Look what Sallie Mae quietly slipped into the stimulus bill:
"One provision, which was sought by the student lending industry and went unmentioned in early Congressional summaries of the stimulus package, would temporarily increase subsidies to banks in the guaranteed student loan program by tying them to a new index, partly because recent federal intervention in the credit markets has invalidated the previous index. A spokesman for Sallie Mae, one of the largest student lenders, said the change was needed to keep student loan markets fluid. Critics said it represented a potential new windfall for lenders.
“This just continues the well-established tradition of welfare for the student loan industry,” said Barmak Nassirian, an expert in student lending."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html?hp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
337 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 3372:40
That's right, I'm not an attorney. I'm an evil LPO huckster!
[Aside, to sexy secretary] Jessica, tell the Gulfstream crew to fire up the plane, get us a crate of Dom Perignon and invite 15 guys from the crew we hired from the Bangalore Law Academy -- we're goin' to Monte Carlo to celebrate getting that new TARP contract!
Too bad the plane's gonna crash...
I hope Jessica survives though, she's some piece of ass.
1:56 PM Do you have any idea or knowledge of who staffed the Cravath project you mentioned?
Attorney here means admitted in the U.S. You don't even know that much, so you probably would not be considered an attorney here.
2:29
You're a complete idiot. If the "attorneys" in India are anything like you, nobody has anything to worry about.
I'm not 1:56 but I don't think that so-called project is actually even happening.
3:07
Attorney "here" means nothing because the US doesn't license attorneys nationally, but by state.
So if one wants to use the term "attorney" restrictively, then it can only be done on a state-by-state basis.
No amount of moronic insults will stop me from posting this because it's the truth. It's you guys who are the misguided morons, and you're deluding yourselves. But if you wish to remain unemployed, narrow-minded, deluded morons, that's your prerogative.
I'll just keep on posting what I *know* to be the truth. Hopefully when I've said it over and over again in enough different ways, the truth will finally sink into you losers' brains.
Until then, keep going with your weak "arguments" that I'm a troll, that Indian lawyers aren't "attorneys", and your other specious, lame, lazy arguments that would never hold up in a real court!
3:12 with each post it becomes more and more clear that you are not an attorney admitted in any U.S. jurisdiction. Give it a rest already, Indian non-lawyers are not attorneys admitted in any U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, they are not considered attorneys here at all anywhere in the entire U.S.
The posters who claim that there are short term projects never seem to have the facts to back that up. No one I have talked to is working on a project or knows about any projects going on.
3:10 pm I didn't think so, I am in contact with all the recruiters daily and have not heard of anything happening at Cravath.
10:48, the reason it is different to use non admitted jd's vs. non admitted outsourced off shore Indians is that the law specifically allows it, while the law specifically DOES NOT allow for non-u.s. trained individuals to do legal work.
Again, go read the damn law. Its there, its all explained.
All of these "arguments" questioning why its not legal are a pile of crap, its not legal and that is that, if you don't believe me scroll up and read the many postings I put up yesterday from different states and how they view it.
Stop being so lazy and look it up. To the clown who said that if you are an attorney anywhere you get called attorney and that I would not dare tell a "queens" admitted attorney otherwise.
The hell I wouldn't, I don't give a crap if he is a partner in the U.K., in this country, he is tourist, and if he does more than that, then he is a criminal.
And the Queen? We kicked the royals out of this country and we are not about to let them back, obviously still a novel concept in India, with its caste system.
And yes, I have traveled a lot of places outside the U.S. so get off your passport, you are not the only one in the world who figured out how to book a flight somewhere, its not hard genius.
4:24 You're getting more even more incoherent. Are you trying to convince everyone that you are a troll? Enough of your gibberish, you aren't an attorney and you are totally clueless.
Sorry 4:24, I meant 3:12.
4:41
No, we know you really meant 4:24.
I, Temporanamos, predict that projects will be posted this week and poeple will recieve calls from their agencies. Starting with specialized legal and then moving to all the reglular projects staffed by the temp serfs.
The banks now have money to lend.
Temporanomus has spoken.
6:04
Yeah, the banks now have money to lend. And Cravath just got scored $5000 from Big Dog's Payday Loans at the corner of 3rd and Fremont in Las Vegas... you know, right across from Jimmy Nightshade's Deluxe Wedding Chapel and Massage Parlor.
So, they'll be announcing some massive projects REAL soon.
Recruiter at a boutique firm in Midtown here. My job is to deal with you folks on a daily basis. I have been flooded with your resumes as of late and yes, work has dried up. I would like to share my perspective on some common discussion topics here.
1) On whether is legal for non-admitted and non-JD's to do doc review and whether it is legal to outsource your job, I can't comment on that but in practice it doesn't matter anyway (it's not like any of you contract lawyers will ever successfully file a complaint even if you find of illegal practices going on at the big firms). On my end, it's about what the client asks for and it is pretty common to place JD's who have never passed the bar. I've also placed a handful of people who never went to law school and have been consistently employed in doc review gigs. These people possess something known as a specialized, employable skill, whether it be foreign language or patent/science expertise. Not only that but I have placed paralegals and people outside of the legal field at much higher rates than your run of the mill licensed American doc reviewer more than once before.
2) Lately I've been getting an increasing amount of resumes from former big firm associates looking for work. I can't speak for other recruiters but unless I know 100% for a fact that the hiring manager would prefer contract attorneys over associates, I prefer to send the associate's resume first. After all, it is in my best interest to increase my chances of placing somebody and nobody can fault me for that. As long as the caste system stays in place in this industry (which they will through good and bad times) most of you will never have a career in your chosen field either. Meaning when things go downhill like they do now the associate will have better chances in obtaining your desired jobs. So do many people without a JD who have employable skills as mentioned in point 1). Unless things turn around dramatically I think I'm making a fair assessment when I say that a good chunk of you non-top tier JD's will never find work with dignified pay in your chosen industry again.
