Me: This form has to be signed and notarized, this form has to be witnessed.
Client: Why the difference?
Me: It's in the statute.
Client: Why does this form look different?
Me: Because the statute requires it but neither the statute nor the court has set a standard format.

Client: That's dumb.
Me: It certainly is.
Client: Why doesn't somebody just put up a good example?
Me: Because that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
Client: Really?
Me: Yes. It took me HOURS of research to create this simple one page form. And it only works...

Me: ... if you make some small but crucial adjustments that are fact-dependent.
Client: How are people supposed to know this stuff if they can't afford a lawyer?
Me: I have no idea. The legal aid people can't publish a form for people doing it, either.
Client: Why?

Me: Because that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
Client: Why???
Me: Because it looks like a simple form and it is but *knowing when to use it* is actually kind of complicated, and if they tell people, "here, use this form," that's legal advice.

Client: What?
Me: If I tell you to use a form, and it's the wrong form, and your case gets messed up, that's legal malpractice even if you fill the form out correctly. You can sue me. And this is very persnickety. The legal aid people want to help but it's too uncertain.

This story brought to you by the "Why Don't They Just Put The Forms Online Or Even Have Bots Fill Them In For You" Legal Research Institute.

Note: the statute does not in fact say that the form has to be witnessed. It says that if it has the same verification as *another* kind of form, then it is prima facie (EEP!) valid. You have to know how THAT kind of form works to know how this one works.

*In this particular case,* the form needs to be witnessed because that is how the other form is verified *in most cases* and are you starting to see how fast this gets complicated?