1. Why was the court not persuaded by the legal assistant’s argument that, because an attorney had reviewed and approved all of the information in the public seminar, there should not be a problem regarding the unauthorized practice of law?

2. The legal assistant seemed to argue that, in reality, he or she would be performing a good deed by educating the public on topics such as wills, trusts, and living trusts. Why was the court not persuaded by this argument?

3. If an attorney had been at the seminar, and the legal assistant and attorney had jointly conducted the seminar, would the court have arrived at the same conclusion? Why?

4. Did the content of the seminar play a part in the court’s decision? Why or why not?

5. The legal assistant seemed to make the argument that, because other professionals such as financial planners were giving such advice, the legal assistant should be able to as well. Was the decision to create a different standard for legal assistants versus other professionals fair and consistent?

6. Read Footnote 2. How does the content of that footnote impact the rest of the decision? Why were the court’s conclusions in Footnote 2 important to the case as a whole?