I stumbled upon an old story about how the heirs sued because of the use of do-it-yourself estate planning software. In this case the software was Quicken Willmaker or Quicken Family Lawyer, but it could be Legalzoom, or Suze Orman's Trust Kit, or any other of the will and trust in a box products.What happened was that an insurance agent was sued for "unauthorized practice of law" when he used the Quicken Willmaker software to create a will for a 91 year old woman.
This is just another case where the Nolo's, Quicken Willmaker's, Suze Orman Trust Kit's, and Legalzooms of the world have caused more problems then good as people look to create their own estate plans. This shows why many state bar's, like Texas, have tried to ban these products because they in the end harm the consumer.
You can read the article at CNET.
Christopher J. Berry, Esq., A Michigan Wills and Trusts Attorney, is a Partner with Witzke Berry PLLC, which practices in the areas of Estate Planning, Elder Law, Probate.
photo from www.gamerswithjobs.com
By the way, here are some excerpts from the case:
The purpose of prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law is to protect the public from incompetence in the preparation of legal documents and prevent harm resulting from inaccurate legal advice. ("The amateur at law is as dangerous to the community as an amateur surgeon....")
The novel question here is whether respondent's actions in filling in the blanks in a computer-generated generic will constitute the practice of law. Respondent selected the will form, filled in the information given by Ms. Weiss, and arranged the execution of the will at the hospital. Although these facts are not in themselves conclusive, the omission of facts indicating Ms. Weiss's involvement is significant. There is no evidence Ms. Weiss reviewed the will once it was typed. The will was not typed in her presence and although respondent relates the details of what Ms. Weiss told him to do, there is no indication he contemporaneously recorded her instructions and then simply transferred the information to the form.
We construe the role of "scrivener" in this context to mean someone who does nothing more than record verbatim what the decedent says. We conclude respondent's actions in drafting Ms. Weiss's will exceeded those of a mere scrivener and he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law...
