’s why you hire an attorney, to provide customized advice for your unique situation.
- Websites and publishers should provide a conspicuous disclaimer that they are not providing legal advice.
However, the ethics committees simply go too far, attempting to ban dissemination of any legal information. This is clearly an attempt to restrict free speech and is unconstitutional. I think that the private practice attorneys who generally make up these committees are probably motivated by two main concerns. First, to some degree, they are probably engaging in economic protectionism; worried that clients will be less willing to seek them out, they choose to simply shut down the competition. Second (probably to a much greater degree), they genuinely feel that everyone with contract needs should get the high quality service of an experienced transactional attorney.
However, this understandably admirable motivation is often dispensed with when it comes to making sure that attorneys are good at what they do (many are not, and continuing legal education requirements are minimal and do not push our service to a higher level). Additionally, we charge too much for many people to afford us, so the end result is that the ethics committees are shutting people completely out of access to any kind of legal information. I haven’t seen any good responses to this damning critique. I also think that the increasing inefficiency in legal services does not speak well to being cognizant of the omnipresent client need for less expensive billing.
I think the current sad state of affairs is due to the misconception that Internet resources should mostly be used without attorney input. This misconception is furthered on both sides of the debate, by website marketing campaigns, and attorneys trying to use the unauthorized practice of law restriction to shut websites down. I believe that websites should instead be encouraging users to engage attorneys, and attorneys should instead be taking advantage of these resources to enhance their productivity and pass those savings on to clients.
TotalAttorneys Being Sued for Violation of Legal Referral Rules
Connecticut Bar Attacks Non-Law Firm Legal Websites
Who Polices The Practice Police?
A Matter of Law: Texas vs. Nolo Press
Innovation and Rules of Professional Responsibility
Conn. Dismisses Total Attorneys Ethics Case
LegalZoom and Unauthorized Practice of Law
