TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc.

The UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARSONS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Doing Business as Quicken Family Lawyer, Defendant-Appellant

Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Parsons Tech., Inc., 179 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1999)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 29, 1999
Docket
No. 99-10388
Judges
King, Smith, Barksdale
Citations
179 F.3d 9561999 WL 4358711999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14234

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellant Parsons Technology, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, and the court’s subsequent order permanently enjoining defendant-appellant from selling and distributing its software programs, Quicken Family Lawyer Version 8.0 and Quicken Family •Lawyer ’99, within the state of Texas. The district court based its decision on its determination that the sale and distribution of the software constitutes the “practice of law” under Texas GoveRnment Code Annotated § 81.101 (1998).

See Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc., No. Civ.A.3:97:CV-2859H, 1999 WL 47235 , at *6 (ND. Tex. Jan 22, 1999);

see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 81.101(a) (1998) (stating that the “practice of law” includes, inter alia, “the giving of advice or the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined”).

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, however, the Texas Legislature enacted an amendment to § 81.101 providing that “the ‘practice of law’ does not include the design, creation, publication, distribution, display, or sale ... [of] computer software, or similar products if the products clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney,” effective immediately. H.B. 1507, 76th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex.1999). We therefore VACATE the injunction and judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings, if any should be necessary, in light of the amended statute. Each party shall bear its own costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list