Opinion ID: 2273968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: board on the unauthorized practice of the law of the supreme court of the state of delaware

Text: IN RE: UPL No. 2008-0664-U JERRY L. ALSTON, Respondent This is a factual finding and recommendation from the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of the Law of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware  Board  on an Amended Petition  Petition  filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel  ODC. The Petition was signed January 13, 2009 with a Certificate of Service date of June 4. 2009; the Petition was also filed with the Board on June 4. 2009, Jerry L. Alston  Alston or Respondent  is the subject matter of the Petition. The Board held a Hearing on July 15, 2009. Reference to Exhibits at the Hearing will be as Ex. _____ and to the Transcript of the Hearing as Tr. ____. In the Petition it is alleged: 1. Alston is not licensed to practice law in Delaware. 2. Alston is the owner of 777 Para-Legal Services [1]  777. 3. Alston and 777, in a Written Notice of Appearance dated February 19, 2008, addressed to Delaware Sale University, Dover. Delaware  DSU claimed to represent the interest of an individual, Micah L. Parker, in a dispute concerning DSU. The document further demanded DSU produce certain documents. [Ex. I] The stated purpose of the document was: Be advised the investigations scope and purpose is sufficient to establish whether or not there is the legal basis for filing of a civil law suit against you. 4. Alston represented a thud party, 777, in a legal action. This occurred when, from Alton's point of view, discussions between Alston and DSU's counsel become unproductive. Alston filed in Superior Court, Kent County, on behalf of himself and 777, an action against DSU's counsel and DSU's counsel's law firm. Alston, et al, v. White and Williams. LLP, et al, DelSuper., ___ A2d ___, (Kent County, CA No. 08C-05-023, 11/19/2008) [2] ODC requests in its Petition: ... the Board find as a matter of fact and law that the Respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Delaware; and that the Board express its findings in a final report to the Court recommending that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Delaware by acting in a representative capacity in a Delaware legal tribunal or governmental agency, by giving legal advice on matters relating to Delaware law, by drafting documents reflecting upon Delaware Law for use in a Delaware legal tribunal or Governmental agency, and holding himself out as being authorized to practice law in the State of Delaware. ODC's request for relief will be granted for the reasons herein. However, the Board cautions that based on the evidence presented to it  or, as will be seen, the evidence not presented to it  an Order from the Supreme Court will probably have little, if any, affect on Alston's conduct.