Carter v. Trevathan

• Decision Date: 30 November 1956
• Citation: 309 S.W.2d 746
• Parties: Nolan CARTER, Chairman, Kentucky State Bar Association's Committee on Unauthorized Practice, Complainant, v. B. L. TREVATHAN, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 746

309 S.W.2d 746

Nolan CARTER, Chairman, Kentucky State Bar Association's Committee on Unauthorized Practice, Complainant, v. B. L. TREVATHAN, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 30, 1956.

As Modified Feb. 14, 1958.

R. P. Moloney, Jr., Lexington, for complainant.

W. L. Prince, Prince & Prince, Benton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding is on a petition filed in this court by Nolan Carter, Chairman of the Committee of the State Bar Association on Unauthorized Practice of Law, against B. L. Trevathan, President of the Bank of Marshall County, who is not a lawyer, charging him with the unauthorized practice of law under RCA 3.020 in that he wrote four deeds for various persons set out in the petition the Bar Association filed against him. A rule was issued by the clerk of this court against Trevathan under RCA 3.530 to show cause, if any he could, why he should not be punished for contempt of this court for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Trevathan's response to the rule issued against him is in the form of an affidavit which states he made no charges for writing the deeds; he acted in good faith and had no intention to, and did not, engage in the practice of law, and would not have prepared these deeds had he known there were any objections to his writing them. In drawing the deeds he was acting for his bank which had a pecuniary interest in the transactions, in that it had furnished the money involved in them.

There is a 'joint motion' signed by Trevathan's attorney and the attorney representing the Bar Association asking that respondent be held in contempt of this court and fined $1 and court cost, but asking that he be not required to pay the expense incurred by the Bar Association in investigating the charges against him, since he acted in good faith not believing he was engaging in the practice of law. But the attorney representing the Bar Association did not join in and resists that part of the motion asking that respondent not be required to pay the expense the Bar Association incurred in investigating the charges against him.

The Bar Association does not question the good faith of Trevathan in writing the deeds about which it is now complaining, but insists the issue is whether he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in writing them, and as Trevathan admits he is technically guilty and offers to accept a fine of $1 and to pay the cost in this court, he also should be required to pay the expense incurred by the Association in its investigation of the matter.

In the enactment of our Integrated Bar Act, the Legislature authorized this court to make rules governing the practice of law in this State, as well as governing the State Bar. Subsection 2 of KRS 30.170 reads: 'The rules of court adopted and promulgated under this section shall supersede all laws or parts of laws in conflict therewith, to the extent of the conflict.' In Com. ex rel. Ward v. Harrington, 266 Ky. 41, 98 S.W.2d 53, we upheld the constitutionality of the Intergrated Bar Act and said this court possesses inherent power to make the rules and regulations set forth therein. And in Hobson v. Kentucky Trust Company of Louisville, 303 Ky. 493, 197 S.W.2d 454, 457, we approved what was written in the Ward opinion.

Our rule, RCA 3.020, defining the practice of law reads:

"The practice of law' is any service rendered involving legal knowledge or legal advice, whether of representation, counsel, advocacy in or out of court, rendered in respect to the rights, duties, obligations, liabilities, or business relations of one...