TechCrunch has the story. What is interesting is their S-1 form, and how they address the specter of lawsuits for unauthorized practice of law:
Our business and services subject us to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding the unauthorized practice of law, or UPL, legal document processing and preparation, legal plans, privacy and other matters. These laws and regulations may result in claims, changes to or discontinuance of some of our services, potential liabilities or additional costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and future prospects.
Our business involves providing services that meet the legal needs of our customers and, as a result, is subject to a variety of complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including the following:
•Our business model includes the provision of services that represent an alternative to traditional legal services, which subjects us to allegations of UPL. UPL generally refers to an entity or person giving legal advice who is not licensed to practice law. However, laws and regulations defining UPL, and the governing bodies that enforce UPL rules, differ among the various jurisdictions in which we operate. We are unable to acquire a license to practice law in the United States, or employ licensed attorneys to provide legal advice to our customers, because we do not meet the regulatory requirement of being exclusively owned by licensed attorneys. We are also subject to laws and regulations that govern business transactions between attorneys and non-attorneys, including those related to the ethics of attorney fee-splitting and the corporate practice of law.
•Regulation of legal document processing and preparation services varies among the jurisdictions in which we conduct business.
•Regulation of our legal plans varies considerably among the insurance departments, bar associations and attorneys general of the particular states in which we offer, or plan to offer, our legal plans. In addition, some states may seek to regulate our legal plans as insurance or specialized legal service products.
In addition, any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with applicable laws and regulations may subject us to regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and prosecutions. We have incurred in the past, and expect to incur in the future, costs associated with responding to, defending and settling such proceedings, particularly those related to UPL, and the provision of our services more generally. We can give no assurance that we will prevail in such regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and prosecutions on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Responding to, defending and/or settling regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and prosecutions may be time-consuming and divert management and financial resources or have other adverse effects on our business. A negative outcome in any of these proceedings may result in changes to or discontinuance of some of our services, potential liabilities or additional costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and future prospects.
We are involved in several litigation matters that are expensive and time consuming, and, if resolved adversely, could harm our business, brand and reputation, financial condition or results of operations.
We are involved in several lawsuits brought by customers alleging that we engage in the unauthorized practice of law or otherwise violate the law. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek disgorgement, monetary damages, penalties, and/or injunctive relief. For example, class action lawsuits were filed against us in California state court in September 2009 and March 2010 alleging, primarily, that we failed to comply with the California Legal Document Assistance Act, engaged in unfair business practices and made misrepresentations in our business operations. Between the cases, plaintiffs sought to have all contracts between LegalZoom and its customers for the prior four years declared void, a return of all revenues generated from these customers, punitive damages, penalties and injunctive relief. A statewide class action lawsuit was filed against us in Missouri state court in December 2009, alleging that we were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and had violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and seeking damages of five years of fees charged to Missouri customers with the fees from the two years immediately preceding the complaint trebled and an injunction enjoining us from continued operation in Missouri. While we have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in these lawsuits, without admitting liability, and to avoid additional legal costs to defend these matters, we signed settlement agreements to resolve the claims in the California cases in June 2011 and the Missouri case in August 2011. The maximum possible aggregate loss for these matters is approximately $16 million. The ultimate cost of these two pending settlements are dependent on a number of factors, including the resolution of any appeals of the approved settlements, and actual claims made by, and the resulting payments to, the class members. We have reasonably estimated the collective range of aggregate probable losses for these matters to be between approximately $5.4 million and $7 million and, in accordance with GAAP, have accrued $5.4 million, the low end of the range. The ultimate resolution of these matters could result in an estimated loss of up to $1.6 million in excess of the amounts accrued based on the range of reasonably estimated probable losses. The range of loss has been estimated based on an analysis of numerous factors, including possible claim amounts within the class, whether the claim amounts are payable in-kind or in cash, the date when the services subject to the class were sold, comparable, class action settlement and redemption rate statistics and experience available from other companies for similar types of settlements, and the claims rates to date. The determination of the probability of loss and the range of loss requires significant judgment.
