Opinion ID: 2823810
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ambiguous Exemption Language

Text: Â¶24Â Â Â Â Â The original DMSA exempts from regulation â[l]egal services provided in an attorneyâclient relationship by an attorney licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.â Â§ 12-14.5-202(10)(A), C.R.S. (2008). The exemption therefore contains three separate legal components. First, the debt-management services provider must be âan attorney licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.â Second, the attorney must provide âlegal servicesâ (and services cannot constitute âlegal servicesâ unless the person performing them is authorized to practice law, as explainedelsewhere in the DMSA). 3 And third, the attorney must provide those services âin an attorneyâclient relationship.â Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â As used in the exemption, the scope of the term âattorneyâ is âreasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations.â On the one hand, these three legal components arguably signify that the exemption applies only where the provider is an attorney. On the other hand, some ambiguity exists as to whether the exemption also encompasses nonlawyer assistants, such as paralegals, secretaries, and administrative assistants. Because the exemption covers âlegal servicesâ as a whole, it arguably extends to some services performed on behalf of an attorney. 4 We must therefore turn to extrinsic aids to statutory construction to ascertain legislative intent.