3) Outsourcing - yes, it looks to me that doc review will increasingly move overseas to places like India - it makes perfect sense though for most people with half a brain. A change that is long overdue in my opinion. This has always been a low skill, overpaid line of work and there are many people in this world who are willing to do your job at a lower rate, period. When big firms have to watch their costs, this is one of the primary areas where many firms with heavy doc review activity can cut costs effectively. Your whining on blogs like these only makes it easier for those in power to be ready and willing to outsource your job, ever think about that? Until you're either willing to match the Bangalore rate or learn to speak fluent Hebrew, Chinese or Polish I suggest you shut up. Reading your comments on here sometimes turns my stomach and I am the one who is supposed to help you entitled crybabies find a high paying job??? What gives you the right to stand above the hard working Indians who can do the same work you do for less? Birth right? Skin color? U.S. citizenship? Debt? Please enlighten me! As is evident in your credentials written in black and write, it would be helpful for most of you guys to know that you are currently in no place to make the type of demands that many of you make in your e-mails and cover letters. Who do you think you are!? Get real for once! I am flooded with generic, identical resumes with rarely any stand-out skills and the only types of resumes I have to chase after and hoard for future assignments are those with a specialized background.
Anyway, the conclusion is that I am primarily working for myself and that certain things will stay the same in this profession as well as other fields through good and bad times - elitism will always rule on top and if you don't have the credentials or pedigree to be handed a job to you you better gear up and work for it. It makes more sense for me personally to jump on the outsourcing bandwagon if I have to than to help out people in despair because they failed to be accepted in the elite circle of their industry. It is disturbing to see so many identical resumes in my inbox. Most of you have no employable or indispensable skills. Also, if you have no talent to begin with, what in the world makes you think for a second that you actually have the capability of shaking the foundations of industry traditions!? Based on the huge amount of generic JD resumes that I keep getting it is safe to say that you are your own worst enemy in more than one way.
P.S. if you're stuck with tuition debt and unable to pay off your loan with a low paying job then I suggest a career change. There are many professions and trades that pay enough for you to pay your debt at least. Truck driving, plumbing or various white collar businesses like mine in which you have to work your way up like everyone else come to mind.
2:09
This blog was once useful and got you through project to project, even advising about the best gigs around. The jobs dried up, so everyone reverts to racism.
6:42 there is very little reason to believe that you actual are a recruiter.
Trollop you are as inane and inaccurate as ever.
6:42 sounds like another outsourcer using yet another "clever" disguise. They must still be worried about us, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time and effort pushing outsourcing here.
6:42
If your a recruiter, I'm a flying pig.
You know, the more I read blogs on the internet, the more I become convinced there are some relly crazy people in the world. I guess they sit around and try and impersonate people on blogs.
6:10 has it nailed.
Look on Craiglist today!! Project 3-4 months, $36/ hr, set to start Feb 23. I don't know if it's real. I am not applying cause I'm working.
Indian Schmindian. Anyone who uses these cut-rate replacements will end up paying more in the end.
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
Where are you working 7:54? Are you the one who placed the ad, which doesn't name any agency? I don't mean to be overly cynical (if that's even possible any more) but more than once, a blind ad has appeared on Craigslist followed by a "Hey look at this!" post here.
Even if a legit agency is behind it, lately the ads they have placed have turned out to be nothing because they don't really have the project or it gets cancelled.
[cue Ravi Shankar music]
I am Attorney P. Rajiv Pradap Rhajpushwatan, graduate of the Majaharashthra Institute of Legal and Convenience Store Studies. I have studied long and hard to receive Law Dregee and now I have arrived at Mumbai LPO ready to wrok. I will preform the wrok of 5 (five) American so-called "lawyers" for 1/8 the amount of cash that American lawyers can wrok, plus snacks of Nan bread twice per day. Soon we will have all the document reveiw wrok in the world! And all others will be out of job!
[zitar music gets louder, accompanied by wailing and tabla drum timpanade]
8:18 - those ads are put out by recruiters to collect enough resumes for them in case something comes up. Some recruiters write the ads in such a way that they blatantly attempt to deceive you into thinking that they have projects lined up. Just because you have a call back doesn't mean they have anything for you. Resume fishing is a common technique used by cronies like 7:54.
Let's see it costs 0 money to respond to the add.
I know, I'll ignore it because I'm so smart and can outsmart the agencies.
I think I'm gonna start an agency to place American workers to work in China in an effort to pay off the American debt. Now that America is no longer able to pay off the debt with money maybe they will take human slave labour as a payment method instead. You will be provided basic food and shelter. The rate you will be earning will go towards America's debt to China. Terms are negotiable. Negotiations between the work force and the Chinese government will be led by practicing real attorneys. Low skilled TTT contract attorneys are encouraged to apply! Anyone interested?
"actual attorneys somewhere, which enables them to be supervised by US attorneys while still using the term"
Even for cardboard cutout LPO lawyers this is poor reasoning. Clearly you lack the legal skills to argue your way out of a paper bag.
Attorneys in the US spend 7 years in school then bar passage. It is highly specialized training. To imply that any banana republic can hold out a person as an "attorney" and voila, it's a lawyer.
This kind of corrupt attitude is why we have bar exams and state licensing and why you are an untrained fraud.
The dried up job market is reflected in the increased amount of TTTrolling done amongst TTT contract "attorneys" on this board. TTT attorneys spend roughly 30% of their daily activities begging recruiters for jobs and 70% on TTTrolling on this board. TTTrolling is the only method that TTT's know how to use to combat their woes. Epic fail!
