Paul v. Stanley, 23739.
| Citation | 168 Wash. 371,12 P.2d 401 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23739. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | PAUL et al. v. STANLEY. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; H. E. McKenney, Judge.
Suit by Charles H. Paul and another against Sager Stanley. From that portion of the decree providing that the decree of injunction shall be without prejudice to defendant's right to draw certain simple contracts, plaintiffs appeal, and from that portion of the decree enjoining defendant from preparing certain instruments for others, defendant appeals.
Remanded with instructions.
O. B Thorgrimson, Howard A. Adams, and Charles Horowitz, all of Seattle, for appellants.
William Hatch Davis, of Spokane, for respondent.
F. L Stotler, of Colfax, Tim Healy, of Bellingham, E. L. Casey, of Walla Walla, W. B. Chandler, of Spokane, L. R. Bonneville, of Tacoma, and Frank P. Helsell, of Seattle, amici curiae.
Plaintiffs Charles H. Paul and Cecil C. Hallin, who are duly licensed lawyers engaged in the practice of their profession in Cowlitz county, Wash., have instituted this suit on behalf of the attorneys practicing law in Cowlitz county, the people and the courts of the state of Washington. The purpose of the suit is to enjoin the defendant from practicing law without a license.
When the case came on for trial in the superior court, the defendant appeared in his own behalf, unassisted by any lawyer. He was called as an adverse witness, and, among other things, testified to the following: That he was a resident of Woodland, Cowlitz county, Wash.; that he was a notary public and a licensed and bonded real estate agent and broker; that he had been engaged in business in Cowlitz county since 1923 and intended to continue carrying on his business; that he had drawn various instruments for compensation, claiming the right so to do, and stating it was his intention to continue. In the course of his business, he had prepared community property agreements for compensation, usually by filling in printed blank forms from information given by the client. In connection with the preparation of such instruments, he has advised clients that, upon the death of one of the parties to the agreement, the property would accrue to the other without the necessity of probating the estate. He had drawn wills for compensation, and had been paid for drawing many warranty and quitclaim deeds. If the clients did not know what kind of a deed they wanted, he advised them of the different kinds. The defendant prepared claims of lien for others, and gave advice as to the place and time they should be filed, and upon whom and when they should be served. He also drew conditional sales contracts, informing clients under what conditions the property was being sold and the respective rights of the parties. He advised clients of the necessity, time, and place of filing chattel mortgages and conditional sales contracts. He drew other contracts for compensation. The defendant was undecided at the time of the trial whether he had the right to draw articles of incorporation, but he testified that if, after thinking about the matter, he thought he had the right to draw such articles, and they were not too complicated, and he could draw them properly, he would do it for compensation. He further testified that he gave legal advice for nothing, and expected to continue so to do.
The defendant testified that he had slides shown on the screen by a local moving picture house, on which advertisement the words 'legal documents' appeared. He also by word of mouth informed others about his business. He had prepared creditors' claims in probate proceedings, advising clients where and when these should be filed and served. He expressed his intention of continuing to prepare such claims and to make a charge therefor. He testified he was not admitted to the bar.
The trial court entered a decree which, omitting the title, preliminary recitals, award of costs, statement of the date, and place of signing and signature of the judge, was as follows:
'It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant be and hereby is enjoined from practicing as an attorney or counsellor at law, and/or doing work of a legal nature for compensation for others, and/or representing himself as qualified to do work of a legal nature, and/or from advertising that he is competent to draw legal documents and/or to give advice concerning the legal rights of persons, and/or directly or indirectly, by making a practice of giving legal advice free of charge or otherwise, soliciting business of a legal nature.
'In particular, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant be and hereby is enjoined from preparing papers, pleadings and documents for others connected with proceedings pending or prospective Before a justice court or superior court of this state; from advising and counselling persons as to their legal rights, whether in connection with the drawing of legal instruments, documents and papers relating to the legal rights of persons, or otherwise; from preparing or drawing for others, for reward, present or prospective, or without reward or consideration, deeds, mortgages, leases, agreements, contracts, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, wills, notes, conditional sales contracts, relating to either real or personal property, options, powers of attorney, community property agreements, liens, bonds, mortgage assignments, mortgage releases, chattel mortgage satisfactions, creditors claims in probate, notice to vacate premises, notices to quit or pay rent, vendors statements of creditors under the bulk sales law, articles of incorporation, and any other documents requiring the use of knowledge of law in their preparation.
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this injunction shall become inoperative and of no force and effect when and if the defendant shall become duly admitted to practice law in this state, as authorized by its laws.
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this decree however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant, so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia State Bar v. Earley
...Antonio Public Service Company, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088; Commonwealth v. Jones and Robins, 186 Va. 30, 41 S.E.2d 720; Paul v. Stanley, 168 Wash. 371, 12 P.2d 401; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at law, Section By statute it is a misdemeanor for any natural person to practice law in this State wi......
-
Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb
...simple instruments and the drafting of complex ones. People v. Lawyers Title Corp., 282 N.Y. 513, 521, 27 N.E.2d 30;Paul v. Stanley, 168 Wash. 371, 377, 378, 12 P.2d 401. But though the difference is one of degree, it may nevertheless be real. Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 168, 45 S.Ct. 475......
-
Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb
...the drafting of simple instruments and the drafting of complex ones. People v. Lawyers Title Corp. 282 N.Y. 513, 521. Paul v. Stanley, 168 Wash. 371, 377, 378. though the difference is one of degree, it may nevertheless be real. Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 168. Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. ......
-
N.H. Bd. of Registration in Optometry v. Scott Jewelry Co.
...showing equitable grounds, it is suggested that a licensed practitioner may enjoin practice by one without a license. Or Paul v. Stanley, 168 Wash. 371, 12 P.2d 401, which seems to hold that all the plaintiff need show is his "franchise". Or Neill v. Gimbel Brothers Inc., 330 Pa. 213, 199 A......