We anticipate that we will continue to be a target for such lawsuits in the future. Any litigation to which we are a party may result in an onerous or unfavorable judgment that may not be reversed upon appeal, or we may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. In addition, defending these claims is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, and we may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial monetary damages or fines, adverse effects on the market price of our common stock or changes to our products or business practices, and accordingly our business, brand and reputation, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
In light of regulations, their entire business may be shut down:
Our business and the services we provide subject us to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding UPL, legal document processing and preparation, legal plans, privacy and other matters. We do not purport to be a law firm and we do not engage in the practice of law, whether authorized or not. We provide self-help at our customers’ specific direction and general information on legal issues generally encountered. Licensed attorneys provide services to our customers through our legal plans, and we rely on third parties to provide certain of our other services.
Our business involves providing services that meet the legal needs of our customers and, as a result, is subject to a variety of complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including the following:
•Our business model includes the provision of services that represent an alternative to traditional legal services, which subjects us to allegations of UPL. UPL generally refers to an entity or person giving legal advice who is not licensed to practice law. However, laws and regulations defining UPL, and the governing bodies that enforce UPL rules, differ among the various jurisdictions in which we operate. We are unable to acquire a license to practice law in the United States, or employ licensed attorneys to provide legal advice to our customers, because we do not meet the regulatory requirement of being exclusively owned by licensed attorneys. We are also subject to laws and regulations that govern business transactions between attorneys and non-attorneys, including those related to the ethics of attorney fee-splitting and the corporate practice of law.
•Regulation of legal document processing and preparation services varies among the jurisdictions in which we conduct business.
•Regulation of our legal plans varies considerably among the insurance departments, bar associations and attorneys general of the particular states in which we offer, or plan to offer, our legal plans. In addition, some states may seek to regulate our legal plans as insurance or specialized legal service products.
Additionally, we are required to comply with laws and regulations related to privacy and the storing, use, processing, disclosure and protection of personal information and other customer data.
Our business operations also subject us to laws and regulations relating to general business practices and the manner in which we offer our services to customers subjects us to various consumer laws and regulations, including false advertising and deceptive trade practices.
The scope of these laws and regulations are often vague and broad, and their applications and interpretations are often uncertain and conflicting. Compliance with these disparate laws and regulations requires us to structure our business and services differently in certain jurisdictions. Any failure or perceived failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, or if our services are considered to constitute UPL, could cause us to modify or discontinue some of our services or incur significant expenses.
In addition, any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with applicable laws and regulations may subject us to regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and prosecutions. We have been subject to, and currently are subject to, litigation and regulatory inquiries relating to UPL. We expect to continue to be subject to such litigation and regulatory inquiries, as well as potential investigations from other regulatory agencies as our business expands into new jurisdictions and we introduce new services.
And a list of all litigation they are involved in concerning UPL:
On December 17, 2009, a statewide class action lawsuit was filed against us by Todd Janson in Missouri state court, alleging that we were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint was amended on January 15, 2010 to add plaintiffs Gerald T. Ardrey, Chad M. Ferrell, and C & J Remodeling LLC. It sought damages of five years of fees charged to Missouri customers with the fees from the two years immediately preceding the complaint trebled and an injunction enjoining LegalZoom from continued operation in Missouri. We subsequently removed the case to federal court in Missouri. While we have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this lawsuit, without admitting liability, and to avoid additional legal costs to defend the matter, we signed a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit. A fairness hearing was held on April 13, 2012. The court issued a Final Approval Order and Dismissal with Prejudice on April 30, 2012. We have accrued an estimated settlement liability of $2.5 million for this lawsuit as further described in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
On June 10, 2011, a purported quo warranto action was filed in Alabama state court against us by DeKalb County Bar Association. The complaint generally alleges that LegalZoom engages in the unauthorized practice of law and requests injunctive relief, not damages. We have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this lawsuit.
On October 27, 2011, a purported statewide class action was filed against us by Christopher Lowry in federal court in Ohio, alleging that we engage in the unauthorized practice of law and violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The complaint seeks disgorgement of revenues, among other remedies. We have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this lawsuit.
On January 25, 2012, a purported class action complaint was filed against us by Jonathan McIllwain in Arkansas state court, generally alleging that we engage in the unauthorized practice of law constituting violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks a refund of all monies paid to us and punitive damages, among other remedies. We have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this lawsuit.
On February 17, 2012, a complaint was filed against us by T. Travis Medlock in South Carolina state court, generally alleging that we engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The complaint requests declaratory relief, injunctive relief and disgorgement of revenues, among other measures. We have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this lawsuit.
I’ll need to track down the Ohio, Arkansas, and South Carolina cases. I’ve followed the California and Missouri cases.