Title: The Florida Bar v. Candice L. Miravalle

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC93101
____________
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
CANDICE L. MIRAVALLE, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[May 18, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
Candice L. Miravalle, individually, and Express Legal Services, Inc., a
Florida Corporation (respondents), petition this Court to review a referee’s report
recommending that respondents be enjoined from engaging in the unlicensed
practice of law.  We have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. 
FACTS
The Bar filed a Petition Against the Unlicensed Practice of Law against
respondents.  After receiving responses to interrogatories, the Bar filed a motion for
-2-
summary judgment.  The appointed referee granted the Bar’s motion and ordered
that respondents be permanently enjoined from engaging in the practice of law.  The
referee incorporated the order granting the summary judgment motion into his report
filed with this Court.  The following is a summary of the referee’s findings of fact.
Candice Miravalle (Miravalle) is the owner and operator of Express Legal
Services, Inc., a business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida.  At no time during
these events was Miravalle a member of The Florida Bar.  In December 1995,
Miravalle prepared a marital settlement agreement and final judgment of dissolution
of marriage for Peter and Holly Berkowitz.  In August 1996, Miravalle prepared a
motion to reopen a bankruptcy case, a motion seeking cancellation and discharge of
a judgment, a motion to declare that a judgment was not a lien on homestead
property and to quiet title, and orders relating thereto, for Frances Totten.  In
September 1997, Miravalle prepared a motion to reopen a bankruptcy case and a
notice of service for Joseph Delphino.  None of the above-mentioned documents
were forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida.  In her responses to the
Bar’s interrogatories, respondent Miravalle admitted that she:  (a) engaged in oral
communications to obtain information to prepare these documents; (b) took
information from other documents in order to prepare these documents; (c) engaged
in legal research with regard to these documents; and (d) drafted and typed these
-3-
documents.  
Respondents ran newspaper advertisements during 1997, 1998, and 1999
containing the question, “Are you ignoring your legal needs because you can’t
afford an attorney?”  These advertisements contained respondents’ business name
and listed legal areas in which Express Legal Services offered assistance.   
The referee found that there were no genuine issues of material fact.  The
referee then concluded that respondents were engaged in the unlicensed practice of
law because they were not simply operating a secretarial or typing service, but
instead were rendering personal services which could reasonably cause members of
the public to rely on them to properly prepare legal documents.  Further, the referee
found that respondents’ use of their business name and advertisements constitutes
the unlicensed practice of law because the business name and advertisements
suggested to the public that respondents were authorized to provide legal services
when, by law, respondents were only authorized to provide secretarial or typing
services.
In the report filed with this Court, the referee recommends that we ratify and
adopt the summary judgment order entered against respondents, enjoin respondents
from engaging in the practice of law, and tax costs against respondents.
Respondents petition this Court for review, objecting to the referee’s report
-4-
and claiming that the referee erred in granting the Bar’s motion for summary
judgment.  Respondents argue their conduct does not constitute the practice of law. 
Alternatively, respondents argue that even if their conduct constitutes the practice of
law under current case law, this Court should reconsider its prior holdings and find
that paralegals and other nonlawyers must be allowed to perform legal services. 
Respondents argue that to hold otherwise would violate their constitutional right to
contract and also deprive them of equal protection of the laws.
     
   
ANALYSIS
The respondents challenge the propriety of the referee’s entry of a summary
judgment in this unlicensed practice of law (UPL) case.  We agree with the referee
and approve the referee’s findings.  In Florida Bar v. Daniel, 626 So. 2d 178, 182
(Fla. 1993), a bar disciplinary proceeding, this Court held:
Under Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.6(e)(1), once a
formal complaint has been filed and forwarded to a referee for
hearing, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply except where
otherwise provided in the rule.  Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.510(c) provides for summary judgment where . . . it is shown
there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Thus, a referee has the authority in an UPL case to enter a summary judgment under
the above-stated circumstances.
-5-
In the instant case, the Bar and respondents agree that respondents prepared
legal documents which were not forms approved by this Court.  Both agree that
Miravalle engaged in oral communications, took information from other documents,
and conducted legal research for the purpose of preparing these documents.  Finally,
respondents do not contest that they used the word “legal” in their business name
and advertisements; nor do they contest the authenticity of the advertisements
offered into evidence by the Bar.  Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the issue facing this Court is whether these acts constitute the unlicensed
practice of law.
The referee concluded that respondents’ preparation of legal documents for
their customers constitutes the unlicensed practice of law.  We agree.  This Court
has repeatedly held that the preparation of legal documents by a nonlawyer for
another person to a greater extent than typing or writing information provided by the
customer on a form constitutes the unlicensed practice of law.  See, e.g., Florida Bar
v. Davide, 702 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1997); Florida Bar v. Smania, 701 So.2d 835 (Fla.
1997); Florida Bar v. American Senior Citizens Alliance, Inc., 689 So. 2d 255 (Fla.
1997);  Florida Bar v. Schramek, 616 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1993).   This Court has also
specifically held that a nonlawyer who orally takes information from an individual to
complete a form when the form has not been approved by this Court is engaged in
1   A nonlawyer may take information orally pursuant to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 10-
2.1(a), which provides:
[I]t shall not constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to engage in
limited oral communications to assist a person in the completion of blanks on a legal
form approved by the Supreme Court of Florida.  Oral communications by nonlawyers
are restricted to those communications reasonably necessary to elicit factual
information to complete the blanks on the form and inform the person how to file the
form.
  
(Emphasis added.)  Respondents clearly exceeded the conduct allowed to be performed by
nonlawyers under this rule.
-6-
the unlicensed practice of law.  See Florida Bar v. Catarcio, 709 So. 2d 96 (Fla.
1998).1  Thus, we find as a matter of law that respondents engaged in the unlicensed
practice of law by engaging in oral communication, taking information from written
documents, and conducting legal research for the purpose of preparing legal
documents not approved by this Court.  
We also agree with the referee that respondents’ use of their business name
and the manner in which they advertise their services constitute the unlicensed
practice of law.  In Florida Bar v. Davide, this Court held that it constituted the
unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to use “Florida Law Center, Inc.” as a
company name because “the use of the name is misleading and gives the public the
expectation that Florida Law Center, Inc., has expertise in the field of law.”  702 So.
2d at 184-85.  We further held in Davide that it constitutes the unlicensed practice
of law for a nonlawyer to advertise that his or her company specializes in legal areas
-7-
and to use advertisements that describe legal procedures.  See id. at 185.
In the instant case, respondents use the business name “Express Legal
Services, Inc.”  In their advertisements, they ask the question, “Are you ignoring
your legal needs because you can’t afford an attorney?”  Under this question is a list
of legal fields, such as bankruptcy, adoption, eviction and divorce, in which
respondents offer assistance.   Thus, we conclude that respondents’ use of the name
“Express Legal Services, Inc.” and the manner in which they advertise their services
constitute the unlicensed practice of law under Davide.
  We also conclude that respondents’ challenges concerning the
constitutionality of prohibiting nonattorneys from offering legal services are without
merit.  In the past, we have said that regulating the practice of law among
nonlawyers does not violate nonlawyers’ constitutional rights.  In Schramek, 616
So. 2d at 983, this Court found no merit to the nonlawyer’s allegation that the
regulation of nonlawyers unconstitutionally deprived him of his right to engage in
business.  In so holding, this Court stated that “prohibiting the unlicensed practice of
law is ‘not done to aid or protect the members of the legal profession either in
creating or maintaining a monopoly or closed shop.  It is done to protect the public
from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons.’”  Id.  
(quoting State ex rel. Fla. Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 595 (Fla. 19962)); see also
-8-
Florida Bar v. Furman, 376 So. 2d 378, 381 (Fla. 1979) (adopting referee’s report in
UPL case where referee stated “[t]he fact she is an expert stenographer does not
give her any legal right to engage in divorce and adoption practice anymore than a
nurse has the right to set up an office for performing tonsillectomy or appendectomy
operations or a dental assistant to do extractions or fill teeth”).  Because the
regulation of the unlicensed practice of law serves the critical role of protecting the
public from unqualified individuals who are attempting to perform legal services,
nonlawyers do not have a constitutional right to practice law by drafting legal
documents or giving legal advice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we approve the report of the referee and adopt the order
granting the Bar’s motion for summary judgment.  Respondents Candice L.
Miravalle, individually, Express Legal Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and any
employees or persons acting in concert with respondents are permanently and
perpetually enjoined from engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in the State of
Florida.  Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399, for recovery of costs from respondents Candice L.
Miravalle, individually, and Express Legal Services, Inc., in the amount of $517.23,
for which sum let execution issue.
-9-
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - The Florida Bar
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Mary Ellen Bateman, Unlicensed
Practice of Law Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; James E. McDonald,
Chair, Standing Committee on Unlicensed Practice of Law, Miami, Florida; and Barry
W. Rigby, Branch UPL Counsel, Orlando, Florida,
       for Complainant
Candice L. Miravalle, pro se, Melbourne, Florida,
       for Respondent