"There are forces running amok who tend to trivialize what lawyers do," O'Brien said. "We think we're protecting our clients by making sure their transactions are handled by competent professionals who are accountable for the result."

This above statement was made by an Illinois State Bar official, and is quoted is from an article published in the Chicago Tribune Newspaper. The full article is presented below after our commentary pursuant to Fair Use in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Contrary to O'Brien's statement, many consumers disagree that attorneys are held accountable. In most if not all states, complaints against attorneys are judged by other attorneys, and many are dismissed. A reading of complaints that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court (ARDC) hears, reveals that unless an attorney mixes lawsuit awards with their personal money, the ARDC simply disregards most other complaints. What client has access to their attorney's bank records? This would mean that someone "inside" would have to spill the beans.

For those attorneys who are called before disciplinary boards, most are given slaps on the wrist. If an attorney has been disciplined, it is not generally public knowledge. In other words, the public is not provided with information pertaining to complaints against attorneys and results or actions based on those complaints.

Attorneys bill by the hour, and this includes the amount of time they spend on the phone and preparing correspondence. Most bankruptcy attorneys charge a flat fee that does not include additional work such as answering to the court for documents they prepared, or defending a client against an overzealous creditor or bankruptcy trustee.

Simply put, attorneys are deceiving themselves and the public. In addition to being unaffordable, public trust in attorneys is going the way of the dinosaur. Until there are unbiased committees or commissions to hear and judge complaints against attorneys, public trust will not be restored. Hence, if attorneys really want to be accountable, let them allow the public to judge complaints filed against them, rather than other attorneys.

Fully disclosed in Sheila and Willard King's mortgage documents was a $225 fee for "document preparation," an administrative charge billed by most mortgage lenders. Yet the Kings' attorney contends in a lawsuit before the Illinois Supreme Court that by charging consumers for filling out loan documents the mortgage bank, First Capital Financial Services Corp., illegally practiced law.

The case is illustrative of an intensifying turf war between the legal establishment and those who prepare legal documents but are not licensed attorneys. Consumers have much at stake in the battle.

A rapidly expanding cottage industry has emerged to help people file papers at a lower cost than lawyers charge for bankruptcy and divorce cases and other legal matters such as preparing wills.

A chain called We the People, for instance, advertises uncontested divorces for a flat fee of $399 plus court costs, considerably less than the thousands of dollars charged by lawyers.

Not surprisingly, lawyers and state bar officials have taken a dim view of the competition. They have accused We the People and similar firms of engaging in fraud and the unauthorized practice of law. Lawyers say they are trying to protect the public, but consumer advocates say objections largely stem from concerns about losing more and more revenue to non-lawyers.

"With the advent of new technologies and more widespread information, lawyers are losing some of their role as gatekeepers of the law," said Tom Gordon, senior counsel at HALT, a Washington

Gordon said that laws that define what kinds of work cannot be done without a law license vary from state to state. "Unauthorized-practice statutes are one way the organized bar tries to hold onto the monopoly they have over legal services," he said.

The controversy has drawn the attention of the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. Last year, they opposed an attempt by the American Bar Association to define the practice of law that would have prohibited non-lawyers from negotiating on behalf of others and "selecting, drafting or completing legal documents."

The government said the proposal would stifle competition and lead to higher prices for services such as real estate closings. The bar association later backed off and declared that such definitions

In Illinois, Sen. James DeLeo (D-Chicago) introduced legislation earlier this year to certify and regulate laypersons who prepare legal documents. The Illinois State Bar Association opposes the

The courts may offer guidance to state legislators. The King case, filed in 2001 in Rock Island County, attacks a widespread practice of filling in the blanks on mortgage-related forms that many would consider, in essence, clerical work.

Chicago attorney Daniel Edelman argues that the completion of mortgages, deeds and other legal instruments is the practice of law, citing a 1966 Supreme Court decision involving a real estate transaction. But First Capital said in court papers that since it was a party to the mortgage transaction, it prepared loan documents for use in its own business. It claimed that it was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, but rather was acting pro se, a Latin term meaning "on one's own behalf."

Last year, an Illinois appeals court sided with the mortgage bank, rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the $225 fee meant the bank was charging for a legal service that it was not licensed to

"The court found it relevant that the defendant had prepared the documents for its own protection in the transaction, that it had not held itself out as a legal representative or adviser, and that it had not prevented the plaintiff from seeking his own counsel to review the documents," Justice Mary McDade wrote.

Edelman appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case as part of a consolidated action involving 37 other similar suits against lenders including Washington Mutual, Citibank and Charter One Bank. The court has not set a date for oral arguments. "Once you allow laypeople to prepare these documents, all sorts of abuses can happen," Edelman said. "The average borrower does not understand the ramifications of what they are signing."

State bar officials have mixed feelings about the case. While the association agrees with the plaintiffs that banks should not be allowed to shift document preparation fees to consumers, it says lenders did not practice law illegally. The group is afraid that the high court could change its mind about mortgage closings being the practice of law and open the service up to non-lawyers, such as paralegals and real estate agents.

"This makes us very nervous," said John O'Brien, a real estate lawyer in Arlington Heights and member of the state bar's board of governors. "We have this whole practice area that all of a sudden is in play."

Courts in other states have protected the rights of non-lawyers to conduct real estate transactions. The Kentucky Supreme Court last year found that real estate closings do not require specific legal knowledge. But now the non-legal firms want to expand into other transaction-oriented legal services, such as incorporations, partnership agreements and leases. They are appealing to a potentially huge market-an estimated 38 million people a year-who claim they cannot afford to hire lawyers.

We the People started in a trailer in Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1985. Today it has 150 offices, most owned by franchisees, in 30 states, including four in the Chicago area. A consulting firm led by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is advising the company on expansion. We the People only helps customers gather information to represent themselves and does not provide legal advice, says the firm's general counsel, Jason Searns. But experts say that is a line that is difficult if not impossible to walk.

"That person is helping you answer the questions, which requires legal knowledge," said Vivien Gross, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, who teaches professional responsibility. "It's just not filling out forms."

The Illinois State Bar Association claims the company's franchise in Crystal Lake crossed the line. In a lawsuit filed in 2001 against the company and franchisee Steven Tracy, the association and a former client, Dean Manus, contend that Tracy unlawfully gave Manus legal advice. Manus had sought help for his uncontested divorce and Tracy hired a lawyer to appear in court on Manus' behalf without his knowledge. The suit is still pending, although the franchisee has since gone out of business.

He described complaints in other states as being similar to challenges faced by discount stockbroker Charles Schwab or tax preparer H&R Block when they first emerged in the market.

In some states, We the People is urging lawmakers and state bar officials to create rules for legal document preparers. So far, Arizona and California have adopted guidelines for non-lawyers who provide legal services.

Sen. DeLeo's bill would create educational requirements for people who prepare documents and gives the Illinois Supreme Court responsibility to oversee a commission that would regulate the industry.

But state bar officials said the bill would be bad public policy. "There are forces running amok who tend to trivialize what lawyers do," O'Brien said. "We think we're protecting our clients by making sure their transactions are handled by competent professionals who are accountable for the result."