Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 151

MOTION in limine Regarding Any Evidence of the Missouri Bar Failing to Discipline or Take Action Against LegalZoom filed by Timothy W. Van Ronzelen on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/19/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Van Ronzelen, Timothy)

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

Defendant.

Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING ANY EVIDENCE OF THE
MISSOURI BAR FAILING TO DISCIPLINE OR TAKE ACTION AGAINST
LEGALZOOM.COM
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence of The Missouri Bar Failing to Discipline or Take Action Against Legalzoom.com
(hereinafter “Legalzoom”), states as follows:
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Legalzoom will attempt to introduce evidence or
argue in the trial of this matter that the Missouri Bar has not taken action against Legalzoom and
has not disciplined Legalzoom. The inference Legalzoom will want to leave with the jurors is
that since the Missouri Bar may not have disciplined it for its conduct, then what they are doing
must be acceptable and legal within the state of Missouri.
Missouri law related to the unauthorized practice of law is not enforced by the Missouri
Bar, but can be enforced by any party who was charged for improper activity as defined by
Missouri statutes and common law related to the unauthorized practice of law. Therefore, the

1

Missouri Bar’s failure to initiate action or discipline against Legalzoom has no relevance to this
case. In addition, the introduction of such evidence or argument to the jury would inject a
collateral issue before the jury and could easily lead them to decide this case on an improper
basis. The Missouri Bar’s inaction in this case has nothing to do with the facts at issue or the law
that controls this case. As such, any and all evidence related to the Missouri Bar and what
actions it has taken or has not taken related to Legalzoom is irrelevant and to the extent it is
relevant its prejudicial impact clearly outweighs any probative value of this evidence.
II. Argument
“Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.” Wright
v. Ark. & Mo. R.R. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16719, *12 (8th Cir. July 29, 2009). “Evidence
is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.’” Id. at *12-13 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). “A district court is given broad discretion
to determine the relevance of evidentiary matters.” Id. at 13.
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may
be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “Confusion of the
issues warrants exclusion of relevant evidence if admission of the evidence would lead to
litigation of collateral issues.” Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995).
Rule 403 is concerned with unfair prejudice which is evidence that has an undue tendency to
suggest decision on an improper basis. Probatter Sports, LLC v. Joyner Technologies, Inc., 2007
WL 3285799 (N.D.Iowa, October 18, 2007).

2

The definition of the practice of law is ultimately a question for the judiciary. Carpenter
v. Countrtywide Home Loans, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 697, 703 (Mo. 2008). Interpretive suggestions
from the legislature even in the way of a statute criminalizing such conduct are merely in aid of
the judiciary’s definition of what is and is not permitted. Id. Accordingly, what the Missouri
Bar thinks of what is permitted or is not permitted in regards to the practice of law is not relevant
to this Court’s pronouncement of the law to which the jury will apply the facts. Similarly, any
inaction by the Missouri Bar relative to its interpretation of this law, assuming it even has an
interpretation of it, is of no relevance to the Court or the jury, as it does not amount to evidence
that the Missouri Bar approves in any way of what LegalZoom is doing.
In addition, as stated by the Missouri Supreme Court, “any person engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law has no right to collect fees, and those who have been improperly
charged these fees have the right to their return…” Id. Missouri law clearly empowers citizens
to act on their own to seek the return of their money that was improperly paid to someone
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Missouri Bar has nothing to do with the
remedies or collection of those fees. Rather, people, banding together or standing alone, have
the right to seek reimbursement of these improperly collected fees.
Since the Missouri Bar’s actions or lack of action have nothing to do with this case and
since any introduction of such evidence would unnecessarily confuse the jury, who would not
know what role the Missouri Bar has to play in this matter, Plaintiffs respectfully request this
Court issue an Order prohibiting Legalzoom from introducing any evidence or making any
argument related to actions taken or not taken by the Missouri Bar.

3

Respectfully submitted,

____/s/Timothy VanRonzelen_____________ ____
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573 659-4460
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 314-863-5711
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-6291
[e-mail]

Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 2, 2011, I served this paper upon the following via this Court’s
ECF system:

Party

Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
Christopher C. Grenz
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Ste. 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
816.374.3200, 816.374.3300 (fax)

Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

John Michael Clear
Michael Biggers
James Wyrsch
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square – Ste. 3600
211 N. Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
314.250.2000, 314.259.2020 (fax)

___/s/ Timothy VanRonzelen

5

__