Minnesota Law Review

Note, Stifled Justice: The Unauthorized Practice of Law and Internet Legal Resources

Advances in computer technology are effectively commoditizing the law and revolutionizing the ways in which individuals seek and receive legal services. Internet Legal Providers (ILPs) present tremendous potential for increased access to legal services, which is vital to an increasing number of unrepresented litigants, as well as to combat shrinking amounts of legal aid available to them. However, most unauthorized practice statutes were drafted prior to the emergence of the Internet or without any focus on recent advancements in computer research capabilities. As a result, these statutes lack clarity, and their application to ILPs is outdated and forced. This has created myriad and inconsistent regulation of internet legal space.

This Note posits that the legal profession is not, and should not be, immune from technology that is transforming all of us in innumerable ways. Seen in this light, the vague and outmoded language of the unauthorized practice statutes, and their uneven application, is a more serious problem than ever before. It decreases confidence in the legal system and prevents millions of potential users who stand to benefit significantly from the growth of ILPs. This Note offers solutions to anachronistic and inconsistent unauthorized practice of law statutes as they relate to non-attorney internet legal providers, while recognizing that some regulation of ILPs is needed.

This Note argues that the legal community, the unauthorized practice committees, and state judiciaries should embrace significant advances in ILP technology, and adopt relaxed regulatory schemes with baseline disclosure and accreditation safeguards. By certifying that proper safety mechanisms are in place to protect consumers, without substantially limiting the ILPs capacity to improve delivery of legal service, millions of Americans will for the first time be able to enjoy safe and meaningful access to the judicial system.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]