THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, Petitioner/Respondent, 

v. 

Stephen H. Peck, Thomas Moore, and Community 

Management Group, LLC, Respondents/Petitioners. 

Appellate Case No. 2011-199626 

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 

Opinion No. 27707 

Heard November 7, 2016 – Filed February 22, 2017 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ISSUED 

Robert P. Wood, of Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner/Respondent. 

Matthew Evan Pecoy and Peter Gerard McGrath, both of 

McGrath Law Firm, PA, of Mt. Pleasant, for 

Respondents/Petitioners. 

PER CURIAM: The Court accepted this declaratory judgment action in our 

original jurisdiction to determine whether Community Management Group, LLC; 

its president, Stephen Peck; and its employee, Tom Moore, engaged in the 

unauthorized practice of law while managing homeowners' associations. We find 

Community Management Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
 

 

 

 

 

I. Background 

Community Management Group manages homeowners' associations and 

condominium associations in Charleston, Dorchester, and Berkeley Counties. The 

company manages the associations' grounds and common areas, enforces 

covenants and rules, and takes care of financial matters, including collecting 

assessments for the associations. Until we issued a temporary injunction in 

connection with this case, when a homeowner in an association did not pay an 

overdue assessment, Community Management Group—without the involvement of 

an attorney—prepared and recorded a notice of lien and related documents; 

brought an action in magistrate's court to collect the debt; and after obtaining a 

judgment in magistrate's court, filed the judgment in circuit court. Community 

Management Group also advertised that it could perform these services. 

We referred the case to the Honorable Stephanie P. McDonald1

 to act as special 

referee. Judge McDonald recommended we find Community Management Group 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 

II. Unauthorized Practice of Law 

The supreme court has the power to regulate the practice of law. See S.C. CONST. 

art. V, § 4; S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-10 (2011) (recognizing "[t]he inherent power of 

the Supreme Court with respect to regulating the practice of law"); Linder v. Ins. 

Claims Consultants, Inc., 348 S.C. 477, 486, 560 S.E.2d 612, 617 (2002) ("Under 

the South Carolina Constitution, this Court has the duty to regulate the practice of 

law in South Carolina."). Generally, the practice of law includes "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." State v. Despain, 319 S.C. 317, 319, 460 S.E.2d 576, 577 (1995) 

(quoting In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 189, 65 S.E. 210, 211 (1909)). The practice of 

law "extends to activities . . . which entail specialized legal knowledge and ability." 

Linder, 348 S.C. at 487, 560 S.E.2d at 617 (quoting State v. Buyers Serv. Co., Inc., 

292 S.C. 426, 430, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987)). "Other than these general 

statements, there is no comprehensive definition of the practice of law. Rather, 

what constitutes the practice of law must be decided on the facts and in the context 

of each individual case." Roberts v. LaConey, 375 S.C. 97, 103, 650 S.E.2d 474, 

1

 At the time, Judge McDonald was a circuit court judge. 
477 (2007) (citing Linder, 348 S.C. at 487, 560 S.E.2d at 617-18); see also 

Medlock v. Univ. Health Serv., Inc., 404 S.C. 25, 28, 743 S.E.2d 830, 831 (2013) 

("We have encouraged any interested individual to bring a declaratory judgment 

action in this Court's original jurisdiction to determine the validity of any 

questionable conduct."). 

III. Agent 

In an administrative order titled In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules 

Proposed by South Carolina Bar, 309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 123 (1992), we 

modified prior case law to "allow a business to be represented by a non-lawyer 

officer, agent or employee." 309 S.C. at 306, 422 S.E.2d at 124 (modifying State 

ex rel. Daniel v. Wells, 191 S.C. 468, 5 S.E.2d 181 (1939)). We also promulgated 

South Carolina Magistrate Court Rule 21, which provides, "A business . . . may be 

represented in a civil magistrates court proceeding by a non-lawyer officer, agent, 

or employee . . . ." 

