DOCSLIB.ORG

Unauthorized Practice of Law Matrix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unauthorized Practice of Law Matrix Unauthorized Practice of Law Matrix Revised 2017 Toll Free: (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 Direct: (703) 312-7922 Fax: (703) 312-7966 Email: [email protected] Web: www.fullfaithandcredit.org This document is for informational purposes only. Nothing contained in this document is intended as legal advice to any person or entity. Statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. This project is supported by Grant No. 2016-TA-AX-K052 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE: For your convenience, hyperlinks are located on each state name in this Table of Contents. For faster access, please select the name of the state you would like to view. AMERICAN SAMOA ............................................................................ 3 MONTANA ........................................................................................ 40 ALABAMA ........................................................................................... 3 NEBRASKA ........................................................................................ 40 ALASKA ............................................................................................... 3 NEVADA ............................................................................................ 40 ARIZONA ............................................................................................. 4 NEW HAMPSHIRE ............................................................................. 41 ARKANSAS .......................................................................................... 8 NEW JERSEY ..................................................................................... 42 CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................ 9 NEW MEXICO ................................................................................... 42 COLORADO ......................................................................................... 9 NEW YORK ........................................................................................ 42 CONNECTICUT .................................................................................... 9 NORTH CAROLINA ............................................................................ 43 DELAWARE ....................................................................................... 10 NORTH DAKOTA ............................................................................... 44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ................................................................... 11 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ....................................................... 46 FLORIDA ........................................................................................... 18 OHIO ................................................................................................. 46 GEORGIA .......................................................................................... 19 OKLAHOMA ...................................................................................... 48 GUAM ............................................................................................... 20 OREGON ........................................................................................... 48 HAWAII ............................................................................................. 20 PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................................ 50 IDAHO ............................................................................................... 20 PUERTO RICO ................................................................................... 51 ILLINOIS ............................................................................................ 20 RHODE ISLAND ................................................................................. 51 INDIANA ........................................................................................... 21 SOUTH CAROLINA ............................................................................ 52 IOWA ................................................................................................ 22 SOUTH DAKOTA ............................................................................... 53 KANSAS............................................................................................. 23 TENNESSEE ....................................................................................... 56 KENTUCKY ........................................................................................ 26 TEXAS ............................................................................................... 57 LOUISIANA........................................................................................ 27 UTAH ................................................................................................ 58 MAINE .............................................................................................. 29 VERMONT ......................................................................................... 59 MARYLAND ....................................................................................... 31 VIRGIN ISLANDS ............................................................................... 60 MASSACHUSETTS ............................................................................. 31 VIRGINIA ........................................................................................... 60 MICHIGAN ........................................................................................ 32 WASHINGTON .................................................................................. 62 MINNESOTA ..................................................................................... 33 WEST VIRGINIA................................................................................. 64 MISSISSIPPI ....................................................................................... 36 WISCONSIN ...................................................................................... 65 MISSOURI ......................................................................................... 37 WYOMING ........................................................................................ 66 State statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. If you have a correction or update, please contact us National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 2 STATE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW AMERICAN SAMOA A.S.C.A. § 31.0104 Unauthorized Practice of Law-Penalty (a) It is unlawful for any person, association, firm or corporation to engage in or attempt to engage in the practice of law, or to do, attempt to do or offer to do any act constituting the practice of law, except to the extent such person, firm or association is licensed or authorized by the Chief Justice. Nothing in this section authorizes licensing of a corporation to practice law. (b) A person, association, firm or corporation who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. ALABAMA Ala. Code § 34-3-6 Authority to Practice Law -- "Practice of Law" Defined (a) Only such persons as are regularly licensed have authority to practice law. (b) For the purposes of this chapter, the practice of law is defined as follows: Whoever, (1) In a representative capacity appears as an advocate or draws papers, pleadings, or documents, or performs any act in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before a court or a body, board, committee, commission, or officer constituted by law or having authority to take evidence in or settle or determine controversies in the exercise of the judicial power of the state or any subdivision thereof; or (2) For a consideration, reward, or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect, advises or counsels another as to secular law, or draws or procures or assists in the drawing of a paper, document, or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights; or (3) For a consideration, reward, or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect, does any act in a representative capacity in behalf of another tending to obtain or secure for such other the prevention or the redress of a wrong or the enforcement or establishment of a right; or (4) As a vocation, enforces, secures, settles, adjusts, or compromises defaulted, controverted, or disputed accounts, claims or demands between persons with neither of whom he or she is in privity or in the relation of employer and employee in the ordinary sense;is practicing law. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person, firm, or corporation from attending to and caring for his, her, or its own business, claims, or demands, nor from preparing abstracts of title, certifying, guaranteeing, or insuring titles to property, real or personal, or an interest therein, or a lien or encumbrance thereon, but any such person, firm, or corporation engaged in preparing abstracts of title, certifying, guaranteeing, or insuring titles to real or personal property are prohibited from preparing or drawing or procuring or assisting in the drawing or preparation of deeds, conveyances, mortgages, and any paper, document, or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JUDICIAL GLOBALIZATION Justice Artemio V. Panganiban I Congratulate the Philippine Judicial Academy
    JUDICIAL GLOBALIZATION1 by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban I congratulate the Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja) -- led by its eminent chancellor, Madame Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera -- for spearheading the First Australasia Judicial Educators Forum (AJEC). This gathering provides judicial educators from 21 countries a venue for exchanging views and experiences. Paradigm Shifts in Law and Legal Philosophy The topic assigned to me this morning is “Paradigm Shifts in Law and Changing Philosophical Perspectives.” This assignment requires a study of how the gigantic strides in other fields of 1 Lecture delivered by Supreme Court Justice Artemio V. Panganiban before the First Australasia Judicial Educators Forum (AJEF) on February 14, 2003 at the New World Renaissance Hotel, Makati City. 2 human knowledge have affected and continue to affect law in general and judicial doctrines in particular. In turn, I believe that the major transformational shifts in the world have been brought about mainly by the informational and technological revolution unfolding even now as I speak. I refer to computerization, minuterization, digitization, satellite communications, fiber optics and the Internet – all of which, taken together, tend to integrate knowledge on a worldwide scale. This international integration of knowledge, technologies and systems is referred to as globalization. According to Thomas L. Friedman in his current best seller, The Lexus and the Olive Tree,2 “[t]he challenge in this era of globalization—for countries and individuals—is to find a healthy balance between preserving a sense of identity, home and community, and doing what it takes to survive within the globalization system.” Otherwise stated, the need of the hour is to balance national interest with international survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Multijurisdictional Practice of Law
    RULE 4-5.5 UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW (a) Practice of Law. A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction other than the lawyer’s home state, in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in the lawyer’s home state or assist another in doing so. (b) Establishing an Office and Holding Out as Lawyer Prohibited Conduct. A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Florida shall not: (1) except as authorized by other law, establish an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law; or (2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in Florida. ; or (3) appear in court, before an administrative agency, or before any other tribunal unless authorized to do so by the court, administrative agency, or tribunal pursuant to the applicable rules of the court, administrative agency, or tribunal. (c) Authorized Temporary Practice by Lawyer Admitted in Another United States Jurisdiction. A lawyer admitted and authorized to practice law in another United States jurisdiction who has been neither disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, nor disciplined or held in contempt in Florida by reason of misconduct committed while engaged in the practice of law permitted pursuant to this rule, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in Florida that: (1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in Florida and who actively
    [Show full text]
  • Policing the Self-Help Legal Market: Consumer Protection Or Protection of the Legal Cartel?
    POLICING THE SELF-HELP LEGAL MARKET: CONSUMER PROTECTION OR PROTECTION OF THE LEGAL CARTEL? JULEE C. FISCHER* INTRODUCTION The emergence of information technology in the legal field is spearheading new approaches to the practice of law, but the legal community is questioning whether the new technology may be a double-edged sword. The Information Revolution is reshaping traditional lawyer functions, forcing innovations in everything from research and document management to marketing and client communications. Yet, just as technology drives change inside law firms, consumers too are seizing the knowledge that is increasingly at their fingertips. The market is flourishing for self-help legal counsel. An increasing array of Internet Web sites often dispense legal advice and information free of charge. This advice ranges from estate planning and contract issues to custody battles and torts. Further, the legal industry is witness to the advent of do-it-yourself legal software packages marketed directly to consumers. Innovative? Yes. Easier? Certainly. But to what extent is this a blessing or a curse, both to lawyers and consumers?1 Self-help law can be defined as “any activity by a person in pursuit of a legal goal or the completion of a legal task that [does not] involve legal advice or representation by a lawyer.”2 Consumers participating in the self-help market are typically driven by factors such as relative cost, self-reliance, necessity, and distrust of lawyers.3 Clearly, such products offer the public up-front benefits of convenience and availability. Nevertheless, larger issues arise concerning who is responsible for the advice and whether it is dispensed by lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consumer Protection Function of Unauthorized Practice Regulation
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 1 12-15-1984 Guiding the Invisible Hand: The Consumer Protection Function of Unauthorized Practice Regulation Elizabeth Michelman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth Michelman Guiding the Invisible Hand: The Consumer Protection Function of Unauthorized Practice Regulation, 12 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 1 (1985) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol12/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Guiding the Invisible Hand: The Consumer Protection Function of Unauthorized Practice Regulation ELIZABETH MICHELMAN*t Today's regulation of the unauthorized practice of law must be justified to both the legal profession and the public at large. This article attempts to examine some of the important issues facing UPL regulation. It begins by postulating that, although the courts probably have the most legitimate au- thority to control UPL, they should be careful to exercise this power in the public interest. It examines the role of the market in delivering legal serv- ices and argues that a free market system cannot adequately ensure legal competence. Some alternative regulatory structures better equipped to guarantee quality are explored. Finally, the article comments on several emerging areas of lay involvement in providing legal service, cautioning that care should be taken to balance consumer needs with consumer pro- tection.
