Opinion ID: 853748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Law Proscribes the Unauthorized Practice of Law

Text: Anglo-American law has a long history, dating back more than seven hundred years, of limiting the practice of law to natural persons who meet certain qualifications. See Rhode Island Bar Ass'n v. Automobile Service Ass'n, 55 R.I. 122, 179 A. 139 (1935). This body of law was established in Indiana, and our statutes have explicitly proscribed the unauthorized practice of law for nearly a century. See, e.g., 1913 Ind. Acts ch. 347, § 1, p. 940; Pub.L. No. 2, § 3301 (1978). In its present version, the statute provides: It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to hold himself out as a practicing lawyer, to conduct the trial of a case in any court of this state, or to engage in the business of a practicing lawyer, without first having been duly admitted as an attorney-at-law by the supreme court of this state. IND.CODE § 33-1-5-1 (1998). Another statute provides: The practice of law by a person who is not an attorney is prohibited under IC 33-1-5. IND.CODE § 33-21-2-1 (1998). Person includes a corporation. IND.CODE § 35-41-1-22 (1998) (defining person); IND.CODE § 35-41-1-3 (1998) (applying definition to all statutes relating to penal offenses). The Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct apply only to those persons who are admitted to the bar in Indiana. Rule 5.5 relates to the unauthorized practice of law and prohibits lawyers from (a) practic[ing] law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession of that jurisdiction; or (b) assist[ing] a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. [3] Thus, Rule 5.5(b), in regulating attorney conduct, prohibits attorneys from assisting a person, which would include corporations and other organizational entities, in the performance of activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, an important distinction exists between the application of the professional rules and the application of the statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The statute governs all persons, whether natural or legal, whether lawyers or non-lawyers. The Professional Conduct Rules regulate only the conduct of lawyers, but not that of non-lawyers, corporations, or other organizational entities. The unauthorized practice of law statute operates to prohibit conduct by both individuals and legal entities that the professional rules do not regulate. In so doing, the statute criminalizes conduct by natural and legal persons who are not subject to this Court's authority under the professional rules and thereby protects the public from the practice of law by individuals and entities not qualified to practice law. The majority departs from this statutory proscription prohibiting the practice of law by legal entities not admitted as attorneys at law. Instead, it creates and announces a new judicial exemption, henceforth permitting an unlicensed legal entity to employ licensed agents to perform those acts requiring a license. Op. at 160 (citation omitted). The majority then recognizes that [i]n each case the lawfulness of the entity's activities turns on whether the individual is properly licensed. Op. at 160. The majority continues: Regardless of whether a partnership, a professional corporation, an insurance company, or any other legal entity may be said to be practicing law in some sense, we believe the proper focus of the unauthorized practice inquiry is whether the challenged activity results in the unauthorized practice by the individuals involved. Op. at 160 (footnote omitted). The majority thus reshapes the law regarding the unauthorized practice of law, even referring to it as the unlicensed practice of law, Op. at 158, and limits the unauthorized practice of law inquiry to the qualification and activity of the individuals (impliedly only natural persons) involved, such as when a disbarred attorney practices, an unlicensed person practices, or an out-of-state attorney practices without a license or proper approval. This new understanding obliterates the function of the statute in criminalizing conduct by both natural and legal persons who are not subject to this Court's authority under the professional rules. Under the majority's interpretation, only limited and indirect recourse [4] is available against general business corporations and other organizational entities that employ licensed attorneys and hold them out to the public. I am convinced that the legislature intended a broader application of the statute than the majority's interpretation allows. I believe the statute presently proscribes entities from undertaking such activities. Under Indiana statutory law, the unauthorized practice of law occurs when a person (whether natural or legal) not authorized to practice law in Indiana holds himself, herself, or itself out as a practicing lawyer, conducts a trial in a court, engages in the business of a practicing lawyer, or otherwise represents another person in a matter having legal consequences. The unauthorized practice of law statute is violated when either (1) an unlicensed individual engages in the practice of law, or (2) a person or entity, through its use of lawyers or non-lawyers, engages in the practice of law. [5] Under this interpretation, recourse may be taken under this Court's Rules of Professional Conduct against attorneys who improperly practice law, and recourse may be taken under the unauthorized practice of law statute against persons, both real and legal, who engage in the unauthorized practice of law. This second means of recourse would include corporations and other entities that employ attorneys and hold them out to the public as providing legal services. [6] I believe that Celina, through its use of a licensed attorney-employee, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Indiana statutory law.