JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., July 26, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A class action lawsuit in Missouri aimed at banning the use of software for the preparation of wills, leases, and other documents will go forward, a federal district court judge has ruled. The trial is scheduled for August in Jefferson City, Missouri.
If defendant LegalZoom.com loses at trial, the outcome would effectively ban legal document software throughout the state of Missouri. The impact on instructional self-help legal books and forms found in most bookstores, office supply stores and libraries could be dramatic.
"If the plaintiffs are successful, we believe it is going to become a lot more expensive for small businesses and individuals to obtain basic legal forms," said Chas Rampenthal, General Counsel of LegalZoom. "Missouri would become the only state in the nation to take away a consumer's right to access online legal document software."
Ruling Could Take Historic Right Away From Missourians
The right to represent yourself in legal matters has long been at the heart of the American legal system. As early as the 1700s, books were published in the United States specifically designed to assist non-lawyers in producing their own legal documents. Courts have universally held that the sale of these forms is protected by the First Amendment.
"We believe the people of Missouri will ultimately understand that banning self-help legal software that is available in every other state would be absurd," Mr. Rampenthal said.
"People can use software to prepare their own tax return or do their own banking. The law should not be used to deprive consumers of technologies that make their lives more efficient."
The last time the legislature updated the statute at issue in the case (§ 484.010 RSMo.), President Franklin Roosevelt was in office. At that time, law was practiced using typewriters. The Xerox photocopy machine had yet to be invented – and the Internet wouldn't come around for another 50 years.
The plaintiffs in the case do not claim that the documents they purchased from LegalZoom were anything but valid and effective. However, under the 1939 statute, defendant LegalZoom could still lose at trial.
"People have the right to start their own business. And they have the right to make decisions about their property and children by writing their own wills -- in each case without the government or the courts forcing them to hire a lawyer, or forbidding the use of books or software to help," said Brian Liu, Co-Founder and Chairman of LegalZoom.
On July 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied LegalZoom's Motion For Summary Judgment in the case, which would have decided, as a matter of law, that LegalZoom's Internet-based legal forms do not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
In the same ruling, LegalZoom's Motion for Summary Judgment relating to patent and trademark claims was granted. The court also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on a narrow issue of whether LegalZoom's online legal forms affect or relate to "secular rights," as opposed to "religious rights," as defined by Missouri statutes.
The trial in Janson, et. al. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. (Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL) is scheduled to begin on August 22, 2011.