Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of Supreme Court of Colorado v. Grimes, 82SA94

Citation654 P.2d 822
Decision Date29 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 82SA94,82SA94
Parties. Richard O. GRIMES, Respondent. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Prosecutor, Denver, for complainant.

Richard O. Grimes, pro se.

ERICKSON, Justice.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the Colorado Supreme Court filed a complaint with this Court alleging that the respondent, Richard O. Grimes, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. On March 4, 1982, we issued a citation requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for the unauthorized practice of law. C.R.C.P 238. The pleadings filed by the respondent created factual issues which were referred to a hearing master for determination. Thereafter, a petition for a preliminary injunction and documents were filed which established that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law and on August 19, 1982, we issued a preliminary injunction enjoining him from continuing the unauthorized practice of law.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee's requests for a permanent injunction and for a finding of contempt of court were heard by the hearing master on September 3, 1982. The hearing master found the respondent to be in contempt of this Court and recommended that a permanent injunction be issued. We now adopt the findings and conclusions of the hearing master. We order that Richard O. Grimes be permanently enjoined from engaging in the practice of law and find that he is in contempt of the Supreme Court. We further order that the respondent be fined $500 and that he pay the costs of this proceeding. He is also sentenced to six months confinement in the County Jail of the City and County of Denver. All but ninety days of the six month sentence are suspended on the condition that the respondent does not practice law or perform any service constituting the practice of law, and does not further violate our injunction against his unauthorized practice of law.

I.

Article VI of the Colorado Constitution grants the Colorado Supreme Court jurisdiction to regulate and control the practice of law in Colorado. Conway-Bogue v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 398, 312 P.2d 998 (1957). Under section 12-5-112, C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl.Vol. 5), it is contempt of this Court to practice law in Colorado without first being admitted as a member of the bar of this Court. It is within our authority to promulgate rules governing the admission and regulation of lawyers, as well as prohibitions against the unauthorized practice of law. See C.R.C.P. 201-260. We said in Conway-Bogue v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 398, 407, 312 P.2d 998, 1002-03 (1957), "[t]he judiciary has inherent and plenary powers, with or without legislative enactment, to regulate and control the practice of law to the extent that is reasonably necessary to the proper functioning of the judiciary." A long line of case law in other jurisdictions affirms the inherent power of the judiciary to regulate the unauthorized practice of law. See, e.g., Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n, 134 Fla. 851, 186 So. 280 (1938); State v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587 (Fla.1962); Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Kellogg, 338 Ill.App. 618, 88 N.E.2d 519 (1949); In re Baker, 8 N.J. 321, 85 A.2d 505 (1951); R.J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407 (Okl.1972); West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, 144 W.Va. 504, 109 S.E.2d 420 (1959). See also American Bar Association, Unauthorized Practice Handbook (1972); Comment, Control of the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Scope of Inherent Judicial Power, 28 U.Chi.L.Rev. 162 (1960); Comment, Remedies Available to Control the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 62 Colum.L.Rev. 501 (1962).

The power of the Supreme Court to determine who should be authorized to practice law would be meaningless if it could not prevent the practice of law by those not admitted to the bar. State v. Sperry, supra. The court in West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, supra, stated:

"It would indeed be an anomaly if the power of the courts to protect the public from the improper or unlawful practice of law were limited to licensed attorneys and did not extend or apply to incompetent and unqualified laymen and lay agencies. Such a limitation of the power of the courts would reduce the legal professional to an unskilled vocation, destroy the usefulness of licensed attorneys, as officers of the courts, and substantially impair and disrupt the orderly and effective administration of justice by the judicial department of the government; and this the law will not recognize or permit."

144 W.Va. at 536, 109 S.E.2d at 440.

Lawyers are officers of the court, and, as such, are subject to supervision and regulation by the court. West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, supra. Not only do we regulate admissions to the Bar, but we continually oversee the practice of law to insure that the public obtains legal advice only from qualified and competent counsel. We do not hesitate to suspend or revoke the license of a lawyer who abuses the honor and privilege of practicing law in this state. Accordingly, we cannot permit an unlicensed person to commit acts which we would condemn if done by a lawyer. Conway Bogue v. Denver Bar Ass'n, supra; People v. Gregory, 135 Colo. 438, 312 P.2d 512 (1957). As the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted of its supervisory power and duty:

"Any criterion for distinguishing law practice from that which belongs to other fields can be properly geared to the public welfare only if we keep in mind the manner in which the licensing of lawyers serves its purpose. The law practice franchise or privilege is based upon the threefold requirements of ability, character, and responsible supervision. The public welfare is safeguarded not merely by limiting law practice to individuals who are possessed of the requisite ability and character, but also by the further requirement that such practitioners shall thenceforth be officers of the court and subject to its supervision. (Emphasis supplied)"

R.J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407, 413 (Okl.1972) (quoting Gardner v. Conway, 234 Minn. 468, 48 N.W.2d 788 (1951)). See also Conway-Bogue v. Denver Bar Ass'n, supra; Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Kellogg, supra.

