Opinion ID: 1359231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title Abstracts

Text: Buyers Service next contends the circuit court erred in holding that preparation of title abstracts for persons other than attorneys constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. As noted in the statement of facts, the buyer pays Buyers Service $50 for title searches. However, the resulting title abstract is furnished not to the buyer, but to the mortgagee to certify that fee simple title will be vested in the buyer. The State argues that even though the buyer does not see the title abstract, he nevertheless relies upon it to determine if he receives good, marketable title. That is, because the buyer knows a title search has been conducted, he reasonably assumes title is good if nothing adverse is reported. We agree. The same principles which render the preparation of instruments the practice of law apply equally to the preparation of title abstracts. In Beach Abstract & Guar. Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Ark. , 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W. (2d) 900 (1959), the court relied upon its earlier holding in Arkansas Bar Ass'n v. Block, supra , in holding that title examination, when done for another, constitutes the practice of law. The court rejected the title insurance company's arguments that the examinations were performed only incidentally to its own business and that no separate fee was charged. We affirm the circuit court's injunction which provides Buyers Service may conduct title examinations and prepare abstracts only for the benefit of attorneys. The examination of titles required expert legal knowledge and skill. For the protection of the public such activities, if conducted by lay persons, must be under the supervision of a licensed attorney.