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

Fifth Circuit

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

179 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14234, 1999 WL 435871

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1999

Docket99-10388

StatusPublished

This text of 179 F.3d 956 (Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc., 179 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14234, 1999 WL 435871 (5th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14234, 1999 WL 435871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unauthorized-practice-of-law-committee-v-parsons-technology-inc-ca5-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack