AUTHORIZED PRACTICE COMMITTEE MEETING
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Chair
The North Carolina State Bar
January 21, 2015
2:30 Room 221
I. Full Committee Discussion Agenda
A. Prepaid Legal Plans
1. Report of Prepaid Legal Services Plans Activities
· 14PP03 – Veritas Prepaid Legal
· 14PP07 – LegalZoom Business Advantage Pro and 14PP08 Legal Advantage Plus
B. Investigation Complete – For Decision
2. 14AP0083 – Jerry Holmes, Jr. dba Lender’s Title & Escrow, LLC: A title insurance company offers to perform residential real estate closings despite two prior warnings from the Committee.
3. 14AP0091 – Greg Frank dba Financial Fitness Center: Nonattorney attempts to represent, advise, and negotiate on behalf of debtors, despite a recent warning from the Committee.
4. 14AP0081 – Timothy J. Gosch dba Tsoft Software Products, Inc.: A software company offers to assist others in the creation of legal documents relating to evictions.
5. 14AP0048 – The Company Corporation: Business corporation offers to prepare and file articles of incorporation and other legal documents related to the formation of business entities in North Carolina.
6. 14AP0098 – Constanza Sierra: A nonattorney continues providing legal services relating to immigration despite a recent warning from the Committee.
7. 14AP0097 – Lourdes Arenas Fernandez: An attorney not licensed to practice in North Carolina holds out via business cards and social media as able to practice in this state despite a recent warning from the Committee.
8. 14AP0080 – Maura Chavez dba Migrant Assistance: Spanish translator advertises as able to help complete immigration forms.
II. Consent Agenda
A. Letters of Caution
9. 14AP0053 – Joseph M. Williams, Jr.: Nonattorney drafts a petition for a friend and files in state court on their behalf.
10. 14AP0061 – Kimberly Engler dba Disability Advocates Group: Nonattorney advertises as an attorney able to represent others in Social Security disability cases.
11. 14AP0077 – Betty Jo Perritte: Nonattorney realtor drafts a real estate deed for some of her friends.
12. 14AP0079 – David Christopher Dawe: Nonattorney appears in court, claims to be an attorney, and argues on behalf of others during a small claims trial.
13. 14AP0082 – Rosalyn Camacho Montesino: Nonattorney translator offers assistance selecting and completing legal documents relating to immigration and business formation.
14. 14AP0084 – Daniel Arroyo, Jr. dba A Royal Service & Consulting: A nonattorney translator offers to assist others in the completion of legal documents relating to immigration.
15. 14AP0085 – Joshua Toth dba Concepto Latino Multiservicios, LLC: Nonattorney advertises in Spanish as able to help Hispanics complete immigration paperwork.
16. 14AP0086 – David Prince dba Prince Law, LLC: An out-of-state law firm attempts to provide legal services in North Carolina via local attorneys serving as “Class B Partners.”
17. 14AP0093 – Melinda S. Llanio: A nonattorney attempts to represent someone at trial and sign a Notice of Appeal as “attorney for the plaintiff.”
18. 13AP0063 – Jamal Bullock and Walter Headen dba El & Bey Legal Consultation, LLC: Nonattorney drafted and filed legal documents with the North Carolina Department of Insurance on behalf of another.
19. 14AP0052 – Mia Richey dba Richey Law Firm aka SC Law Group: A California lawyer offers to provide North Carolina residents with foreclosure defense services.
20. 14AP0068 – U-File Document Preparation Firm: A business is providing legal document creation services to others and has posted signs throughout Raleigh that say “Need a Divorce? 919-521-5664 Starting at $99.00.”
21. 14AP0087 – National Trustee Services: A business offers to provide North Carolina residents with foreclosure defense attorneys.
22. 12AP0063 – Dawn Ely dba Palladium Chief Legal Officers: A suspended North Carolina attorney started an out-of-state business that offers to provide part-time, in-house legal counsel to North Carolina businesses.
