by Paul Avelar
As has been previously discussed here, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has been considering recommendations from its own Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee in three cases involving real-estate closings and related services. The Court has issued its decision, and it is mostly a victory for consumers.
by Tom Gordon
Responsive Law has submitted comments to the California Task Force on Access Through Innovation in Legal Services (ATILS) in response to its proposed reforms to regulation of legal services in the state.
Overall, we like the task force’s proposal. It does a good job of balancing the potential for increased access to legal services against the potential for consumer harm. Additionally, it looks at regulation as something that needs to address specific potential harms, rather than taking regulations that were created decades ago to govern potential misconduct by lawyers and treating the regulation itself as the principle to be preserved, rather than looking at the reason behind the regulation and seeing whether it is still the best way to address a particular regulatory objective.
By Amanda Grau
Responsive Law and the Center for Public Interest Law have filed an amicus brief supporting TIKD Services, LLC in a lawsuit brought against the company by the Florida Bar in 2017.
TIKD developed a mobile app giving users an affordable option for fighting unfair traffic tickets. For less than the cost of the ticket, users upload claims for evaluation by TIKD staff then connected with a licensed Florida attorney. If the ticket holds up in court, TIKD absorbs any additional cost accrued.
As the app gained popularity in Florida and took business from the Ticket Clinic, a traditional law firm, the Ticket Clinic filed a complaint. The Florida Bar responded with a baseless claim that TIKD was engaging in unlicensed practice of law (or UPL). In January 2019, the court-appointed referee, Judge Teresa Pooler, released her report in favor of TIKD. The Bar opposed the report and is asking the Florida Supreme Court to reject it with absolutely no evidence of consumer harm. The Ticket Clinic, a Florida law firm, filed an amicus brief supporting the Bar’s opposition. The Bar’s embarrassing claim and the Ticket Clinic’s brief reveal their true fear of losing a monopolistic dominance over legal services.
by Amanda Grau
TIKD, an application that enables users to be paired with an attorney based on an uploaded traffic ticket they wish to contest, has been embroiled in antitrust and unauthorized practice of law (UPL) litigation since 2017. In January 2019, there was a major win for the app and Christopher Riley, the app’s developer: the referee, appointed by the Florida Supreme Court as the court’s finder of fact for the UPL lawsuit, released a report in favor of TIKD. The report now goes to the Florida Supreme Court for adoption or rejection.
The referee, Judge Pooler, stated that although it is undisputed that TIKD is not authorized to practice law in Florida, TIKD is not a law firm nor a lawyer referral service and its operations did not involve UPL. “No reasonable person could conclude, based on the evidence submitted to the Referee, that TIKD or Riley hold themselves out as providers of legal services,” said Judge Pooler. Despite the positive ruling, TIKD has decided to suspend consumer traffic ticket services, perhaps in an effort to avoid future litigation. This is a blow to consumers looking for affordable legal support when dealing with unjust traffic tickets.
Tennessee and Washington Consider Regulations Restricting the Operations of Online Legal Document Preparers
by Madison Swanson
State bar associations continue to threaten the operations of online legal document providers under the guise of consumer protection through restrictive and unnecessary rules. The states of Washington and Tennessee have both considered resolutions that would impose expensive obligations and strict regulations on OLPs operating in their states.
Tennessee House Bill 1411, proposed in February 2019, states that online document providers are not considered to be practicing law so long as they follow the regulations laid out in the resolution. The regulations, however, were incredibly strict, expensive, and unnecessary. They would greatly raise the price the consumer pays for the same products and services. Thanks to pressure from Responsive Law and our allies, HB 1411 was withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to General Rule 24 proposed by the Washington State Practice of Law Board (POLB), however, still stands and is open for comment until the end of August. The General Rules of the Washington State Bar dictate the general conduct of courts and lawyers, and Rule 24 defines the practice of law. This amendment, unlike HB 1411, doesauthorize the activities of online legal document preparers as the practice of law so long as they follow the regulations laid out in the potential new rule. The regulations the Washington POLB proposes are again unnecessary and would threaten the growth, profitability, and usefulness to the consumer of these document providers.
Read HB 1411 here and the GR 24 amendment here.