by Brenda Speer
This post first appeared on the SOLOinCOLO blog,
an online community of Colorado solo and small firm attorneys.
Not this small law firm. A recent blog post titled “LegalZoom’s War on GPs and Solos” by Larry Bodine on his LawMarketing Blog commented on LegalZoom’s IPO filing. Larry stated that LegalZoom “is capitalizing on consumers’ willingness to buy cheap, do-it-yourself forms as opposed to paying a lawyer to do the job right in the first place.” (Emphasis mine.)
We couldn’t agree more. Based on results we’ve seen obtained by clients who’ve used LegalZoom, they’re no better than do-it-yourself. And we know why—the key ingredient missing in the legal document services (per its satisfaction guarantee) provided by LegalZoom is the attorney-client relationship, in particular, the latter half of the phrase attorney and counselor at law. As we’ve noted on our blog, do-it-yourself legal is perilous whether done unaided or with the aid of LegalZoom.
Clients hire attorneys because they need help with a legal matter and they select someone they trust. The same reasons any of us hire a professional to serve us, be it an accountant, plumber or hair stylist. (I am extremely particular about my stylist and have been a loyal client of mine for 17+ years.) For example, as attorneys, our firm can form an entity for a client, just like LegalZoom. But unlike LegalZoom, as our client’s counselor, weI also can discuss the particulars of his or her situation and provide them legal counsel and guidance in determining which entity structure is best.
LegalZoom’s model relies on the client to somehow innately possess the legal knowledge to know which entity structure is best and what needs to be done, then acts as a mere scrivener. If the client already knows what needs to be done and how, then why do they need LegalZoom, or an attorney for that matter? We say clients need attorneys precisely because they don’t know what needs to be done and they want counsel.
As its Disclaimer makes clear, with LegalZoom there is not only no counselor-at-law component, but also there is no attorney-client relationship with its attendant benefits. The Disclaimer states in part (emphasis and embedded comments mine):
Solos and small firms can learn a valuable marketing lesson from LegalZoom though. Don’t underestimate the competition, as LegalZoom apparently has per these gems on page 62 of its IPO (LegalZoom’s disparaging remarks notwithstanding, it has seen the enemy and we are them: trustworthy, competent, independent legal professionals.):
“When in need of legal help, small businesses and consumers lack an efficient and reliable way to find high quality, trustworthy attorneys. [...] Attorneys are frequently unable to predict the time required to address a client's legal matter, sometimes billing thousands of dollars to research a legal issue they have not previously encountered. This can be particularly true of generalist attorneys that offer many disparate legal services to members of their local communities. Unlike attorneys at large global law firms or specialty boutiques who handle high volumes of similar matters and develop expertise in specific domains, generalists can find it difficult to efficiently address a client's particular legal issue due to their lack of specialized expertise.”
So, no, we’re not worried that LegalZoom’s IPO will be the death-knell for either our law firm or any other solos and small firms. It may even be a boon, as we’ve experienced. First, the client messes things up by using LegalZoom’s do-it-yourself legal document services and then they hire us to fix it. Voila! Double the dollars unnecessarily spent in the legal marketplace by consumers. Which begs the rhetorical question: what service does LegalZoom confer upon consumers?
© 2012 BL Speer & Associates