23. 14AP0088 – Gail Allocco: A South Carolina attorney held out as able to provide legal services in North Carolina.
24. 14AP0090 – Charlene Nobles (Allstate Indemnity Company): An insurance adjuster may have given legal advice to a claimant.
25. 14AP0089 – James Spielberger: A Florida law firm offers to provide and provides legal services in North Carolina.
26. 14AP0045 – Michael Kohn: A nonattorney provides legal advice and document creation services to North Carolina residents.
27. 14AP0076 – Silvia Fernandez: A notary is accused of completing an immigration form for another.
C. Litigation Updates
28. LegalZoom v. North Carolina State Bar
29. World Law Group
30. Mortgage Information Services
31. Tonya Ford
32. Diane Carter
33. William Darden
34. Ella Hutchison
35. Kenneth Moore / Way More Post Convictions Services, LLC
36. Robert Jones / A Cheap and Fast Divorce
37. Hassie Demond Nowlin
AUTHORIZED PRACTICE COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
The Authorized Practice Committee met on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. in Salon D of the Raleigh Marriott Crabtree Valley, Raleigh, North Carolina. Members of the Committee attending were Michael L. Robinson, Chair; Howard L. Gum, Vice-Chair; Marcia Armstrong; Roger A. Askew; Henry C. Babb; Robert J. Bernhardt; Heidi C Bloom; John A. Bowman; David F. Branch, Jr.; W. Edward Bunch; Tom Davis; Nicholas J. Dombalis, II; Theodore C. Edwards, II; Rebecca Eggers-Gryder; Nick Fountain; Sonny S. Haynes ; Mark P. Henriques; Alan S. Hicks; F. Fincher Jarrell; Shelia Lambert ; Debra L. Massie; William S. Mills; Andy Penry; Harold G. Pope; William R. Purcell; Matthew W. Smith; Marvin Sparrow; Starling Underwood and John S. Willardson. Also attending were staff counsel David Johnson, Joshua Walthall, and Katherine Jean and staff assistant Lori Brooks. Guests attending were Ben Kuhn, Ian McConnel, Chris Browning, Syd Alexander, Michael Wallace, Rob Sirianni, Doug Brocker, Crystal Carlisle, Lynn Burke, Christine Johnson, Jack Berryhill, Laura Tonch, James Mitchell, Keith Kapp, Tom Lunsford, Margaret Hunt, Ron Gibson, Ron Baker, and John Silverstein.
The Chair called the Committee to order at 2:30 p.m. The Chair informed the Committee members of their duty to avoid conflicts of interest and inquired of the members if anyone knew of any personal conflicts or appearance of conflict with respect to matters on the agenda in accordance with the State Ethics Act. No member of the Committee announced any conflict or appearance of conflict.
While in open session the Committee took action by majority vote of the members present as follows:
A. Letters of Caution to be Issued:
1. 14AP0042 – Alexandra Ruby: An attorney living in North Carolina but licensed in another state agrees to represent a North Carolina resident in a North Carolina lawsuit.
2. 14AP0043 – Leonard Washington dba It’s the Law Accounting & Tax Services: A nonattorney claims to be a lawyer specializing in “tax law” despite two prior warnings from the Committee.
3. 14AP0049 – Lynn Burke: An out-of-state lawyer practicing immigration law in North Carolina fails to limit her activity to federal court and files documents in North Carolina District Court.
4. 14AP0059 – Brent Phillips dba Legal Help Group: A business corporation, claiming to be a North Carolina company, advertises as able to provide foreclosure defense services to others. The Committee also voted to refer the North Carolina attorney owner of the business to the Grievance Committee.
5. 14AP0060 – Cathleen Kahler dba Charlotte Legal Services: A prepaid legal services plan operates in violation of the rules by selling a legal document to meet an immediate need and having a nonattorney provide legal services to others. The Committee also voted to refer the matter to the Notary Enforcement Division of the North Carolina Secretary of State.
