Talk:LegalZoom/Archives/2013

Merge

LegalZoom.com and eLawyering should absolutely not be merged. They are two complete and separate online concepts. LegalZoom.com is a do it yourself site. No legal advice is provided or even suggested. eLawyering, as a concept, refers to the ability to dispense advice online through Bar certified lawyers. Merging the two would be tantamount to merging turbotax with a CPA or eBay with pawn shop. --Longley 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You brought up some interesting points but I believe the merge still has some merit. Your removal of references to eLawyering seem to be inappropriate censorship or at the least merits more discussion. This is from and ABA article on eLawyering.

"The practice that Paul describes as "the utilization of the Internet and e-mail networks for the delivery of legal services" has been dubbed by many as eLawyering. It is a broad term that includes Web- based companies as well as existing law firms that have supplemented their traditional practices with online services."

This is from the external link in the article "Some call it eLawyering". eLawyering is an expansive term and does incorperate the concept of legal self help. Further, I do not think there is enough notable information on LegalZoom.com for it to merit its own page. This stub seems commercialistic. I am an inclusionist, but it would make more sense to incorperate this information somewhere else unless this stub can be significantly expanded. Two points in concluding:

• I think the merge makes sense, but more discussion should take place.
• The eLawyering references are clearly relevant, especially under a "See Also" heading. They are clearly closely related concepts.

Butnotthehippo 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some people call sites like LegalZoom, CompleteCase, and LegacyWriter eLawyering, but again I must assert that they would be incorrect. (to wit: some say that the Miami Dolphins have only fair weather fans, and as a rabbid fan, I know they couldn't be more wrong). A lawyer has a very specific purpose. He or she can dispense advice in accordance with their training. Sites like those listed above absolutely cannot cannot give legal advice of any kind. I'm fine with the point that some would call it eLawyering (if it is such a term...I've never heard of it until noticing this article written in 2003. Have you even heard the term since then?). eLaw would be more appropriate. But again eLawyering would be the same as calling Ameritrade "eInvestmentAdvisor". Ameritrade does nothing of the kind. It's self help.--Longley 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• AGAINST MERGE. - I think that LegalZoom is notable enough to stand on its own as its own article just because of its saturation in the media, etc. I've seen Shapiro on news shows talking about it. I've heard their ads on Howard Stern just recently. Also, it is not so much eLawyering as it is "document preparation." I think enough people know about them and use them for it to be notable - not to mention the notable founder. Dougieb 17:00, 6

• AGAINST MERGE. - I just saw a t.v. ad. Shapiro is way too notable to be lumped into a generic article -- especially since that article is a stub. Americasroof 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I am removing the merge template per the comments above --Lox (t,c) 10:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Title Change

I recommend that the title of this article be changed to "LegalZoom.com" not just "LegalZoom". Their legal name which is registered with the state of California is "LegalZoom.com, Inc." and therefore I recommend it be changed. Chrismunoz (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)