Opinion ID: 1262059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: By Some of Their Actions, Respondents Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

Text: The question remains whether respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Although they certainly did not have the benefit of the guidelines we announce today, we nevertheless must decide whether respondents crossed the line into the unauthorized practice of law. Because they advised the Linders on their rights under the insurance policy and became involved with a known coverage dispute, we conclude that they did. We find from the record before us that respondents advised the Linders on the extent of coverage for Mr. Linder's gun collection, and then subsequently discussed this with the insurance adjuster. While this advice may simply have been pointing out the policy language to the Linders, it still constituted counsel on the Linders' rights under the policy. Moreover, Moore knew at the time that the insurer had limited liability on the gun collection based on its interpretation of the policy. It matters not that the insurance company was mistaken. This clearly was a coverage dispute between the Linders and their insurer, and therefore, respondents should not have become involved. Their involvement went beyond an evaluation on the vital question of how much the gun collection was worth, and transgressed into an evaluation of whether, and to what extent, the guns should be covered pursuant to the policy language. The acts of (1) interpreting and advising the clients on the insurance policy, and (2) negotiating with the insurer on coverage disputes, require legal knowledge and skill, and therefore are not permitted without a law license. See State v. Buyers Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. at 430, 357 S.E.2d at 17 (activities which entail specialized legal knowledge and ability are the practice of law). We find that respondents stepped over the line and that these acts constituted the unauthorized practice of law. [7]