6. 14AP0063 – Charles L. Webb dba Jones Webb Law Group, LLC: An out-of-state law firm attempts to provide legal services in North Carolina via “independent contractor” local attorneys. The Committee also voted to refer the information to the Georgia State Bar.
7. 14AP0072 – Steven Atkinson dba Triad Management and Realty, LLC: A real estate company appears to advertise as able to “counsel” others in the creation of lease contracts.
8. 14AP0038 – Tremaine Sloan: A nonattorney advertises via the internet as “an attorney practicing in Charlotte, NC.”
9. 14AP0040 – Document Do It Yourself Service, LLC: A business corporation advertises via the internet as able to provide divorce papers for North Carolina residents.
10. 14AP0047 – The Law Office of Finkelstein and Associates, P.C.: An out-of-state “law firm” charges a North Carolina resident nearly $3,000.00 for foreclosure defense services and then does nothing.
11. 14AP0050 – Travis McCracken dba Golson, McCracken, Inc.: A nonattorney who owns a business that represents individuals before the Social Security Administration purchases various forms of advertising that indicate that his business can provide the services of an attorney.
12. 14AP0054 – Sherrie Hodges: A disbarred attorney attempts to provide legal services to her mother via a Power of Attorney.
13. 14AP0055 – Saul Flores Lazo: A nonattorney notary advertises as able to provide legal services to natives of El Salvador.
14. 14AP0058 – Joseph Caruana dba Senior Alliance Group: A nonattorney holds himself out as able to provide senior citizens with assistance drafting a living will or health care power of attorney.
15. 14AP0062 – Mark Harris dba Axiom Global, Inc.: A business is offering to provide part-time, in-house legal counsel to North Carolina businesses.
16. 14AP0064 – Zuleima Evaristo: Nonattorney notary advertises as able to assist others with the completion of immigration documents.
17. 14AP0065 – Matthew Jackson dba J and J Family Trust, Inc.: A nonattorney drafts and files complaints and demand letters on behalf of another.
18. 14AP0066 – Amy Light: A nonattorney organizes a corporation and drafts articles of organization for a North Carolina trucking company.
19. 14AP0069 – Amur Mashug El: A nonattorney charges a criminal defendant several thousand dollars to provide him with legal documents and advice. The Committee also voted to refer the matter to the District Attorney.
20. 14AP0075 – Floyd Green, Jr. dba Floyd Green Financial Services, Inc.: A nonattorney advertises over the internet as able to incorporate businesses for North Carolina residents.
21. 14AP0056 – Sebastian Mejia Illanez: A nonattorney notary drafted a bill of sale for the buyer and seller of a mobile home.
B. Letter of Caution to Cease and Desist to be issued:
1. 14AP0046 – Terry Sharpe: Paralegal holds himself out as an attorney while falsely claiming to be working under a lawyer’s supervision.
2. 14AP0067 – Stan Beutler: A Utah attorney continues to provide legal document preparation services to citizens of North Carolina despite a prior warning from the Committee. The Committee also voted to refer the matter to the Utah disciplinary authority and recommend to the Executive Committee that counsel be authorized to seek an injunction if the Utah disciplinary authority does not take action that stops the activity.
3. 14AP0071 – Maria Romero dba Latin American Services: A non-lawyer translator/notary is accused of providing legal services to members of the Hispanic community despite prior admonitions to stop doing so.
4. 14AP0051 – Robert Sirianni dba Brownstone, PA: An out-of-state law firm attempts to provide legal services in North Carolina via “of counsel” local attorneys. The Committee also voted to refer the information to the Florida Bar.
C. Compliants Dismissed:
1. 14AP0070 – James Mitchell: A nonattorney files a case on behalf of a business in federal court.
