legalzoom.com, Inc. v. N.C. State Bar
2015 NCBC 96 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The operation of an interactive website that generates legal documents based on user input does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law, provided the service implements specific consumer protection measures, including review of templates by a licensed in-state attorney and clear disclaimers that the service is not a substitute for legal advice.
Facts:
- LegalZoom.com, Inc. (LegalZoom) operates an internet-based service offering interactive software to consumers.
- This software allows consumers to generate legal documents by answering a series of questions.
- LegalZoom offered these document-generation services to consumers in North Carolina.
- The North Carolina State Bar (the State Bar), the state's regulatory body for attorneys, took the position that LegalZoom's services constituted the practice of law.
- A dispute arose between LegalZoom and the State Bar over the legality of LegalZoom's business model within North Carolina.
Procedural Posture:
- LegalZoom.com, Inc. filed a complaint against The North Carolina State Bar in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division (a state trial court).
- The State Bar filed a counterclaim against LegalZoom, asserting that its document services constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
- The parties jointly requested that the court enter a consent judgment to settle all claims and issues raised in the action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the operation of an interactive website that allows consumers to generate legal documents based on their answers to questions constitute the unauthorized practice of law under North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 84?
Opinions:
Majority - Gale, J.
No, provided certain conditions are met. This consent judgment establishes that the definition of the 'practice of law' in North Carolina does not encompass LegalZoom’s services, so long as the company adheres to a specific set of consumer protection requirements for a period of two years. The reasoning is based on a negotiated agreement between the parties rather than a judicial determination of the law. The agreement's core is that potential harm to consumers can be mitigated by specific safeguards, thereby allowing the service to operate. These conditions include: (1) allowing consumers to view the template or final document before purchase; (2) having a licensed North Carolina attorney review every blank template; (3) explicitly communicating that the service is not a substitute for an attorney; (4) disclosing LegalZoom's physical address; (5) not disclaiming warranties or liability; and (6) agreeing to North Carolina as the venue for dispute resolution.
Analysis:
This consent judgment represents a significant development in the conflict between online legal service providers and state bar associations. Instead of a court setting a binding precedent on what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in the digital age, the case was resolved through a negotiated compromise. This outcome provides a temporary regulatory framework for LegalZoom in North Carolina and serves as a model for how other jurisdictions might resolve similar disputes through consumer-protection-focused agreements rather than outright prohibition. The judgment explicitly defers to the legislature, highlighting the need for statutory reform to address the role of technology in the delivery of legal services.
