He is, however, a graduate of the Harvard Business School and the CEO of LegalZoom. So, will new business models like LegalZoom and new technologies like Watson Debater make lawyers and law firms obsolete? We’ve just read Susan Beck’s excellent report “Emerging Technology Shapes Future of Law.” Among the things in her report that caught our attention was this particular passage (edited for clarity):

One obvious impediment to LegalZoom’s expansion are restrictions by State courts and State bar associations prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. While they vary by State, all these rules prohibit nonlawyers from sharing fees with lawyers … All but a few states prohibit nonlawyers from doing even the most routine legal tasks … Suh, who has been CEO of LegalZoom since 2007, is not a lawyer. He’s a graduate of Harvard Business School who previously ran other Internet businesses. His company has battled lawsuits in four states claiming it’s engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Two of the cases have been resolved largely in LegalZoom’s favor, while two are pending.

The legal profession, in other words, hates competition and has set up artificial barriers to entry (such as expensive three-year law degrees and bar exams) that openly violate State and federal antitrust laws and harm consumers. (By the way, why is the legal profession exempt from our competition laws? The irony of this situation does not escape us!) In any case, is LegalZoom engaged in the practice of law? So what if it is? Aside from stifling markets and competition, why do you need a law degree or a law license to practice law? After all, you don’t need a degree or license to sing opera or play major league baseball?