Bar files amended complaint to halt LegalMatch services

The State Bar continues to go after the online client-lawyer linking service LegalMatch. The bar is seeking an injunction and penalty a week after sending a letter denying the company's application to register as a lawyer referral service.

According to the recent complaint, LegalMatch has continued to operate despite the bar's demands it cease until its application is approved.

The first amended complaint was filed June 30. The original complaint was filed May 4.

In an email, the bar said LegalMatch's application contained significant deficiencies, such as lack of malpractice insurance for attorneys it links up with clients. The bar also said the website doesn't ensure that attorneys using the site are qualified to provide legal services to the public.

Commenting on the most recent complaint, Donna Hershkowitz, the bar's interim executive director, said the law requires the agency to ensure minimum standards for lawyer referral services to protect the public.

"The State Bar's actions against LegalMatch are entirely consistent with our overall mission, which includes furthering access to justice as part and parcel of public protection," Hershkowitz said. "Every initiative we have undertaken with regard to broadening access to legal services, whether through advances in legal technology or policy changes, acknowledges that we must always meet and balance the dual goals of public protection and access. Access without adequate consumer protection is not access."

In a ruling last year the 1st District Court of Appeal deemed LegalMatch to be a lawyer referral service, rather than an advertiser, requiring that it register with the bar under California Business and Professions Code Section 6155. Jackson v. LegalMatch.com, 2019 DJDAR 11045, (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Nov. 26, 2019).

Heather L. Rosing, chief financial officer and shareholder at Klinedinst PC, commented in an email that the recent complaint demonstrates the bar is serious about making sure that lawyer referral services are compliant with minimum standards.

"The denial of the LegalMatch application, as well as the complaint, give LegalMatch a roadmap to ultimately being successful in its attempts at registration," Rosing said. "I do not view this as the State Bar seeking to shut down LegalMatch, but, rather, in light of the Jackson decision, a concrete step to ensuring public protection. All organizations that fall within the definition of lawyer referral services will want to watch the evolution of this case very closely."

The bar sued the company in May, seeking an emergency injunction until LegalMatch had been certified.

Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman in San Francisco denied the motion, saying the bar's counsel had misled the court by not revealing the agency had an application pending on which it had not acted. The State Bar of California v. LegalMatch.com, CGC-20-584278, (San Francisco Super. Ct., May 4, 2020). The bar then processed and denied the application.

The bar's recent complaint says LegalMatch's operation is illegal and "has harmed and will continue to irreparably harm the citizens of the State of California, for which they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law."

After the bar had informed LegalMatch its application was denied on June 23, some attorneys criticized the decision. Kendra L. Basner, partner at O'Rielly & Roche LLP said then that no consumer harm had ever been cited.

"Without a compelling consumer protection rationale these efforts look like nothing more than resistance to change and competition, which contradicts the bar's other efforts being made to supposedly improve access to justice through considering rule changes and implementing a regulatory sandbox," Basner commented before the bar submitted its amended complaint.

LegalMatch did not respond to a request for comment by press time.