The respondent argues that, despite our authority to regulate and supervise the practice of law, he has a right under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), to provide lay assistance to individuals representing themselves in legal matters. See Board of County Commissioners v. Howard, 640 P.2d 1128 (Colo.1982); People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408 (Colo.1981). However, he has misread or does not understand the holding in Faretta v. California, supra. Faretta does not hold that a state may not regulate the practice of law or the admissions of attorneys to the Bar. It holds that an individual has a constitutionally protected right to appear pro se, or as his own counsel, in a criminal case. Apart from this proceeding, the respondent did not represent himself, but represented other individuals. He advised clients as to their legal rights and obligations, and represented third parties before the courts of this state. In his unauthorized practice of the law, the respondent was not granted protection under Faretta v. California, supra, or under the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as he claims, but was violating our injunctive order after he had been served and knew of the restrictions we had imposed. West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, supra. See also In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 14 S.Ct. 1082, 38 L.Ed. 929 (1894).

II.

An over-abundance of evidence appears in the record to support the hearing master's finding that respondent was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 1 The hearing master found that respondent was never admitted or registered to practice law in Colorado. Nevertheless, the respondent accepted fees and prepared legal motions, notices, and other memoranda for various individuals and also advised members of the public as to what he thought their legal rights and obligations were.

The record establishes that in 1979 the respondent assisted a party to a law suit by preparing a notice to set, a "motion seeking presiding judge's disqualification," and a "memorandum of authorities in support of the amended complaint." Two years later, he again prepared similar documents for a different person. At various other times, even after the complaint in this case was filed, respondent prepared documents and pleadings affecting the legal rights and obligations of parties involved in lawsuits. He advertised in local newspapers and in the yellow pages of the telephone book, representing himself at different times as a "lay assistant," public scrivener," and "arbiter." His advertisement in one newspaper was found under the heading "Legal Counsel." He also placed the following listing in the Denver Telephone Directory under "Lawyers":

                "Grimes, Richard O
                Don't Litigate--Hardens The Lines
                Grimes Private Courtroom Disputes
                Compromised
                Inquire About My Unpublished
                Lawbook
                427 15------------- 623-9744"
                

The pleadings which he has filed and actions he has taken on behalf of individuals who have paid him fees would constitute actionable malpractice if committed by a lawyer. The respondent's actions, in our view, would also subject him to disciplinary action by the Grievance Committee of this Court if he were a licensed member of the Bar. 2

The imposition of a fine and imprisonment are harsh sanctions, but are necessary to vindicate the dignity of the Court and to protect the citizens of Colorado. We can not accept the respondent's argument that anyone should be entitled to practice law if he so desires. We do not license attorneys, as the respondent claims, to create a monopoly or to hamper the access of citizens to the courts. The purpose of the bar and our admission...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • In the Matter of Steven James Foster.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 23, 2011
    ...permit unlicensed individuals to represent others in legal matters. 148 P.3d 162, 174 (Colo.2006) (citing Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 824 (Colo.1982); Turner v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 407 F.Supp. 451, 478 (D.Tex.1975)) (additional citations omitted). At the core of S......
  • People v. Shell, 04SA93.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 18, 2006
    ...the practice of law by a person who is not a licensed attorney in good standing with the State Bar. See Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo.1982). This court has the exclusive authority to punish the unauthorized practice of law with contempt. See id. Where......
  • Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee v. District Court, City and County of Denver, Colo.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 19, 1993
    ...the authority to regulate, govern, and supervise the practice of law in Colorado to protect the public. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo.1982); Denver Bar Ass'n v. P.U.C., 154 Colo. 273, 277, 391 P.2d 467, 470 (1964); Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denv......
  • Coffman v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 26, 2015
    ...grants the Colorado Supreme Court jurisdiction to regulate and control the practice of law in Colorado.” Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo.1982) (citing Conway–Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 398, 312 P.2d 998 (1957) ); see also C.R.C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • How Should Legal Ethics Rules Apply When Artificial Intelligence Assists Pro Se Litigants?
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 35-4, October 2022
    • October 1, 2022
    ...(Ohio 1997). 63. In re Application of R.G.S., 541 A.2d 977, 983 (Md. 1988); see also Unauthorized Prac. of L. Comm. of Sup. Ct. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 826 (Colo. 1982) (“The purpose of the bar and our admission requirements is to protect the public from unqualif‌ied individuals who charge......
  • Disciplinary Opinion: People v. Smith
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 40-7, July 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...citing Denver Bar Ass'n v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 154 Colo. 273, 279, 391 P.2d 467, 471 (1964); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v.Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo. 1982); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Prog, 761 P.2d 1111, 1115 (Colo. 1988)). The Colorado Supreme Court has noted that "......
  • Articles Professional Conduct and Legal Ethics
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 38-1, January 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...as well as its constitutional power of supervision over the courts of Colorado. See Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1982); Colo. Const. art. VI, § 2(1). In contrast, in Colorado, like most other American jurisdictions, the attorney-client privilege has been......
  • Litigants Without Lawyers
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 25-6, June 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...Boyls, 591 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1979). 14. In re: H. Gordon Howard (1978) (unpublished). 15. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1982). 16. CRS § 8-43-316. 17. CRS § 8-43-211(1)(c). 18. CRS § 26-2-127(1)(a)(IV). 19. Goldfarb, The Contempt Power (Garden City, N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT