802 F. Supp. 2d 1053
W.D. Mo.2011Background
- LegalZoom operates a website offering blank forms and an internet portal that automates the preparation of legal documents, including patents, trademarks, and other documents.
- Customers answer questions through a branching online questionnaire; the software fills templates, and LegalZoom employees review data and final documents for quality before shipping to customers.
- Missouri residents were charged fees for LegalZoom's document preparation services; plaintiffs alleged unlawful practice of law, money had and received, and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MPA) claims.
- The online portal markets a service as “we’ll prepare your legal documents,” distinguishing it from mere blank forms or DIY kits.
- Missouri’s Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 484.010 et seq.) regulates who may “draw” or “assist in drawing” papers for secular rights; the court must determine whether LegalZoom’s conduct constitutes UPL under Missouri law.
- The court granted summary judgment on patent/trademark-related claims and partial summary judgment on secular-rights-related issues, with broader claims proceeding on other grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute apply to LegalZoom’s document-preparation service? | Plaintiffs contend LegalZoom’s service constitutes unauthorized law practice. | LegalZoom argues it provides self-help forms and that its portal does not practice law. | UPL applies to the preparation service; the portal’s human review/process crosses into practice of law. |
| Do the Missouri cases Thompson, Hulse, First Escrow, Mid-America, and Eisel control the analysis here? | Plaintiffs rely on these cases to limit non-attorney document preparation. | Defendant argues the facts align with do-it-yourself kits and notary-type services. | Missouri precedents support restricting non-attorneys from providing substantive document-preparation for compensation. |
| Are plaintiffs’ patent/trademark claims preempted by federal law? | Preemption does not apply; state regulation can complement federal patent/trademark regimes. | Federal law preempts state regulation of practice before the PTO for non-lawyers. | Summary judgment for Defendant; federal preemption bars these claims to the extent they concern patent/trademark applications. |
| Are the constitutional challenges (First Amendment, Due Process) viable? | Missouri’s statute violates First Amendment and due process rights. | State may regulate professional practice; no fair-notice or speech-rights violation. | Constitutional challenges fail; Missouri may regulate unauthorized practice of law. |
| Do Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on secular-rights affectation succeed? | The papers/documents affect secular rights. | The documents do not affect rights until execution or filing. | Partial summary judgment granted on the secular-rights issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hulse Criger, 247 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1952) (regulation to protect public from incompetent legal advice; ancillary real estate services allowed)
- Thompson, 574 S.W.2d 366 (Mo. 1978) (do-it-yourself divorce kits; no personal legal advice; not UPL)
- First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. 1992) (escrow closings; allowed to fill blanks if supervised, but not for nonstandard documents or separate fees)
- Mid-America Living Trust Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1996) (non-attorneys may prepare certain documents when not providing legal advice; not applicable to customized trusts)
- Eisel v. Midwest BankCentre, 230 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. 2007) (upholds prohibition on separate fee for document preparation; strict adherence to UPL)
- Brumbaugh (Florida Bar v.), 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978) (sale of legal forms but no personal legal assistance; cautions against advising clients)
- Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (PTO preemption; limited field preemption does not permit state licensing to regulate private patent practitioners)
- Augustine v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (PTO field preemption; states cannot regulate for private individuals before the PTO)
- Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) (federal license preemption; federal authority to regulate practice before the PTO)
- Carpenter v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 697 (Mo. 2008) (UPL and due-process considerations in Missouri context)