8:57
I beg to differ with you India is not a "banana republic" technically we are a "mango chutney republic"
of course as u already know india was founded in year 1973, before that we were a colony of the british
and of course as u know indian culture only dates back to 1988. before that we were all living in the trees, with the rhesus monkeys and macaques (macacas) who are our genetic brethren
of course we can never compete with the white anglo saxon and germanic people of usa who have blond hair and blue eyes and superior iqs because they are white and american culture goes back 5000 years
and of course as everyone knows nobody in india speaks english, we can hardly even speak our own language and we have no form of written language, we just take banana peels and human feces and arrange them in the sand that covers our streets, and use that primitive form of "writing" to exchange thoughts
and of course as everyone knows india has no real culture or history, there are no intellectuals in india and our schools are shit, 99.9% of the people drop out of kindergarten and are sold into slavery
and of course as everyone knows india has fewer people than usa in india we only have 20 million people, we are a very small country, only the size of your states of arizona and new mexico combined
and of course as everyone knows we have no universities in india, we are a third world totalitarian dictatorship where the ruler forces everyone to study in madrassas and work in sweatshops
and of course as everyone knows we all have stunted brains because we eat dog and cow shit off the streets, except when we can steal a banana or a mango
there are no books in india, and there is no internet here because nobody has computer
we all walk around naked of course because we have no clothes, of course some of us wear soiled white rags but 99% of people have no clothes because we are only a poor banana republic
we have no houses or buildings here, only the dictator has a palace and all of the rest of us live in grass huts and sleep in our own feces
you americans are very smart and very wise, we worship you because we know we can never be as smart or as strong or as civilised or as white as you
we have no books and no learning here. there is only one school in india and it is reserved for the elite, the dictators children
we of course are not a democracy like the great usa and we have no idea what democracy is
you are like great, shining gods to us
we are like primitive heathen monkeys living in shit and dirt, because we are a "third world country"
9:19, I hate it to break it to you, Rajiv, but many of us fundamentally believe that justice in this world means that you remain the third world primitve monkey with a funny accent that you are while we should be entitled to higher paying jobs. So what? Sounds like an ideal situation for me as well as many of my colleagues. It should never be acceptable for a white person to stoop down to the slave conditions that is meant for you subhumans. Even if you were far smarter than people like me you should consider doing the right thing and do the leg work for us. You do the math and we profit from the deal, understand? Also, stop jerking off to my hot blonde wife, she is and always will be out of your league!
9:19 You must be scared to spend so much time writing so much crap. Facts are facts. The Indians getting the semi-slave wages in the sweatshop don't understand English any better than the Indians in the call centers and there is no way that is good enough to understand the kinds of docs that commonly are involved in doc review projects. And since they have not lived here, they cannot possibly understand context and local references.
They are not considered attorneys here and are not competent to perform these jobs. That is not the case with Indians, who come here, get through law school and become admitted attorneys.
Any firm that gets involved in outsourcing doc review is inviting major sanctions in the event of a screw-up because of the reckless disregard of due diligence requirements.
There is no reason that Indians shouldn't be allowed to do doc review - as long as they come here, graduate from law school here, pass the bar here and get admitted here.
I am 7:54. I am not doing doc review. I started a solo practice.
How's that going for you?
Really it is going well...not as easy as sitting and clicking the money into the account, but enough to pay the bills. I was one of those attorneys who left a law firm job to temp for personal reasons. I left that firm on a good note, and my ex employer has been especially helpful in sending things my way. I am grateful.
The official language of the Republic of India is Hindi, and its subsidiary official language is English.[7]
The individual states can legislate their own official languages, depending on their linguistic demographics. For example, the state of Tamil Nadu has Tamil as its sole official language, while the state of Jammu and Kashmir has Kashmiri, Urdu and Dogri as its official languages.
Article 345 of the Indian constitution provides recognition to "official languages" of the union to include any one or more of the languages in use in the state or Hindi language adopted by a state legislature as the official language of that state. Until the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution in 1967, the country recognised 14 official regional languages. The Eighth Schedule and the Seventy-First Amendment provided for the inclusion of Sindhi, Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali, thereby increasing the number of official regional languages of India to 18[8]. Individual states, whose borders are mostly drawn on socio-linguistic lines, are free to decide their own language for internal administration and education.
While I'm sure that education in an Indian law school is conducted in English, it doesn't mean that the level of understanding of our court systems, procedures, our corporate world, businesses, etc... is equivalent to ours. As someone mentioned, language exists within a context/culture. I have often had conversations with Nigerian attorneys on projects who don't seem to "understand" me just as I don't "understand" them even though we are both using the English language to communicate. There is definitely a disconnect, and the disconnect is greater if the cultures are quite different.
I don't think you need to even leave this country to realize that.
However I think there is no unauthorized practice of law issue if the work is done properly and fully supervised by a U.S. attorney who is accountable to his client here in the US, who bills ethically. Just as there can be unauthorized or unethical practice of law right here in the US relating to work that is done by US attorneys, or non-attorneys. In any event, there is no law that requiress that document review work be done by attorneys. That in itself does not make it the unauthorized practice of law.
I just think it's more prudent to use US attorneys who have some experience and are relatively, and to have proper supervision of their work.
Wow 11:19, no snarky tone to your post, just a reasonable statement? You are on the wrong board. Only crazy lunatics with no life (i.e. myself) post on here.
9:55 - you wish. Ain't gonna happen.
9:42 - I'm sorry, but you're just a TTTool. Stop tooting your own horn. Any 8th grader of average intelligence can do your work. Yes, even Indian 8th graders too probably. American temp review slaves need to stop living in denial. Your work isn't very intellectually challenging. Not challenging enough to be stopped from outsourcing anyway. You just think you're entitled to a high pay rate so you overinflate the degree of difficulty of your work for the world to see.
If I was forced to bet my money on it I would bet that the Indians would perform a more thorough job in a one-on-one comparison to American reviewers. What they lack in diploma mill training they make up in sheer discipline, efficiency and much better attitude. It wouldn't even surprise me if they learned more about American law than many of you have despite having far less resources. But none of those competencies are required for your TTT job anyway.
The Indian rate is closer to a just compensation for that type of work, though still overpaid even then. Outsourcing is a win-win situation that will hopefully sort out people such as racist, whiny TTT's over time. I would supervise polite Indians with funny accents over disgruntled, entitled white TTT's any day.
11:19 - Sorry, bout you're just a TTTool.
11:19 your blabbering on and on doesn't change facts and you obviously are just another pretender. There is no unauthorized practice of law issue with Indians, Nigerians or anyone else who graduates law school and becomes admitted here. There is a very big unauthorized practice of law issue with the non-attorneys in the Indian sweat shops. Drone on all you want. We all have sampled that so-called subsidiary English in those call centers. The semi-slaves in the sweatshops are not capable of understanding the docs they are reviewing. That disqualifies them. End of story. You are not fooling anypne. We actually have been exposed to that so-called subsidiary level of English and it just doesn't cut it. There can't be afequate supervision when the reviewers selected don't understand the docs. That is the unauthorized practice of law.
