Businesses (sort of) cut attorneys out of doc preparation

June 28, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Consider Bankruptcy DIY and DIY Legal Prep “brick and mortar” versions of LegalZoom and other online legal document preparation businesses. These two franchises, launched nationally by Indiana-based parent company Lee’s Cash, are a response to the pro se movement happening in the U.S. right now, according a company representative.

Looking for something for their tax affiliates to do year round, Lee’s Cash launched these two businesses as a way for people to get legal documents, such as wills or bankruptcy petitions, prepared for a fraction of the cost of hiring an attorney. Chip Moss, vice president of sales, said using either of the DIY services will save someone 75 percent compared to hiring a lawyer.

For example, someone would go to the store and a non-lawyer would gather the information needed to create a will. The form the employees use was created by an attorney. That newly created will is then made available to an attorney who takes a look at it and signs off on it. The customer would also be able to speak with the attorney through videoconferencing technology like Skype with any questions about the will.

Moss said they make it clear there is no attorney-client privilege, but there will be confidentiality. The attorneys are contracted out and work for the DIY businesses, not for the client. They are paid a small retainer and per activity, he said.

Moss doesn’t believe the Rules of Professional Conduct would bind the attorneys if an issue would arise with the preparation of a document. If an issue would come up, the client could file a civil suit against the DIY company.

The companies are relatively new and there is just one franchise in Indiana. Moss said less than 10 franchises have been sold nationwide. Right now there is just a small group of lawyers affiliated with the businesses – only about 5 – which Moss said is because they haven’t aggressively marketed it to attorneys yet.

Attorneys, are you worried that a business like this will affect your practice volume? When LegalZoom and other online legal doc preparation sites went up, did you find your business affected?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Say What
    I love it when I see quotes like "That newly created will is then made available to an attorney who takes a look at it and signs off on it." Give me a break. Yes, I want an attorney being paid $20 to "look at" my will and "sign off on it." People who don't have $250 to $1000 to have a will created probably have no assets to begin with...(No to be mean, but I don't see this being a viable business model.)
  • UPL
    As described, it seems like it's the unauthorized practice of law. See the United Financial case. In addition, if DIY is offering itself as the target of a malpractice case, how can it argue that it is not providing legal advice. On a related note, an attorney offering time and advice and reviewing documents will likely be found to have formed an attorney-client relationship. So, the attorney may be liable as well. However, the attorney may be subject to discipline for aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law. The annotated model rules provide examples where attorneys are warned not to participate in these types of ventures. (I cannot determine that the specific facts of this case are violative of Indiana's rules and laws, but there's at least enough there to make a reasonable attorney seriously question whether it's worthwhile to participate.)
    • UPL
      Definitely sounds like UPL to me, PJ, and I think you're right about the A/C relationship. As I understand it, an attorney can't prevent an A/C relationship from forming just by saying so - isn't it the reasonable belief/expectation of the client that determines whether an A/C relationship was established?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    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
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT