Opinion ID: 2823810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evolution of the Legal Services Exemption

Text: Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â In the original DMSA, the General Assembly exempted from the Actâs regulatory scope â[l]egal services provided in an attorneyâclient relationship by an attorneylicensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.â Â§ 12-14.5-202(10)(A), C.R.S. (2008). Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â When the legislature amended the DMSA in 2011, it narrowed the legal services exemption in two ways. First, it deleted the phrase âor otherwise authorized.â An attorney must now be licensed in Colorado to claim the legal services exemption: âDebt-management servicesâ means services as an intermediary between an individual and one or more creditors of the individual for the purpose of obtaining concessions, but does not include: (i) Legal services provided in an attorneyâclient relationship by an attorney licensed to practice law in this state . . . . Â§ 12-14.5-202(10)(A)(i), C.R.S. (2011). Second, the General Assembly added a provision to limit the legal services exemption to employees of the licensed attorney: The exemptions in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (10) do not apply to any person who directly or indirectly provides any debt management services on behalf of a licensed attorney . . . if that person is not an employee of the licensed attorney . . . . Â§ 12-14.5-202(10)(B), C.R.S. (2011) (emphasis added). Both changes remain. See Â§ 12-14.5-202(10)(A)(i), (B), C.R.S. (2014). 2 Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â With this context in mind, we consider the language of the legal services exemption, as originally drafted, and assess whether Morgan Drexen, a company of nonlawyers that contracts with lawyers to provide legal software and âsupportâ for debt-management services, is exempt from regulation.