I won’t add much to this, since the relevant points were added by the smart members who did what the Staff failed, namely, go to Black’s Law Dictionary and obtain facts on the issue.
However, one point still seems to be missed by many. ANYONE can be a lawyer. All it takes is studying the law and making yourself expert at it. You can even advertise yourself as a lawyer, make up cards that say you are a lawyer, go on talk shows and call yourself a lawyer, etc. What you CANNOT do in almost every state of the Union (and in Canada, also, I presume from the answer jti posted) is practice law without the approval of the jurisdiction involved. Please note that even that statement has qualifications, but in general, if you attempt to advise clientele and/or act as an attorney (i.e. represent people in courts) without getting permission from the courts, you get in a pile of trouble.
Thank goodness no one has asked the more penetrating question: what is the difference between an attorney and a shyster?
Another comment: I know I guy who started a successful business afew years back-he used his computer to prepare legal documents for folks who could not afford a $170.00/hr atty/lawywr/whatever. In essence he merely filled in names, dates, etc., and charged a reasonable fee. Well, the local bar association sued him! They claimed he was practicing law without a licence! (I would have thought it more plausible that his computer was the guilty party).
Anyway, to make a long story short, he countersued, and was able to stay in business (he had to change the name of the business, and issue a disclaimer).
Is there that much money in legal documents?
While having nothing to do with the original question here’s an interesting tidbit related to the last post. For a time Quicken® Family Lawyer® was banned from sale in the state of Texas. The charge? The software was so helpful it was practicing law without a licence. Check it out http://www.itslegal.com/texas.html
“You CAN’T be evil. 'Cos no matter how many ‘bad’ things you do on purpose,
you MUST be doing it because you think it’s the right thing to do.”
For a time I worked for a group that gave technical assistance to small-town officials, not-for-profit associations, and such. Among other things, we did legal research for them. We sometimes had a lawyer on staff. Here’s the upshot:
Anybody (with sufficient brains and resourcefulness to do so) can do legal research and report it. Only a practicing lawyer can give legal advice for pay.
In other words, you come to me and say, I have this legal problem. I wade through the statutes and the associated case law, and report back to you that in case such-and-such (whose description, which I also report, matches yours), the judge decided thus and so for this reason. So far, I’m doing legal research for you, and within my rights. If I then add a sentence, “Based on this, your situation seems to be…” I’ve begun practicing law, and either need to be a lawyer or to get one!
Now, the kicker…in New York at least, and I suspect it’s a common-law thing and valid nationwide, anybody can give legal advice for free (and it’s probably worth every penny you pay for it). It’s giving legal advice for money that is prohibited. That includes being paid by foundation X to give legal advice to the poor for free - you still have to be a lawyer.
Polycarp, at least one state would likely consider your answer as practicing law. Texas defines practicing law as including activities “the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined”. So, finding just the right case for the situation might fit this definition. Also, Texas allows courts to expand this defintion. If a simple computer program can manage the unauthorized practice of law, I bet that a person doing legal research for others would also be unauthorized practice.
The distinction between doing research and practicing law is a fine one, and probably does vary from state to state.
For instance, Robb has just quoted the law. That’s OK for anyone to do, lawyer or not. One could also paraphrase the law, saying that “practice of law includes giving advice relating to the law.” That’s not a violation, I’m not practicing law by paraphrasing that way BECAUSE THE STATEMENT IS GENERAL.
What is usually forbidden is giving advice in a specific individual case or situation.
For instance: I say, “It is against the law to go through a red light without stopping.” That’s NOT practice of law.
If I say, “Bill, when you went through the red light back there, you violated the law” – then I would be practicing law. I can’t say that without being a lawyer.
Thirsty4: “For a time Quicken® Family Lawyer® was banned from sale in the state of Texas.”
In a related area the Texas UPL Committee has, it has been opined (note how adroitly I avoid giving a legally-related opinion but merely report others’ opinions), gone so far as to accuse books of practicing law. For an overview, see http://www.nolo.com/texas/index.html, or for a chronology of events so far see http://www.nolo.com/texas/chronology.html. Basically, a bunch of Berkeley, CA types have been trying to upset the status quo and take power out of the hands of the elite. I’d accuse them of being a bunch of out-and-out commies except, consarn it, they’re trying to make a buck at the same time!
gene: “Is there that much money in legal documents?”
Yes!! Many lawyers derive a good income from helping people fill out forms that in no wise require a lawyer.
jti: “And no, you can’t charge a solicitor with soliciting…”
You see, there’s another difference between the USofA and The Great White North: down here, ‘evening work’ is legalized by jurisdiction, not by educational type and status. [“Q. Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients? A. To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service” - except in Canada?]
