The Utah Supreme Court's proposed rule concerning authorized practice of law can be found here. I have commented on the Advisory Committee’s Report here. The Proposed Rule is worth a look and a few comments. I would like to report that the Proposed Rule is better than the Committee Report, but it isn't. It doesn't keep terminology straight. The term "person" means different things at different points in the Proposed Rule. Under Sections (a) and (b)(3), a corporation might practice law, even though that is barred elsewhere in Utah law. The Rule keeps the weird account of law, from which it is not easy to determine whether the Rules are part of the law or not. Worse, because "deliberations" are law (this is (b)(2)(ii), the Committee Report, the Committee’s deliberations, comments on the Proposed Rule are all also law. As the Committee itself notes, an individual appearing in propria persona is not practicing law. I have no idea if, in such instances, the person would be subject to any disciplinary rules at all. I assume not as they are not practicing law. Do other rules govern (like rules of procedure) apply if the person is not practicing law? I would think so, but there is at least room for doubt.
Section (c)(12) says, those one is not under the Rule if one's job involves "applications of one or more areas of law and (ii) [is] regulated or subject to professional oversight by an administrative agency of the State of Utah or by a nationally recognized professional licensing or accreditation organization." That seems to mean that accountants and realtors can practice law without being under the Supreme Court's authority. But so could psychologists or a host of others. I assume that (i) and (ii) are jointly necessary for the exception, but there is no requirement that the "areas of law" and the 'accreditation or licensing' overlap. I would guess that is the intent, but it is not what this Rule says. In light of the desire for an axiomatic account, the preferred reading would not get the natural outcome.
Section (b) seems to entail that litigation consultants are engaged in the practice of law, something I find a little surprising. For example, an economist must apply parts of antitrust law to "a person's facts and circumstances." So would an historian engaged to aid in understanding legislative history (and under (b)(2)(ii) legislative history is law). I guess the consultants would be okay if they are under some "nationally recognized accreditation" organization.
The Committee wants to have it several ways. They pretend to a logical and philosophical precision, then rely on ordinary language and understandings at every important point. They offer a definition of law that collapses under its own weight. It is not terribly successful.
It is worth noting how they got into this problem. The Utah Supreme Court that it lacked authority to discipline unauthorized practice of law. It reasoned that it had authority to govern the practice of law, which it understood to be practice by those authorized to practice law. So someone posing as a lawyer was outside their purview. That was reversed, sub voce, by an amendment to Rule 6.1 . This ignited some anger in the Legislature, resulting in passage of a statute which defined the practice of law as appearing in court. In an attempt to diffuse the battle between the branches, the Legislature agreed to drop the statutory definition if the Court would revise Rule 6.1 and include more avenues for low-cost legal help. The result is the Advisory Committee Report and Propose Rule.
Recent Comments