State v. Despain
| Decision Date | 07 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 24297,24297 |
| Citation | 460 S.E.2d 576,319 S.C. 317 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of South Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Lovella Mae DESPAIN, Defendant. |
Suzanne E. Coe, Greenville, for defendant.
The State brought this declaratory judgment action in the Court's original jurisdiction seeking to enjoin defendant from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. See In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules, 309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 123 (1992). We grant the injunction.
In its complaint, the State alleges that defendant, who is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina or in any other state, is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by performing services which only a licensed attorney is authorized to perform.
Defendant argues that she merely operates a business which allows customers, who pay a fee, to access a computer program for the preparation of documents to be used in legal proceedings. Defendant expressly denies that she is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or that operation of her business amounts to the unauthorized practice of law.
By Order of this Court, the Honorable Walter J. Bristow, Jr., was appointed as a Special Master in this matter for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing and issuing a report. A hearing was held on October 10, 1994, and a report issued on May 10, 1995. The Master's factual findings, which neither party has challenged, are summarized as follows:
In the course of operating a business known as Professional Document Services, 1 defendant gives legal advice to individuals, for a fee, about divorce, custody, separation, and child support. By utilizing a computer software program she purchased, defendant also prepares legal documents for others to present in family court.
In at least one case, defendant undertook representation of an individual by mailing to the individual's estranged wife certain documents including a Complaint, Acceptance of Service, and Marital Settlement Agreement, and requesting that those documents be completed and returned for processing in order to obtain a divorce. In at least one other case, defendant represented, and received payment from, both parties in a divorce action. Further, defendant requires her customers to sign an agreement which purports to absolve her of any liability for damages which may result from her preparation of any legal document.
The generally understood definition of the practice of law "embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts." In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 189, 65 S.E. 210, 211 (1909). Applying this definition, we have held that the preparation of a deed for another individual, having the deed executed, and filing the deed, without the approval of a licensed attorney, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. In re Easler 75 S.C. 400, 272 S.E.2d 32 (1980). We have also held that the preparation of deeds, mortgages, notes, and other legal instruments related to mortgage loans and transfers of real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ward
...and advising clients of legal matters. State v. Buyers Serv. Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987); State v. Despain, 319 S.C. 317, 460 S.E.2d 576, 578 (1995) (holding that the preparation of legal documents for presentation in family court constitutes the practice of law when t......
-
Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
...before judges and courts." Crawford v. Cent. Mortg. Co. , 404 S.C. 39, 45, 744 S.E.2d 538, 541 (2013) (quoting State v. Despain , 319 S.C. 317, 319, 460 S.E.2d 576, 577 (1995) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, this Court has recognized that "[t]he practice of law is not confine......
-
Fifth Judicial Bar v. Glasgow
...683 A.2d 1359, 1361 (Conn. 1996); Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Estep, 657 N.E.2d 499, 500 (Ohio 1995) (per curiam); State v. Despain, 460 S.E.2d 576, 577-78 (S.C. 1995) (per curiam); Board of Comm'rs of Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263, 1267-68 (Utah 1997); State v. Hunt, 880 P.2d 96, 9......
-
Brown v. Coe
...and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts. Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 585 S.E.2d 773 (2003); State v. Despain, 319 S.C. 317, 460 S.E.2d 576 (1995); In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 65 S.E. 210 "The adjudicative power of the Court carries with it the inherent power to contr......
-
Unauthorized Practice of Law in South Carolina
...Lawyer v. scrivener Merely selling blank legal templates which an end-user completes himself or herself is not UPL. State v. Despain, 319 S.C. 317, 320, 460 S.E.2d 576, 578 n.2 (1995) . At the other extreme, deliberating over a client's needs and drafting special instruments in response is ......
-
You Best Protect Your Neck[1] a Guide to Preventing Your Non-attorney Staff from Engaging in Upl
...Buyers Seruice Co. Inc., 292 S.C. 426,431, 357 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1987). [17] S.C. Code Ann. §16-17-770. [18] Id. [19] See State v. Despain, 319 S.C. 317, 460 S.E.2d 576 (1995). [20] See State v. McLauren, 349 S.C. 488, 563 S.E.2d 346 (2002). See In re Deddish, 347 S.C. 614, 557 S.E.2d 655 (200......