    [Show full text]
  • U:\Judgehovland\Law Clerks\Civil\Motions to Dismiss\Wilkinson V. Sbtwpd.Wpd
    Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Peak North Dakota, LLC, a Colorado ) limited liability company; Peak Energy ) Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, Jack Vaughn, Alex ) McLean, and Matt Gray, ) ORDER ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:08-cv-087 ) Wilbur Wilkinson, Standing Bear ) Traders, LLC, a North Dakota limited ) liability company, and the Three Affiliated ) Tribes, Fort Berthold District Court, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________________ ) Wilbur Wilkinson, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) a North Dakota limited liability company, ) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor and ) Richard Howell, individually and ) d/b/a Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendants. ) Before the Court is Standing Bear Traders, LLC (SBT) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor’s (Taylor) “Motion to Dismiss Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint or, Alternatively, to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction Over Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint” filed on January 15, 2010. See Docket No. 83. Third-Party Plaintiff Wilbur Wilkinson (Wilkinson) filed a response in opposition 1 Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 12 to the motion on March 10, 2010. See Docket No. 106. Taylor and SBT filed a reply brief on March 24, 2010. See Docket No. 108. Taylor and SBT filed a supplemental appendix on March 26, 2010. See Docket No. 111. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Peak North Dakota, LLC (Peak North) is a limited liability company organized under Colorado law and authorized to do business as a foreign limited liability company in North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 18 to 20 Rules Governing the Practice of Law
    RULE CHANGE 2016(06) Chapters 18 to 20 Rules Governing the Practice of Law Preamble to Chapters 18 to 20 The Colorado Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law in Colorado. The Court appoints an Advisory Committee, Attorney Regulation Counsel, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Executive Director of the Colorado Lawyers Assistance Program (COLAP) and Director of the Colorado Attorney Mentoring Program (CAMP) to assist the Court. The Court also appoints numerous volunteer citizens to permanent regulatory committees and boards to assist in regulating the practice of law. The legal profession serves clients, courts and the public, and has special responsibilities for the quality of justice administered in our legal system. The Court establishes essential eligibility requirements, rules of professional conduct and other rules for the legal profession. Legal service providers must be regulated in the public interest. In regulating the practice of law in Colorado in the public interest, the Court’s objectives include: 1. Increasing public understanding of and confidence in the rule of law, the administration of justice and each individual’s legal rights and duties; 2. Ensuring compliance with essential eligibility requirements, rules of professional conduct and other rules in a manner that is fair, efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate; 3. Enhancing client protection and promoting consumer confidence through Attorney Regulation Counsel, the Attorneys Fund for Client Protection, inventory counsel services, the regulation of non-lawyers engaged in providing legal services, and other proactive programs; 4. Assisting providers of legal services in maintaining competence and professionalism through continuing legal education; Attorney Regulation Counsel professionalism, ethics and trust account schools; and other proactive programs; 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________________ JEFFREY ALAN OLSON, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent. _______________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania _______________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________________ DAVID T. LEAKE AMIR H. ALI Counsel of Record MEGHA RAM* LAW OFFICE OF DAVID T. RODERICK & SOLANGE LEAKE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 130 West Main Street 777 6th Street NW, 11th Fl. Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 869-3434 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner *Admitted only in California; not admitted in D.C. Practicing under the supervision of the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether this Court’s holding that states may not “impose criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to” a warrantless blood draw, Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2185 (2016), is substantive and there- fore applies retroactively. (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) Question Presented .............................................................. i Table of Authorities ............................................................ iii Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari ....................................... 1 Opinions Below .................................................................... 1 Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 1 Statutory And Constitutional Provisions Involved...........
