The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri grants class certification in a lawsuit alleging that LegalZoom, an online legal document preparation service, illegally practiced law in the state by preparing legal documents for a fee through its Web site. Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. (W.D.Mo., No. 2:10-CV-04018-NKL, Dec. 14, 2010).
LegalZoom is one of the largest legal document preparation services on the Web, providing consumers a variety of legal documents, including estate planning instruments. For a fee, LegalZoom's customers select the type of legal document that they would like to prepare, and the Web site walks them through a basic questionnaire. The site then inserts the information from the questionnaire into a template prepared by a licensed attorney, creating a legal document for the customer's signature. LegalZoom's employees review the documents for completeness and consistency, but, according to LegalZoom, they do not provide legal advice to customers.
Several LegalZoom customers in Missouri sued the company, alleging that it engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing the documents. The plaintiffs also alleged violations of Missouri consumer protection law. (Lead plaintiff Todd Janson allegedly paid LegalZoom $121.95 for the preparation of his will.) The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class consisting of all Missouri residents who paid for the preparation of legal documents through LegalZoom from 2004 through the present. The plaintiffs never alleged that LegalZoom provided faulty documents. LegalZoom opposed class certification, arguing in large part that the plaintiffs could not meet the "typicality" requirement of a class-action lawsuit because each customer purchased different types documents, none of which were alleged to be faulty.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Divison, grants class certification. The court explains that LegalZoom's argument against "typicality" is off-base because "[p]laintiffs' legal theory does not depend on the conduct of LegalZoom's customers, but rather the conduct of LegalZoom itself. Plaintiffs assert that LegalZoom violated [Missouri law] simply by selling 'customized legal services' over the internet." Therefore, the quality of the documents is irrelevant to the plaintiffs' claim.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv4018-61
For an earlier ElderLawAnswers news article describing a California customer's suit against LegalZoom, click here.
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,800 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
