The Kuhn Law Firm Consumer Resource Center

Independent Review by Consumer Reports Says “No” to LegalZoom!

The Kuhn Law Firm — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:03:07 +0000

Consumer Reports advises NOT to use LegalZoom due to the company’s failure to properly address legal issues faced by consumers. An independent reviewer went so far as to call LegalZoom-prepared Wills a “gold mine for probate lawyers” who will be cleaning up the mess left behind by LegalZoom Wills once the consumers who purchase their services start dying. Click Here to read the “Overview” by Consumer Reports. Click Here to read the detailed independent review and analysis of LegalZoom, RocketLawyer, and Quicken Wills.

One small bit of advice, consult a licensed attorney in your state to assist you with important legal issues. It really is that important!

Ben Kuhn
The Kuhn Law Firm, PLLC
919.280.8139
bkuhn@kuhnlawfirm.com
www.kuhnlawfirm.com

Consumer Reports Says No to LegalZoom!

The Kuhn Law Firm — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:59:01 +0000

One small bit of advice, consult a licensed attorney in your state to assist you with important legal issues. It really is that important!

Ben Kuhn
The Kuhn Law Firm, PLLC
919.280.8139
bkuhn@kuhnlawfirm.com
www.kuhnlawfirm.com

Happy Holidays!

The Kuhn Law Firm — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:53:01 +0000

Merry Christmas to all. Hope everyone spends some quality time with Family and Friends. KLF will be closed next Monday and Tuesday.

Ben Kuhn
The Kuhn Law Firm, PLLC
919.280.8139
bkuhn@kuhnlawfirm.com
www.kuhnlawfirm.com

Test blog post by email from iPhone!

The Kuhn Law Firm — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:51:05 +0000

Test Blog Post.

Ben Kuhn
The Kuhn Law Firm, PLLC
919.280.8139
bkuhn@kuhnlawfirm.com
www.kuhnlawfirm.com

Closing Lawyer Going to Jail for Aiding and Facilitating Mortgage Fraud

The Kuhn Law Firm — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:18:48 +0000

Don’t do it! Why? Stupid. Just stupid! Former Cumberland County Attorney, David Joseph Pikul, is going to jail for for up to 14 months for his work helping a mortgage fraudster bilk consumers and banks at the closing table. It is just not worth your license and livelihood to facilitate a fraud that will eventually be caught – and prosecuted. Click HERE to read news story.

Prime Example of Why the Language in the Purchase Contract Really Does Matter!

The Kuhn Law Firm — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:36:15 +0000

The case outlined in this post is a prime example for why real estate developers should be certain they hire competent legal representation, in the beginning, before they sign contracts! The case is The Vue v. Sherman (to read the opinion click HERE). On Dec. 6, 2011, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled against the Vue’s condo developer in their lawsuit against two contract purchasers seeking to force them to buy units they signed contracts to buy – but later backed out of and refused to purchase. The Court found that the language in the contract only allowed the condo developer to keep the contract buyers’ deposit as “liquidated damages” and could not force them to buy the units per the common law remedy of specific performance. Problem was, according to the Court, the Vue’s standard purchase contract contained language providing the remedy of liquidated damages as to the condo developer (i.e. retention of the earnest money deposit), but provided for the reservation of other remedies available at common law to the purchasers (but did not reserve such additional common law rights as to the condo developer). The trial court’s interpretation of the agreement precluded insertion of additional rights – i.e., the
right of specific performance – not provided in the purchase agreement as to the condo developer. The result? The Vue is stuck with more inventory it cannot sell at the previously contracted sales price and they only collect a mere 10% earnest money deposit as the available remedy for the buyer’s breach of the purchase agreement – which probably does not make them very happy after spending boatloads on attorneys fees to find this out!

The Kuhn Law Firm represents developers in real estate transactions and in court. Let us know if we can help you avoid potential pitfalls when assembling property or planning for the development of your project. If the deal craters or you face claims from contractors, investors, lenders, or others, contact our attorneys for representation in any litigation matter as well.

Judge Rules Against Condo Developer

The Kuhn Law Firm — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:56:21 +0000

Judge orders that Vue Condo Developer return $150K deposit to contract buyer. Ruling requires that developers risk their own money. What a concept! Click HERE to read more.

NC Loan Manager Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud

The Kuhn Law Firm — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:38:29 +0000

Former NC Beazer Homes Loan Manager for Charlotte and Raleigh pleads guilty to criminal mortgage fraud. See http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/20/1503280/former-beazer-employee-charged.html

After Listening to the Music, LegalZoom Settles UPL Class Action in Missouri and Avoids Trial on the Merits of the Complaint

The Kuhn Law Firm — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:10:09 +0000

After a federal court judge in Missouri denied LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment just 3 weeks before trial in what is probably the biggest class action lawsuit alleging systematic and illegal unauthorized practice of law, LegalZoom cries “Uncle” and last week settled the lawsuit to avoid a trial that would have started today. In a previously issued 31 page Order Denying Summary Judgment it was clear that Federal District Court Judge Nannette K. Laughrey was not buying LegalZoom’s argument that it was merely selling forms on the internet. In its Order the Court stated that a reasonable juror could find that LegalZoom’s computerized “decision tree” software, which drafts legal documents based on responses a customer types into an online questionnaire, is a legal document preparation service and therefore that the company is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. To read a copy of the Order click on the following link: Order on Summary Judgment – Janson v. LegaZoom.8.2.2011.

The fact that documents are drawn up by a computer did not immunize the company, Laughrey added, because the computer program was designed by LegalZoom employees based on an analysis of Missouri law, and a LegalZoom employee checks each questionnaire for completeness and consistency of information. “There is little or no difference between this and a lawyer in Missouri asking a client a series of questions and then preparing a legal document based on the answers provided and applicable Missouri law,” Laughrey wrote.

With the Plaintiffs claiming $5,000,000 in damages, including treble damages, and with LegalZoom facing a potential injunction to cease and desist operating its legal document service in Missouri, LegalZoom apparently wanted no part of the upcoming trial that might have put a serious kink in the company’s high-profile efforts to roll out an IPO in coming months to help pay back tens of millions of dollars to its initial investors. Stay tuned to see whether investors will continue to warm to LegalZoom’s novel business model that is very clearly fraught with real problems and serious questions as to whether it can survive legal challenges in every state across the country which prohibit UPL (including almost all 50 states).

Several other states have already examined LegalZoom’s operations and concluded that the company’s on-line document preparation services constitute the Unauthorized Practice of Law. One of those states is North Carolina. Click on the following link to read the May 2008 Cease and Desist Letter from the North Carolina State Bar to LegalZoom ordering that company discontinue offering legal document preparation services in North Carolina: NC State Bar Cease and Desist Letter to LegalZoom. Other States, including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Ohio have also concluded LegalZoom violated laws in those states that prohibit the unauthorized practice of law.

Federal Court Refuses to Halt Class Action Accusing LegalZoom of Unauthorized Practice of Law

The Kuhn Law Firm — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:36:07 +0000

LegalZoom.com Aug. 2 failed to persuade a Missouri federal district court that it is not practicing law without a license in that state.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied LegalZoom’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that plaintiffs may proceed with their class action which asserts that the California-based legal document vendor violated Missouri’s statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. Click HERE to read full article.