Also known as: unauthorised practice of law · UPL
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct by a nonlawyer that constitutes the practice of law in a jurisdiction where the person is not licensed or admitted. Such conduct includes preparing legal documents, giving advice on legal remedies or procedures, and instructing clients on evidence or filing requirements. Nonlawyers may only perform mechanical tasks such as typing forms already completed by clients without guidance.
Umeko Uchida advertised services helping clients complete divorce paperwork and answered questions about required filings and evidence. She prepared the documents and explained court procedures to several customers. The state bar obtained an injunction because her activities amounted to giving legal advice and drafting court papers.
Ugo Ucelli, licensed only in New York, handled a North Dakota arbitration for Ultimate Solutions and billed over one hundred thousand dollars. The client refused payment after learning Ucelli was not admitted in North Dakota. The court denied recovery because the services constituted unauthorized practice in the state.
Usha Upton, a Virginia resident seeking a home purchase, paid a lawyer the minimum fee required by the state bar schedule. She later sued the bar claiming the schedule fixed prices in violation of federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court held that the bar's enforcement of the schedule through unauthorized-practice rules was subject to Sherman Act scrutiny.
In 1971 petitioners, husband and wife, contracted to buy a home in Fairfax County, Virginia. The financing agency required them to secure title insurance, which in turn required a title examination that only a member of the Virginia State Bar could legally perform. Petitioners contacted a lawyer who quoted them the precise fee suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by respondent Fairfax County Bar Association, amounting to one percent of the value of the property. They then sent letters to thirty-six other Fairfax County lawyers requesting their fees for the title examination. Nineteen replied, and none indicated that he would charge less than the rate fixed by the schedule. The fee schedule is a list of recommended minimum prices for common legal services. The County Bar is a purely voluntary association of attorneys with no formal power to enforce the schedule. Respondent Virginia State Bar is the administrative agency through which the Virginia Supreme Court regulates the practice of law, and membership is required to practice in the state. The State Bar published reports condoning fee schedules. It issued ethical opinions indicating that evidence an attorney habitually charges less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by his local bar association raises a presumption that such lawyer is guilty of misconduct. Because petitioners could not find a lawyer willing to charge a fee lower than the schedule dictated, they had their title examined by the lawyer they had first contacted. They then brought this class action against the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the operation of the minimum-fee schedule as applied to fees for legal services relating to residential real estate transactions constitutes price fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a trial solely on the issue of liability the district court held that the minimum-fee schedule violated the Sherman Act as to the County Bar but exempted the State Bar. The court of appeals reversed as to liability. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseUlrike Ulrich, an NAACP staff member, advised members about filing school-desegregation suits and referred them to cooperating attorneys. Virginia authorities charged the organization with unauthorized practice for soliciting clients and controlling litigation. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the association's activities from state unauthorized-practice enforcement.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View casePreparing divorce documents and advising clients on legal remedies, procedures, and filing requirements constitute unauthorized practice even without holding oneself out as a lawyer. Mechanical typing of client-completed forms is permitted, but any guidance on substance or process is not.
Supporting sources
No. Unauthorized practice statutes are construed liberally to protect the public, and a person who cannot lawfully practice in the state cannot recover fees for services rendered there.
Supporting sources
Yes when the nonlawyer gives advice on legal remedies or drafts documents that require legal judgment. Courts have enjoined such conduct and imposed civil penalties.
Supporting sources
In most states a broker may fill in factual data on standard printed forms but may not draft deeds or mortgages or give legal advice about title issues.
Footnotes : Unauthorized Practice of Law, Opinion No. 17, Aug. 5, 1942, Virginia State Bar — Opinions 239 (1965). : Virginia Code Ann. § 54-49 (1972) provides: “The Supreme Court of Appeals may, from time to time,…