If We Can’t Beat Them, Let’s Compete With Them!
I’m never more mortified than when I see lawyers trying to shut down legal document preparation services like We the People which purportedly compete with lawyers – as the Illinois Bar is doing. See Lawyers Protest Expanding Legal Document Preparers, Chicago Sun times (2/21/05). I can’t understand why attorneys, who offer a valuable service, feel the need to put glorified typing services like We the People out of business.
First, to say that document prep services even compete with what lawyers provide gives those services credibility that they don’t deserve. Document prep services don’t offer clients a lawyer’s expertise and legal knowlege. Instead, they simply take information from a form (completed by a client), generate a document – a living trust, a bankruptcy petition or uncontested divorce – and file it. And for that, clients pay $199 (for bankruptcy) or $399 (for a living trust). Agreed, these services generally charge less than attorneys – but not always. However, they certainly cost more than if clients did the work themselves.
So why are lawyers threatened? The bars (like ISBA) won’t admit that they’re trying to help lawyers preserve our own monopoly on legal service. So the bars claim instead that document prep companies do a disservice to clients with shoddy work or improper advice. Granted, that’s a significant problem. But rather than try to shut these companies down, it’s our job as attorneys to persuade clients that the value that attorneys can add to living wills and bankruptcy petitions and uncontested divorces justify the added cost. Moreover, client welfare can be preserved through less onerous means such as education or consumer protection claims. Clients who believe that their cases were mishandled have sued We the People and the FTC has fined the company for deceptive advertising practices. Those efforts should be sufficient to protect clients from the inadequacies of document prep services.
Moreover, in our haste to run non-legal professionals out of town, we lawyers forget that many of the clients who use these document service providers constitute business that we are never going to capture anyway because of cost considerations. In the absence of these non-legal document services, many of these clients would probably handle their matters pro se. Yet, according to this article in the Washington Post, a company like We the People generates $50 million in fees from 200,000 customers a year. That’s a lot of lost business for lawyers. We ought to try to capture it for ourselves by competing with companies like We the People.
And how might we do that? Lawyers can try to come up with ways to provide simple, routine services inexpensively. Perhaps there’s a way to automate the process – or to quickly review a form already prepared by a client. Perhaps a lawyer could run a seminar on filing your own bankruptcy petition and charge $35.00 to a roomful of people who would then fill out the forms on the spot and have the option of filing them on their own – or paying an additional fee for a private consultation. With podcasting now the rage, maybe a lawyer could put together a little MP3 on how to fill in a bankruptcy form that clients could download and listen to. Clearly, there’s a demand for cheaper service – $50 million worth – and it just bugs me to let it go to providers who’ve not gone to law school. But getting rid of those people won’t direct that $50 million pot towards attorneys – it will just result in fewer available options for lawyers who can’t hire attorneys.
Finally, those of you who’ve visited my website may wonder what gives me, an energy regulatory practitioner, the credibility to comment on competition with non-legal providers. Well, in my industry, the competition betweeen lawyers and non-legal providers is even more rampant. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, one of the major regulatory fora where I practice permits non-lawyers to represent clients in agency proceedings. And many times, non-lawyer economists or consultants initially negotiate the terms of power supply contracts and tariffs and handle uncontested project permitting without ever bringing a lawyer in the door. I’ve had to mold my practice in such a way that I can provide added value that my non-legal competitors can’t. I did this partly by educating clients on the mess that can result by failing to use an attorney so as to adequately preserve one’s rights (e.g., to protest a contract or seek rehearing) – and partly by offering services like appellate work or representation at hearings – that non-attorneys either can’t provide or are uncomfortable providing. In short, if I’ve found ways to make my legal services vital in the energy regulatory field, surely my colleagues can do the same in the general practice area.
If you have any ideas on how to compete with non-legal document preparation providers or any success stories to share, we welcome your comments below – or cross posts at your web log.
I’m an estate planning/probate attorney, and have two comments to add:
1. If someone is considering using a typing service or Nolo forms or some such thing, they obviously value low cost above all else. I’m not interested in competing on that playing field.
2. In the long run, I make more money off of the folks that use typing services, Nolo, etc. than I do from my regular estate planning clients. Why? Because the typing service documents are almost always poorly drafted — lots of ambiguities and/or meaningless language.
People can either pay me a little bit now (for a competently drafted estate plan), or pay me a lot of money later (when I have to bring a construction suit or engage in some other type of litigation because of poorly drafted documents) — it’s their choice.
I’m an estate planning/probate attorney, and have two comments to add:
1. If someone is considering using a typing service or Nolo forms or some such thing, they obviously value low cost above all else. I’m not interested in competing on that playing field.
2. In the long run, I make more money off of the folks that use typing services, Nolo, etc. than I do from my regular estate planning clients. Why? Because the typing service documents are almost always poorly drafted — lots of ambiguities and/or meaningless language.
People can either pay me a little bit now (for a competently drafted estate plan), or pay me a lot of money later (when I have to bring a construction suit or engage in some other type of litigation because of poorly drafted documents) — it’s their choice.
I’m also an attorney who does estate planning work – there’s a local arm of We the People in my area, as well as “trust mill” promoters who promote $399 living trusts with full-page ads in the local newspaper so they can get their hands on asset information to aggressively push annuity sales to seniors, as well as a few local attorneys who advertise lowball living trusts prices ($499 is common).
The only way I can see to compete with those folks on price – or to meet them on price – is to ratchet down the level of service I provide to clients. Sure, I could (I suppose) give my “this is how estate planning works for nice middle class families” spiel to a room full of people, give the attendees some worksheets to fill out, hand the worksheets to a monkey to crank out documents, and then give everyone 15 minutes of “ask the attorney” time before signing the final documents, and the clients/customers would probably have a better result than they get out of the trust mills and typing services.
I see two downsides to that – the first is that I’m not in a big hurry to associate myself and my practice with a hurry-up low-price, essentially “fast food” version of estate planning – I’d rather be a friendly local restaurant that charges $30/person for a nice, special dinner than fight with McDonald’s over the people who want to spend $4 on dinner. I could probably get over that, or someone else could, so that’s not an inherently fatal problem.
The second problem is a potential malpractice suit from a frustrated beneficiary because the “drafting attorney” didn’t spend enough time talking with the testators/grantors about their situation to put together a plan that’s appropriate for the situation. The typing services get to hide behind the “we told you we’re not attorneys, what did you expect?” argument – but so far I haven’t seen anything that would protect an attorney who agreed to represent a client on a severely limited basis as would be appropriate for a 15 minute interview, or for an estate plan drafted solely by reviewing a filled-out worksheet.
Here in CA, family law attorneys have started “unbundling” their services – more than half of the litigants in family court are appearing pro se, so the judges like it when parties have attorneys ghostwrite their petitions .. they’re much more readable and more likely to be correct, which speeds up the process. To get that result (efficiency + lower price), what the court system had to give up was the ability to have an attorney on the hook for representing a client who won’t or can’t pay their bills – the attorney who ghostwrites pleadings or provides background information can walk away from the client if they’re not paid, and otherwise operate in a hands-off cash-and-carry mode.
I can see where a similar model might be helpful to people who can’t or won’t pay for a full estate planning engagement – but I’m in no hurry to be the test case for the first malpractice suit or the first bar grievance on the topic.
I’m also an attorney who does estate planning work – there’s a local arm of We the People in my area, as well as “trust mill” promoters who promote $399 living trusts with full-page ads in the local newspaper so they can get their hands on asset information to aggressively push annuity sales to seniors, as well as a few local attorneys who advertise lowball living trusts prices ($499 is common).
The only way I can see to compete with those folks on price – or to meet them on price – is to ratchet down the level of service I provide to clients. Sure, I could (I suppose) give my “this is how estate planning works for nice middle class families” spiel to a room full of people, give the attendees some worksheets to fill out, hand the worksheets to a monkey to crank out documents, and then give everyone 15 minutes of “ask the attorney” time before signing the final documents, and the clients/customers would probably have a better result than they get out of the trust mills and typing services.
I see two downsides to that – the first is that I’m not in a big hurry to associate myself and my practice with a hurry-up low-price, essentially “fast food” version of estate planning – I’d rather be a friendly local restaurant that charges $30/person for a nice, special dinner than fight with McDonald’s over the people who want to spend $4 on dinner. I could probably get over that, or someone else could, so that’s not an inherently fatal problem.
The second problem is a potential malpractice suit from a frustrated beneficiary because the “drafting attorney” didn’t spend enough time talking with the testators/grantors about their situation to put together a plan that’s appropriate for the situation. The typing services get to hide behind the “we told you we’re not attorneys, what did you expect?” argument – but so far I haven’t seen anything that would protect an attorney who agreed to represent a client on a severely limited basis as would be appropriate for a 15 minute interview, or for an estate plan drafted solely by reviewing a filled-out worksheet.
Here in CA, family law attorneys have started “unbundling” their services – more than half of the litigants in family court are appearing pro se, so the judges like it when parties have attorneys ghostwrite their petitions .. they’re much more readable and more likely to be correct, which speeds up the process. To get that result (efficiency + lower price), what the court system had to give up was the ability to have an attorney on the hook for representing a client who won’t or can’t pay their bills – the attorney who ghostwrites pleadings or provides background information can walk away from the client if they’re not paid, and otherwise operate in a hands-off cash-and-carry mode.
I can see where a similar model might be helpful to people who can’t or won’t pay for a full estate planning engagement – but I’m in no hurry to be the test case for the first malpractice suit or the first bar grievance on the topic.
I realize that figuring out how to make money off the 200,000 clients who don’t want to (or can’t) pay for legal services to begin with isn’t for everyone. I have no problem with lawyers who want to do a top notch professional job and recover reasonable compensation for their efforts. What I can’t abide is when lawyers who are target those clients who value and are willing to pay for legal services try to drive alternative providers out of business.
I realize that figuring out how to make money off the 200,000 clients who don’t want to (or can’t) pay for legal services to begin with isn’t for everyone. I have no problem with lawyers who want to do a top notch professional job and recover reasonable compensation for their efforts. What I can’t abide is when lawyers who are target those clients who value and are willing to pay for legal services try to drive alternative providers out of business.
What’s an attorney worth?
It comes down to value and benefits. What value do you offer and what benefits are being purchased? It’s the same whether you mow lawns, develop web-sites or practice law.
If you believe legal departments and law firms exist in the corporate and…
What’s an attorney worth?
It comes down to value and benefits. What value do you offer and what benefits are being purchased? It’s the same whether you mow lawns, develop web-sites or practice law.
If you believe legal departments and law firms exist in the corporate and…
Lawyers need to understand that clients deserve to have low-cost options. Some consumers must choose the lowest price, others will knowingly take the risk of lesser services, while others choose full-service or discount lawyers. If the client really comes first we, can’t deny them options — indeed, we should help create the options and inform clients about them.
Lawyers need to understand that clients deserve to have low-cost options. Some consumers must choose the lowest price, others will knowingly take the risk of lesser services, while others choose full-service or discount lawyers. If the client really comes first we, can’t deny them options — indeed, we should help create the options and inform clients about them.
Doing some math, that’s $250,000 average sales per office and $250 of revenue per customer. So you’d need to get 5 paying customers per day assuming you work a 5-day week. There’s also an initial $90K franchise fee. Can this style franchise be profitable for a lawyer? (ignoring the franchise fee)
$20,833 montly sales
– 1,666 (8% royalty)
– 4,000 advertising expenses
– 1,500 rent
– 2,250 utilities/bills/misc. expenses
– 1,500 bar fees/insurance/accounting
– 4,000 1 employee
– 6,000 owner’s salary
———-
$- 83 loss per month
So it looks like a franchisee would be cutting it close. But, I can see this being an OK business for a lawyer if
1) you don’t go the franchise route b/c I don’t think “We the People” has much brand recognition
2) you raise prices by 20% (your still competitive with We the People but you add value by giving advice to pro se clients)
3) increase revenue per client by offering ghost writing services for clients who don’t want to write their own motions, legal research and memos
Doing some math, that’s $250,000 average sales per office and $250 of revenue per customer. So you’d need to get 5 paying customers per day assuming you work a 5-day week. There’s also an initial $90K franchise fee. Can this style franchise be profitable for a lawyer? (ignoring the franchise fee)
$20,833 montly sales
– 1,666 (8% royalty)
– 4,000 advertising expenses
– 1,500 rent
– 2,250 utilities/bills/misc. expenses
– 1,500 bar fees/insurance/accounting
– 4,000 1 employee
– 6,000 owner’s salary
———-
$- 83 loss per month
So it looks like a franchisee would be cutting it close. But, I can see this being an OK business for a lawyer if
1) you don’t go the franchise route b/c I don’t think “We the People” has much brand recognition
2) you raise prices by 20% (your still competitive with We the People but you add value by giving advice to pro se clients)
3) increase revenue per client by offering ghost writing services for clients who don’t want to write their own motions, legal research and memos
WE THE [CLUELESS ILLINOIS BAR] PEOPLE
Carolyn Elefant delivers a sound spanking to the Illinois Bar Association for activating against a legal document prep service called We The People. In her opinion, the Illinois Bar needs to examine the scenario from both a competitive and client
WE THE [CLUELESS ILLINOIS BAR] PEOPLE
Carolyn Elefant delivers a sound spanking to the Illinois Bar Association for activating against a legal document prep service called We The People. In her opinion, the Illinois Bar needs to examine the scenario from both a competitive and client
As a member of the Illinois bar, the biggest problem that I have with the debate is that it lumps too many dissimilar issues together. WTP should be allowed to provide certain kinds of services, because those services seldom (if ever) involve truly legal advice–instead, they involve mechanistic and procedural navigation of administrative issues, such as the uncontested divorce with no children and the simple will of an unmarried person. Others, however, do require legal judgment, such as bankruptcy (state or federal exclusion for personal property, priorities, preferences, etc.). Bankruptcy is also different in that it includes a pot pourri of potential issues that even the bankruptcy bar ignores too often, such as ownership of copyrights.
Although I have no experience with WTP in particular, I do have some experience with other “document preparation” services. I have yet to see a single properly prepared bankruptcy petition. I have, however, seen quite a few uncontested divorces, farm-equipment sales, simples wills, and so on that were adequate (or at least no worse than the legal community tends to do in full “legal advice” mode).
I think we’d all be much better off trying to decide what really requires legal advice and walling that off from nonlawyers than fighting over glorified typing services and well-established procedural nightmares present in administrative systems.
As a member of the Illinois bar, the biggest problem that I have with the debate is that it lumps too many dissimilar issues together. WTP should be allowed to provide certain kinds of services, because those services seldom (if ever) involve truly legal advice–instead, they involve mechanistic and procedural navigation of administrative issues, such as the uncontested divorce with no children and the simple will of an unmarried person. Others, however, do require legal judgment, such as bankruptcy (state or federal exclusion for personal property, priorities, preferences, etc.). Bankruptcy is also different in that it includes a pot pourri of potential issues that even the bankruptcy bar ignores too often, such as ownership of copyrights.
Although I have no experience with WTP in particular, I do have some experience with other “document preparation” services. I have yet to see a single properly prepared bankruptcy petition. I have, however, seen quite a few uncontested divorces, farm-equipment sales, simples wills, and so on that were adequate (or at least no worse than the legal community tends to do in full “legal advice” mode).
I think we’d all be much better off trying to decide what really requires legal advice and walling that off from nonlawyers than fighting over glorified typing services and well-established procedural nightmares present in administrative systems.
The ISBA v. We The People
Carolyn Elefant of My Shingle has an interesting post about the Illinois Bar Assocation’s position on
The ISBA v. We The People
Carolyn Elefant of My Shingle has an interesting post about the Illinois Bar Assocation’s position on
ADD THE CALIFORNIA BAR TO THAT LIST, TOO …
ADD THE CALIFORNIA BAR TO THAT LIST, TOO …
How many times have we seen situations where the client says “I want X” but on digging down what they really want is outcome A but they think X is the way to get there.
(“I want to put my daughter’s name on the title.” “Do you realize that makes your daughter the half-owner, that it’s subject to the claims of her creditors, and that if you change your mind you can’t change her ownership?” — now I won’t deny the client *may* have known that and thought it out and accept it — but if they don’t………..)
Heck, if the client really knew what they were doing and the legal consequences they wouldn’t even need WTP, they could just write out the forms & have a typist fill them out.
How many times have we seen situations where the client says “I want X” but on digging down what they really want is outcome A but they think X is the way to get there.
(“I want to put my daughter’s name on the title.” “Do you realize that makes your daughter the half-owner, that it’s subject to the claims of her creditors, and that if you change your mind you can’t change her ownership?” — now I won’t deny the client *may* have known that and thought it out and accept it — but if they don’t………..)
Heck, if the client really knew what they were doing and the legal consequences they wouldn’t even need WTP, they could just write out the forms & have a typist fill them out.
carolyn and monica join the ULP posse
After almost two years with no one to cover my weblogging backside on the issue of UPL, it is thrilling to see
carolyn and monica join the ULP posse
After almost two years with no one to cover my weblogging backside on the issue of UPL, it is thrilling to see
The State Bar of Texas not only went after Nolo Press for books, but after an attorney and paralegal knowledgeable in the subject for preparing a guide to the infernally arcane prison discipline & parole practice for prisoners covering, for example, the tricky stages of that process where they are not only denied but forbidden to have, much less pay, attorneys.
I don’t know how it works in Illinois, but training a secretary or paralegal to complete the thiryt or forty pages of single-spaced text required for a Texas divorce decree with children, with practically no professional judgment involved at that point, using State Bar forms, takes quite some time–most of the variables are never used even by family law attorneys. I have been retained, after the hearing, just to prepare the decree and related documentation, in many divorces, after they have tired to use one of the “Do Your Own Divrce Without A Lawyer” books which invariably don’t deal with Texas s properly. The expensive document software, represented as up to date on Texas family law, that I bought, from a major legal publisher in 1998, was grossdly wrong in many respects, too.
Heaven help you if dividing employee benefits requires a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA, which ought to be simple but which, at the end of a State Bar CLE program on these, the bottom line was “Send me $1,500.00″ down,” in part because the husband’s employer’s and Plan Administrator can turn these down without saying why even after you track them through four states and Bermuda as ran the cost of one divorce I tried involving Tyco and its predecessors through the roof.
In Texas, the prevailing rule is that it is unethical for an attorney to ghost-write a document either for a litigant or for another attorney unless they get the client’s consent in writing. I have designed a lot of form documents, and ghost-written a lot of documents, for other attorneys who hate that part of the work; the tough part is getting the lawyer, much less your own client, to find out and tell you enough about the matter to do it right.
I have, sadly, seen some substantial legal fees made in sometimes futile attempts to solve the problems people have made trying to do their own wills, or wills being done by banks, who didn’t know the basics of Texas wills or inheritance, independent executorship, etc. I also rewrote teh will of the name partner of an insurance defense firm who had anohter lawyer in the same office draft it without telling him about his two sons being adopted, with the result that the document probably disinherited them, a terrible result upheld by the Supreme Court of Texas in another case involving a former mayor of a large city whose lawyers had made that same stupid mistake and not realized the law of Texas on this point was assinine to begin with. Fortunately, I caught that one, and another in which, in the early days of word processors, the entire disposition section of a thirty page will and trust after “to wit” had been omitted, which had likewise been executed by an executive. But we used to find ourselves dealing with divorce decrees prepared by lawyers or law offices, cheap and expensive, that omitted to deal with property and other matters.
I see both document preparation companies, book publishers, and lawyers advertise for “simple” dovorces, with and without children. In my 35 years of practice, I rarely saw a “simple” divorce. The prescribed Standard Child Possession Schedule and Standard Child Support provisionss, which the courts are supposed to order in the absnece of a showing to hte contrary, are too complex for the average client to comprehend.
I dealt with one case in which the brilliant non-lawyer had executed, with full formality, a document, prepared by a probate judge, revoking his will. That was all. Then he executed another formal document revoking that document. Then he died, while making love to the woman he had divorce right before the revocation. We were in court for years. In another, the wills their bank had provided them left “everything to my spouse,” before they left together on an ill-fated flight, leaving minor children Another of those left the survivi8ng wife and special-needs child having to get court approval for tuition at a special school, and all other bills, and the old judge refused to approve these until after seeing them, and we couldn’t clsoe the estate until two separate suits for wrongful death against the airplane and propeller makers, in different states, were resolved.
The Bankruptcy Code and court rules, effectively made by the creditors’ lawyers, practically force the large volume bankruptcy law practices to cut corners. I put a lot of work and thought into my bankrutpcy practice, but a good bankruptcy paralegal can make, or break, you there, with or without ther best known filing programs.
Now will someone please figure out how any lawyer can get a working poor or lower middle class mother and her children thorugh a bitterly contested child custody case, with or without a divorce, and do a decent job, especially with abuse issues, on the kind of money these clients can pay for expenses much less legal fees? Nobody can get thorugh that without counsel, and maybe hired experts, most of the time.
PETER S. CHAMBERLAIN
1309 Hunt Street
Commerce, TX 75428-2916
peterschamberlain@earthlink.net
(903)886-2323
The State Bar of Texas not only went after Nolo Press for books, but after an attorney and paralegal knowledgeable in the subject for preparing a guide to the infernally arcane prison discipline & parole practice for prisoners covering, for example, the tricky stages of that process where they are not only denied but forbidden to have, much less pay, attorneys.
I don’t know how it works in Illinois, but training a secretary or paralegal to complete the thiryt or forty pages of single-spaced text required for a Texas divorce decree with children, with practically no professional judgment involved at that point, using State Bar forms, takes quite some time–most of the variables are never used even by family law attorneys. I have been retained, after the hearing, just to prepare the decree and related documentation, in many divorces, after they have tired to use one of the “Do Your Own Divrce Without A Lawyer” books which invariably don’t deal with Texas s properly. The expensive document software, represented as up to date on Texas family law, that I bought, from a major legal publisher in 1998, was grossdly wrong in many respects, too.
Heaven help you if dividing employee benefits requires a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA, which ought to be simple but which, at the end of a State Bar CLE program on these, the bottom line was “Send me $1,500.00″ down,” in part because the husband’s employer’s and Plan Administrator can turn these down without saying why even after you track them through four states and Bermuda as ran the cost of one divorce I tried involving Tyco and its predecessors through the roof.
In Texas, the prevailing rule is that it is unethical for an attorney to ghost-write a document either for a litigant or for another attorney unless they get the client’s consent in writing. I have designed a lot of form documents, and ghost-written a lot of documents, for other attorneys who hate that part of the work; the tough part is getting the lawyer, much less your own client, to find out and tell you enough about the matter to do it right.
I have, sadly, seen some substantial legal fees made in sometimes futile attempts to solve the problems people have made trying to do their own wills, or wills being done by banks, who didn’t know the basics of Texas wills or inheritance, independent executorship, etc. I also rewrote teh will of the name partner of an insurance defense firm who had anohter lawyer in the same office draft it without telling him about his two sons being adopted, with the result that the document probably disinherited them, a terrible result upheld by the Supreme Court of Texas in another case involving a former mayor of a large city whose lawyers had made that same stupid mistake and not realized the law of Texas on this point was assinine to begin with. Fortunately, I caught that one, and another in which, in the early days of word processors, the entire disposition section of a thirty page will and trust after “to wit” had been omitted, which had likewise been executed by an executive. But we used to find ourselves dealing with divorce decrees prepared by lawyers or law offices, cheap and expensive, that omitted to deal with property and other matters.
I see both document preparation companies, book publishers, and lawyers advertise for “simple” dovorces, with and without children. In my 35 years of practice, I rarely saw a “simple” divorce. The prescribed Standard Child Possession Schedule and Standard Child Support provisionss, which the courts are supposed to order in the absnece of a showing to hte contrary, are too complex for the average client to comprehend.
I dealt with one case in which the brilliant non-lawyer had executed, with full formality, a document, prepared by a probate judge, revoking his will. That was all. Then he executed another formal document revoking that document. Then he died, while making love to the woman he had divorce right before the revocation. We were in court for years. In another, the wills their bank had provided them left “everything to my spouse,” before they left together on an ill-fated flight, leaving minor children Another of those left the survivi8ng wife and special-needs child having to get court approval for tuition at a special school, and all other bills, and the old judge refused to approve these until after seeing them, and we couldn’t clsoe the estate until two separate suits for wrongful death against the airplane and propeller makers, in different states, were resolved.
The Bankruptcy Code and court rules, effectively made by the creditors’ lawyers, practically force the large volume bankruptcy law practices to cut corners. I put a lot of work and thought into my bankrutpcy practice, but a good bankruptcy paralegal can make, or break, you there, with or without ther best known filing programs.
Now will someone please figure out how any lawyer can get a working poor or lower middle class mother and her children thorugh a bitterly contested child custody case, with or without a divorce, and do a decent job, especially with abuse issues, on the kind of money these clients can pay for expenses much less legal fees? Nobody can get thorugh that without counsel, and maybe hired experts, most of the time.
PETER S. CHAMBERLAIN
1309 Hunt Street
Commerce, TX 75428-2916
peterschamberlain@earthlink.net
(903)886-2323
Amen! I sang your praises on my blog. This issue has been one of my pet peeves for years!
See http://commonscold.typepad.com/commonscold/2005/02/heres_a_quick_a.html
Amen! I sang your praises on my blog. This issue has been one of my pet peeves for years!
See http://commonscold.typepad.com/commonscold/2005/02/heres_a_quick_a.html
There is more to document services than whether they are competition to attorneys. Sure there may be some documents that are simple and would be easiest to do via a document service, but as mentioned before divorces are rarely simple (and Illinois does have a joint simplied dissolution for people that qualify for it, but that is a small percentage of all divorces).
Also, as a bankruptcy attorney who has seen numerous problems come up even when a debtor has an attorney, I’d never recommend someone have a document service help them with a bankruptcy petition instead of an attorney. Document services do not have the legal ability to provide legal advice, but debts may not realize that information that should be on their petition is not on there. It would be unfortunate to see someone have a bankruptcy fraud claim against them solely because no one made it clear to them how important it is to disclose everything. It is hard enough for an attorney to find this information out, if someone is pro se for a bankruptcy, chances are they will not know how big of a deal leaving out something they consider minor could be.
But that isn’t to say I think that I have to compete with these services. It seems to me that most people know when they need help from an attorney (though sometimes it’s too late, and damage has been done).
It seems to me that it is more of an ethical issue. From what I understand, there is generally no one licensed to practice law at a document preparation service, so they cannot provide legal advice, but this will not stop a customer from believing that using their service will get them to where they want to be.
I’ve had plenty of clients (especially in family law) that believed they did not need a lawyer for a divorce or for child support issues, but being pro se just caused more problems that needed to be fixed by an attorney later. That isn’t to say that that is always the case, but if the parties aren’t in agreement it is rare that things work for the best with either of the parties being pro se.
There is more to document services than whether they are competition to attorneys. Sure there may be some documents that are simple and would be easiest to do via a document service, but as mentioned before divorces are rarely simple (and Illinois does have a joint simplied dissolution for people that qualify for it, but that is a small percentage of all divorces).
Also, as a bankruptcy attorney who has seen numerous problems come up even when a debtor has an attorney, I’d never recommend someone have a document service help them with a bankruptcy petition instead of an attorney. Document services do not have the legal ability to provide legal advice, but debts may not realize that information that should be on their petition is not on there. It would be unfortunate to see someone have a bankruptcy fraud claim against them solely because no one made it clear to them how important it is to disclose everything. It is hard enough for an attorney to find this information out, if someone is pro se for a bankruptcy, chances are they will not know how big of a deal leaving out something they consider minor could be.
But that isn’t to say I think that I have to compete with these services. It seems to me that most people know when they need help from an attorney (though sometimes it’s too late, and damage has been done).
It seems to me that it is more of an ethical issue. From what I understand, there is generally no one licensed to practice law at a document preparation service, so they cannot provide legal advice, but this will not stop a customer from believing that using their service will get them to where they want to be.
I’ve had plenty of clients (especially in family law) that believed they did not need a lawyer for a divorce or for child support issues, but being pro se just caused more problems that needed to be fixed by an attorney later. That isn’t to say that that is always the case, but if the parties aren’t in agreement it is rare that things work for the best with either of the parties being pro se.
I’ve never met the Texas lawyer Savannah Robinson (savannahrobinson.com), but I’d strongly suggest her apparent business model to struggling solos/small firms. She appears to employ several Legal Assistants for second chair work. Think about it–no unruly partners, useless administrative forms, orunbearable billable hour requirements ever again. But, you could earn what a partner earns by billing for the legal assistants under such autority as Missouri v. Jenkins (U.S. 1991?)and Gill Savings (Texas 1994?). Say the Legal Assistants are worthy of $40/hr as their compensation. You could bill at $65-90/hour for them plus your billable time provided your engagement contract clearly spelled out this arrangment. There are almost countless ways a solo/small firm can become profitable–both federal and states have a large number of administrative agencies, workers comp for federal employees, counseling employees of their rights under ERISA–all done by qualified Legal Assistants under the supervision of practicing attorneys. Indeed, the collective approach business model as mentioned by Ms. Elefant may be authorized in Texas by Occupations Code chapter 951. Recently, the success of the Texas UPL Committee has come about only where it can scare some untrained lay persons away from vitally needed services, in my opinion, because those laypersons could not raise a viable (affordable!!) defense to its legal position. NOLO could afford a viable defense, but whether it was a winning defense must wait for another case, as that case settled.
I’ve never met the Texas lawyer Savannah Robinson (savannahrobinson.com), but I’d strongly suggest her apparent business model to struggling solos/small firms. She appears to employ several Legal Assistants for second chair work. Think about it–no unruly partners, useless administrative forms, orunbearable billable hour requirements ever again. But, you could earn what a partner earns by billing for the legal assistants under such autority as Missouri v. Jenkins (U.S. 1991?)and Gill Savings (Texas 1994?). Say the Legal Assistants are worthy of $40/hr as their compensation. You could bill at $65-90/hour for them plus your billable time provided your engagement contract clearly spelled out this arrangment. There are almost countless ways a solo/small firm can become profitable–both federal and states have a large number of administrative agencies, workers comp for federal employees, counseling employees of their rights under ERISA–all done by qualified Legal Assistants under the supervision of practicing attorneys. Indeed, the collective approach business model as mentioned by Ms. Elefant may be authorized in Texas by Occupations Code chapter 951. Recently, the success of the Texas UPL Committee has come about only where it can scare some untrained lay persons away from vitally needed services, in my opinion, because those laypersons could not raise a viable (affordable!!) defense to its legal position. NOLO could afford a viable defense, but whether it was a winning defense must wait for another case, as that case settled.
THREE CHEERS
Amen! To Carolyn Elefant’s very thoughtful and pragmatic rant on My Shingle, chastizing the Illinois bar for attacking We the People, a legal document preparation service. I have always been outraged about the California bar’s often-over zealous paran…
THREE CHEERS
Amen! To Carolyn Elefant’s very thoughtful and pragmatic rant on My Shingle, chastizing the Illinois bar for attacking We the People, a legal document preparation service. I have always been outraged about the California bar’s often-over zealous paran…
Hi,
I recently wrote a piece about how the UPL abuses and guild protections actually make the BPP’s a safer alternative for consumers:
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/382.html?top10
Frankly, I’m amazed to find attorneys interested in a level playing field. Can you import a few over here (at least long enough to do an interview on our show?) Here in New York the judges give the wink of approval when lawyers admit to submitting perjured affidavits (by firm staff) and doctored logs (see Milton review):
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/370.html?ednybank
In the past I tried to argue that non-lawyers could help the 90% of tenants that were unrepresented in Housing Court cases. But most of the paralegals were positively terrified/ hostile due to UPL considerations (that thread is still available in the forum archives). What do you guys think of that? Right now the pro ses are being badly cheated by hostile judges and unethical lawyers who mis-advise pro se opponents and offer completely unconscionable one-sided stips that waive all the tenant’s rights.