D. No Action:
1. 14AP0057 – Aleta Whaley, Coordinator of Defensive Driving Program, Sampson County Community College: Local rules in Sampson County permitted nonattorney “defensive driving school” employees to continue cases in traffic court while their clients finished their court-ordered classes.
E. Prepaid Plans:
1. Counsel presented a report on the status of eight prepaid legal services plans. Six plan applications were received this quarter. Staff counsel is still reviewing three of these plans. The other three plan applications have been denied due to their attorney certifications not complying with the rules. One registered plan, Charlotte Legal Services, made substantial revisions to its business and marketing as a result of a complaint and subsequent investigation by staff counsel; counsel is satisfied with the changes that have been made and believes that no further action is necessary at this time. Counsel reported that amendments to The Family Defender plan, file 02PP11, were registered.
1. 14AP0048 – The Company Corporation: Business corporation offers to prepare and file articles of incorporation and other legal documents related to the formation of business entities in North Carolina. The Committee continued consideration of the request until the January 2015 meeting.
2. 14AP0006 – Kenneth Moore dba Waymore Post-Conviction, LLC: Nonattorney claims to provide “post-conviction” legal services to others. The Committee voted to authorize counsel to seek an injunction. The Committee also voted to refer the matter to the District Attorney if counsel discovers evidence that respondent had received money for services.
3. 13AP0078 – Robert Jones dba A Cheap and Fast Divorce, LLC: A website offers to prepare divorce papers for North Carolina citizens. The Committee voted to authorize counsel to seek an injunction and refer the matter to the District Attorney.
4. 14AP0024 – Hassie Demond Nowlin: A nonattorney attempts to represent others before a federal court in cases involving alleged credit reporting and/or debt collection violations. The Committee voted to authorize counsel to seek an injunction.
5. Pending litigation. In open session, counsel briefed the Committee on the status of pending litigation authorized by the Committee. No action was taken by the Committee.
There being no further matters before the Committee, the Committee adjourned at 4:30 p.m. on October 22, 2014.
January 24, 2003
Revised January 26, 2012
On the Role of Laypersons in the Consummation of Residential Real Estate Transactions
The North Carolina State Bar has been requested to interpret the North Carolina unauthorized practice of law statutes (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§84-2.1 to 84-5) as they apply to residential real estate transactions. The State Bar issues the following authorized practice of law advisory opinion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §84-37(f) after careful consideration and investigation. This opinion supersedes any prior opinions and decisions of any standing committee of the State Bar interpreting the unauthorized practice of law statutes to the extent those opinions and decisions are inconsistent with the conclusions expressed herein.As a result of its review of the activities of more than 50 nonlawyer service providers since the adoption of this opinion on January 24, 2003, including injunctions issued against two companies, the Committee is clarifying the opinion concerning issues that it has addressed since adoption of the opinion.
May a nonlawyer handle a residential real estate closing for one or more of the parties to the transaction?
