Point: Shootout Between Lawyers and Consultants

For lawyers and accountants, it is easier to define these zones. If your license permits you to engage in the practice, then so be it, regardless of your experience level. For consultants, the task is more difficult. What is the definition of a consultant? Who decides whether a self-professed consultant possesses the basic level of competency to engage in consulting services? To whom is the consultant accountable if he or she makes a mistake? And by what standards will his/her performance be measured should a transaction go bad? While all these questions are relevant for all types of consultants, they are particularly applicable for those specializing in the field of franchising.

Until recently, franchise consultants have been slipping noticeably, but silently, into areas many would view as reserved for licensed attorneys. In particular, I am referring to the preparation of franchise agreements and disclosure statements. Franchise consultants have been preparing these for years, and until recently no one has challenged their license to do so. However, a recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois, Franchise Corp., Inc. v. Siebert (Francorp, Inc. v. Mark Siebert, 2/1 F.Supp. 2d 1051) has brought to center court the question of what constitutes the practice of law in a franchising context.