Opinion ID: 2452179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: regulation of the unauthorized practice of law

Text: The supreme judicial power of this State is vested in one Supreme Court and in such Circuit, Chancery and other inferior Courts as the Legislature shall from time to time, ordain and establish; in the Judges thereof, and in Justices of the Peace. Tenn. Const. Art. VI, § 1. As a result of that broad grant of power, it has long been recognized and widely accepted that the Tennessee Supreme Court is the repository of the inherent power of the judiciary in this State. See Petition of Tennessee Bar Ass'n, 532 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. 1975); Belmont v. Board of Law Examiners, 511 S.W.2d 461, 462 (Tenn. 1974); Cantor v. Brading, 494 S.W.2d 139, 142 (Tenn. App. 1973). Indeed, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-503 & 504 (1994), declare that this Court possesses the broad conference of full, plenary, and discretionary inherent power that existed at common law at the time of the adoption of our Constitution. Included within this Court's inherent power is the essential and fundamental right to prescribe and administer rules pertaining to the licensing and admission of attorneys. Id.; see also Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court, 771 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tenn. 1989); Petition of Tennessee Bar Ass'n, 539 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tenn. 1976); Petition for Rule of Court Activating, Integrating and Unifying the State Bar of Tennessee, 199 Tenn. 78, 282 S.W.2d 782 (1955). As a result, this Court exercises original jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the practice of law. As was explained in Petition for Rule of Court, supra, If Courts have inherent power to prescribe qualifications required for the practice of law, it seems to follow, as held by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in Collins v. Godfrey, 324 Mass. 574, 87 N.E.2d 838, 841, that the Supreme Judicial Court, as under the Constitution the highest court in the Commonwealth, is the proper representative of the judicial department and the repository of the power. This Court's power, then, in this respect is original, rather than appellate. Id. at 83, 282 S.W.2d at 784. Thus, while we have considered and discussed on several previous occasions our inherent authority to regulate the licensing and admission of attorneys, as well as our concomitant original jurisdiction over such matters, it appears that this petition presents an issue of first impression as to whether this Court's inherent power and original jurisdiction include the right to regulate and prevent the unauthorized practice of law. The vast majority of supreme courts of other jurisdictions considering the issue have concluded that the state judiciary's inherent power includes the authority and the original jurisdiction to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. For example, the Supreme Court of Arizona held in Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit Sys. Comm'n, 127 Ariz. 259, 619 P.2d 1036, 1039 (1980), that the great weight of authority is in accord with the proposition that the ultimate authority for defining, regulating and controlling the practice of law is vested in the Judiciary. An early illustrative case is the holding of the West Virginia Supreme Court in West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, 144 W. Va. 504, 109 S.E.2d 420 (1959), that the judicial department ... has the inherent power to define, supervise, regulate and control the practice of law and the Legislature can not restrict or impair this power of the courts or permit or authorize laymen to engage in the practice of law. A more recent application of the rule occurred in The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion HRS Nonlawyer Counselor, 518 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 1988), where the Florida Supreme Court held that this Court `shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law,' and the attending power to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. See also Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460, 463 (Colo. 1986); Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 398, 312 P.2d 998, 1002 (1957); Brookens v. Comm. on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 538 A.2d 1120, 1125, note 13 (D.C.App. 1988); Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So.2d 412, 417 (Fla. 1980); Idaho State Bar Ass'n v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 102 Idaho 672, 637 P.2d 1168, 1171 (1981); Professional Adjusters, Inc. v. Tandon, 433 N.E.2d 779, 783 (Ind. 1982); Reed v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n, 789 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. banc 1990); State ex rel. Johnson v. Childe, 139 Neb. 91, 295 N.W. 381, 382 (1941); Henize v. Giles, 22 Ohio St.3d 213, 490 N.E.2d 585, 588-89 (1986); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. State, Dept. of Workers' Compensation, 543 A.2d 662, 664 (R.I. 1988); In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed by South Carolina Bar, 309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1992); State ex rel. Reynolds v. Dinger, 14 Wis.2d 193, 109 N.W.2d 685, 692 (1961). We conclude that as the court of last resort in this state and as the representative of the judicial branch of government, this Court possesses not only the inherent supervisory power to regulate the practice of law, but also the corollary power to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. That conclusion is buttressed by our own rules which provide that [n]o person shall engage in the `practice of law' or the `law business' in Tennessee, except pursuant to the authority of this Court ..., Rule 7, § 1.01, Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court (emphasis added), as well as the legislative declarations recognizing this Court's broad, full, plenary, and discretionary inherent powers. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-503 & 504 (1994). Essential to and interrelated with that inherent power is the concomitant authority, when circumstances warrant, to exercise original jurisdiction over matters concerning the unauthorized practice of law within this State. See Petition of Tennessee Bar Ass'n, supra, 539 S.W.2d at 807; Petition of Tennessee Bar Ass'n, supra, 532 S.W.2d at 226; Belmont v. Board of Law Examiners, supra, 511 S.W.2d at 462. Indeed, it is by virtue of this Court's inherent authority to regulate the unauthorized practice of law that we exercised original jurisdiction in the present proceeding. Although acknowledging this Court's inherent power to regulate the unauthorized practice of law, the Special Master concluded that the power does not extend to any non-judicial phase of the valuation process, including determining the qualifications of the persons or entities who can assist taxpayers and taxing authorities in assessment appeals, because the Constitution specifically grants to the Legislature the taxing power and provides that the value and definition of property in each class or subclass [is] to be ascertained in such manner as the Legislature shall direct. Tenn. Const. Art. II, § 28. The Master's conclusion is no doubt based on the principle of separation of powers which is fundamental to American constitutional government and is expressed in Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Tennessee Constitution as follows: Sec. 1. Division of powers.  The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct departments: the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Sec. 2. Limitation of powers.  No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted. Despite these explicit constitutional provisions, it is impossible to preserve perfectly the theoretical lines of demarcation between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Underwood v. State, 529 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Tenn. 1975). Indeed there is, by necessity, a certain amount of overlap because the three branches of government are interdependent. Id. The Special Master, however, interpreted Art. II, Sec. 28 in a manner that would divest this Court of any authority to regulate the unauthorized practice of law before the boards of equalization. This interpretation is too broad. Although the legislative branch is vested with the authority to designate the method by which the value and classification of property is to be ascertained, this Court is the only branch of government that possesses the inherent power to determine whether the method so designated by the legislature permits the unauthorized practice of law. That rule controls despite the fact that the non-attorney agents are participating in administrative proceedings rather than court proceedings. See Application of New Jersey Soc. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 102 N.J. 231, 507 A.2d 711, 714 (1986); West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, supra, 109 S.E.2d at 432; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Dinger, supra, 109 N.W.2d at 690; Slimm v. Yates, 236 N.J. Super. 558, 566 A.2d 561, 563 (1989). By so saying, we do not imply that the General Assembly is completely without authority to enact legislation regarding the practice of law. As this Court previously has explained, [t]he inherent right of Courts to prescribe qualifications necessary for the practice of law does not mean that the Legislature is without authority in that field. The property, rights, liberties and lives of people are continuously entrusted to lawyers. So, the State is vitally interested in the qualifications and integrity of those into whose hands such vital trusts are continuously placed. Thus, a legislative requirement that individuals who would practice this profession must first meet certain reasonable conditions and qualifications is only the exercise by the Legislature of the police power with which that department of our government is vested. Lamb v. Whitaker, 171 Tenn. 485, 490, 105 S.W.2d 105. But the exercise of such authority by the Legislature does not mean that this Court, in the exercise of its authority within the premises, may not require qualifications more extensive than those exacted by the Legislature. In Re Petition for Court Rule, supra, 282 S.W.2d at 784 (emphasis added). This general rule is followed in other jurisdictions as well, and was expressed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. State, Dept. of Workers' Compensation, supra , as follows: It has long been the law of this state that the definition of the practice of law and the determination concerning who may practice law is exclusively within the province of this court and further, that the Legislature may act in aid of this power but may not grant the right to anyone to practice law save in accordance with standards enunciated by this court. 543 A.2d at 664. The issue in this case therefore becomes whether the General Assembly, by enacting Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 (1994), sanctioned and permitted the unauthorized practice of law and thereby infringed upon this Court's constitutional role and inherent authority. Initially, we note that the general rules of statutory construction apply in this case. Accordingly, in reviewing this statute for a possible constitutional infirmity, we are required to indulge every presumption and resolve every doubt in favor of the constitutionality of the statute. State v. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tenn. 1990). That general rule applies with even greater force in this case where the facial constitutional validity of the statute is questioned. Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1993); Idaho State Bar Ass'n v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, supra, 637 P.2d at 1170. In analyzing the validity of the statute, we adopt the summary and description of the process contained within the Special Master's report. We agree with the Special Master that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, EC 3-5 is the standard by which to determine whether the services performed by the non-attorney agents constitute the practice of law. That ethical consideration appears in the Code of Professional Responsibility following Canon 3, which directs that [a] lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law. The ethical consideration specifically provides as follows: It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt the formulation of a single specific definition of what constitutes the practice of law. Functionally the practice of law relates to the rendition of services for others that call for the professional judgment of a lawyer. The essence of the professional judgment of the lawyer is his educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client; and thus, the public interest will be better served if only lawyers are permitted to act in matters involving professional judgment. Where this professional judgment is not involved, non-lawyers, such as court clerks, police officers, abstracters, and many governmental employees, may engage in occupations that require a special knowledge of law in certain areas. But the services of a lawyer are essential in the public interest whenever the exercise of professional legal judgment is required. Our decision to adopt the general standard contained within Ethical Consideration 3-5, is consistent with the rule observed in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, supra, 312 P.2d at 1008. In adopting the general definition contained within Ethical Consideration 3-5, we note that the term practice of law is defined more specifically in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, § 20.2(e). [6] However, that broad definition is contained within a rule requiring attorneys who practice law to pay an annual disciplinary fee. The rule was not designed nor intended to regulate the unauthorized practice of law. Instead it is a regulation of the persons who have been admitted to practice law. Equally inapplicable in the context of this proceeding is Supreme Court Rule 7, § 1.01, which provides that, No person shall engage in the practice of law or the law business in Tennessee, except pursuant to the authority of this Court, as evidenced by a license issued in accordance with this Rule, or in accordance with the provisions of this Rule governing special or limited practice. Although, in implementing that rule, this Court incorporated the definitions of practice of law and law business as written by the General Assembly, [7] `practice of law' for purposes of admission is necessarily broader than `practice of law' for purposes of unauthorized practice. See Tennessee Board of Law Examiners' Statement of Policy Concerning the Meaning of Practice of Law, Sept. 25, 1984, adopted by this Court, Volume 267 Tennessee Decisions, at p. XXXI. Thus, we do not consider Rule 7, § 1.01 controlling in this proceeding. The definitions of law business and practice of law, contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-101 (1994), are also incorporated within Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-103 (1994), which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law and provides, in pertinent part that, (a) No person shall engage in the practice of law or do law business, or both, as defined in § 23-3-101, unless such person has been duly licensed therefor, and while such person's license therefor is in full force and effect, nor shall any association or corporation engage in the practice of the law or do law business, or both, as defined in § 23-3-101. Persons or entities violating that prohibition commit a Class A misdemeanor and may be subject to damages for three times the amount of any fee received as a result of the prohibited activities. Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-103(b) (1994). By these statutes, the General Assembly has provided a penalty for the unauthorized practice of law. We view this as an aid to the inherent power of this Court rather than an infringement upon our constitutional and inherent responsibilities. In determining whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 permits the unauthorized practice of law, we are not bound by the definitions of practice of law and law business employed in these penalty statutes. As we have previously stated, it is the duty of this Court to resolve doubts in favor of the constitutionality of statutes. Accordingly, we have determined that the definitions contained within Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-101 (1994), must be read in conjunction with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, EC 3-5. Thus, the acts enumerated in the definitions of law business and practice of law contained within Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-101 (1994), if performed by a non-attorney constitute the unauthorized practice of law only if the doing of those acts requires the professional judgment of a lawyer. As recognized in Canon 3, the essence of professional judgment is the lawyer's educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, EC 3-5. Our interpretation of these various statutory and rule provisions is in keeping with the purpose of regulation governing the unauthorized practice of law, which is to serve the public right to protection against unlearned and unskilled advice in matters relating to the science of the law. Application of New Jersey Soc. of Certified Pub. Accountants, supra, 507 A.2d at 714; see also, Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion HRS Nonlawyer Counselor, supra, 518 So.2d at 1272. Indeed, it is our responsibility to regulate the practice of law and to restrain such practice by laymen in a common-sense way in order to protect primarily the interest of the public and not to hamper and burden such interest with impractical technical restraints no matter how well supported such restraint may be from the standpoint of pure logic. Cowern v. Nelson, 207 Minn. 642, 290 N.W. 795, 797 (1940); Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit Sys. Comm., supra, 619 P.2d at 1040; Henize v. Giles, supra, 490 N.E.2d at 589; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Dinger, supra, 109 N.W.2d at 691.