The ABA Standing Committee on Client Protection just released a survey it conducted on unlicensed practice of law programs ( UPL) in United States jurisdictions in 2011-12.
Only 29 jurisdictions responded to the survey. Twenty-three of the 29 actively enforce UPL regulations, although some jurisdictions indicate that insufficient funding or resources make enforcement challenging. Nine jurisdictions stated that enforcement is inactive or non-existent.
Of the jurisdictions reporting, 21 states permit some form of limited practice by non-lawyers. Here is the summary from the report:
Twenty-one jurisdictions authorize nonlawyers to perform some legal services in limited areas. Sixteen permit legal assistants, legal technicians or paralegals to perform some legal services under the supervision of a lawyer; six jurisdictions permit nonlawyers to draft legal documents. Other allowable nonlawyer activities include: real estate agents/brokers may draft documents for property transactions or attend real estate closings; nonlawyers may attend (and in some states participate in) administrative proceedings; and participate in alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Many of these jurisdictions do not classify these activities as the practice of law.
There are only six jurisdictions in the US that permit nonlawyers to prepare legal documents,
(without providing legal advice). These jurisdictions are California, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Florida, Maine, and Missouri. In these jurisdictions the "nonlawyers" are referred to as - "Legal Document Preparers" or "Legal Technicians".
[ Download Entire Report Here ].
Only one jurisdiction that we know of, the State of Texas, makes an exception to the definition of the practice of law, and explicitly permits the sale and distribution of self-help legal software, software-powered legal web sites, self-help law books, and other technologically-based alternatives to the delivery of legal services.
"Our business model includes the provision of services that represent an alternative to traditional legal services, which subjects us to allegations of UPL. UPL generally refers to an entity or person giving legal advice who is not licensed to practice law. However, laws and regulations defining UPL, and the governing bodies that enforce UPL rules, differ among the various jurisdictions in which we operate. We are unable to acquire a license to practice law in the United States, or employ, or employ licensed attorneys to provide legal advice to our customers, because we do not meet the regulatory environment of being exclusively owned by licensed attorneys. We are also subject to laws and regulations that govern business transactions between attorneys and non-attorneys, including those related to the ethics of attorney fee-splitting and the corporate practice of law."
- Some entity, such as the US Legal Services Corporation whose goal is to expand access to justice for all, or an independent or university-based research organization, should undertake empirical research which analyzes whether non-lawyer practices actually cause harm to consumers within the states that permit nonlawyer document preparation. Research should also be done on the impact that nonlawyer legal form web sites have on the consumer in terms of benefits and potential harm. Empirical research in England by the Legal Services Consumer Board on the issue of whether will writing by non-lawyers causes harm, concluded that it did. This resulted in making will drafting and will writing a reserved area under the new UK legal profession deregulation scheme.
- We need more empirical research like the UK Study to inform public policy making in this area. Perhaps if LegalZoom is successful with its public underwriting it could subsidize or contribute to such a study, as it would certainly be in their interest to do so!
- Research should be conducted in those states that permit nonlawyer document preparers to evaluate whether more consumers have access to the legal system and at a lower cost by using nonlawyer document preparers, rather than attorneys. This data would inform public policy with facts, instead of generalized theories that it is necessary to limit legal document preparation services to licensed attorneys in the interest of "protecting" the public from harm.
- Legal document preparation software is getting smarter -- more intelligent-- Web-enabled document automation applications can now generate documents that really do reflect a person's individual circumstances. These applications are getting smarter and the intelligent templates easier to build. Other than in Texas, there is an issue as to whether legal software, standing alone, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, despite disclaimers to the contrary.
State Bar UPL Committees should consider adopting the Texas UPL exception to avoid charges of monopolistic behavior, to gain the confidence of the public that the organized Bar is really interested in expanding access to the legal system through the use of technology, and to encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services. [Disclosure: We operate an intelligent legal forms software company ].
It would be interesting to see whether legal fees are also lower in jurisdictions which have competition from nonlawyer document preparers as these authors claim.