No. Residential real estate transactions typically involve several phases, including the following: reviewing the purchase agreement for any conditions that must be met before closing; abstracting titles; providing an opinion on title; applying for title insurance policies, including title insurance policies that may require tailored coverage to protect the interests of the lender, the owner, or both[i]; preparing legal documents, such as deeds (in the case of a purchase transaction), deeds of trust, and lien waivers or affidavits; interpreting and explaining documents implicating parties’ legal rights, obligations, and options; resolving possible clouds on title and issues concerning the legal rights of parties to the transaction; overseeing execution and acknowledgement of documents in compliance with legal mandates; handling the recordation and cancellation of documents in accordance with North Carolina law; disbursing proceeds when legally permitted after legally-recognized funds are available and all closing conditions have been satisfied; and providing a post-closing final opinion of title for title insurance after all prior liens have been satisfied. These and other functions are sometimes called, collectively, the “closing” of the residential real estate transaction. As detailed below, the North Carolina General Assembly has determined specifically that only persons who are licensed to practice law in this state may handle most of these functions.[ii]
A person who is not licensed to practice law in North Carolina and is not working under the direct supervision of an active member of the State Bar may not perform functions or services that constitute the practice of law.[iii] Under the express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§
84‑2.1 and 84‑4, a non-lawyer who is not working under the direct supervision of an active member of the State Bar would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if he or she performs any of the following functions for one or more of the parties to a residential real estate transaction: (i) preparing or aiding in preparation of deeds, deeds of trust, lien waivers or affidavits, or other legal documents; (ii) abstracting or passing upon titles; or (iii) advising or giving an opinion upon the legal rights or obligations of any person, firm, or corporation.Under the express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84‑4, it is unlawful for any person other than an active member of the State Bar to hold himself or herself out as competent or qualified to give legal advice or counsel or as furnishing any services that constitute the practice of law.Additionally, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84‑5, a business entity, including a corporation or limited liability company, may not provide or offer to provide legal services or the services of attorneys to its customers even if the services are performed by licensed attorneys employed by the entity.See, Duke Power Co. v. Daniels, 86 N.C. App. 469, 358 S.E.2d 87 (1987); Gardner v. North Carolina State Bar, 316 N.C. 285, 341 S.E.2d 517 (1986), and State ex rel. Seawell v. Carolina Motor Club, Inc., 209 N.C. 624, 184 S.E. 540 (1936).
Accordingly, a nonlawyer is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if he or she performs any of the following functions in connection with a residential real estate closing (identified only as examples):
1. Abstracts or provides an opinion on title to real property;
2. Explains the legal status of title to real estate, the legal effect of anything found in the chain of title, or the legal effect of an item reported as an exception in a title insurance commitment except as necessary to underwrite a policy of insurance and except that a licensed title insurer, agency, or agent may explain an underwriting decision to an insured or prospective insured, including providing the reason for such decision;
3. Explains or gives advice or counsel about the rights or responsibilities of parties concerning matters disclosed by a land survey under circumstances that require the exercise of legal judgment or that have implications with respect to a party’s legal rights or obligations;
4. Provides a legal opinion, advice, or counsel in response to inquiries by any of the parties regarding legal rights or obligations of any person, firm, or corporation, including but not limited to the rights and obligations created by the purchase agreement, a promissory note, the effect of a pre-payment penalty, the rights of parties under a right of rescission, and the rights of a lender under a deed of trust;
5. Advises, counsels, or instructs a party to the transaction with respect to alternative ways for taking title to the property or the legal consequences of taking title in a particular manner;
6. Drafts a legal document for a party to the transaction or assists a party in the completion of a legal document, or selects or assists a party in selecting a form legal document among several forms having different legal implications;
7. Explains or recommends a course of action to a party to the transaction under circumstances that require the exercise of legal judgment or that have implications with respect to the party’s legal rights or obligations;
8. Attempts to settle or resolve a dispute between the parties to the transaction that will have implications with respect to their respective legal rights or obligations;
9. Determines that all conditions of the purchase agreement or the loan closing instructions have been satisfied in accordance with the buyer’s or the lender’s interests or instructions;
10 Determines that the deed and deed of trust may be recorded after an update of title for any intervening conveyances or liens since the preliminary opinion;
11. Determines that the funds may be legally disbursed pursuant to the North Carolina Good Funds Settlement Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45A-1 et seq.[iv]
The foregoing list of examples of functions that constitute the practice of law is not exclusive, but reflects a range of responsibilities and duties that involve the following: the exercise of legal judgment; the preparation of legal documents such as deeds, deeds of trust, and title opinions; the explanation or interpretation of legal documents in circumstances that require the exercise of legal judgment; the provision of legal advice or opinions; and the performance of other services that constitute the practice of law.
May a nonlawyer who is not acting under the supervision of a lawyer licensed in North Carolina (1) present and identify the documents necessary to complete a North Carolina residential real estate closing, direct the parties where to sign the documents, and ensure that the parties have properly executed the documents; and (2) receive and disburse the closing funds?
