Opinion ID: 2600199
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The OPC's Authority to File Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaints

Text: ¶ 25 Sonnenreich argued, and the district court agreed, that the OPC had no authority to bring an unauthorized practice of law complaint. The district court presumably based its conclusion on a strict interpretation of RIM C.20 in finding that district court actions for practicing while suspended must be instituted by the Bar Commission. ¶ 26 RIM C.20 provides as follows: No person who is not duly admitted and licensed to practice law within this state nor any person whose right or license to so practice has terminated either by disbarment, suspension ... or otherwise, shall practice or assume to act or hold himself out to the public as a person qualified to practice law or to carry on the calling of an attorney within the state. Such practice... by any such ... suspended person shall not constitute a crime, but this prohibition against the practice of law by any such person shall be enforced by such civil action or proceedings, including writ, contempt or injunctive proceedings, as may be necessary and appropriate, which action or which proceedings shall be instituted by the Board. [11] Accord Utah Code Ann. § 78-51-25 (1996) (repealed). Contrary to the district court's interpretation, RIM C.20 does not refer to the OPC's authority to seek appropriate sanctions against attorneys who practice while suspended; rather, it addresses the mechanisms by which the Bar may enforce such sanctions when an attorney fails to comply with them. The OPC's authority to initiate lawyer discipline derives from the RLDD. ¶ 27 Rule 1(c) of the RLDD states that [a]ll disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and proceedings described herein. RLDD 8(b) further provides that [a]ny attorney who shall practice law while suspended for non-payment of the license fee violates the Rules of Professional Conduct and may be disciplined for practicing while suspended for non-payment of dues.  (Emphasis added.) The responsibility for seeking such discipline, according to rule 11(a), resides in the OPC. We believe an overview of the disciplinary process will be helpful in explaining why this responsibility is delegated to the OPC. ¶ 28 The RLDD provide that disciplinary proceedings for practicing while suspended for failing to pay annual dues may be initiated against any member of the Bar by any person, OPC counsel or the [Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court] by filing an informal complaint with the Bar in writing. RLDD 10(a)(1). Once an informal complaint is filed, OPC counsel is required to conduct a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether the informal complaint is sufficiently clear as to its allegations. RLDD 10(a)(3). If the allegations are clear and the informal complaint cannot be resolved in the public interest, the complainant's interest, and the respondent attorney's interest, or if good cause otherwise exists to bring the matter before the screening panel, OPC counsel must serve a notice of informal complaint on the respondent attorney. RLDD 10(a)(4). When the respondent files his or her answer, or after twenty days in cases in which the respondent fails to respond, OPC counsel must refer the case to a screening panel for investigation, consideration and determination. RLDD 10(a)(5). A screening panel then reviews all informal complaints, including all the facts developed by the informal complaint, answer, investigation and hearing, and the recommendations of OPC counsel, and makes one of six determinations ranging from dismissal to directing that a formal complaint be filed against the respondent attorney. RLDD 10(b)(1)-(5). When a screening panel requires disciplinary action, RLDD 11(a) clearly identifies the party responsible for following the screening panel's determinations: In the event the screening panel finds probable cause to believe that there are grounds for public discipline and that a formal complaint is merited, OPC counsel shall prepare and file with the district court a formal complaint setting forth in plain and concise language the facts upon which the charge of unprofessional conduct is based and the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 29 Thus, where, as here, the screening panel found probable cause to believe a formal complaint was warranted, the OPC had the authority under the RLDD to file the complaint against Sonnenreich for practicing while suspended.