SolutionsHire top legal talent for any scope of workGet Started Contact us to find the best fit for any in-house or law firm role Testimonials Trusted by the world's leading legal departments FAQ Frequently asked questions about working with Legal.ioEmployer Resources Tools and guides for hiring managers As LegalTech gains traction in nearly every facet of the legal industry, LegalZoom and Deloitte are focusing on opposite approaches.
A handful of U.S. states (California, Utah and Arizona) have launched regulatory sandboxes to test out nontraditional legal service entity ownership structures and ways of serving consumers. The response from the legal community has been polarizing.
LegalZoom announced it has started the process of obtaining an alternative business structure (ABS) license in Arizona, allowing it to operate much like a law firm. The newly-public legal tech company plans to employ attorneys who will be able to offer LegalZoom customers legal advice directly (instead of relying on a network of independent lawyers). The company has been successful in this approach overseas since obtaining a license in 2015 with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and partnering with the QualitySolicitors law firm network in the U.K.
Traditional arguments against this action revolve around the idea that attorneys employed at a company’s offering direct legal advice to clients will not be motivated to provide sound and ethical legal services, instead focusing on the company’s bottom line; profit. And, without any effective regulatory regime in place to protect members of the public, there would be no way of guiding this process. However, after the Arizona Supreme Court eliminated the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 - lifting the ban on nonlawyers from having economic stakes in a law firm or participating in fee-sharing - this topic was forced to center stage. Now companies like LegalZoom and RocketLawyer (with its interest in similar business ventures in Utah) will have the chance to test this argument.
Nicole Miller, LegalZoom’s GC, thinks these regulatory evolutions will help bridge the access to justice gap and allow for “...greater technological innovation in the delivery of legal services and encourage investment in providing legal services at affordable prices”.
Operating under the name LZ Legal Services, LegalZoom has stated that it will attempt to bring the following to fruition during its first year of business under Arizona’s ABS:
Not every legal service provider is moving as briskly as LegalZoom. For example, Steve Kimble, U.S-based CEO of Deloitte Tax, has stated that the firm is monitoring the changes in Arizona, Utah and California noting that “At this point in time, though, we just don’t believe it’s practical to enter the practice of law.”
Published weekly on Friday, the Legal.io Newsletter covers the latest in legal, talent & tech
CS Disco Inc., the Texas-based provider of legal document review and eDiscovery services, went public today on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and will be traded under the “LAW” symbol.
The Princeton Review rankings for 2024 examines law student ratings of their professors’ teaching abilities and their accessibility outside the classroom.
The service is causing controversy in various class actions suits.
‘Burnout’ has become an increasingly widely used term to describe a state of extreme exhaustion due to work – whether it’s physical, mental or emotional. Significant research has gone into understanding the causes, effects, and treatments for burnout. How can you tell if you are on the brink of suffering from burnout? Let’s take a deeper look at the condition, including some of the tell-tale signs.
In-house legal professionals discuss what they wish they'd known prior to making the move to in-house.
Building a diverse workforce is a key objective for firms to keep in mind in their recruitment strategies. And firms where remote working is common have a number of advantages in achieving this target. How so? Let’s have a look at some ways that remote working can advance diversity in the workplace.
Thirteen members of the European Parliament stated they accidentally voted the wrong way on a key amendment of a new European copyright directive, meaning the most controversial provisions of the directive might have been removed had they not erred.
