Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 285–309

The use of legal software by non-lawyers and the perils of unauthorised practice of law charges in the United States: a review of Jayson Reynoso decision

Article
  • 205 Downloads

Abstract

This paper critically reviews the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit In re:Jayson Reynoso: Frankfort Digital Services et al., v. Sara L. Kistler, United States Trustee et al. (2007) 447 F.3d 1117. The appellants, who were non-lawyers, were indicted with unauthorised practice of law for offering bankruptcy petition services via online legal software or expert systems in law configured for filing bankruptcy petition forms. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found inter alia that appellants were bankruptcy petition preparers, and not being lawyers, had exceeded their clerical remit by offering legal advice and legal services in contravention of California law regulating legal practice and 11 U.S.C. Sect. 110 of the Bankruptcy Code (2002). While examining the legal ramifications of the use of legal software by non-lawyers in the preparation of legal documents, the paper critically reviews the factual circumstances of the Reynoso decision in the context of juridical and statutory constructs of unauthorised practice of law in the United States. The paper poses the question whether Reynoso should be viewed as a one-off decision bound by its peculiar facts, or good law for the broad proposition that non-lawyers cannot use legal software in legal documents preparation. The paper also notes the possible legal barriers to an unconditional ban on the design, sale, distribution, and uses of legal software by non-lawyers. These range from the First Amendment right to free speech, constitutional right to pro se legal representation, interstate commerce doctrine, to antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act. A regime of best practices for the use of legal software or expert systems in law by non-lawyers is proffered.

Keywords

Legal software Expert systems in law Non-lawyer use of legal software Unauthorised practice of law charges 

References

  1. Adelman M (1998) Cases and materials on patent law. West Group, St. Paul, p 105Google Scholar
  2. Denckla D (1999) Nonlawyers and the unauthorized practice of law: an overview of the legal and ethical parameters. Fordham Law Rev 67:2585Google Scholar
  3. Fischer J (2000–2001) Policing the self-help legal market: consumer protection or protection of legal cartel? Indiana Law Rev 34:121–153 at 138–139Google Scholar
  4. Gibeaut J (1998) Squeeze play: as accountants edge into the legal market, lawyers may find themselves not only blinded by the assault but also limited by professional rules. ABA J 84:42–47Google Scholar
  5. Glass G, Jackson K (2000–2001) The unauthorized practice of law: the internet, alternative dispute resolution, and multidisciplinary practice. Georgetown J Leg Ethics 14:1195–1210Google Scholar
  6. Justice K (1991) There goes the monopoly: the California proposal to allow non-lawyers to practice law. Vanderbilt Law Rev 44:184–185Google Scholar
  7. Lanctot C (2002) Scriveners in cyberspace: online documents preparation and the unauthorized practice of law. Hofstra Law Rev 30:811–854Google Scholar
  8. Leef G (1997) Lawyer fees too much? The case for repealing unauthorized practice of law statutes. Regul Cato Rev Bus Gov 20(1). Available at http://www.cato.org. Last accessed 2 June, 2010
  9. Messina J (2000) Lawyer + layman: a recipe for disaster! Why the ban on MDP should remain. Univ Pittsbg Law Rev 62:367–372Google Scholar
  10. Morrison R (1989) Market realities of rule-based software for lawyers: where the rubber meets the road. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and the law. ACM Press, New York, pp 33–36Google Scholar
  11. Oriola T (2005) Regulating unsolicited commercial electronic mails in the United States and the European Union: challenges and prospects. Tulane J Technol Intellect Prop 7:134–135Google Scholar
  12. Oskamp A, Lauritsen M (2002) AI in law practice? So far, not much. Artif Intell Law 10:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Palomar J (1991) The war between attorneys and lay-conveyancers: empirical evidence says cease fire! Conn Law Rev 31:423–530Google Scholar
  14. Podgers J (1980) Statements of principles: are they on the way out? ABA J 66:129Google Scholar
  15. Rentz M (2005) Laying down the law: bringing down the legal cartel in real estate settlement services and beyond. Georgia Law Rev 40:293–333Google Scholar
  16. Rhode D (1981) Policing the professional monopoly: a constitutional and empirical analysis of unauthorized practice prohibitions. Stanford Law Rev 34:1–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rose J (2002) Unauthorized practice of law in Arizona: a legal and political problem that won’t go away. Ariz State Law J 34:585Google Scholar
  18. Schwab S (2000) Bringing down the bar: accountants challenge meaning of unauthorized practice of law. Cardozo Law Rev 21:1425–1468Google Scholar
  19. Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 3Google Scholar
  20. Susskind R (1996) The future of law: facing the challenges of information technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 86–87Google Scholar
  21. Susskind R (2000) Transforming the law: essays on technology justice and the legal market place. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–176Google Scholar
  22. Treece T (1999) The law as a foreign language. South Tex Law Rev 40:972Google Scholar
  23. Trujillo E (2006) State action antitrust exemption collides with regulation: rehabilitating the foreseeability doctrine. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 11:349–352Google Scholar
  24. Vida M (2000–2001) Legality of will-creating software: is the sale of computer software to assist in drafting will documents considered the unauthorized practice of law? Santa Clara Law Rev 41:231–235Google Scholar
  25. Vincenti R (1988) Self-help legal software and the unauthorized practice of law. Comput Law J 185:185–205Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of LawUniversity of UlsterLondonderryUK

Personalised recommendations