Opinion ID: 2194380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: unauthorized law practice

Text: The unauthorized practice of law is prohibited so that members of the public will receive legal representation only from a person who has demonstrated his or her competence to practice law by passing the bar examination, [8] as well as the character and fitness examination, [9] and who is subject to the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Responsibility. As this Court explained fifty years ago: The profession thus established arose out of a public necessity for the exclusion from the practice of law of unqualified persons. The attorney thus became an officer of the court and an important adjunct to the administration of justice. The profession from the very start was affected with a public interest and was created for the protection of the public. Originally, anyone could practice law, but for the protection of the public it was found necessary to circumscribe that right. The advance of civilization and its material things has done nothing to change that fundamental fact. The existence of the legal profession is continued for the assistance of the public under limitations imposed by the court. Violations of those limitations are punished by the court through its process of citation for contempt. The admission of attorneys to practice, and the exclusion of unauthorized persons from practice lie within the province of this court. A violation of this court's exclusive right to license attorneys at law by presuming to practice law without such license is a contempt of its authority and punishable as such. [10] The issue of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law frequently arises in this and other jurisdictions in the context of wills, trusts, and estate planning. [11] In this case, it is unnecessary for this Court to promulgate a comprehensive definition of the practice of law in those subject areas. Our Cease and Desist Order was a consent decree entered as the result of a voluntary agreement between the Respondent and the ODC that was approved by the Board. In that agreement, the Respondent defined what conduct by him would constitute the unauthorized practice of law and represented to this Court that he would not engage in any of those defined prohibited activities. Accordingly, the issue is whether the Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as defined and agreed to by him in his Admissions and voluntary assurances to this Court that constituted the basis for the Cease and Desist Order.