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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

    2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

    3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

    4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

    5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

    ADVERTISEMENT