Yes. So long as a nonlawyer does not engage in any of the activities referenced in Opinion 1, or in other activities that likewise constitute the practice of law, a nonlawyer may: (1) present and identify the documents necessary to complete a North Carolina residential real estate closing, direct the parties where to sign the documents, and ensure that the parties have properly executed the documents; or (2) receive and disburse the closing funds.
Although these limited duties may be performed by nonlawyers, this does not mean that the nonlawyer is handling the closing.Since, as described in issue 1 above, the closing is a collection of services, most of which involve the practice of law, a lawyer must provide the necessary legal services.[v]And, since N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84‑5 prohibits nonlawyers from arranging for or providing the lawyer or any legal services, nonlawyers may not advertise or represent to lenders, buyers/borrowers, or others in any manner that suggests that the nonlawyer will (i) handle the “closing;” (ii) provide the legal services associated with a closing, such as providing title searches, title opinions, document preparation, or the services of a lawyer for the closing; or (iii) “represent” any party to the closing. [vi]The lawyer must be selected by the party for whom the legal services will be provided.
Notwithstanding this opinion, evidence considered by the State Bar with respect to this advisory opinion indicates that, at the time documents are presented to the parties for execution, a lawyer who is present may identify or be asked about important issues affecting the legal rights or obligations of the parties. A lawyer may provide important legal guidance about such issues, but a nonlawyer is not permitted to do so. Moreover, a consumer’s retention of a licensed North Carolina lawyer provides financial protection to the consumer. The North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to properly handle all fiduciary funds, including residential real estate closing proceeds. In the event a lawyer mishandles the closing proceeds, the lawyer is subject to professional discipline, and the State Bar Client Security Fund may provide financial assistance for a person injured by the lawyer’s improper application of funds. On the whole, the evidence considered by the State Bar indicates that it is in the best interest of a consumer to be represented by a lawyer with respect to all aspects of a residential real estate transaction.
The evidence the State Bar has considered suggests, however, that performing administrative or ministerial activities in connection with the execution of residential real estate closing documents and the receipt and disbursement of the closing proceeds does not necessarily require the exercise of legal judgment or the giving of legal advice or opinions. Indeed, the execution of closing documents and the disbursement of closing proceeds may be accomplished—and often have been accomplished—by mail, by email, or by other electronic means, or by some other procedure that would not involve the lawyer and the parties being physically present at one place and time. The State Bar therefore concludes that it should not be presumed that performing the task of overseeing the execution of residential real estate closing documents and receiving and disbursing closing proceeds necessarily involves giving legal advice or opinions or otherwise engaging in activities that constitute the practice of law.
Nonlawyers who undertake such responsibilities, and those who retain their services, should also be aware that (1) the North Carolina State Bar retains oversight authority concerning complaints about activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law; (2) the North Carolina criminal justice system may prosecute instances of the unauthorized practice of law; and (3) that N.C. Gen. Stat. §84‑10 provides a private cause of action to recover damages and attorneys’ fees to any person who is damaged by the unauthorized practice of law against both the person who engages in unauthorized practice and anyone who knowingly aids and abets such person. In addition, non-lawyers and consumers should bear in mind that other governmental authorities such as the Federal Trade Commission, the North Carolina Attorney General, district attorneys, and the banking commissioner, have jurisdiction over unfair trade practices and violations of requirements regarding lending practices.
[i] By statute, title insurance in North Carolina can be issued only after the title insurance company has received an opinion of title from a licensed North Carolina attorney who is not an employee or agent of the company and who “has conducted or caused to be conducted under the attorney's direct supervision a reasonable examination of the title.”N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58‑26‑1.
[ii] Except as permitted under State v. Pledger, 257 N.C. 634, 127 S.E.2d 337 (1962), which allows a party having a “primary interest” in a transaction to prepare deeds of trust and other documents to effectuate the transaction.
[iii] The State Bar notes that the North Carolina General Assembly and Supreme Court are the entities that have the power to make the ultimate determination whether an activity constitutes the practice of law.
[iv] Since the original adoption of this opinion, the Committee has reviewed numerous complaints concerning nonlawyers, many of whom hold out to the closing parties that they will conduct “closings,” including disbursement of funds, at any time of day, including after normal business hours.However, under the Good Funds Settlement Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45A‑4, funds may not be disbursed until the deed and deed of trust (if any) have been recorded, which in most counties requires physical delivery to the Register of Deeds during normal business hours.Accordingly, while execution of the documents may be conducted at any time, the actual “closing” and disbursement of funds may not occur until after the required documents are recorded.
[v] Except as permitted under State v. Pledger, supra, or by an individual pro se.
[vi] Almost without exception, these nonlawyer service providers are corporations or limited liability companies that market their services to lenders, not consumers.Most are also title insurance agents.Accordingly, lenders commonly inform borrowers that the nonlawyer will be conducting the closing without any meaningful opportunity for the borrower to decide to retain a lawyer to protect its interests.Additionally, when the nonlawyer is a title insurance agent, the borrower usually is given no choice on insurer or available rates.The Committee expresses no opinion whether these actions may violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75‑17, which prohibits a lender from requiring its borrower to obtain a policy of title insurance from a particular insurance company, agent, broker or other person specified by the lender.Title companies (and other parties) may refer lenders or borrowers to attorneys at their customer’s request, but may not require the use of a specific attorney or charge a fee for any such referral.
Quasi-Judicial Hearings on Zoning and Land Use
May a person who is not a lawyer appear before planning boards, boards of adjustment, or other governmental bodies conducting quasi-judicial hearings in a representative capacity for another party?
At its October 2005 meeting, the Authorized Practice Committee responded to an inquiry concerning the propriety of a person who is not a lawyer appearing before planning boards, boards of adjustment, and city and county government in a representative capacity. The committee's advisory opinion distinguished appearances on legislative concerns, such as general rezoning cases and ordinance amendments, from appearances on behalf of petitioners for special use permits and variances, which are quasi-judicial matters. The committee has received comments from a number of interested parties, including architects, land use planners, and city and county attorneys as a result of that opinion. The committee is issuing this advisory opinion to supplement the prior opinion.
First, the committee reiterates that the adoption of ordinances and amendments to official zoning maps (i.e. general rezoning cases) by the elected officials in city and county governments are legislative in nature and that any interested person may appear and speak on such matters before governmental bodies, even as representatives of groups or interested parties, without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Nonetheless, the general statutory prohibitions on unauthorized practice of law still apply even to persons who appear before governmental bodies on legislative matters. Non-lawyers may not hold themselves out as attorneys, provide legal services or advice, or draft any legal documents with regard to such matters. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 84 2.1 and 4.
The law is clear that hearings on applications for special use permits and variances under zoning ordinances, as well as appeals from staff level interpretations related to permits, are quasi-judicial proceedings. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153A-345 and 160A-381 and 388. See, Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bd. of Aldermen of Chapel Hill , 284 N.C. 458, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974) and Woodhouse v. Board of Comm'rs of Nags Head , 299 N.C. 211, 261 S.E.2d 882 (1980). (For simplicity, the quasi-judicial hearings before these bodies are hereafter referenced to as a “variance hearing” unless the context indicates otherwise.) The governmental body before which the variance hearing is conducted sits in a judicial role of applying the standards of an ordinance to the particular circumstances of a particular party. Accordingly, the role of the governmental body is to receive evidence and make decisions based upon the evidence presented.
