Support Us

Top Five Stories of 2018

We've compiled our top five stories of 2018. Starting December 17, we'll be updating this page daily until we reach #1.  Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.

#1: NY Bar Fails to Sneak Rule Against Legal Self-Help Software Through ABA, Will Try Again in January

The New York State Bar Association tried to sneak an anti-consumer, protectionist resolution through the ABA House of Delegates, but Responsive Law's vigilance prevented it from doing so. The proposal would have subjected online document preparation software to a set of restrictions that would have created prohibitive expenses for any such business. A similar proposal that was enacted in North Carolina over the objections of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission has caused some online document preparers to keep their products out of the state.

The NYSBA submitted its proposed rule to the ABA after the ABA's deadline for consideration at the its annual meeting in August, claiming that the proposal was unopposed and should be on the agenda. Responsive Law quickly responded by submitting a thorough critique of the regulation and pointing out that the proposal was "unopposed" only because no one was aware of it until it was submitted.

​The NYSBA withdrew the proposal, but has submitted a revised version for the ABA to consider at its midyear meeting in January. Responsive Law will continue to lead the opposition on behalf of consumers against this new version.

#2: RI Supreme Court to Responsive Law: Please File a Formal Motion Asking Permission to File Informally

Rhode Island's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee—which consists of thirteen lawyers and one member of the public—recently declared that lawyers were required for real estate closing duties traditionally (and competently) performed by real estate agents. Responsive Law submitted written testimony to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which is reviewing the committee's decision, pointing out that when lawyers shut down their competition, it's done out of self-interest, and goes against the interest of consumers.

The court rejected our testimony for failing to comply with the requirements for formal amicus curiae briefs. The rules governing such briefs are over 2500 words long—longer than our actual testimony! They did suggest, ironically, that we file a formal motion asking permission to file testimony in our traditional format. Thanks to the work of a volunteer lawyer in Rhode Island, we have filed such a motion and are waiting for the court's response. 

#3: Traffic Ticket App Sues Florida Bar for Antitrust Violation

TIKD is an app which allows consumers to upload a traffic ticket, pay a fixed price less than the cost of the ticket, and receive a guarantee that a lawyer will defend the ticket with no further costs to the consumer, win or lose. The app has been understandably very popular with consumers, but was unpopular with the Florida Bar and one of Florida's major law firms handling traffic tickets. The Florida Bar sued TIKD for unauthorized practice of law.

TIKD sued the Florida Bar for antitrust violations, claiming that the bar was trying to shut down competition for established law firms rather than acting in the public interest. In an unusual move, the federal court hearing the antitrust case dismissed it in a one-page order issued on December 4, which was unaccompanied by a memorandum explaining the court's reasoning. Without such a statement, TIKD (as well as other interested parties, such as Responsive Law) are left in the dark as to the basis on which they can fight the case on appeal.

#4: Defeating Indemnification for Self-Regulating Lawyers in California

A California bill would have put taxpayers on the hook for antitrust lawsuits against lawyers who regulated the legal profession in their own self-interest rather than the public interest. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC made clear that state bars can be subject to antitrust liability unless they are adequately supervised by the state government.

Responsive Law and a coalition of other consumer groups let the California Legislature know that this proposal took away a major incentive for lawyers to regulate for the public's protection rather than for their own protection. It also would have made the public literally pay the price for such self-regulation. As a result, a hearing on the bill was cancelled and the bill failed to move forward.

#5: Avvo Ends Fixed-Fee Services After Attacks by Bar 

In July, Avvo discontinued its popular fixed-fee legal services after several state bars prohibited their members from participating in the service. As a result, consumers have been denied one of the most useful methods of finding fixed-price legal help for typical matters such as wills, incorporations, and uncontested divorces.

Responsive Law has warned state bars that prohibiting lawyers from participating in such services could subject the bar and its leadership to antitrust liability.