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Annual Report
    THE 2010 CORONA COURT (Standing, Left to Right) Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Jose Portugal Perez, (Seated, Left to Right) Conchita Carpio Morales, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Maria Lourdes Aranal Sereno, and Jose Catral Mendoza. 1 ANNUAL REPORT 2010 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2010| SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2010 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES The 2010 CORONA COURT i Message from CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA 5 2010: PASSING THE TORCH 8 JUSTICES of the Supreme Court 13 Highlights of the CY 2012 SPLC BUDGET PROPOSAL 32 The STATE OF THE 2010 JUDICIARY 37 2010 Supreme Court REFORM PROJECTS 42 OFFICIALS of the Supreme Court 45 ATTACHED INSTITUTIONS 56 2010 SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS 59 2010SIGNIFICANT RULES, Guidelines, 67 Circulars, and Orders SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS of SC COMMITTEES 70 and Technical Working Groups SIGNIFICANT FORA, Conferences, 73 Seminars, and Workshops 2009 SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS 78 EMPLOYEE WELFARE AND BENEFITS 84 The Philippine JUDICIAL SYSTEM 87 4 ANNUAL REPORT 2010| SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES A first-rate Judiciary. This is something that should be in everyone’s wish list for our country. I say this not just as head of the Judiciary but also as Renato C. Corona, a Filipino citizen. The reason is simple: For the social and economic development of our country to be deep and lasting, the same must be underpinned by the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Annual Report
    The Panganiban Court Seated from left: Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Standing from left: Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. The Puno Court Seated from left: Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and Justice Renato C. Corona Standing from left: Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (appointed on January 31, 2007), Justice Minita V, Chico-Nazario, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (retired on April 28, 2007), Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Not in photo is Justice Ruben T. Reyes, who was appointed to the Supreme Court on August 2, 2007. SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2006 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2006 | This is a publication of the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Prior permission is not required to reproduce its contents, in whole or in part. An electronic copy of this publication may be downloaded from www.supremecourt.gov.ph. Pursuant to Article VIII, §SUPREME 16 of the COURT 1987 | ANNU Constitution,AL REPORT 2006 | requiring the Supreme Court to submit an annual report on the operation and activities of the Judiciary within 30 days from the opening of each regular session of Congress, we are now publishing the 2006 Supreme Court Annual Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Practice of Law Wesley Kuswa
    Marquette Law Review Volume 15 Article 5 Issue 2 February 1931 Corporate Practice of Law Wesley Kuswa Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Wesley Kuswa, Corporate Practice of Law, 15 Marq. L. Rev. 116 (1931). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol15/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENT Corporate Practice of Law. An interesting question, and one of practical importance, is that of corporate practice of law. It is well settled, at least outside of Wiscon- sin, (no case having thus far been decided in Wisconsin) that a corpo- ration may not practice law; and almost, if not equally well settled what constitutes such practice. In re Otterness (---- Minn ----- 232 N.W. 318) clearly shows the attitude of the courts toward corporations that attempt to practice law. In this recent case the defendant, a licensed attorney, was employed by a banking corporation as vice presi- dent, at a certain salary; and by the terms of the employment contract, the defendant was to practice law as he had before, in addition to per- forming his other duties at the bank. It was further agreed that all attorney's fees earned by him should be turned over to the bank, as income of the bank, and to become its property.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Unlicensed Practice of Law Cases
    SUMMARY OF UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW CASES In order to determine whether an activity constitutes the unlicensed practice of law, a two part analysis must be made. First, it must be determined whether the activity is the practice of law. The second question is whether the practice is authorized. If an activity is the practice of law but the activity is authorized, the activity is not the unlicensed practice of law and may be engaged in by a nonlawyer. The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980). The first question which must be addressed in order to determine whether a service or activity constitutes the unlicensed practice of law is to determine whether the activity constitutes the practice of law. In The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962), judg. vacated on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) the Court found that setting forth a broad definition of the practice of law was "nigh onto impossible" and instead developed the following test to determine whether an activity is the practice of law: . .if the giving of [the] advice and performance of [the] services affect important rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law in the Us
    UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE U.S.: A SURVEY AND BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE LAW by Victor D. López I. INTRODUCTION The practice of law is limited in the United States in every jurisdiction to attorneys who are admitted to practice and are in good standing with the stated bar. To date, attacks on the validity of the general prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) by individuals found guilty of unauthorized practice have been found to be without merit.1 “The purpose of prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law is to protect the public from incompetence in the preparation of legal documents and prevent harm resulting from inaccurate legal advice.”2 It is doubtless true as one court noted that the “amateur at law is as dangerous to the community as an amateur surgeon would be.”3 Some critics, however, observe that the prohibition against UPL has more to do with protecting the profession from competition than with protecting the public.4 The same holds true for other professions that require licensure. The medical profession is an obvious example. But we do not generally consider it a criminal offense for an unlicensed person to give an aspirin to a friend with a headache, or treat a child’s scraped knee with an over the counter antibiotic cream and a band aid. When it comes to the practice of law, however, the general rule is zero tolerance for every instance that qualifies as unauthorized practice, including the giving of advice to a friend free of charge (even if the advice is accurate and no harm is done).
    [Show full text]