You probably know that there is a fight afoot between the North Carolina State Bar and the do-it-yourself vendor of legal documents, LegalZoom. The simmering dispute has been covered in the Wall Street Journal, the ABA Journal, and the case is now in the Business Court over Legalzooom’s vitriolic objections. The issue is whether LegalZoom’s offerings constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
LegalZoom bills itself as “transform[ing] the way people think about and fulfill common legal needs.” It says that it has made its mission “to simplify the process and to set new standards for convenience and service in an industry not typically known for great customer care.” The company basically sells legal forms to non-lawyers (and helps its customers to fill them out by computer) which enable them to form their own corporations, write their own wills, and get their own divorces, while at the same time avoiding what LegalZoom condemns as the high cost of attorneys’ fees.
It’s said pretty often that “you get what you pay for,” so it’s not surprising that LegalZoom has taken some heat (like from Consumer Reports) for the quality of its services, even though it advertises that 94% of its customers "recommend LegalZoom to friends and family." The lawyers who provide the same services as those offered by LegalZoom, such as estate planning lawyers, and lawyers filing trademark applications, aren’t keen on the service.
Not much has happened in the Business Court so far, except for LegalZoom’s strident efforts to stay out of the Business Court. Those began with the filing of the case by LegalZoom against the State Bar. LegalZoom immediately asked the Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court for an exceptional case designation to Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner. That was granted back in October, apparently without notice to the NC Bar. The Bar then designated the case to the Business Court as a mandatory complex business case, which LegalZoom opposed, saying its case was not a " complex business case" within the mandatory jurisdiction of the Business Court.
LegalZoom has lost Round 1. Judge Jolly (who decides all designation motions as the Chief Judge of the Business Court) ruled that the claims made by LegalZoom in its Complaint are squarely within the jurisdiction of the Business Court. Count 1 of the Complaint is for a violation of the Monopoly Clause of the North Carolina Constitution, saying that the State Bar has interfered with LegalZoom’s constitutional right to freely do business in North Carolina. Count 2 says that the State Bar has also violated the state Constitution by excluding LegalZoom from “register[ing] its legally compliant prepaid legal services plan.” (That’s a whole different LegalZoom service). The third count is for “commercial disparagement,” alleging that the State Bar has made false statements to the public which caused the public “to regard [LegalZoom’s] product as legally unauthorized, and imputing illegal conduct to [LegalZoom].”
In opposing the Bar’s designation as a mandatory business case, LegalZoom argued that its case was “exceptional,” but not a “complex business case.” Judge Jolly didn’t spill much ink in denying the Opposition in an Order on January 9th. He said:
Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically alleges that "this case includes claims that involve a material issue relating to . . . [a] anti-monopoly, anti-competition, and antitrust law claims that are not based solely on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; [b] unfair competition law claims that are not based solely on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; and [c] the Internet and electronic commerce." These allegations are substantially identical with three separate statutory grounds for designation of a civil action as a mandatory complex business case under the Removal Statute.
Order ¶3. So that’s that. The case has been assigned to Judge Gale and will be resolved in the Business Court.
Where was the vitriol?Continue Reading We’re Gonna Zoom A Zoom A Zoom in North Carolina
The Fourth Circuit delivered a lump of coal right before Christmas to a Wachovia shareholder whose 100,000 shares of the Bank’s stock, once worth about $5.6 million, sank into near worthlessness when Wachovia failed. The case, decided December 23rd, is 
The Business Court decision last week in 
Everybody loves a penguin, or at least I think that is so. But Penguin Toilets, the Defendant in 
My favorite multi-volume treatise is Words and Phrases. If you don’t know it, it is a super-legal dictionary that collects cases from every jurisdiction defining … well, frequently used words and phrases. Since business litigation often turns on the definition of a word or a term that the drafters left undefined, I have a thoroughly
Have you ever filed a reply to a counterclaim where your reply was 89 pages long and to which you attached more than 200 pages of exhibits? I think you probably haven’t, but the Plaintiff in the Business Court case Fountain v. Fountain Powerboats, Inc. did. When the Defendant made a Motion to Strike the 
If you are trying a case in in federal court after December 1, 2011, you’d better bring a new copy of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Don’t lose any sleep, because the substance of the Rules hasn’t changed, they’ve only been “restyled.” This reworking of the FRE was aimed at making the Rules more consistent
On Friday, the Business Court issued an opinion on a number of covenant not to compete issues, in .jpg)
The North Carolina Court of Appeals sent a pretty clear message last Tuesday to out of state citizens filing claims for alienation of affection in North Carolina courts. The message was don’t file your lawsuit here, even though North Carolina is one of the few states in the country that hasn’t abolished that tort.