## Facts

- The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPLC), appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, enforces Texas’s unauthorized practice statute, Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.101.
- Parsons Technology, Inc. marketed and sold “Quicken Family Lawyer ’99” and related versions, a consumer software product offering legal forms and document generation.
- The software provided a library of legal forms (including agreements and wills), instructions for completion, and an interactive process that asked users questions, selected forms based on responses, and produced completed, customized documents.
- On first use, the software displayed a disclaimer advising users to consult an attorney; the disclaimer did not appear on the packaging and did not reappear on subsequent uses.
- UPLC alleged that selling and distributing the software in Texas constituted the practice of law under § 81.101 because it effectively gave legal advice and prepared legal instruments tailored to the user’s circumstances.
- Parsons argued the statute required personal, human-to-human contact and, alternatively, that applying § 81.101 to software sales violated federal and state free-speech protections.
- The case was filed in Texas state court, removed to federal court, and presented on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether selling and distributing interactive legal software that guides form selection and generates customized legal documents constitutes the “practice of law” under Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.101 (as then in effect).
2. Whether applying § 81.101 to prohibit the sale and distribution of the software violates the First Amendment (and analogous state constitutional protections).

## Decision

- The court granted UPLC’s motion for summary judgment and denied Parsons’s motion.
- The court held that the software’s interactive guidance, form selection, and customized document preparation fell within § 81.101’s definition of the practice of law.
- The court rejected the argument that “practice of law” requires personal contact between provider and consumer.
- Applying the intermediate-scrutiny framework for content-neutral regulation of conduct, the court held § 81.101 constitutional as applied to the software.
- The court permanently enjoined Parsons from selling or distributing the software in Texas.
- (Subsequent procedural note) After an intervening statutory amendment excluding certain properly disclaimed legal software, the court of appeals vacated the judgment and injunction and remanded without reaching the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Under a broad statutory definition, providing individualized guidance about which legal form to use and generating customized legal instruments may constitute the practice of law, even when delivered through software rather than a licensed attorney.
- A “personal contact” requirement is not implied where the governing statute focuses on the nature of the service (legal skill and knowledge) rather than the medium used to deliver it.
- Regulation of unauthorized law practice may be treated as a content-neutral regulation of professional conduct and may survive First Amendment challenge if it serves substantial governmental interests unrelated to suppressing expression and does not burden speech more than necessary.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that interactive legal software that selects forms and produces customized legal documents amounted to unauthorized practice of law under Texas’s then-existing statutory definition and upheld an injunction barring in-state sales, while rejecting a First Amendment defense to the statute’s application.


Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Parsons Tech., Inc., No. 3:97-CV-2859-H, 1999 WL 47235 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 1999)