11:27
Good post, in general. I agree with most, although not all, of what you say.
You are correct that these white TTTs act entitled to ludicrously easy and non-challenging "legal" work at high pay rates, but I disagree that the Indian lawyers are being overpaid for doing this.
Somewhere a happy medium has to be reached, where the wage differential between the so-called "third world" and the developed world shrinks. That is already happening; the current financial crisis will accelerate this trend.
Indian attorneys deserve to be paid well for their work, as a means of rewarding them for their years of study and the literate nature of their work.
Maybe some day we will see young American attorneys travel to places like India to take contract work, at Indian wages. Since the cost of living (housing, food, entertainment) is so much less in India, an American could probably live pretty well there.
I think this would be a very positive thing, and would open many American attorneys' minds about foreign cultures and ways of life.
Too many young American lawyers come from very privileged, sheltered whitebread suburban backgrounds. Their parents are professionals, they grow up living in expensive homes in Westchester or Fairfield counties, Beverly Hills, or wherever. They become so narrow-minded and entitled that many of them are actually proud of their dismissive, condescending, and insulting attitudes towards minorities and in particular, to non-white foreign people. They need to get out and see the world. If it means joining the Peace Corps and going to Bangladesh for 2 years, and living in a hovel like the Bangladeshis, then do that. If it means going to Delhi for 2 years and working in a so-called Indian document review "sweatshop", then do that. But get the fvck out of your comfortable, pampered life in suburbia with your SUV and your fantasy football leagues and your NBA tickets and trips to the mall, and see the world and live as others live!
And no, this post is not a joke. I am 100% serious. If you don't like what I said, go ahead and suck it.
11:27 you are a prime example of an ignorant troll, coming here to push outsourcing but convincing no one because all you do is rant and rave gibberish.
11:43 you are 100 per cent foolish troll. You must really be afraid that the outsourcing will end to be on a blog for temps spending so much time making absurd statements in support of it. These are U.S. legal matters, not Indian legal matters. If Indians want to work on U.S. Legal matters, they should come here and do what we do, spend lots of time and money to study law and get admitted. When we do that, we don't just think we are entitled to practice law, we know we are. We earned it.
Unfortunately, 11:27 is probably right. Doc review is the closest thing the legal profession has to unskilled labor. The main thing standing in its way is probably the reluctance of firms and clients to relinquish the control and supervision they have over domestic projects, not the ethical issues.
12:05 - really are you guys using every lame tactic in the troll book tonight? Pathetic!
Trolls have very little in their bags of tricks. That's why they use them over and over again. That's all they have, there ain't no more.
We need to create an outsourcing operation in Gaza. Give those Palestinians some legal jobs!
Another post, another crackpot.
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
"Aw, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!"
Unlawful Practice of Law
The practice of law in Oregon is regulated by the legislature and the courts. With some exceptions, only lawyers who are admitted to the Oregon State Bar (OSB) may practice law in Oregon. The Oregon State Bar Act says that a person may not practice law or hold oneself out as qualified to practice law unless that person is an active member of the Oregon State Bar.
The ‘practice of law’ is defined in decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court and generally includes, among other things:
* appearing on behalf of others in Oregon courts and administrative proceedings;
* drafting or selecting legal documents for another when informed or trained discretion must be exercised to meet the person’s individual needs;
* advising someone of his or her legal rights in a particular situation;
* having a law office in Oregon regardless of where clients are located;
* acting as an immigration consultant unless authorized by federal law to do so; and
* holding oneself out as a lawyer.
It is not necessary that money change hands in order for conduct to be the practice of law.
Although it depends on the specific facts of each situation, some of the commonly occurring activities that generally are not considered the practice of law in Oregon include:
* individual litigants who represent only themselves;
* representation of others in justice courts;
* out-of-state lawyers or collection agencies who send demand letters into Oregon, without more;
* properly licensed lawyers who limit their practice exclusively to certain areas of federal law, such as patent law;
* activities of licensed professionals whose actions are within the scope of their licenses; for instance, real estate professionals, title insurance companies, certified public accountants and other licensed tax professionals;
* sale of generic do-it-yourself legal publications without any further personalized assistance in preparation of documents or court papers; and
* internet discussions groups without further personalized assistance in preparation of documents or court papers.
The OSB is responsible for investigating allegations of the unlawful practice of law. Generally, enforcement of prohibitions on the unlawful practice of law is complaint driven, that is, the bar relies on the public to provide information about individuals practicing law without a license. The bar receives complaints from judges, injured consumers, lawyers and other state bar associations.
Complaints are forwarded to the Unlawful Practice of Law (UPL) Committee of the OSB. This committee consists of about sixteen lawyers and four public members, all volunteers appointed by the OSB Board of Governors. Each complaint is assigned to a member of the committee for investigation. The investigator contacts the complaining party and the person being accused of practicing law without a license, and makes other investigation as the facts warrant. The investigator then prepares a report, which is considered by the entire committee at its monthly public meetings. Except in the most complicated cases, the time from initial complaint to consideration by the UPL committee is about six months.
The UPL committee has authority to:
* dismiss a complaint;
* send a notice letter, warning that the accused’s activities could be considered the unlawful practice of law;
* issue an admonition with the consent of the accused;
* enter into a cease and desist agreement with the accused; or,
* recommend to the OSB Board of Governors that the OSB file a lawsuit against the accused to prevent him from continuing to practice law without authorization.
Occasionally, if an investigation suggests that there has been some illegal activity that the UPL committee cannot address, then the UPL committee will forward the results of its investigation to other state bars, to the Oregon Attorney General, or to another appropriate regulatory agency.
If the UPL committee refers a complaint to the OSB Board of Governors, and the Board authorizes a lawsuit, the usual relief sought is an injunction against the continuation of the unlawful practice of law. The OSB can also recover attorney fees and other expenses of litigation. Most cases are resolved before this step.
The Unlawful Practice of Law Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously and investigates every complaint of the unlawful practice of law that it receives. Of course, not every complaint results in a finding of the unlawful practice of law. However, every complaint and every investigation assist the OSB to ensure that consumers are protected from unauthorized practitioners.
