NLBM, a popular legal coaching company, has alleged infringement of copyright against its competitor, 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer. The accusation is based on what NLBM claims is copied course content that was subsequently resold. NLBM’s complaints centered around generic coaching content, with areas such as estate planning and pricing being highlighted as topics being unceremoniously replicated. The dispute opens up wider questions regarding the copyright bounds of legal coaching content. Furthermore, it raises concerns over whether targeting more affordable coaching programs is indeed fair, given the current financial challenges faced by many professionals within the legal sector. (Above the Law)
- An explanation of what sets your law firm apart;
- A list of topics to discuss with clients during an estate planning meeting;
- A pricing menu for family wealth plans;
- Using a whiteboard to explain estate planning concepts to clients.
The above topics are often perceived as typical guidelines for the practice of a legal expert specializing in estate planning. However, some would be surprised to learn that this information formed a key part of NLBM’s complaint asserting copyright violations against 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer, as described in their recently filed lawsuit.
NLBM maintains that the owner of 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer, who was a student in one of the NLBM programs from 2016 to 2018, copied substantial course content, including a pricing menu and a specific whiteboard technique, only to resell it as their original content.
However, there are concerns regarding NLBM’s claims. For instance, considering 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer’s last known access to the course content was back in 2018, during a time where webinar hosting was not as prevalent as it has become now, it appears improbable that NLBM’s program contained content on that very subject. As per NLBM’s allegations, webinar hosting forms a crucial part of the training offered through the 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer program.
Furthermore, items such as pricing menus, whiteboards, and client roadmaps, which are in the nature of functional direction, cannot be viewed as proprietary or inherently creative, thus raising critical questions about their eligibility for copyright protection.
This entire debacle brings us to a critical question: How much of the content provided by these coaching companies can truly be copyrighted? It’s true that every coaching organization has a distinct style and focuses on varying aspects such as building systems, marketing or work-life balance, and mental health. However, the overarching content advice on client management, professional networking, and constructing consistent work habits remains essentially similar.
The larger concern, however, is how NLBM’s litigation may inhibit competition within the sector. The lawsuit arguably sprouts from losing business to a less expensive program that still maintains a significant reputation. In an industry where many solo practitioners and smaller firms struggle financially, this attempt by NLBM to monopolize could prove detrimental.