Opinion ID: 2627384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rowe's conduct constitutes the practice of law

Text: This court has held that it has the inherent power to define the practice of law. [4] On only one occasion, however, has the issue been explored in Nevada. [5] In the 1958 decision, Pioneer Title v. State Bar, [6] the State Bar had obtained an injunction against Pioneer Title Company from preparing any documents for parties to a typical real estate sales transaction, and Pioneer appealed. This court engaged in a thoughtful discussion of the purposes served by prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law and the factors that impacted whether certain tasks should be viewed as the practice of law. First, the Pioneer Title opinion identified the purpose of the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law as protecting the public, stating [t]he public interest therefore requires that in the securing of professional advice and assistance upon matters affecting one's legal rights one must have assurance of competence and integrity and must enjoy freedom of full disclosure with complete confidence in the undivided allegiance of one's counsellor in the definition and assertion of the rights in question. [7] For this reason, high standards of training and ethics are imposed on lawyers. Other courts have similarly emphasized the overarching reason for requiring that only lawyers engage in the practice of law: to ensure that the public is served by those who have demonstrated training and competence and who are subject to regulation and discipline. [8] But, the Pioneer Title court noted, the public is not well-served by defining the practice of law in such a manner as to require a person faced with a routine transaction to incur the expense of a lawyer unnecessarily. [9] And those transactions that may be considered routine evolve over time: as new areas involving legal rights develop, expert legal advice becomes more important, and as certain transactions become standardized, specific legal advice becomes less necessary. [10] But this court also emphasized that a person's decision not to obtain legal counsel must be one based on the person's self-reliance, not reliance on a nonlawyer third party: The need for legal counselling in any transaction is a question which must be decided by the person whose legal rights are involved. If, in his judgment, he does not need advice as to his legal rights or assistance with respect to them, no one can complain of his self-reliance. Such a case must be a true case of self -reliance, however. If reliance be placed upon the judgment of others as to his legal rights, the case is different. If advice or judgment is professionally given by one not a party to the transaction and not an attorney, a problem in unauthorized practice is presented. [11] Under Pioneer Title, then, the practice of law is implicated whenever a person is faced with a legal issue that cannot be handled by resort to routine forms or customs, and when the person makes the decision not to rely on his or her own judgment but to obtain assistance from someone else, a stranger to the situation. In the interest of public protection, Pioneer Title holds, this someone else must be qualified to render such assistance. Pioneer Title is consistent with cases from other jurisdictions. A key distinction drawn by many courts in determining whether a given activity is the practice of law is whether the services include the application of the general body of legal knowledge to a client's specific problem. As stated by the Colorado Supreme Court, a touchstone of whether an activity constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is whether an unlicensed person offers advice or judgment about legal matters to another person for use in a specific legal setting. [12] Similarly, a bankruptcy court applying Tennessee law stated that the practice of law `relates to the rendition of services for others that call for the professional judgment of a lawyer,' that is, the lawyer's `educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client.' [13] The Ninth Circuit, applying Oregon law, likewise held that `the practice of law means the exercise of professional judgment in applying legal principles to address another person's individualized needs through analysis, advice, or other assistance.' [14] For example, simply providing forms or offering a service to type client-provided information onto the forms was not the practice of law, but advising the client about how to complete a form, e.g., what information to include and on what portions of the form, was the practice of law. [15] Application of these general principles, however, is highly fact-specific, and the practice of law definition is not susceptible to a bright-line, broadly stated rule. Courts throughout the country agree that what constitutes the practice of law must be decided on the facts and in the context of each individual case. [16] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that [m]arking out the abstract boundaries of legal practice would be an elusive, complex task more likely to invite criticism than to achieve clarity.... While at times the line between lay and legal judgments may be a fine one, it is nevertheless discernible. Each given case must turn on a careful analysis of the particular judgment involved and the expertise that must be brought to bear on its exercise. [17] In determining what constitutes the practice of law, the public interest should be of primary concernboth protection of the public from incompetent legal services and also ensuring that regulation of the practice of law is not so strict that the public good suffers. [18] As the New Jersey Supreme Court has held, `[I]n cases involving an overlap of professional discipline we must try to avoid arbitrary classifications and instead focus on the public's realistic need for protection and regulation.' [19] Here, the amici's briefs illustrate why a case-by-case approach is necessary, since the particular tasks to be performed and decisions to be made depend upon the type of transaction or area of law involved. For example, in its amicus brief, the Estate Planning Council acknowledges the importance of requiring competence in those who provide legal services, but it maintains that a multidisciplinary approach best serves clients in the estate planning area. According to the Council, then, the unauthorized practice of law should not be so strictly defined that an accountant or financial planner would be prohibited from discussing the tax consequences of certain investments with clients, especially when these professionals are subject to licensing and continuing education requirements similar to and in some cases more intensive than lawyers. The Real Property Section, in its amicus brief, cites to the American Bar Association's Task Force on the Model Definition of the Practice of Law's report, which recommended a definition that include[s] the basic premise that the practice of law is the application of legal principles and judgment to the circumstances or objectives of another person or entity, [20] but suggests that it may be impracticable for this court to prescribe a bright-line definition. Similar to the Estate Planning Council's concerns over prohibiting a multidisciplinary approach, the Real Property Section urges us to be aware of possible consequences of our decision to title and escrow companies, commercial lenders, accountants, and out-of-state lawyers who might advise clients on Nevada real estate transactions. Turning then to cases involving conduct similar to that engaged in by Rowe, it becomes clear that Rowe's activities were the practice of law. The record reflects that Rowe routinely conducted initial client consultations and decided whether the representation should be accepted, negotiated clients' claims (which included making legal arguments in support of the clients' position), and served as the clients' sole contact in the firm. All of these activities have been held by other courts to constitute the practice of law. For example, the decision whether to represent a particular client calls for an exercise of professional judgment. [21] Also, evaluating a personal injury claim, advising clients of the claim's merits, and negotiating the claim with insurance companies constitutes the practice of law. [22] Notably, the Florida Supreme Court held that a paralegal engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by engaging in settlement negotiations, including discussion of case authority and legal strategy with clients, speaking on clients' behalf, and arguing the legal merits of the clients' cases. [23] Moreover, both the Kansas Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court have stated that attorneys must maintain direct relationships with their clients. [24] Specific examples of activities found to constitute the practice of law include advising a client about his or her legal rights and recommending future actions, negotiating settlement of a client's claims, and preparing and signing demand letters. [25] Moreover, Lerner was aware that such conduct constituted the practice of law because he had previously received three private reprimands for similar activities, including one for identical actions by Rowe. While we agree with Lerner that he is not estopped from arguing the issue in this case by his conditional guilty plea to the conduct underlying one of his prior reprimands, certainly this prior discipline demonstrates his awareness that such conduct constituted the practice of law. [26] Clearly, Rowe engaged in the practice of law. Since he was not licensed in Nevada, his conduct would be authorized only if allowed by RPC 5.5(b), which permits lawyers licensed in other states to perform legal services in Nevada under certain conditions, primarily that any Nevada services be incidental to the lawyer's representation of the client in the lawyer's state of licensure and not as a regular or repetitive course of business. [27] Here, Rowe regularly worked in Lerner's Las Vegas office and acted on behalf of Nevada clients. He did not perform isolated services in Nevada on behalf of an Arizona client related to his representation of that client in Arizona. Accordingly, Rowe's practice of law in Nevada was unauthorized.