The Risks of Unauthorized Practice of Law Charges in the United States When Non-Lawyers Use Legal Software
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/vkpsrv06Keywords:
united states, legal software, non-lawyers ,law chargesAbstract
This article analyzes the assessment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in re: Jayson Reynosa: Frankfort Digital Services et al. v. Sara L. Kastler, United States Trustee et al. (2007). Non-attorneys were accused of unlawful acts of regulation for providing liquidation request administrations through internet-based legitimate programming or master frameworks in regulation laid out for recording insolvency appeal shapes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found, in addition to other things, that appellants were liquidation request preparers, not attorneys, who had surpassed their authoritative dispatch by offering legitimate counsel and administrations disregarding California regulation controlling lawful practice and 11 U.S.C. Bunch. 110 of the Bankruptcy Code, while breaking down the legitimate results of non-attorneys involving lawful programming in the course of action of lawful curves (2002).
Downloads
References
1. Adelman M (1998) Cases and materials on patent law. West Group, St. Paul, p 105
2. Deckle D (1999) No lawyers and the unauthorized practice of law: an overview of
the legal and ethical parameters. Fordham Law Rev 67:2585
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 138–139
4. Gateau 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 84:42–47
5. Glass G, Jackson K (2000–2001) the unauthorized practice of law: the internet,
alternative dispute resolution, and multidisciplinary practice. Georgetown J Leg
Ethics 14:1195–1210
6. Justice K (1991) there goes the monopoly: the California proposal to allow nonlawyers to practice law. Vanderbilt Law Rev 44:184–185
7. Lantos C (2002) Scriveners in cyberspace: online documents preparation and the
unauthorized practice of law. Rostra Law Rev 30:811–854
8. Leaf G (1997) Lawyer fees too much? The case for repealing unauthorized practice
of law statutes. Regular 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 Pitts Law Rev 62:367–372
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 33–36
11. Oriole T (2005) Regulating unsolicited commercial electronic mails in the United
States and the European Union: challenges and prospects. Tulane J Technol
Intellect Prop 7:134–135
12. Scamp A, Laurite M (2002) AI in law practice? So far, not much. Art if Intel Law
10:227–236
13. Palomar J (1991) The war between attorneys and lay-conveyances: empirical
evidence says cease fire! Conn Law Rev 31:423–530
14. Lodgers J (1980) Statements of principles: are they on the way out? ABA J 66:129
15. Rents M (2005) Laying down the law: bringing down the legal cartel in real estate
settlement services and beyond. Georgia Law Rev 40:293–333
16. Rhode D (1981) Policing the professional monopoly: a constitutional and empirical
analysis of unauthorized practice prohibitions. Stanford Law Rev 34:1–99
17. Rose J (2002) Unauthorized practice of law in Arizona: a legal and political
problem that won’t go away. Airs State Law J 34:585
18. Schwab S (2000) Bringing down the bar: accountants challenge meaning of
unauthorized practice of law. Cardozo Law Rev 21:1425–1468
19. Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential inquiry. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, p 3
20. Susskind R (1996) The future of law: facing the challenges of information
technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 86–87
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