The central question of this action is whether the word "agent" in Unauthorized 

Practice of Law and Rule 21 includes a third party agent like Community 

Management Group. We find "agent" does not include non-lawyer third party 

entities or individuals. "Agent"—in Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule 21— 

includes individuals who are not officers or employees of a business, but who have 

some nexus or connection to the business arising out of its corporate structure. For 

example, a member of a corporation's board of directors who is not an officer or 

employee would qualify as an "agent" under these provisions. However, we now 

clarify that we never intended to permit non-lawyer third party entities or 

individuals to be an agent under Unauthorized Practice of Law or Rule 21. 

IV. Community Management Group's Actions 

We find Community Management Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of 

law when it (A) represented associations in magistrate's court, (B) filed judgments 

in circuit court, (C) prepared and recorded liens, and (D) advertised that it could 

perform the services we now clarify constitute the unauthorized practice of law. 

A. Representing Associations in Magistrate's Court 

Community Management Group brought actions in magistrate's court on behalf of 

associations to collect unpaid assessments owed to the associations. Community 

Management Group did not hire a lawyer for these magistrate court proceedings; 
 

instead, it sent Moore to represent the associations. The only way Community 

Management Group could have performed these services without engaging in the 

unauthorized practice of law is if it were an "agent" as referenced in Unauthorized 

Practice of Law and Rule 21. See Wells, 191 S.C. at 480, 5 S.E.2d at 186 (stating 

"[i]n legal matters" a corporation "must act, if at all, through licensed attorneys"), 

modified by Unauthorized Practice of Law, 309 S.C. at 305-06, 422 S.E.2d at 124. 

We acknowledge that prior to our decision today the meaning of "agent" in 

Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule 21 was not clear. However, we have now 

clarified "agent" does not include third party entities or individuals. 

Community Management Group argues—relying on our recent decision in 

Medlock—it was not the unauthorized practice of law to represent associations in 

magistrate's court because the representation did not require specialized legal skill 

or knowledge. In Medlock, we held "a non-attorney may present claims against an 

estate and petition for allowance of claims in the probate court on behalf of a 

business entity without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law." 404 S.C. at 

26–27, 743 S.E.2d at 831. We noted, "It is the character of the services rendered, 

and not the denomination of the tribunal where the services are rendered, that 

determines whether such services constitute the practice of law." 404 S.C. at 28, 

743 S.E.2d at 831. We then proceeded to examine the "character" of presenting a 

claim and seeking allowance of the claim in probate court. We stated, 

To file a claim in the probate court, a claimant must 

merely deliver to the personal representative and the 

probate court a written statement of the claim indicating 

its basis, the claimant's name and address, the amount 

claimed, and the date upon which the claim is due. 

Similarly, a petition for allowance of a claim in the 

probate court merely requires a creditor to complete a 

one-page standard form, located on the South Carolina 

Judicial Department website, requesting the probate court 

allow the claim and attesting that such claim is valid, 

timely presented, and has not been paid. None of these 

activities require the professional judgment of an attorney 

or entail specialized legal knowledge and ability. 

404 S.C. at 28, 743 S.E.2d at 831–32 (2013) (citation omitted). 
We find the services required to represent a business in magistrate's court are not 

comparable to making a claim against an estate or petitioning for the allowance of 

the claim in probate court. We therefore decline to extend the reasoning of 

Medlock to Community Management Group and other third-party agents 

representing businesses in magistrate's court. 

B. Filing Judgments in Circuit Court 

After entering judgment, the magistrate's court typically mailed Community 

Management Group a transcript of the judgment. The transcripts came with 

instructions on how to file the judgment in circuit court. Without consulting an 

attorney, Community Management Group filed the judgments in circuit court. 

We find Community Management Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of 

law by filing judgments in circuit court. South Carolina Code section 22-3-300 

(2007) provides that at the request of the prevailing party, a magistrate judge will 

provide a transcript of a judgment, which may be filed in circuit court. Upon filing 

the magistrate's court judgment in circuit court, the judgment becomes a circuit 

court judgment. § 22-3-300. It would be the unauthorized practice of law for 

Community Management Group to represent an association in circuit court to 

obtain a judgment against a homeowner. See Renaissance Enter. Inc. v. Summit 

Teleservices, Inc., 334 S.C. 649, 652-53, 515 S.E.2d 257, 258-59 (1999) (finding it 

was the unauthorized practice of law for non-lawyers to represent a corporation in 

circuit court). Thus, it is the unauthorized practice of law for Community 

Management Group to obtain a circuit court judgment for the associations by filing 

the magistrate's court judgment in circuit court. 

