Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Parsons Tech., Inc., 179 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Parsons Tech., Inc., 179 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 959 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • United States v. Amelo-Rodriguez, 324 F. App'x 390 (5th Cir. 2009).unpublished
    We need not resolve whether a misrepresentation by a federally-licensed firearms dealer regarding the legality of a defendant’s gun ownership may form the basis of an entrapment-by-estoppel defense, because the evidence did not support thi…
  • United States v. DeJesus-Mejia, No. 99-41128 (5th Cir. June 27, 2000).unpublished
    His argument that the indictment was defective because it failed to allege specific intent to commit the offense with which he is charged is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Ortegon-Uvalde, 179 F.3d 956, 959 (5th Cir.), cert.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PARSONS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Doing Business as Quicken Family Lawyer, Defendant-Appellant
99-10388.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 29, 1999.
Published opinion
179 F.3d 956
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14234
1999 WL 435871
Mark Allen Ticer, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., David John Schenck, Darrell E. Jordan, Robert Matthew Molash, Samuel Vincent Jones, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, Smith, Barksdale.
Published
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.