Opinion ID: 1413853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Title Search

Text: The title search portion of the present case encompasses stipulated facts 2 through 6. Doe asserts Title Company has a right to furnish title because it is incidental to its business. In Buyers Service, this Court addressed a commercial title company's preparation of title abstracts for persons other than attorneys or themselves. The State in the case argued the buyer relies on the title search to determine if he receives good, marketable title. We agreed and rejected the title company's argument that it did not need attorney supervision because the title search was merely incidental to their own business. Instead, we found the title search company could conduct title examinations only under the supervision of a licensed attorney because the examination of titles requires expert legal knowledge and skill and the search affected the rights of buyers. Id. at 432, 357 S.E.2d at 18. According to the stipulated facts it appears Title Company conducts a title search and prepares a commitment, for the benefit of the Lender, without supervision by a licensed attorney. While Doe notes the Title Company is licensed to do business in South Carolina, we rejected the incidental-tobusiness approach in Buyers Service. Title Company's title search and preparation of title documents for the Lender, without direct attorney supervision, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The title search and subsequent preparation of related documentation is permissible only when a licensed attorney supervises the process. In order to comply with this Court's ruling Doe must ensure the title search and preparation of loan documents are supervised by an attorney.