Variance hearings require the governmental body hearing the matter to observe certain formalities. Evidence, including witness evidence, is presented to the hearing body, although the Rules of Evidence need not be strictly observed. All witnesses before the body must be sworn and their testimony is subject to cross-examination. The hearing body has the power and authority to issue subpoenas to compel witness testimony. A record of the proceedings must be preserved. The decision is to be based upon the evidence presented at an open hearing, and not on extraneous matters or personal knowledge of the members of the board. The applicant has the burden of proof. The board must make written findings of fact to support its decision. And, the decision of the board is reviewable by the courts on appeal based solely upon the record of the proceedings.
The committee believes that the law is also clear that an appearance on behalf of another person, firm, or corporation in a representative capacity for the presentation of evidence through others, cross-examination of witnesses, and argument on the law at a quasi-judicial proceeding is the practice of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 84 2.1 and 4. Consequently, because the variance hearings are by definition quasi-judicial proceedings, the committee concludes that it is the unauthorized practice of law for someone other than a licensed attorney to appear in a representative capacity to advocate the legal position of another person, firm, or corporation that is a party to the proceeding.
The committee has been urged to recognize that architects, landscape architects, land use planners, and engineers play a vital role at these quasi-judicial proceedings by presenting necessary facts and information on behalf of their clients at variance hearings. The committee agrees that the information these professionals can present is critical to the decision before the hearing body. These professionals are subject matter experts whose expert opinions, as witnesses, must be presented to the hearing body. They are witnesses who are in the best position to explain to the hearing body the facts of the proposed design and its anticipated effects on a variety of factors, including traffic, environment, and aesthetics, within the framework of matters properly under consideration at the variance hearing. The committee does not believe that the role of legal advocate by attorneys in quasi-judicial proceedings should interfere with or inhibit the role of non-lawyer professionals who speak as witnesses and present information at these quasi-judicial proceedings. In fact, their roles should be complementary.
It is axiomatic that the committee has no authority to amend or formulate exceptions to the statutes. In issuing an advisory opinion, it simply articulates how it believes a court would ultimately resolve the question for the guidance of the public. The committee cannot recognize or create exceptions to the law as expressed by the legislature and the courts. Further, we believe, as a practical matter, that effective representation of parties in variance hearings is becoming increasingly dependent upon legal advocacy of the rights of the parties with an eye toward compiling a supportable record in the event of an appeal. These are the skills an attorney provides. While it is true that many of these hearings involve routine and non-controversial matters, even questions about matters such as the height of residential fences may become the subject matter of an appeal where the appellate courts may only consider the record produced at the variance hearing. See Robertson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Charlotte , 167 N.C. App. 531, 605 S.E.2d 723 (2004). It is difficult to predict in advance when a matter may require a comprehensive record for appellate purposes. Therefore, with this further elaboration, the committee re-affirms its initial opinion expressed by letter dated October 31, 2005, that the representation of another person at a quasi-judicial hearing is the practice of law.
That said, this opinion should not be interpreted to diminish the role and expertise of land use professionals as witnesses at variance hearings. These professionals may still present their evidence in support of the position of their clients. However, they may not examine or cross-examine other witnesses or advocate the legal position of their clients.
The committee's opinion is also not intended to affect the ability of city and county planning staff to present factual information to the hearing board, including a recitation of the procedural posture of the application, and to offer such opinions as they may be qualified to make without an attorney for the government present, as the committee understands is the proper, current practice and role of the planning staff. Further, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as limiting the ability of a corporate officer or employee from testifying on factual matters on behalf of a corporate party during a hearing or suggesting that individual parties may not represent themselves before these boards.
In sum, the committee is of the opinion that land use professionals, including architects, engineers, and land use planners, may appear and testify as to factual matters and any expert opinions that they are qualified to present at quasi-judicial proceedings, but the presentation of other evidence, including the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, making legal arguments, and the advocacy for results on behalf of others before quasi-judicial zoning and land use hearings, is the practice of law that may be performed only by licensed attorneys at law.
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
217 E. Edenton Street (27601) • PO Box 25908 • Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 • 919.828.4620
Copyrightę North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved.