Marketing Legal Assistance

Elizabeth Chambliss

Abstrakt: Much of the American conversation about access to justice focuses on regulatory barriers
to new forms of service delivery and treats regulatory resistance as the primary problem to be solved.
In der Zwischenzeit, obstacles to consumer awareness and engagement have received less attention. This essay
reverses the order of analysis and considers strategies for expanding access first from a marketing per-
spective. What models of legal assistance have been most successful in building consumer awareness and
trust? To what extent can successful marketing help to sidestep or overcome regulatory resistance? And
what are the implications for reformers interested in expanding access to justice?

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

The legal market in the United States is increas-

ingly tilted toward large, corporate clients and away
from individuals. Data from the U.S. Census Bu-
reau’s 2017 Economic Census show a 10 Prozent
drop from 2007 Zu 2012 in law firm receipts from in-
dividual clients–the so-called PeopleLaw sector–
even as total law firm receipts increased.1 Since the
late 1980s, consumer spending on legal services has
declined significantly relative to consumer spend-
ing on other goods and services, including other
professional services.2 Currently, most people go it
alone in handling civil legal problems and disputes.3
Within the legal profession, the conversation
about access to justice often focuses on regulato-
ry barriers to new forms of service delivery, in par-
ticular lawyers’ monopoly over the practice of law
and the profession’s continued resistance to non-
lawyer ownership and investment in legal ser-
vices. While other Anglo-American jurisdictions,
such as Australia and the United Kingdom, have
opened their legal markets to nonlawyer provid-
ers and investors, the United States remains bound
to a state-based, court-centered system of profes-
sional self-regulation in which new models for ser-
vice delivery have met sustained and, historically,

elizabeth chambliss is Pro –
fessor of Law and Director of the
nmrs Center on Professionalism
at the University of South Caro-
lina School of Law. She has pub-
lished in such journals as Fordham
Law Review, Georgetown Journal of
Legal Ethics, Law and Contempo-
rary Problems, and South Carolina
Law Review.

successful resistance from the organized
bar. State bar associations, backed by state
courts, have used unauthorized practice
of law (upl) statutes and other anticom-
petitive regulation to challenge the activ-
ities of paraprofessionals, self-help legal
software publishers, and other nonlawyer
providers of legal information and ser-
vices, as well as lawyers’ own efforts to
market their services through online net-
works and platforms.

Yet while regulatory resistance has
been persistent and important in struc-
turing the U.S. legal market, focusing
on anticompetitive regulation and oth-
er supply-side barriers to access empha-
sizes supply-side strategies for reform:
for instance, civil right-to-counsel and
pro bono initiatives to increase access
to lawyers; state licensing and local reg-
ulatory initiatives to increase access to
paraprofessionals and limited scope le-
gal services; and technology initiatives
to increase online and mobile access to
legal information and services. These ef-
forts undoubtedly have improved access
to some types of legal assistance in some
contexts, but supply-side initiatives can
go only so far in addressing information
failure and consumer habits in the use–
and nonuse–of legal resources.

Consider Washington State’s limited
licensing initiative. In 2012, the Washing-
ton State Supreme Court authorized the
licensing of a new category of indepen-
dent paraprofessionals, limited license
legal technicians (lllts), to provide lim-
ited-scope legal assistance to individu-
als in family court, such as information
about court procedures and help filling
out forms. The initiative was the prod-
uct of a hard-fought, twelve-year cam-
paign to amend state court rules to allow
paralegals to provide limited legal advice
without lawyer supervision, with the aim
of lowering the cost of legal assistance,
initially in family law matters.

The economic viability of the model
was a concern from the start, since many
of the barriers to low-cost assistance
from lawyers are also present for parapro-
Fachleute. The proponents’ goal, howev-
er, was to “get a rule through.”4 By win-
ning the profession’s approval for lim-
ited advising in the family law context,
they hoped that the model could be ex-
panded gradually to include additional
services in additional areas, and perhaps
additional business models through fur-
ther regulatory change. Proponents also
envisioned a training partnership with
American Bar Association–approved law
Schulen, which could be a mechanism for
scaling the program and spreading the
lllt model to other states.

Yet the lllt initiative appears to be
foundering. The initial cohorts of lllt
candidates were smaller than expected,
making specialized training costly to pro-
vide. Two of the state’s three law schools
have declined to offer training, citing fi-
nancial constraints, and the third is of-
fering training at a loss, which is unsus-
tainable. The regulatory costs for the
lllt board and the Washington State
Bar Association also have been substan-
tial, with a breakeven point five to seven
years away. In der Zwischenzeit, lllts are strug-
gling to develop viable family law prac-
tices. Only a handful of lllts work full-
time as independent practitioners; In-
stead, most practice part time out of law
firms, while also working as tradition-
al paralegals. Many report difficulties in
standardizing and pricing their services,
and thus fall back on hourly rates around
or above those of paralegals. Most are un-
able to attract enough clients to run a vi-
able business even though “the evidence
for a sufficient pool of potential clients is
strong.”5
Regulatory barriers undeniably are

part of the problem. Though Washington

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

148 (1) Winter 2019Elizabeth Chambliss

amended its rules to allow for limited li-
censing, it continues to ban nonlawyer
investment in legal services, which could
benefit lllts as well as lawyers aim-
ing to provide limited scope legal ser-
vices. If such barriers fall, the lllt mod-
el could be scaled up considerably. In
addition, Jedoch, lllts have a market-
ing problem. The lllt model is not well
known or understood by the public; es ist
difficult for potential clients to discover
what “lllts” are or when it might make
sense to use them. Even clients who use
lllts report confusion about what ser-
vices they offer and the boundaries of the
lllt role. A preliminary evaluation of
the lllt program concludes that “effec-
tive marketing is perhaps the critical link
for business success at this point.”6

Effective marketing is the critical issue
for many forms of legal assistance, even in
the absence of regulatory barriers. Viele
people with civil justice problems do not
recognize their problems as “legal,” even
when those problems raise clear legal is-
sues and have legal remedies.7 Most peo-
ple with civil legal problems never con-
sider using a lawyer, but rather rely on
their own understanding and support
networks to deal with the problem, or do
Nichts, even when the potential stakes
are high.8 Many people forgo available le-
gal assistance even when it is free.9

People’s lack of awareness and engage-
ment with potential legal resources is
compounded by the enormous variety of
small-scale models for legal assistance in
different locations. A 2017 review of civ-
il legal aid in the United States describes
one pilot project after another, but few
mechanisms for national coordination or
branding.10 Even national and federal ini-
tiatives might be rebranded at the state or
local level. Many of the resources avail-
able to people who face common legal
problems are not determined by the na-
ture of the problem but rather by “where

they happen to live,”11 and are not easy to
discover.

Online, zu, there is a “crucial discon-
nect between the resources available for
accessing the justice system and their
use by the public.”12 Although there is
no shortage of designers and marketers
promising to drive traffic to law firm web-
sites, most people are not interested in
law firm websites. Studies show that even
young people who have used the Internet
all their lives have trouble finding usable
legal information online.13 And while mo-
bile technology has enormous potential
to increase access to legal assistance, ef-
forts to market access-to-justice apps are
unterentwickelt, leaving many potential-
ly valuable apps all dressed up with no-
where to go. Of twenty access-to-justice
apps featured in a 2015 Artikel, nearly
half are currently unavailable on the App
Store or Google Play, or have had no
downloads over the past year.14 Supply-
ing resources is, at best, half the battle.

Rather than fighting the bar to open

the market to new suppliers, reformers
should focus on attracting and mobiliz-
ing consumers to win over the bar. Von-
mand creation has been an essential com-
ponent of successful entry into both cor-
porate and consumer legal markets. In
the consumer sector, companies such as
LegalZoom and Avvo have gone to mar-
ket without asking permission and have
successfully fought state bar resistance,
or maneuvered around it.

LegalZoom began in 2001 as an on-
line provider of legal documents, fight-
ing and settling state-by-state unautho-
rized practice of law challenges along
the way. In 2010, it expanded its business
model to include subscription-based le-
gal service plans, drawing on a branded
network of independent lawyers who use
LegalZoom as a marketing platform. In
2014, LegalZoom joined the Federal Trade

100

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dädalus, das Journal der American Academy of Arts & SciencesMarketing Legal Assistance

Commission in calling for increased an-
titrust scrutiny of professional licens-
ing boards, resulting in a Supreme Court
antitrust ruling that effectively quieted
upl challenges to LegalZoom’s business
model at the national level.15 By 2015,
Legal Zoom was among the most wide-
ly recognized legal brands in the Unit-
ed States, despite continuing regulatory
restrictions on its ability to deliver legal
services directly. In the words of one ob-
server, “With respect to LegalZoom, Die
train has left the station. . . . They’ve got
a couple million satisfied customers and
it’s going to be really hard for anyone to
shut them down.”16

Likewise, Avvo began in 2007 as an on-
line lawyer directory and ratings plat-
bilden, scraping data from public sources
to generate profiles of lawyers; it then in-
vited lawyers to claim and enhance their
profiles as a marketing tool. State bar as-
sociations blustered and took steps to
regulate lawyers’ participation, and Avvo
faced several early lawsuits from lawyers
objecting to their ratings, but Avvo suc-
cessfully defended their ratings platform
on First Amendment grounds. Im Januar
2018, Avvo entered a deal to be acquired
by Internet Brands, the parent company
of webmd and the Martindale-Nolo Le-
gal Marketing Network. “Scale . . . is real-
ly everything,” explained Marc Britton,
then-ceo of Avvo.17 Avvo is competing
with Google to be the go-to site for peo-
ple who are searching for lawyers.

Access to capital helps fuel these in-
novations. Because they do not deliv-
er legal services directly, LegalZoom and
Avvo are not subject to professional re-
strictions on nonlawyer investment, Und
they have benefited from venture capi-
tal funding that is unavailable to tradi-
tional law firms. This money means that
they can finance state-by-state litiga-
tion and national marketing campaigns.
LegalZoom and Avvo each spent more

als $10 million on television advertis- reingehen 2015. Yet even within current profession- al rules, there are opportunities for tra- ditional law firms to improve marketing and outreach for their own benefit as well as for consumers’. And the external regu- latory environment is changing, owing in part to pushback from alternative provid- ers such as LegalZoom. The regulatory battle is a red herring. Marketing matters whatever the contours of professional regulation. The dog is about to catch the car. Time to focus on what comes next. Providers should market targeted solu- tions to problems as understood by con- sumers, rather than selling themselves as providers of generalized “legal” ser- vices. Marketing “solutions” for corpo- rations’ problems is all the rage in the corporate legal market. But problem- focused marketing is also proving effec- tiv, and scalable, in the consumer market. For instance, mobile apps and websites providing a convenient response to park- ing tickets and traffic citations are gain- ing traction. Fixed was a California startup founded in 2013 that allowed users to dis- pute parking tickets simply by uploading a photo of the ticket. The cost to the con- sumer was twenty-five percent of the tick- et if the dispute was successful; ansonsten, the user paid nothing. The app generated so much demand that city agencies fought to shut it down, ultimately commissioning a technical block to prevent Fixed from ac- cessing city parking ticket websites. Fixed responded by altering its business model to focus on moving violations and, In 2016, was acquired by Lawgix, a multistate law firm that uses Fixed as a front-end inter- face to “onboard new clients.”18 Off the Record, a Seattle startup operating in eigh- teen states, uses a similar interface as a re- ferral platform for ticket defense lawyers and advertises a 97 percent success rate. l D o w n o a d e d von h t t p : / / Direkte . m i t . / e d u d a e d a r t i c e – p d / l f / / / / / 1 4 8 1 9 8 1 8 3 1 2 4 0 d a e d _ a _ 0 0 5 4 1 p d . f by gu e s t o n 0 8 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 101 148 (1) Winter 2019Elizabeth Chambliss The private bar resists the commod- itization of legal services, which leads to price competition and arguably drives down quality. Off the Record’s fees for San Francisco lawyers ranged from $195
Zu $1,100 when the company started in 2015 Aber, von 2017, had dropped to an av- erage of $200 Zu $250. Among lawyers, mass marketing originally was the proj- ect of consumer “legal clinics” that, In 1977, sued for the right to advertise fixed- price legal services such as wills, name changes, and uncontested divorce.19 By most accounts, the clinics were success- ful in stimulating consumer demand, Aber, by the early 1990s, most firms had abandoned the clinic model, hampered by low profits and increasing price com- petition. Since then, direct legal market- ing has been overwhelmingly dominated by personal injury lawyers, who spend an estimated $1.5 billion per year on highly
targeted advertising, and have proven re-
sistant to price competition in the contin-
gent fee context.20 Most ads focus on dif-
ferentiating firms from their rivals based
on quality (“MAXIMUM RECOVERY!”)
rather than stimulating demand.21 Like
LegalZoom and Avvo, the biggest adver-
tisers are nationally branded, highly cap-
italized firms, such as Sokolove Law, Das
serve as marketing platforms for local
providers. Many of the original legal clin-
ics, such as Jacoby and Meyers, have re-
branded as personal injury firms.

Notwithstanding the bar’s resistance,
Jedoch, increasing commoditization is
coming to the consumer legal market.
tikd, a Florida startup that fights traf-
fic tickets, is engaged in a likely ground-
breaking battle with the Florida Bar,
which is seeking an injunction against
tikd for the unauthorized practice of
law. tikd has countered with an $11.5
million antitrust lawsuit that looks like a
clear winner under the Supreme Court’s
recent antitrust ruling. Vor allem, the De-

partment of Justice has filed a state-
ment of interest on tikd’s behalf, stat-
ing that disruption to “business models
entrenched for decades . . . almost invari-
ably” benefits consumers.22
The challenge for the bar will be to ex-

pand beyond defining new categories of
service, such as limited licensing and lim-
ited scope representation, which do not
correlate with specific tasks and are dif-
ficult for consumers to understand. Law-
yers must design standardized products
and services targeted to consumers’ dis-
crete legal needs. They will need to in-
vest in research on individual legal needs,
identifying areas in which consumers
currently forgo potentially valuable legal
Aktion. They will need to design service
menus based on research about price sen-
sitivity, as well as demographic and oth-
er sources of market segmentation. Law-
yers will need to identify where provider
quality is marketable to consumers, Und
where it should be regulated to protect
ihnen. For the private bar, the long game
in both market and regulatory battles de-
pends on credible quality claims. Der
bar has enormous incentives to invest in
quality assessment research.

To mobilize public demand, lawyers
must make a business case to consum-
ers and to related service providers, solch
as health care providers, state and local
governments, and court administrators.
Cost-benefit arguments for legal assis-
tance are proving successful in the non-
profit sector. Zum Beispiel, medical-legal
partnerships integrate civil legal assis-
tance into health care teams to address
underlying, health-harming legal needs,
such as poor housing, consumer debt, Und
barriers to eligibility for public benefits.
The National Center for Medical Legal
Partnerships promotes the medical-legal
partnership model in part by emphasiz-
ing the economic returns to providers,

102

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dädalus, das Journal der American Academy of Arts & SciencesMarketing Legal Assistance

competitive regulation.25 Corporate cli-
ents are voting with their feet, Herstellung
increasing use of alternative providers
for work previously performed by large
law firms. Individual clients are scarce
on the ground and many solo and small
law firms are struggling. Public funding
for legal assistance and court administra-
tion is low. Law school enrollment is at its
lowest point in more than forty years.

These challenges require lawyers to re-
think their marketing in the broadest
sense of the term. This project will require
bar leadership, planning, and attention to
public messaging. Bar associations must
free themselves from capture by incum-
bents focused on their own short-term
revenues and look for sustainable ways
to improve the value of legal services for
clients and consumers. They must build
their capacity for industry research, Und
engage with scholarly research, to pro-
mote new forms of assistance without
sacrificing consumer protection. Law-
yers must educate themselves, their leg-
islatures, and the public about the eco-
nomic and normative value of civil legal
assistance and its importance for the rule
of law in civil society. These efforts are in
the profession’s self-interest and they are
an integral part of its duty to the public.

such as the benefits to hospitals from the
resolution of denied benefit claims. Als
von 2018, medical-legal partnerships have
been established in 373 health organiza-
tions in forty-seven states. Im September
2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs
(va) issued a directive encouraging va
Medical Centers to make space available
for legal service providers, and research
analyzing the impact of va medical-legal
partnerships is ongoing. Proponents note
that “Congress would only need to ap-
propriate half of one percent (.5%) von
the va’s healthcare spending to exceed
federal funding of the Legal Services
Corporation.”23

Another project, Justice in Govern-
ment, promotes the inclusion of legal as-
sistance in state government programs to
“ensure maximum benefit from dollars
spent on low- and moderate-income peo-
ple and communities.”24 Legal assistance
can be shown to provide a positive re-
turn on investment in areas such as evic-
tion defense, criminal record–clearing
for job-seekers, and legal intervention
on behalf of domestic violence victims.
This evidence-based, economic pitch for
“good government” is distinct from the
normative pitch for “access to justice,”
and can help drive policy change. In 2017,
New York City passed a law guarantee-
ing a right to counsel for every tenant fac-
ing eviction, after proponents commis-
sioned a cost-benefit analysis showing
that the costs of providing counsel were
lower than the costs of homelessness and
its consequences, such as job loss and ju-
venile justice costs.

Marketing legal assistance requires a

political strategy and efforts to improve
and coordinate political messaging. Der
American legal profession is facing pro-
found–some would say existential–chal –
lenges regarding the value of lawyers’
services and the justifications for anti-

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

103

148 (1) Winter 2019Elizabeth Chambliss

Endnoten
1 Bill Henderson, “The Decline of the PeopleLaw Sector,” Legal Evolution, November 19, 2017,

https://www.legalevolution.org/2017/11/decline-peoplelaw-sector-037/.

2 Bill Henderson, “Legal Services and the Consumer Price Index (cpi),” Legal Evolution, Januar
30, 2018, https://www.legalevolution.org/2018/01/legal-services-consumer-price-index-cpi
-cost-going-up-wallet-share-going-down-042/. The Consumer Price Index is based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, which tracks the spending of a
representative sample of urban households (89 percent of the U.S. population qualifies as
urban). See also United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer
Expenditures and Income: Overview,” https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cex/home.htm.
3 A 2013 survey of a random sample of adults in a middle-sized American city found that peo-
ple handled 69 percent of civil justice problems on their own or with help from family and
friends, und nur 22 percent by seeking advice from third parties. Rebecca L. Sandefur, Access-
ing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study (Chicago:
American Bar Foundation, 2014). A 2013 study of 152 civil courts in ten urban jurisdictions
found that, In 76 percent of nondomestic civil cases, at least one party was self-represented.
National Center for State Courts, The Landscape of Civil Litigation in State Courts (Williamsburg,
Va.: National Center for State Courts, 2015), iv.

4 Paula Littlewood, executive director of the Washington State Bar, as quoted in Elizabeth
Chambliss, “Law School Training for Licensed ‘Legal Technicians’? Implications for the
Consumer Market,” South Carolina Law Review 65 (3) (2014): 579–610, 590.

5 Thomas M. Clarke and Rebecca L. Sandefur, Preliminary Evaluation of the Washington State Limited
License Legal Technician Program (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 2017),
12. See also Rebecca M. Donaldson, “Law by Non-Lawyers: The Limit to Limited License Le-
gal Technicians Increasing Access to Justice,” Seattle University Law Review 42 (1) (2018).

6 Clarke and Sandefur, Preliminary Evaluation, 12.
7 Rebecca L. Sandefur, “Money Isn’t Everything: Understanding Moderate Income Households’
Use of Lawyers’ Services,” in Middle Income Access to Justice, Hrsg. Michael Trebilcock, Anthony
Duggan, and Lorne Sossin (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 222–245.

8 Sandefur, Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA, 11–12.
9 Rebecca L. Sandefur, “The Importance of Doing Nothing: Everyday Problems and Responses
of Inaction,” in Transforming Lives: Law and Social Process, Hrsg. Pascoe Pleasence, Alexy Buck, Und
Nigel Balmer (Norwich, Großbritannien: The Stationary Office, 2007).

