State ex rel. Schneider v. Hill, 49238

• Decision Date: 21 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 49238,49238
• Citation: 573 P.2d 1078,223 Kan. 425
• Parties: STATE of Kansas ex rel. Curt T. SCHNEIDER, Attorney General, Appellant, v. Jerry HILL d/b/a Econo Divorce Service, Inc., Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1078

573 P.2d 1078

223 Kan. 425

STATE of Kansas ex rel. Curt T. SCHNEIDER, Attorney General, Appellant, v. Jerry HILL d/b/a Econo Divorce Service, Inc., Appellee.

No. 49238.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 21, 1978.

Philip A. Harley, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen. and Daniel L. Watkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief for the appellant.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Topeka, argued the cause, and John Valentine Wachtel IV, Topeka, was with him on the brief for appellee.

Donald E. Lambdin, Lambdin, Kluge & Moshier, Chartered, Wichita, was on the brief amicus curiae for the Wichita Bar Association.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the State of Kansas from a judgment entered by the district court of Shawnee County, determining that the defendant, Jerry Hill, is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and denying injunctive relief.

The district court's order, omitting formal portions, is as follows:

"The action is brought by the state, on the relation of the Attorney General, against the defendant seeking a declaratory judgment determining that the defendant is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and an injunction against the defendant prohibiting him from doing certain acts in conjunction therewith.

"The facts are not really disputed and may be summarized as follows. The defendant, under a type of franchise arrangement, buys kits for resale purporting to contain all forms needed for the filing and obtaining of a divorce in Kansas, sample forms filled out, and instructions, both written and via tape recording on the use of the kit. Defendant then advertises said kits and sells same at a mark-up. He sells them for $48.00. He has not represented himself to be an attorney and has advised at least some customers that he was not. The tape is played by the defendant to customers to answer their questions and 'sell' them on the kit. Defendant did not participate in the preparation of the kit. The forms or samples are not tailor made for any customer and the customer has the responsibility for completing same. A refund is to be paid if a divorce is not granted due to insufficiencies of the kit. The tape contains a direct 'sales pitch' and encourages people to buy the same and avoid 'high legal fees' of $350.00 to $500.00.

"The court must note that there is little doubt but that many people can get into a great deal of difficulty with a do-it-yourself divorce. This is true of do-it-yourself electricians, home remodelers, plumbers, auto mechanics, health treatments, etc. The kit in question does not even contain the temporary support, custody, alimony, etc. forms which are the only acceptable forms for same in this Judicial District. Tax consequences of a divorce and many other areas are not adequately dealt with by the kit. However, whether the kit is well-prepared, adequate for purpose intended, or 'worth the money' are not issues in this case. As the Supreme Court said in State ex rel. v. Schmitt, 174 Kan. 581 (258 P.2d 228) which is also an unauthorized practice of law case:

" 'We are not concerned with the legal sufficiency of this document nor whether it accomplishes the results claimed for it, and therefore do not review it.'

"If one sells a product that is not fit for its intended purpose, perpetrates a fraud in sales practices, misrepresents products, etc., one may expose himself to various actions, but none of these types of activities are issues in this case. The sole issue before this court in this case is whether or not the defendant engages in or has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

"The defendant contends he is selling an inanimate object; to wit; a book. The book is not bound but defendant contends it is still legally a book. In essence, defendant...