Most of what now passes for unbundled legal services takes the form of providing forms for fees rather than any substantive legal advice. We see online forms processors, We The People-style storefronts advertising quickie divorces and wills, and LegalZoom bringing “simple” things to the public. In one sense that’s a great idea – after all, why should I pay a lawyer $300 to do a simple Power of Attorney so I can go on vacation and not have to worry about the mundane stuff of life? Hiring a lawyer would surely be overkill when I could log on, grab a file, fill it in, and be done with it.
On the other side of the coin, you’ve got well-intentioned and otherwise intelligent people reducing the expertise to a fill-in PDF document. Maybe their estate needs as so simple that they can do it on their own without a lawyer – but how do they know? That’s probably why Charles Kennedy said in a recent comment here that:
The Courts in response to the unbundling by some attorneys are pulling into Court the lawyer who sells the form and requires the attorney to represent the party in the legal action.
The Courts are not at all on the same page. They want everyone to have counsel as it makes the Court’s work much simpler.
The court’s work does become easier, but in hauling the lawyer into court the unrepresented party is (theoretically) assured of competent legal representation. Good for the public, good for the court. And a stern warning to the lawyer, too.
But here’s the thing: unbundled legal services are not bad for the public in and of themselves. Rather, it is the execution of the business model that fails the public in many respects.
Imagine, if you will, a humble law office. In said office is a lawyer, skilled in his trade (let’s say he’s an estate planning lawyer). The lawyer receives an inquiry from a prospective client, and sets up a consultation appointment. During the appointment the lawyer determines that the client needs a Power of Attorney for day-to-day things, a living will, a health care proxy, and a full-blown Last Will and Testament. The first three documents are simple, and so the lawyer directs the client to a CD with some PDF forms and instructions. The Last Will and Testament, however, is another story – it’s going to need a lawyer’s firm hand and direction.
The client walks out with a $25 CD and a retainer agreement for the Last Will and Testament to be handled by the lawyer. In other words, legal representation and guidance based on the needs of the client.
This is a proper business model for unbundled legal services, not the one of, “Set the public loose in a bookstore and let ‘em figure it all out for the low, low price of $29.95.” The problem is that many courts don’t understand that not all unbundled legal service offerings are the same, and the decision to unbundle may be made by a lawyer only after proper consultation and assessment of the client’s needs.
What do you think? Are unbundled legal services just bad all around, or is it simply the business model undertaken by some companies?
Photo courtesy of sylvar.
Jay,
I do not believe that unbundled legal services are inherently bad for the public, provided that the public is not deceived about what it is getting. For example, unbundled, form based products like those sold by non-lawyer providers like Legal Zoom, I think that these are, overall, to no protection at all. Most of the folks who buy these documents are those who were never going to hire a lawyer to begin with and most of them realize that these forms are completely DIY – in other words, purchasers don't think they are getting expert help (any more than I think that I am getting a CPA when I use TurboTax) – so there's no deception. Until I see statistics showing that a statistically significant number of LZ prepared documents are inferior to lawyer-prepared documents, I think it's both impossible and irresponsible to imply that these products are a danger, as former ABA President Carolyn Lamm did in her last speech at the ABA Annual Conference.
Ironically, in some ways, I am a little more troubled by lawyer assisted unbundled services because of lawyers' potential to abuse the way they provide these services. Let me be clear that my concern has nothing to do with the first of wave of lawyers (Richard Granat of Direct Law or Stephanie Kimbro of VLO Tech) who are pioneering unbundled virtual practice as well as some of the solos who are starting to adopt this way of practice – all of them are providing these services consistently with the highest ethical standards and I commend them. However, there are too many other lawyers who will eventually see unbundled services as a way to make a quick buck – set up an online firm, slap together some forms that are filled out by paralegals or unskilled workers and then send them back without any review, but with the imprimatur of a lawyer-rendered service. Indeed, this is somewhat similar to what we saw with foreclosure schemes – lawyers basically signing off on products (http://tinyurl.com/3399m7y) so that providers can claim that they were "lawyer provided," but then shirking their responsibilities in the process. That is the potential danger – not unbundled services per se, but rather, clients thinking they are getting a lawyer's help, when they are not.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we should prohibit lawyers from providing unbundled services. But we should make sure that when something is marketed as "done with legal assistance," that is what is happening. I'm not so sure whether bars should regulate lawyers acting as unbundled providers or an FTC or consumer type agency – but lawyers who abuse their law degree to prey on consumers with substandard unbundled services should be harshly penalized.