10 Alan W. Houseman, Civil Legal Aid in the United States: An Update for 2017 (Washington, D.C.:
Consortium for the National Equal Justice Library, 2017), http://internationallegalaidgroup
.org/images/miscdocs/ILAG_2017_National_Report_-_USA_-_Mr_Alan_Houseman.pdf.
11 Rebecca L. Sandefur and Aaron C. Smyth, Access Across America: First Report of the Civil Justice Infra-

structure Mapping Project (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 2011), v.

12 Stephanie Kimbro, “What We Know and Need to Know About Gamification and Online En-

gagement,” South Carolina Law Review 67 (2) (2016): 345–376.

13 Catrina Denvir, Nigel J. Balmer, and Pascoe Pleasance, “Surfing the Web–Recreation or Re-
source? Exploring How Young People in the uk Use the Internet as an Advice Portal for Prob-
lems with a Legal Dimension,” Interacting with Computers 23 (1) (2011): 96–104; and Catrina
Denvir, “Online and in the Know? Public Legal Education, Young People, and the Internet,”
Computers and Education 92–93 (2016): 204–220.

14 Joe Dysart, “20 Apps to Help Provide Easier Access to Legal Help,” ABA Journal, April 2015, http:
//www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/20_apps_providing_easier_access_to_legal_help;
and Aaron Greene, “The Use of Mobile Legal Applications in Efforts to Increase Access to
Justice” (unpublished student paper, 2018).

104

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dädalus, das Journal der American Academy of Arts & SciencesMarketing Legal Assistance

15 North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1112 (2015);
and Brief of LegalZoom.com et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, North Carolina
State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015).

16 Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode as quoted in Robert Ambrogi, “Latest Legal Victory
Has LegalZoom Poised for Growth,” ABA Journal, August 2014, http://www.abajournal.com/
magazine/article/latest_legal_victory_has_legalzoom_poised_for_growth.

17 John Cook, “Avvo to be Acquired by Internet Brands,” GeekWire, Januar 11, 2018, https://www
.geekwire.com/2018/avvo-acquired-internet-brands-parent-webmd-martindale-hubbell
-major-exit-seattle-based-legal-marketplace/.

18 Sarah Perez, “Fixed, the App that Helps you Fight Tickets, Gets Acquired by a Law Firm,” Tech-
Crunch, Juni 15, 2016, https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/15/fixed-the-app-that-helps-you-fight
-tickets-gets-acquired-by-a-law-firm/.

19 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 UNS. 350 (1977); and American Bar Association Special Com-
mission on the Delivery of Legal Services, Report on the Survey of Legal Clinics and Advertising Law
Firms (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1990), 36–38.

20 Nora Freeman Engstrom, “Attorney Advertising and the Contingency Fee Cost Paradox,”

Stanford Law Review 65 (2013): 633–694, 640, 682–683.

21 Ebenda., 684.
22 TIKD Services LLC v. Florida Bar, Statement of Interest on Behalf of the United States of America,
Case 1:17-cv-24103-MGC Document 115, https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/
documents/392/15693/DOJ-statement-Tikd.pdf; and Celia Ampel, “doj Weighs in on Florida
Bar’s Battle with Traffic Ticket Startup tikd,” Daily Business Review, Marsch 15, 2018, https://
www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2018/03/15/doj-weighs-in-on-florida-bars-battle-with
-traffic-ticket-startup-tikd/.

23 Margaret Middleton, Jack Tsai, and Robert Rosenheck, “Lessons Learned by an Interdisci-
plinary Research Team Evaluating Medical-Legal Partnership with the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs,” South Carolina Law Review 68 (2) (2017): 311–329, 321.

24 American University, “The Justice in Government Program: Getting Results with Legal Aid,”

https://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/jgp.cfm.

25 Richard Susskind and Daniel Susskind, The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Trans-

form the Work of Human Experts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
D
A
e
D
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
8
1
9
8
1
8
3
1
2
4
0
D
A
e
D
_
A
_
0
0
5
4
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

105

148 (1) Winter 2019Elizabeth Chambliss
PDF Herunterladen