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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

    2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

    3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

    4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

    5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

    ADVERTISEMENT