If you are concerned that someone you know may be practicing law without a license, please send us a letter describing your concerns, addressed to the:
OSB General Counsel Administrative Assistant
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR
97281-1935
2:03 PM
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || December 18, 2006
Colorado Supreme Court -- December 18, 2006
No. 04SA93. People v. Shell.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Two East 14th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Original Proceeding in Contempt
Case No. 04SA93
Petitioner:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
v.
Respondent: SUZANNE SHELL.
CONTEMPT FOUND
EN BANC
December 18, 2006
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
James C. Coyle, Deputy Regulation Counsel
Denver, Colorado
Attorney for Petitioner
Paul Grant
Centennial, Colorado
Attorney for Respondent
JUSTICE EID delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This opinion considers the Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s recommendation that we hold Respondent Suzanne Shell in contempt and fine her $6,000 for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. We agree with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge and issue the contempt citation.
For the reasons explained below, we find that Shell has practiced law without a license in three separate legal proceedings since 2002, and in so doing, she has violated both Colorado law and a previous order entered by this court enjoining her against the unauthorized practice of law. Despite Shell’s claims to the contrary, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law is constitutional and does not violate her rights under the First Amendment. We also disagree with Shell’s assertions that she was entitled to a jury trial and that she has been deprived of due process because she was not provided with a free copy of a transcript of the proceedings below. While we fine Shell $6,000 for her unauthorized practice of law, we do not impose any additional amount for costs and attorneys’ fees.
I.
Suzanne Shell is an advocate committed to exposing what she considers to be abuses of process that occur in Colorado dependency and neglect cases. Shell is not a licensed attorney, however, and her advocacy previously has led her to cross the line between permissible activism and the unauthorized practice of law.
In May 2001, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("OARC") petitioned this court for an injunction and contempt citation against Shell. The OARC alleged that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice to parents involved in dependency and neglect cases, drafting pleadings for parents’ use, and attempting to represent parents in judicial proceedings. Shell denied the OARC’s allegations and claimed that she was entitled to provide legal advice and represent the parents because they had executed statutory powers of attorney authorizing her to act as their agent.
Shortly thereafter, Shell and the OARC entered into a "Stipulation" in which Shell agreed to the entry of an injunction preventing her from practicing law without a license in Colorado. Shell made several acknowledgments in the Stipulation, including (1) that she was familiar with Colorado law concerning the unauthorized practice of law, (2) that the "practice of law" includes activities such as offering legal advice and drafting or selecting legal documents for use by another person in a legal proceeding, and (3) that by engaging in such activities without a license, Shell committed the unauthorized practice of law. Shell further acknowledged that she was incorrect in her belief that a statutory power of attorney allowed her to act as the signing party’s legal representative. Shell agreed to pay administrative costs but the OARC did not pursue any fine for contempt.
This court entered an Order on October 25, 2001 (the "October 2001 Order"), accepting Shell’s Stipulation and enjoining her against practicing law without a license in Colorado. The October 2001 Order incorporated Shell’s Stipulation by reference.
Since the October 2001 Order was entered, Shell has been involved in two dependency and neglect proceedings in Colorado state courts and one civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The OARC alleges that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in each of these cases, thereby violating Colorado law and our October 2001 Order.
The K.M. Matter, 02JV97. Shell participated in a Fremont County District Court action involving K.M., the mother of an allegedly dependent and neglected child. The court appointed attorney Daniel Kender to represent K.M. in May 2002.
Several months later, K.M. executed a statutory power of attorney providing Shell with broad powers to handle her affairs, including the power to act "in [her] stead regarding [her] Dependency and Neglect case." Shell contacted Kender in January 2003 and asked him to call her to discuss the K.M. matter. Kender testified to the hearing master below that he did not return Shell’s call.
Shell subsequently sent a faxed letter to Kender dated February 21, 2003. In the letter, Shell informed Kender that she was acting as an "agent" for K.M. "based upon the Power of Attorney" executed several weeks before. Shell stated that "[ K.M.’s] legal interests may not have been adequately represented" by Kender and that "drastic action is needed immediately to protect her rights to parent her children." Attached to the letter was a discovery request (specifically, a set of requests for admissions) directed to the caseworker assigned to the K.M. matter, the guardian ad litem, and the West Central Mental Health Center. Shell directed Kender to serve the discovery request "no later than next Tuesday," and explained that she "had great success using admissions in the past." Kender testified that he ignored Shell’s letter and did not serve the discovery request.
In March 2003, K.M., acting pro se and without Kender’s knowledge, served a discovery request on the caseworker, guardian ad litem, and West Central Mental Health Center. With the exception of very minor differences, the requests served by K.M. are identical to the requests attached to Shell’s February 2003 letter to Kender. K.M. also filed a "Motion for Clarification of Effective Assistance of Counsel" in which she challenged Kender’s representation of her interests in the dependency and neglect action. The district court struck K.M.’s pro se discovery request.
The A.F. Matter, 03JV3. While the K.M. matter was pending, Shell was involved in another dependency and neglect proceeding in Fremont County District Court, this one concerning A.F., a respondent mother. The court appointed Daniel Kender to represent A.F. A.F. subsequently executed a power of attorney authorizing Shell to act as her agent and giving Shell the power to handle her legal affairs.
As in the K.M. matter, Shell sent Kender a letter informing him that she had been engaged as an "expert consultant" by A.F. Shell advised Kender that her association with A.F. was confidential and was not to be revealed. Shell also gave Kender "information and instructions" on the defense of A.F., stating that she would provide Kender with "all the legal arguments and documentation" he might need, but admonished that they "will be useless" if Kender "fail[ed] to make the necessary arguments in court." Shell then instructed Kender to file specific documents and motions, make specific legal arguments and tender specific jury instructions. Shell also informed Kender that he should serve requests for admissions on the Department of Human Services, and directed Kender to her website to obtain a sample. Shell requested the opportunity to review the draft discovery before it was served. Kender testified that he ignored Shell’s letter.