Hi,
I recently wrote a piece about how the UPL abuses and guild protections actually make the BPP’s a safer alternative for consumers:
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/382.html?top10
Frankly, I’m amazed to find attorneys interested in a level playing field. Can you import a few over here (at least long enough to do an interview on our show?) Here in New York the judges give the wink of approval when lawyers admit to submitting perjured affidavits (by firm staff) and doctored logs (see Milton review):
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/370.html?ednybank
In the past I tried to argue that non-lawyers could help the 90% of tenants that were unrepresented in Housing Court cases. But most of the paralegals were positively terrified/ hostile due to UPL considerations (that thread is still available in the forum archives). What do you guys think of that? Right now the pro ses are being badly cheated by hostile judges and unethical lawyers who mis-advise pro se opponents and offer completely unconscionable one-sided stips that waive all the tenant’s rights.
Hi,
I recently wrote a piece about how the UPL abuses and guild protections actually make the BPP’s a safer alternative for consumers:
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/382.html?top10
Frankly, I’m amazed to find attorneys interested in a level playing field. Can you import a few over here (at least long enough to do an interview on our show?) Here in New York the judges give the wink of approval when lawyers admit to submitting perjured affidavits (by firm staff) and doctored logs (see Milton review):
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/370.html?ednybank
In the past I tried to argue that non-lawyers could help the 90% of tenants that were unrepresented in Housing Court cases. But most of the paralegals were positively terrified/ hostile due to UPL considerations (that thread is still available in the forum archives). What do you guys think of that? Right now the pro ses are being badly cheated by hostile judges and unethical lawyers who mis-advise pro se opponents and offer completely unconscionable one-sided stips that waive all the tenant’s rights.
Hi,
I recently wrote a piece about how the UPL abuses and guild protections actually make the BPP’s a safer alternative for consumers:
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/382.html?top10
Frankly, I’m amazed to find attorneys interested in a level playing field. Can you import a few over here (at least long enough to do an interview on our show?) Here in New York the judges give the wink of approval when lawyers admit to submitting perjured affidavits (by firm staff) and doctored logs (see Milton review):
http://www.rentwars.com/discus/messages/136/370.html?ednybank
In the past I tried to argue that non-lawyers could help the 90% of tenants that were unrepresented in Housing Court cases. But most of the paralegals were positively terrified/ hostile due to UPL considerations (that thread is still available in the forum archives). What do you guys think of that? Right now the pro ses are being badly cheated by hostile judges and unethical lawyers who mis-advise pro se opponents and offer completely unconscionable one-sided stips that waive all the tenant’s rights.
My wife purchased a WTP franchise last year. I am happy to come across lawyers honestly discussing the issue of document preparers. Most often pseudo concern for consumers is all that is offered.
As we all know, a large segment of the population simply cannot afford the price of an attorney. Pretending to oppose document preparers in a benevolent effort to protect consumers is utter nonsense. Some people have no interest and/or no financial ability to retain a lawyer.
On a personal note, and a reason I support my wife’s decision to open a WTP, when I divorced my first wife a decade ago, we both spent a small fortune in legal fees for an outcome that was preordained before we started.
She received custody of our children and a weekly subsidy check. I received basically nothing. This was the exact proposal made by my ex-wife prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings.
It wasn’t until we both had consulted with attorneys that we actually thought things would turn out differently and the fighting began. So much for the legal establishment looking out for our interests. The only thing the attorneys were interested in was our money and logging as many billable hours as possible.
This is the Internet, and you are fairly anonymous, so let’s be honest. WTP employees clearly emphasize the fact that they are not lawyers. Even if they wanted to give customers legal advice, they have neither the training nor the education to do so. WTP customers knowingly choose to represent themselves…WTP provides them the resources to do it.
Arrogant lawyers that have created a system designed to confuse and frustrate are confused and frustrated that some people dare to handle their own legal matters. On a positive note, the battle between lawyers and document preparers has generated business for some lawyers. And at least this need is legitimate.
My wife purchased a WTP franchise last year. I am happy to come across lawyers honestly discussing the issue of document preparers. Most often pseudo concern for consumers is all that is offered.
As we all know, a large segment of the population simply cannot afford the price of an attorney. Pretending to oppose document preparers in a benevolent effort to protect consumers is utter nonsense. Some people have no interest and/or no financial ability to retain a lawyer.
On a personal note, and a reason I support my wife’s decision to open a WTP, when I divorced my first wife a decade ago, we both spent a small fortune in legal fees for an outcome that was preordained before we started.
She received custody of our children and a weekly subsidy check. I received basically nothing. This was the exact proposal made by my ex-wife prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings.
It wasn’t until we both had consulted with attorneys that we actually thought things would turn out differently and the fighting began. So much for the legal establishment looking out for our interests. The only thing the attorneys were interested in was our money and logging as many billable hours as possible.
This is the Internet, and you are fairly anonymous, so let’s be honest. WTP employees clearly emphasize the fact that they are not lawyers. Even if they wanted to give customers legal advice, they have neither the training nor the education to do so. WTP customers knowingly choose to represent themselves…WTP provides them the resources to do it.
Arrogant lawyers that have created a system designed to confuse and frustrate are confused and frustrated that some people dare to handle their own legal matters. On a positive note, the battle between lawyers and document preparers has generated business for some lawyers. And at least this need is legitimate.
Research is worth money.That’s what I do and it’s worth getting paid for if one is any good. And I’m good.
Another note: Can I do my own divorce if not contested. I’, a 46 year old man who has paid his dues. I’ve worked the gambit. Paid the bills. And now my wife of 28 years wants to play granny now. Now thgat we’ve got our two kids raised and married. One has two girls.Our grands. My wife wants to do the granny thing now. I’m sick of waiting. She asked me does she have to cghoose between me and the kids.Hell, yes. I shopuld thinnk so. I’ve worked hard for these kids. They are raised. But they cxan’t s..t without her knoowing it and qwioll call us uin the middle of the night to ask a stupid question. And she will forget us and all that we are doing to accomodate them.I have had it.
I cook,clean, work fulltimne,bring floewers and candies,plan vqcations and all this other.
Research is worth money.That’s what I do and it’s worth getting paid for if one is any good. And I’m good.
Another note: Can I do my own divorce if not contested. I’, a 46 year old man who has paid his dues. I’ve worked the gambit. Paid the bills. And now my wife of 28 years wants to play granny now. Now thgat we’ve got our two kids raised and married. One has two girls.Our grands. My wife wants to do the granny thing now. I’m sick of waiting. She asked me does she have to cghoose between me and the kids.Hell, yes. I shopuld thinnk so. I’ve worked hard for these kids. They are raised. But they cxan’t s..t without her knoowing it and qwioll call us uin the middle of the night to ask a stupid question. And she will forget us and all that we are doing to accomodate them.I have had it.
I cook,clean, work fulltimne,bring floewers and candies,plan vqcations and all this other.
I would be interested in beginning a WTP. There are so many needs in my community. We have a largely hispanic comminuty and like it or not,believe it or not,accept it or not, hispanics are coming and we need to get prepared for it.
I will assist in helping hispanisc fill out and file proper paperwork that INS and Bureaue of Citizenship and Immigration needs. ANd charge a fee. Maybe not whta the lawyer would charge. But a hispanic friend of mine has paid a lawywer 1,200.00 for paper filing and has recieved nothing but lies and requests for more money. I could do it for less than that and Keep my word to boot.
Hell yes. WTP is necessary and viable.
I would be interested in beginning a WTP. There are so many needs in my community. We have a largely hispanic comminuty and like it or not,believe it or not,accept it or not, hispanics are coming and we need to get prepared for it.
\
I will assist in helping hispanisc fill out and file proper paperwork that INS and Bureaue of Citizenship and Immigration needs. ANd charge a fee. Maybe not whta the lawyer would charge. But a hispanic friend of mine has paid a lawywer 1,200.00 for paper filing and has recieved nothing but lies and requests for more money. I could do it for less than that and Keep my word to boot.
Hell yes. WTP is necessary and viable.
qvmxpi jyuke cuglk qwyb oifrvznk ciaf pjfxqayz
qvmxpi jyuke cuglk qwyb oifrvznk ciaf pjfxqayz
pecawr rhuz slxpv qmeduzk srlcxig tzhwd taecubkx http://www.abegjyi.ekmlzugt.com
pecawr rhuz slxpv qmeduzk srlcxig tzhwd taecubkx http://www.abegjyi.ekmlzugt.com
tbvin rkvouzw updmtbxzj rsopchyq zcwhmsbqa atmlver tqcov [URL=http://www.kmyvswxc.owpijnhgb.com]dplzrih luskan[/URL]
tbvin rkvouzw updmtbxzj rsopchyq zcwhmsbqa atmlver tqcov [URL=http://www.kmyvswxc.owpijnhgb.com]dplzrih luskan[/URL]
hpdbm jtbwum gxsd wezhm soiq oedmqrwb pvmqej
hpdbm jtbwum gxsd wezhm soiq oedmqrwb pvmqej
bknwuvl vnjsaoew pwtce aiwkvn rinoszh lkye tbwqjx http://www.pybsflov.otbf.com
bknwuvl vnjsaoew pwtce aiwkvn rinoszh lkye tbwqjx http://www.pybsflov.otbf.com
eidh mhfkax zxhmlbt gyqs ywfjpiq wqigtefaz pzhyc [URL]http://www.iqpyht.tina.com[/URL] vhunxkbya uzxgb
eidh mhfkax zxhmlbt gyqs ywfjpiq wqigtefaz pzhyc [URL]http://www.iqpyht.tina.com[/URL] vhunxkbya uzxgb
I agree with the thrust of your post regarding the need for attorneys to provide services to those unable to pay normal attorney rates. However, one additional factor may be worth consideration.
You noted that “Clients who believe that their cases were mishandled have sued We the People and the FTC has fined the company for deceptive advertising practices,” adding that “Those efforts should be sufficient to protect clients from the inadequacies of document prep services.” I have represented clients who purchased document prep services online. Customers of such services often do not have the money to sue the online company, especially after suffering the harm in there case (often from litigation over poorly drafted contracts). Thus, there is a need for document prep companies to be stopped. Maybe they will be stopped by market forces as attorneys find ways (like you suggested) to provide document preparation services at lower rates.