C. Preparing and Recording Liens 

When homeowners did not pay overdue assessments, Community Management 

Group prepared lien documents and recorded them in the county where the 

property was located. A legal description of the homeowners' property was 

attached to the documents. We find it was the unauthorized practice of law for 

Community Management Group to prepare and record the lien documents. 

As Community Management Group conceded, it prepared the lien documents for 

the purpose of "put[ting] a cloud on the title," so a property could not be sold 

without the homeowner paying the overdue assessments. In preparing the 

documents, Community Management Group sought to define an association's 
 

rights with regard to the homeowner's property and the association's entitlement to 

be repaid a debt. Community Management Group's purpose for filing the lien 

documents demonstrates the lien documents were "instruments," which include 

"written legal document[s] that define[] rights, duties, entitlements, or liabilities 

. . . ." Instrument, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) ("Also termed legal 

instrument."). Preparing and recording legal instruments constitutes the 

unauthorized practice of law. See Wells, 191 S.C. at 473-74, 5 S.E.2d at 183 

("According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law . . . it 

embraces . . . the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds . . . ."); see also State 

v. Robinson, 321 S.C. 286, 290, 468 S.E.2d 290, 292 (1996) ("This Court has 

defined the practice of law to include the preparation and filing of legal documents 

. . . ."); Buyers Serv., 292 S.C. at 434, 357 S.E.2d at 19 (holding recording 

instruments after a real estate transfer is the practice of law because "it is an aspect 

of conveyancing and affects legal rights"). Thus, we find Community 

Management Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and 

recording lien documents. 

D. Advertising 

Community Management Group advertised for many of the services we have 

found constitute unauthorized practice of law, including that it could "handle 

collections, lien filing and Small Claims Court actions in house." Community 

Management Group also advertised it could file judgments without the use of an 

attorney. It is the unauthorized practice of law for a non-lawyer to advertise he can 

provide legal services. Thus, Community Management Group advertising it could 

file liens, represent associations in magistrate's court, and file judgments without 

the use of an attorney was the unauthorized practice of law. 

E. Other Actions 

Rogers Townsend also asks that we find Community Management Group engaged 

in the unauthorized practice of law by (1) interpreting covenants for homeowners, 

(2) addressing disputes between homeowners and associations, and (3) advising 

associations on remedies to collect unpaid assessments. However, Rogers 

Townsend did not include specific facts or details about Community Management 

Group performing these services. We have stated it is best to decide "what is and 

what is not the unauthorized practice of law in the context of an actual case or 

controversy." Unauthorized Practice of Law, 309 S.C. at 305, 422 S.E.2d at 124. 

Without specific facts, we cannot determine that Community Management Group 
 

was practicing law by interpreting covenants for homeowners, addressing disputes 

between homeowners and associations, or advising associations on remedies to 

collect unpaid assessments. 

V. Injunction 

Rogers Townsend asks that we permanently enjoin Community Management 

Group from any actions we find were the unauthorized practice of law. An 

injunction is a drastic remedy, which courts should apply with caution. Hampton 

v. Haley, 403 S.C. 395, 409, 743 S.E.2d 258, 265 (2013). An injunction should be 

issued only "where no adequate remedy exists at law." Id. After we issued the 

temporary injunction, Community Management Group stopped representing 

associations in magistrate's court, filing judgments in circuit court, and preparing 

and recording liens without an attorney. Additionally, Peck testified Community 

Management Group has no interest in resuming these activities. We decline to 

issue a permanent injunction in this situation. 

VI. Conclusion 

We find Community Management Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of 

law by (1) representing associations in magistrate's court, (2) filing judgments in 

circuit court, (3) preparing and recording lien documents, and (4) advertising it 

could provide legal services. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, 

concur. Acting Justice Costa M. Pleicones not participating.