As in the K.M. matter, A.F. filed and served pro se pleadings in her dependency and neglect action, each of which reveals a level of sophistication that is nearly impossible to attribute to A.F. given her lack of legal training. Kender was unaware that these pleadings had been filed and served by A.F. The substance and style of A.F.’s pleadings are strikingly similar to the language used in the pleadings filed in K.M.’s action, and with two trivial exceptions, A.F.’s "Motion for Clarification of Effective Assistance of Counsel" is identical to the same motion filed by K.M. in her action.
In April 2003, the Fremont County Department of Human Services requested that the trial court add Shell as a special respondent to the A.F. matter for the purpose of enjoining her against engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Shell filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction preventing her from being added as a special respondent.
The Federal Action, 03-RB-743. Shell filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that her civil rights--and those of A.F.--had been violated by eight defendants, including the Fremont County District Court and A.F.’s attorney, Daniel Kender (the "Federal Action"). Both Shell and A.F. were named as plaintiffs, with Shell purporting to represent A.F. in the case. The federal magistrate assigned to the case entered an order on May 14, 2003, holding that Shell "cannot represent [A.F.] in this matter, nor may [ Shell] sign pleadings, motions, or other documents in this case on [A.F.’s] behalf." The magistrate ordered A.F. to sign the complaint as a pro se plaintiff.
Shell--again acting on behalf of A.F.--filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the statutory power of attorney executed by A.F. authorized Shell to act as A.F.’s legal representative. The district court denied Shell’s motion to reconsider. Subsequently, the court dismissed the Federal Action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief.
The Proceedings Below. In March 2004, the OARC petitioned this court to hold Shell in contempt for violating the October 2001 Order and Colorado law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The OARC cited Shell’s activities in the K.M. matter, the A.F. matter, and the Federal Action to support its petition.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge, acting as a hearing master, held a hearing on the OARC’s petition and considered evidence and testimony presented by both sides. Shell videotaped the proceedings in their entirety.
Shell argued to the hearing master that there was no direct evidence that she prepared the pleadings and discovery requests filed and served pro se by K.M. and A.F., or that she otherwise provided the respondent mothers with legal advice. To support her claim, Shell offered the testimony of K.M.’s mother’s boyfriend and A.F.’s mother. These relatives testified that they prepared the pleadings and discovery requests based on their research of various internet websites, and that Shell neither selected the documents nor advised the mothers to file them.
The hearing master concluded that the relatives’ testimony was not credible in light of the surrounding circumstantial evidence presented by the OARC. First, the hearing master found that it was virtually impossible for K.M. and A.F. to have prepared their pleadings without assistance, given their lack of legal training. Second, the hearing master found implausible the notion that relatives of two separate mothers involved in two separate proceedings would draft virtually identical pleadings and discovery requests. Aside from Kender, who did not know about the pro se filings until after they were served, the only connection between K.M. and A.F. was Suzanne Shell.
In addition, both proceedings contained the same sequence of events arising from Shell’s involvement as the mothers’ representative. In both cases, Shell sent a letter to Kender purporting to act as the mothers’ agent and instructing Kender to take specific legal measures. In both cases, Kender ignored Shell’s letter. And in both cases, Kender’s refusal to follow Shell’s instructions led to the mother filing pro se pleadings and serving pro se discovery requests. Not only were these pro se documents virtually identical, but their substance mirrored the arguments and instructions contained in Shell’s letters to Kender. Shell’s communications to Kender, and the subsequent pattern of events that stemmed from those communications, led the hearing master to conclude that Shell prepared or selected the pleadings and discovery requests and advised the mothers, either directly or by using the mothers’ relatives as conduits for her legal advice, to file and serve them pro se.
Based on its findings, the hearing master recommended to this court that Shell be found in contempt and fined $6,000. The hearing master also recommended that Shell be assessed an additional $5,409 for legal costs and the OARC’s attorneys’ fees. Shell appealed the hearing master’s recommendations.
Prior to filing her opening brief in this appeal, Shell requested a transcript of the proceedings below, to be paid for at state expense. Shell argued that indigence prevented her from paying for the transcript. This court denied Shell’s motion.
In this appeal, Shell offers several reasons for why the court should not accept the hearing master’s recommendation, and we consider them in turn.
Section II addresses Shell’s claim that the evidence presented below was inadequate to support the hearing master’s finding that she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. As we explain, the evidence in the record sufficiently supports the hearing master’s findings that Shell offered legal advice, drafted legal pleadings and attempted to represent another person in a judicial proceeding, all of which constitute the practice of law.
In section III, we address Shell’s defenses against the enforcement of Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law against her in this action. In particular, Shell claims that the ban is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment. Shell further contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to punish the unauthorized practice of law in federal courts, and that therefore we cannot hold her in contempt for attempting to represent A.F. in the Federal Action. Shell also urges that the statutory powers of attorney executed by K.M. and A.F. authorized her to to act as the mothers’ legal representative. We disagree with Shell on each count.
In section IV of our opinion, we consider Shell’s claim that her right to a jury trial was violated in this case. We hold that Shell was not entitled to a jury trial because the recommended fine is not sufficiently serious to trigger Shell’s constitutional right to a jury trial, and because Shell has no independent right to a jury trial under a Colorado statute.
Section V of the opinion addresses Shell’s assertion that her right to due process was violated because she was denied a transcript of the proceedings below for use in this appeal. We find that any error resulting from the failure to provide Shell with a transcript was harmless because it did not impact this court’s ability to consider the issues raised in Shell’s appeal.
Finally, in section VI, we explain why Shell cannot be assessed costs and attorneys’ fees as a result of the contempt proceeding. Consequently, we adopt the hearing master’s recommendation as to the citation of contempt and the imposition of a $6,000 fine, but decline to follow that recommendation with respect to costs and attorneys’ fees.
II.
A.
Colorado law prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, i.e., the practice of law by a person who is not a licensed attorney in good standing with the State Bar. See Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo. 1982). This court has the exclusive authority to punish the unauthorized practice of law with contempt. See id. Where an individual previously has been enjoined by the court against practicing law without a license, violations of that injunction are punishable in contempt proceedings conducted pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107.1Cf. Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 184, 397 P.2d 743, 745 (1964) ("The power to punish for contempt, as a punitive measure or to coerce obedience, is an inherent and indispensable power of the courts.").
We previously have defined the "practice of law" as acting "in a representative capacity in protecting, enforcing, or defending the legal rights and duties of another and in counselling, advising and assisting him in connection with these rights and duties . . . ."Denver Bar Ass’n v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 154 Colo. 273, 279, 391 P.2d 467, 471 (1964) . Applying this definition, we have held that an unlicensed person engages in the unauthorized practice of law by offering legal advice about a specific case, drafting or selecting legal pleadings for another’s use in a judicial proceeding without the supervision of an attorney, or holding oneself out as the representative of another in a legal action. See id.; see also Grimes, 654 P.2d at 823 (offering case-specific legal advice and selecting case-specific legal documents constitutes the practice of law); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Prog, 761 P.2d 1111, 1115 (Colo. 1988) (same).
As we explained in Grimes, we have attempted to avoid any doubt about the activities that constitute the "practice of law" by enacting C.R.C.P. 201.3, which provides a thorough "definition of what constitutes the practice of law which is supported by long-standing case authority . . . ."654 P.2d at 824 n.1. That definition includes "[f]urnishing legal counsel, drafting documents and pleadings, and interpreting and giving advice with respect to the law," as well as "presenting cases before courts . . . ."C.R.C.P. 201.3(2) (b) (i) & (ii).
B.
Applying the standard set forth above, the hearing master found that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by sending letters to Kender directing him to follow her legal advice. The hearing master also found that Shell had advised K.M. and A.F. to file and serve their pleadings and discovery requests without the knowledge or approval of Kender, and that Shell was instrumental in preparing or selecting those pleadings and discovery. This, too, constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Finally, the hearing master found that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by attempting to represent A.F. in the Federal Action.
We accept the hearing master’s findings of fact unless they are so clearly erroneous as not to find support in the record. See Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 313, 592 P.2d 792, 796 (1979). Our consideration of the record reveals that the hearing master’s findings were not clearly erroneous, and we defer to the hearing master’s resolution of the conflicting facts in evidence.
The record sufficiently supports the finding that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the K.M. and A.F. matters. These cases followed a remarkably similar pattern. In both cases, Shell wrote letters to the mothers’ attorney instructing him to take specific legal measures. In both cases, once Shell’s instructions were ignored, the mothers filed and served pro se pleadings and discovery requests without the knowledge or approval of their attorney. The hearing master reasonably concluded that these legal documents were the direct result of Shell’s involvement. As the hearing master found, it was impossible for K.M. and A.F. to have prepared their pleadings and discovery requests without the assistance of someone with legal experience in dependency and neglect cases.
It also defied reason that K.M. (or her family) would prepare pleadings and discovery requests that were nearly identical to pleadings and discovery requests prepared by A.F. (or her family). Not only were the documents filed by K.M. and A.F. nearly identical, but they incorporated many of the legal arguments that Shell separately provided to Kender in her letters. The only connection between K.M. and A.F. other than their common attorney, who had no knowledge of his clients’ pro se filings, was Shell. In light of this record, the hearing master reasonably concluded that Shell was providing legal advice to K.M. and A.F. and was drafting legal documents for their use.
We acknowledge that conflicting evidence was presented to the hearing master regarding Shell’s contact with K.M. and A.F. Specifically, family members of K.M. and A.F. testified that Shell had no involvement in drafting the pleadings and discovery requests that the mothers filed pro se. These family members testified that they prepared the legal documents based principally upon internet research. The hearing master, however, concluded that the family members’ testimony was simply incredible given the unlikelihood that two separate families would prepare legal documents that were virtually identical both to one another and to the advice that Shell provided to Kender in her letters. Since there is sufficient evidence in the record refuting the family members’ testimony, we defer to the hearing master’s factual conclusion that Shell did in fact provide legal advice to K.M. and A.F. and draft legal pleadings and discovery requests for their use. See Page, 197 Colo. at 313, 592 P.2d at 796. Providing legal advice to K.M. and A.F. and preparing legal documents for use in their dependency and neglect proceedings constituted the unauthorized practice of law. See C.R.C.P. 201.3(2) (b) (i); Prog, 761 P.2d at 1115.
Beyond Shell’s involvement in the two dependency and neglect proceedings, there is no question that Shell filed the Federal Action on behalf of herself and A.F., and that she subsequently filed a motion asserting her right to prosecute A.F.’s claims in the Federal Action. Drafting and filing a legal pleading on behalf of another person and without a license is clearly the unauthorized practice of law. See C.R.C.P. 201.3(2) (b) (i) & (ii).
Our review of the record reveals no reason to disturb the hearing master’s factual findings that Shell engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These facts having been established, we now turn to considering Shell’s challenge to the enforcement of the ban against her in this case.
III.
A.
Shell claims that Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law violates her right to due process because it is unconstitutionally vague, both on its face and as applied to her in this case. We disagree.
The vagueness doctrine is rooted in the right to due process of law, which requires that a law provide "fair notice of the conduct that has been determined to be unlawful." Smith v. Charnes, 728 P.2d 1287, 1290 (Colo. 1986) . Thus a law offends due process if "it does not provide fair warning of the conduct prohibited or if its standards are so ill-defined as to create a danger of arbitrary and capricious enforcement." Parrish v. Lamm, 758 P.2d 1356, 1367 (Colo. 1988) . Under this standard, a law "is not void for vagueness if it fairly describes the conduct forbidden, and persons of common intelligence can readily understand its meaning and application." Id. Shell bears the burden of establishing the unconstitutional vagueness of our ban on the unauthorized practice of law beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225, 1230 (Colo. 1999).
Furthermore, for Shell to succeed on her challenge that the ban is facially void for vagueness, she must show that it is incomprehensible in all of its applications. See People ex rel.
