Opinion ID: 1318973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Attorney at Law Exemption

Text: Lexington Law Firm, as a matter of law, is not entitled to the attorneys at law exemption. As previously discussed, section 37-7-101(2) provides: (2) Credit counseling organization means a person providing or offering to provide to consumers credit counseling services for a fee, compensation, or gain, or in the expectation of a fee, compensation, or gain, including debt management plans. (a) The business of credit counseling is conducted in this State if the credit counseling organization, its employees, or its agents are located in this State or if the credit counseling organization solicits or contracts with debtors located within this State. (b) This term does not include the following when acting in the regular course of their respective businesses and professions: (i) attorneys at law; (emphasis added). None of the attorneys in Lexington Law Firm is authorized to practice law in South Carolina. The position of Lexington Law Firm is manifestly without merit. To accept Lexington Law Firm's view of the statute, we must accept the premise that the Legislature has sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law. The Legislature has done no such thing. There is a presumption that the [L]egislature has knowledge of previous legislation as well as of judicial decisions construing that legislation when later statutes are enacted concerning related subjects. State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 648, 576 S.E.2d 168, 175 (2003). Thus, when enacting the Act, the General Assembly knew of South Carolina's laws and policies addressing the unauthorized practice of law, including section 40-5-310 of the South Carolina Code (2001) which makes it a crime to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. We therefore hold the General Assembly would not create an exemption condoning the unauthorized practice of law. [2] Moreover, section 37-7-101(2)(b)'s conditional regular course of . . . business language is unambiguous. The language indicates a clear legislative intent to limit the exemption to a listed business (or profession) when the credit counseling service is part of the regular course of that business. If a statutorily enumerated business provides credit counseling services not in the regular course of its business, the exemption is unavailable. McClanahan v. Richland County Council, 350 S.C. 433, 438, 567 S.E.2d 240, 242 (2002) (All rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one that legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute.) (citation omitted); First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 229, 417 S.E.2d 592, 593 (1992) (In construing a statute, its words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation.) (citation omitted). Further, the statute's plain language indicates the Legislature intended to exempt professions and businesses that are otherwise regulated. Other exemptions located in this section are of other professions and businesses subject to other licenses (such as certified public accountants, counselors certified by the South Carolina Housing Authority, and real estate brokers licensed pursuant to Title 40) as well as non-profit, faith-based organizations and judicial officers. Therefore, the Legislature expressed its intent to exempt businesses otherwise licensed in South Carolina and non-profit organizations. Lexington Law Firm's final argument is that the providing of credit counseling services does not constitute the practice of law, and as such, its actions cannot constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The untenable dichotomy Lexington Law Firm advances is they fall under the attorney exemption but do not commit the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina because they are conducting a business. Lexington Law Firm cannot have it both ways. As discussed, the statutory scheme limits the listed exemptions to those professions or businesses when acting in the regular course of their respective businesses and professions. S.C.Code Ann. § 37-7-101(2)(b) (Supp.2008). If Lexington Law Firm is, in fact, acting in the regular course of the practice of law in South Carolina, then it is engaging in the unlawful unauthorized practice of law. Conversely, if Lexington Law Firm is merely conducting a credit counseling business, then it may not gain relief from the statutory compliance requirements through the attorneys at law exemption.