Opinion ID: 1821559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who Governs the Practice of Law Before Agencies

Text: Having concluded that respondent's conduct constitutes the practice of law, the next question is whether this Court, the legislature, or an agency can control it  that is, whether respondent's conduct was authorized representation before an agency or the unauthorized practice of law subject to this Court's control. The single most important concern in the Court's defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation. The Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, supra ; The Florida Bar v. Sperry, supra. It is in furtherance of this purpose that this Court maintains strict standards of competence and ethical responsibility to be reached prior to admission to practice law in Florida. Once admitted, a person must continue to adhere to these standards or suffer the disciplinary powers residing in this Court by constitutional mandate. Article V, section 15, Florida Constitution. Inherent in our supervisory power is the authority to prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. Fla. Bar Integr. Rule, art. XVI. Implicit in the power to define the practice of law, regulate those who may so practice and prohibit the unauthorized practice of law is the ability to authorize the practice of law by lay representatives. The unauthorized practice of law and the practice of law by non-lawyers are not synonymous. Brickman, Expansion of the Lawyering Process through a New Delivery System: The Emergence and State of Legal Paraprofessionalism, 71 Colum.L.Rev. 1153, 1209-10 (1971); Section 454.23, Florida Statutes (1977) (Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court of Florida... . who practices law is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor) (emphasis supplied); Fla. Bar Integr. Rule, art. XVIII (qualified law students authorized to represent clients in legal intern programs). Respondent and amici would have this Court authorize lay representation by specialists such as respondent on the assumption they possess the requisite knowledge and skill by virtue of their expertise in labor relations and knowledge of the case. In Auerbacher v. Wood, 139 N.J. Eq. 599, 53 A.2d 800 (Ch. 1947), aff'd 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863 (N.J. 1948), the lower court refused to formulate a per se rule that lay representation in the adjustment of grievances and collective bargaining process constituted the practice of law. In affirming, the appellate court cautioned that one would not be allowed to practice law under the guise of specialized service in the sphere of labor relations. 142 N.J. Eq. at 486, 59 A.2d at 864. Even the lower court limited the permissible activity to situations where the legal question was subordinate to a major non-legal problem. 139 N.J. Eq. at 602, 53 A.2d at 802. Auerbacher also dealt with practice before the National Labor Relations Board and federal statutes which preempt state regulation of such practice. In Re: Petition of Kearney, 63 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1953). That facet of Auerbacher and other like cases  preemption  has a corollary in our constitution which is the critical feature of this issue. This Court has no control over the agencies of this state, and any attempt to exercise it would violate article II, section 3 of the constitution which states: No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. In the absence of legislative authorization for lay representation, there would be no question that conduct which constitutes the practice of law, wherever performed, is subject to our constitutional responsibility to protect the public from the unauthorized practice of law. We have so held in finding that, absent legislative governing authority, the preparation and filing of a corporate charter constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Town, 174 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1965), followed in The Florida Bar v. Keehley, 190 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1966); The Florida Bar v. Fuentes, 190 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1966); and The Florida Bar v. Scussel, 240 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1970). See also The Florida Bar v. Turner, 355 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1978). But the legislature has constitutional authorization to oust the Court's responsibility to protect the public in administrative proceedings under article V, section 1 of the Florida Constitution, and when it does so any practice of law conduct becomes, in effect, authorized representation. That, we find, is the situation here. PERC is unquestionably subject to the APA, and the APA has unquestionably authorized representation before PERC by non-lawyers. Sections 120.52(1)(b), 120.62(2), Florida Statutes (1975). PERC has acknowledged the authorization and has purported to allow lay representation in contested ULP proceedings. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-4.13(a). Other agencies have done the same, either directly such as the Public Service Commission, or by acquiescence to the model rule adopted by the governor and cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission. Fla. Admin. Code Rules 25-2.10-.19; 28-5.03. In a similar vein, federal agencies promulgate rules and regulations governing the competence and conduct of persons practicing before them. See F.T. Vom Baur, Standards of Admission to Practice before Federal Administrative Agencies, in Survey of the Legal Profession (1953); Address by Professor Gellhorn, Qualifications for Practice before Boards and Commissions, Cincinnati Conference (Mar. 1, 1941), printed in Law and Lawyers in the Modern World, 15 Cin.L. Rev. 123, 196-99 (1941); 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (1977). Having identified legislative authority to characterize respondent's conduct as authorized representation before PERC and PERC's attempt to accommodate that authorized representation, however, does not end our inquiry. There is always the residual question in rule related proceedings as to whether the agency in promulgating a controlling rule has validly exercised delegated authority. Indeed, the APA itself provides the authority to challenge a rule or proposed rule as violative of this requirement. Sections 120.56(1), 120.54(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). Section 120.62(2), it must be remembered, authorizes agencies to permit qualified lay representatives to appear in agency proceedings. PERC's rule, on which respondent has relied, made no attempt to set standards for non-lawyer representation, despite this limitation in the delegating statute. Amici meet this issue by suggesting that sufficient standards exist in chapter 120. We do not agree. There are no specific standards of competence and professional responsibility either in the APA or prescribed by agency rule authorizing representation such as respondent's. Absent such standards, PERC has invalidly exercised delegated authority and we must hold that respondent's conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law. We are not here passing on the constitutional adequacy of the qualification standard required by the legislature for participation in agency proceedings. No one has suggested an infirmity in that regard. To summarize, we began this inquiry with the responsibility of this Court under article V, section 15 of the constitution in the absence of any legislative attempt to govern representation before agencies, and we found that respondent's conduct before PERC in fact constituted the practice of law. We then considered whether the legislature could oust the Court's responsibility in proceedings before agencies, and we found that it could convert such conduct into authorized representation. We next considered whether the legislature had so acted with respect to this agency, and we found that it had through delegation in the APA. Finally, we considered whether PERC's exercise of legislatively-delegated authority was valid, and we found that it was not for lack of standards consistent with the legislative delegation. From this we conclude that respondent's conduct was not authorized representation, and therefore must be classified as the unauthorized practice of law. In light of the joint petition, however, we refrain from holding respondent in contempt, but enjoin him from further conduct such as that described in the Joint Petition and Stipulation so long as there is no valid exercise of delegated authority by PERC. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.