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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

    5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

    ADVERTISEMENT