Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 6 19 reviewing any particular legal technology or legal services company. However, unless the company is well resourced, absent an unlikely quick turnaround time, it will not survive an investigation for any significant length of time. The cash will either run out or the company will be held in an awkward limbo as to whether it can continue to follow its strategic plan. So, even an "inno- cent" company can die in a holding pattern. Here's another question, bordering on heresy to the legal-minded: Do the deci- sions of courts, tribunals and regulatory bodies in relation to legal technology or unauthorized practice of law really matter in the face of overwhelming traction by end users? It's always surprising to find that Can- adians are not overly familiar with Legal- Zoom. While this company offers some services in Canada under an obvious rebrand of a prior existing Canadian busi- ness, its more compelling footprint is in the U.S. and, increasingly, England. In large part through the use of auto- mation technology, LegalZoom helps users create legal documents for personal and business purposes. Consumer services relate to wills, divorce, prenuptial agree- ments, personal bankruptcy, immigration, disability benefits, personal injury and real estate documents. For business services, mostly to small and medium-sized enti- ties, LegalZoom assists with incorporation documents, tax forms, licences, corporate changes and filings, real estate transactions, trademarks, patents, copyrights and busi- ness compliance. If you lived in the U.S., chances are you know LegalZoom, perhaps as a consumer, but certainly as a lawyer. The statistics are staggering and impos- sible to ignore. Information is not always readily available, but 2011 court docu- ments indicated two million customers at that time, which has undoubtedly grown. That same year, in the state of California, 20 per cent of all newly formed limited- liability corporations utilized LegalZoom. The legal battles for and against Legal- Zoom have been well documented. Most famously, the North Carolina bar claimed the company was conducting the unauthorized practice of law. LegalZoom filed a US$10.5-million anti-trust suit, which was settled based on conditions that the company was largely already following. Although its availability and exact ser- vice varies between jurisdictions, Uber is here to stay. It's the Internet entre- preneur's playbook to start a business: Drive huge adoption, then deal with the regulators only as necessary. While it has had many battles, LegalZoom's North Carolina case was "bet the company" and it essentially succeeded in that forum as it has in winning a massive customer base. The primary rationale behind lawyer self-regulation is to protect the "public interest" and to provide consumers with protection against untrained and perhaps nefarious poseurs. This does not apply to purely computational processes. Are regulators and bar associations say- ing the public is too dumb to choose the right legal service providers or is it a matter of protecting vulnerable consumers? Just as taxi regulation is dubiously connected to protecting consumers and results in inferior client experiences, so, too, does that apply in law. LegalZoom is successful because millions of customers have made it so, even in the face of alternatives and opposition from those out to protect the ill-defined "public interest." Rather than regulating the providers, maybe a form of "accredited user" should be employed the same way that sophis- ticated "accredited investors" are afforded wider latitude to make their own choices. The professional services firms that utilize Ross, BlueJ and Beagle don't need the protection of a regulator. Similarly, neither do in-house legal departments that utilize technology tools. By exten- sion, neither does any business unit in a large corporation, even if it has no law- yers or other professionals. Another take on this is the formation of Kim Technol- ogies, which has helped its parent River- view Law (an alternative business struc- ture in the U.K.), transition away from being a legal services provider enabled by technology that is unable to carry on business in North America. Since Kim Technologies is simply a technology busi- ness with deep legal domain expertise, it is not restricted from operating in North America like its parent. While the silly season of conferences and legal press writing focuses on robots replacing lawyers, the reality is that con- sumers are actually suffering in the face of protectionist self-regulation of lawyers. The current situation is that the general public is underserved while lawyers remain underemployed, especially among those just starting out. Most illogical, Captain. Aron Solomon is the head of LegalX and a senior adviser at MaRS Discovery District in Toronto. Jason Moyse is industry lead of LegalX and manager, legal business services at Elevate Services, serving global law firms and corporate legal departments. These topics and more will be explored on Sept. 20 in Toronto during the first Emerging Legal Technology Forum conducted by LegalX and Thomson Reuters (publisher of Canadian Lawyer) and will feature founders and lead- ers including LegalZoom's Eddie Hartman and Karl Chapman of Riverview. Canadian Lawyer Corporate Counsel Survey ATTENTION IN-HOUSE COUNSEL! Weigh in on relationships with external law firms, alternative fee arrangements and more 5IFTurvey JTopen GSPNAuH 15 – Sept 12 canadianlawyermag.com/surveys Untitled-12 1 2016-08-16 4:44 PM

• Cover