You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

LegalZoom and the future of lawyering


LegalZoomLogo Rick Georges, a member of Team Shlep, had an interesting posting last week at his Future Lawyer weblog about LegalZoom Online, which calls itself a “Legal Documentation Service.”   Saying “We can help you take care of common legal matters – without an attorney,” LegalZoom explains that you can “Save time and money on common legal matters! . . . [and] create reliable legal documents from your home or office. Simply answer a few questions online, and your documents will be prepared within 48 hours.* We even review your answers and guarantee your satisfaction.”  (via Oregon Legal Research, Jan. 17, 2007)

After taking a look at LegalZoom, Rick says “lawyers who don’t use technology will not be able to compete.”  He explains:

“We need to offer legal advice AND document drafting at a competitive price, or we will not have to worry about law practice anymore. It will be gone. There is no subsitute for a competent lawyer’s advice. However, we need to give the public value, or they will go elsewhere.”

Many publications have written about LegalZoom, but Rick’s nudge got me to spend some time at the website over the weekend.   It is an impressive enterprise, offering document creation services in the following areas: Copyright, DBA, Divorce, Immigration, Incorporation Services, Limited Partnership, Living Trust, Living Will, LLC, Name Change, Patent, Power of Attorney, Pre-nuptial Agreement, Real Estate Leases, Small Claims, Trademarks, Will.  

LegalZoomN Furthermore, the advantages that they boast about — reviewing your answers for correctness and completeness; having assistance available at a tollfree number; using advanced provisions that are not found in simple “do-it-yourself” kits or manuals; printing out the documents themselves on good paper stock; “per project” and “lawyer-free” pricing that is far below what a lawyer might charge using hourly fees (they say up to 85% and give an estimate of the savings for each service); and a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee — would surely appeal (if only they knew about it) to many legal consumers who want to save money and keep control of the project, but are wary of, or don’t have time for, acting on their own.

LegalZoom also has an Education Center/Library, that “allows you to access the information you need to research your legal questions and make informed decisions” (e.g., FAQs, Legal Topic articles, Glossary, and Non-Legal Resources).  For example, see the Prenuptial Library.  The materials are available to anyone and seem like helpful introductions to the many topics covered.  In addition, you can fill out the LegalZoom questionnaire for each procedure for free and “At the end, you may decide whether or not you wish to purchase.”   That process may help many consumers decide whether they can go it on their own — using forms and information prepared by a court or by a self-help publisher — and/or need the direct advice or (unbundled) services of a lawyer.

I can’t endorse LegalZoom as a product, but I can say that it appears to be worth considering by consumers who need lawyering services.  The apparent success to date of LegalZoom is, I believe, an important milestone in the market for legal services.  Americans like to use a product or service that they have heard about and that has a track record; and entrepeneurs are much more likely to enter the market with competiing services (perhaps focused on a particular state or legal subject) if they see a model that works.   As Rick Georges suggests, lawyers — especially those serving the everyday, common legal needs of the average consumer or small business — may find themselves at a great disadvantage if they do not figure out a way to offer comparable value to their clients (in service, results and price).  Document-creation technology will surely be a part of that value package, allowing fees to be lowered because far less time will be spent with each client.

Having said that, I am not at all certain that the change — a revolution that brings true price and service compeition to the lawyering marketplace, and creates more viable choices for consumers — will benefit a large percentage of consumers any time soon.  Under the fold, I have excerpted a posting from my weblog f/k/a, “Internet Lawsites Encounter the Profession’s Guild Mentality” (Sept. 16, 2003) that discusses why the legal profession’s “guild mentality” has kept if from adopting new techology and responding to competitive forces, as lawyers try to hold on to income, control, and status, in the face of a new breed of consumer. ComplaintBill  Excerpts from “Internet Lawsites Encounter the Profession’s Guild Mentality,” Sept. 16, 2003, at the ethicalEsq-f/k/a weblog:

. . . [M]y experience looking at learned professions from the competition-consumer perspective tells me that the real culprit [in the failure of websites offering legal services] is the historic “guild” mentality, which fears and opposes virtually every type of innovation in services or marketing.  This is especially true if most guild members see themselves as threatened with the loss of business and income, the need to become more efficient, or the pressure to engage in price or quality competition.  In addition, in the last few decades, doctors and lawyers have been most reluctant to cede their position of unquestioned authority to mere consumers.   (see our posting on Sept. 4, 2003, discussing the new breed of client and unbundling) . . . .

sharkS I’m not saying that there will never be a financially viable format for delivering legal services online.  I am say, however, that expecting a broad and significant amount of interest from the bar or its members is unrealistic.   Most likely, individuals or small groups of lawyer-entrepeneurs will have to carve out target markets of consumers and attract them to their sites.  Piggy-backing on the self-help services of courts — by offering complementary unblundled services — might be a good place to start.  Just remember: the guild won’t make the efforts easy. . . . .

P.S. Sherry Fowler (a/k/a Scheherazade) at Civil Procedure Stay of Execution . . . left a Comment worth sharing here on the Home Page:

There are so many circumstances in which a sensible, practical, reasonably priced solution to a client’s problem needn’t involve a lawyer, or needn’t involve a lawyer for long. Why on earth should acknowledging that be so antithetical to so many lawyers? It’s absurd.

Editor’s Reply: I don’t know if this was a rhetorical question.  If not, my pithiest answer would be: fear of losing dollars, control, prestige.  

More expansively, it seems that most lawyers expected a very good lifestyle to come automatically with their J.D., along with high social status.  They are angry and worried that the marketplace doesn’t value their services as highly as they had expected, and they are bewildered that society doesn’t give them the anticipated respect.   Good intentions of any one individual lawyer can be readily overwhelmed by the demands of partners (at work and home) to keep the income stream flowing.   The result, as individuals and as a group, is resistance to any change that threatens to further undermine their financial and social position.   As stated with refreshing candor in a recent bar association publication, “the top concerns of the practicing bar are the economics of the practice and the image of the profession.”     (Illinois State Bar Association Bar News, June 16, 2003)


  1. Joan Baumeister

    January 24, 2007 @ 1:17 am


    Congrats on your web page. I really liked this aritcle as I was harrassed by lawyers and Courts for not wanting to sue.
    Many Blessings
    Joan Baumeister

  2. OGhoshal

    January 24, 2007 @ 11:58 am


    Interesting article here concerning Unauthorized Practice of Law in cases involving computer-generated legal forms. Basically the individual who created the forms through a program for a will for an elderly woman could be determined to be illegally practicing law. Thanks to Michele Snowberger for pointing me to the story.

  3. shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » resources at Illinois Legal Aid Online

    January 24, 2007 @ 12:26 pm


    […] The development of Automated Forms Online for Legal Aid and Pro Bono Attorneys is also discussed in the eNewsletter, with links to the materials.  The forms, pleadings and documents can be found on and “Automated forms make it easier and faster to draft documents because the user is presented with only a series of questions to answer using a computer. When all of the questions are answered the user clicks a button, and the completed forms appear on the computer screen and can be saved or printed.” The first forms for attorney users are now live on the websites:  Power of Attorney for Health Care; Power of Attorney for Property; Resignation of Agent for Power of Attorney; and Notice of Revocation of Agent for Power of Attorney. Divorce pleadings, adoptions forms, and eviction defense forms are expected to be online soon. Note: We discussed document assembly online in a posting last October, where we described the National Public ADO (Automated Documents Online, or NPADO), which can be used by individual consumers or their advocates, and is ”a proven facility for delivering interactive interviews and document generation to self-represented individuals and advocates alike, from a web-connected browser, anywhere and anytime, using industry-standard software” — for free!  For more on automated document services, see yesterday’s posting about LegalZoom. […]

  4. shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » filling in a Quicken Will for a nonagenarian is UPL in S.C.

    January 25, 2007 @ 3:04 pm


    […]   In July 2004, South Carolina insurance agent Ernest B. Chavis made a social visit to his former neighbor Annie Belle Weiss, who was then 91-years old.  Because she trusted him to be “objective” (having also had business dealings with him), Ms. Weiss asked “Can you help me make a will?”  Chavis agreed to help her with a simple will and ”she directed [Chavis] as to how she wanted her property divided.”   His good deed resulted in a lawuit by her disgruntled heirs and, this week, in a finding that Chavis had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law [UPL”].  See NYTimes/CNET, “Police blotter: Heirs sue over will-making software,” by Declan McCullagh, for, Jan. 24, 2007; via Howard Bashman and Orijit Ghoshal) […]

  5. shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Cisco turns to legal self-help and unbundling

    January 31, 2007 @ 3:48 pm


    […]     As shlep demonstrates daily, technology has been helping the poorest members of our society to solve more and more legal problems without lawyers.  Now, clients with the most clout (and money) — such as Cisco — are taking advantage of information technology to become do-it-yourselfers, and to unbundle legal services, while insisting that law firms provide far better value.  Perhaps, then, we can hope that the vast, soft mid-section of the legal profession — those who serve the everyday needs of the average American, usually at unaffordable hourly rates — will soon embrace the benefits of the digital age and pass savings on to their clients.  As Rick Georges suggests, such lawyers may find themselves at a great disadvantage if they do not figure out a way to offer far greater value to their clients (in service, results and price), including the use of document-creation technology (see our prior post). […]

  6. Craig Young

    June 12, 2007 @ 4:40 pm


    While the concept is good and their website is very slick, I found their customer service to be terrible despite the claims. A mistake was made on my application and rather than just provide a simple fix, they demanded a complete new application and fee. They are obviously bottom line driven and not serious about providing customer service.

Log in