City of Arvada v. Nissen, 650 P.2d 547, 550 (Colo. 1982). Shell’s claim immediately fails this test, because C.R.C.P. 201.3(2) (b) unambiguously defines the practice of law to include "drafting documents and pleadings," "giving advice with respect to the law," and "presenting cases before courts"--in other words, exactly the activities in which Shell engaged in the K.M. matter, the A.F. matter, and the Federal Action. The activities delineated in C.R.C.P. 201.3 were not pulled from thin air, but were grounded in prior decisions of this court describing the nature of the practice of law. See Grimes, 654 P.2d at 824 n.1 (explaining that the definition of "practice of law" in C.R.C.P. 201.3 is "supported by long-standing case authority") . We believe that the activities described in Rule 201.3 and our controlling caselaw are specific enough to provide a person of common intelligence with notice of what activities constitute the practice of law, and thus the ban on the unauthorized practice of law is not facially void for vagueness. See People v. Hickman, 988 P.2d 628, 644 (Colo. 1999) (rejecting facial vagueness challenge where law was "sufficiently specific to provide the constitutionally required guidance to individuals seeking to comply with the law . . . . ").
Shell’s claim that our ban is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her similarly fails. To prevail, Shell must show that the ban on the unauthorized practice of law "does not, with sufficient clarity, prohibit the conduct against which it is enforced." People v. McIntier, 134 P.3d 467, 475 (Colo. App. 2005). The clarity of the ban is viewed in light of Shell’s knowledge that her conduct was prohibited. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974). In 2001, Shell expressly stated that she understood that our ban forbids drafting legal pleadings, providing legal advice, and attempting to represent another person in a legal proceeding without a license. These are the very activities in which Shell engaged in the K.M. matter, the A.F. matter, and the Federal Action, and thus she cannot claim that Colorado law is void for vagueness as applied to her. See id.
B.
Shell also claims that her actions were permissible exercises of her First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We reach a different conclusion.
In general, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law does not implicate the First Amendment because it is directed at conduct, not speech. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978) (suggesting that the government’s regulation of the practice of law is a regulation of conduct, not speech); S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Sup. Ct. of La., 252 F.3d 781, 789 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that state prohibition on unlicensed students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech); Drew v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 970 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex. App. 1998) (holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the First Amendment); Fla. Bar v. Furman, 376 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 1979) (rejecting argument from unlicensed attorney that ban on unauthorized practice of law violated freedom of speech).
The fact that our ban touches on the legal content of the advice offered or the pleadings drafted by an unlicensed person is of no constitutional significance, since "it has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed."Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949) (emphasis added); see also Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456 (applying Giboney in the context of attorney regulation case) . In this respect, our ban on the unauthorized practice of law is no different from state laws prohibiting bribery (section 18-8-302, C.R.S. (2006)), extortion (section 18-3-207, C.R.S. (2006)), or criminal solicitation (section 18-2-301, C.R.S. (2006)) . Each of these unlawful activities requires some method of communication, and yet it is "well established that speech which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct may itself be legitimately proscribed, punished, or regulated incidentally to the constitutional enforcement of generally applicable statutes." Rice v. Paladin Enter., Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669 (1991)).
It is true that some activities constituting the practice of law are difficult to disentangle from the exercise of free speech. See Lawline v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 956 F.2d 1378, 1386 (7th Cir. 1992) ("While the practice of law and the exercise of free speech are not indistinguishable, neither are they mutually exclusive.") . However, none of Shell’s actions at issue in this case presents such a difficulty. Any impact on speech in this case "is merely the incidental effect of observing an otherwise legitimate regulation." Id.
We also find no basis for Shell’s claim that our ban is an unconstitutional abridgement of her right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As we held in Grimes, the First Amendment right to file a lawsuit does not extend to filing a lawsuit on behalf of another, nor does it prohibit the state from restricting legal representation to licensed attorneys. See 654 P.2d at 824; see also Turner v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 407 F. Supp. 451, 478 (D. Ala. 1975) (rejecting claim that individual has right to legal representation by an unlicensed attorney based on the right to petition for redress of grievances); Lawline v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 738 F. Supp. 288, 296 (N.D. Ill. 1990), aff’d 956 F.2d 1378 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying Turner) . Shell offers no legal authority that persuades us to revisit our decision in Grimes, and therefore, her First Amendment challenge lacks merit.
The court also is unpersuaded by Shell’s claim that the ban on the unauthorized practice of law is unconstitutionally overbroad. The overbreadth doctrine arises from the concern that a law’s scope may be so broad that it either restricts speech protected by the First Amendment or has a chilling effect on such speech. See People v. Shepard, 983 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo. 1999) . The alleged overbreadth "must be real and substantial, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep." Id.
As this case reveals, one of the touchstones of Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law is an unlicensed person offering advice or judgment about legal matters to another person for use in a specific legal setting. See Denver Bar Ass’n, 154 Colo.at 280, 391 P.2d at 471. The ban’s focus on case-specific legal practice keeps it from becoming so malleable as to restrict Shell’s right to criticize legal rulings or advocate for the reform of Colorado’s legal system. Any potential limitation on protected speech or conduct caused by the ban "is not real and substantial as compared" to the legitimate and permissible ban on the unauthorized practice of law, which concerns "a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct." Shepard, 983 P.2d at 4. We therefore cannot agree with Shell’s claim of overbreadth.
C.
We also are unpersuaded by Shell’s assertion that the court lacks jurisdiction to sanction her for practicing law without a license in federal court.
This court has the authority "to regulate and control the practice of law in Colorado," Grimes, 654 P.2d at 823, and to that end, we previously have punished violations of the professional rules of conduct committed in federal court proceedings. See People v. Heyer, 176 Colo. 188, 489 P.2d 1042 (1971) (sanctioning attorney for violations of rules of conduct in Colorado federal court) . Other states have acted similarly. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 832 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ohio 2005) ("[ W]e are also authorized to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law before federal courts located in this state."); Kennedy v. Bar Ass’n of Montgomery County, Inc., 561 A.2d 200, 208-09 (Md. 1989) (holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state); State ex rel. Disciplinary Comm’n v. Crofts, 500 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind. 1986) (same) . In keeping with these decisions and our mandate to regulate the practice of law in Colorado, we construe our ban on the unauthorized practice of law to include the practice of law in Colorado federal courts.
It is certainly true that the Colorado federal courts can allow individuals to engage in legal practice in federal courts who would not otherwise be allowed to practice law in Colorado state courts. See Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Fla. Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) (holding that, under the Supremacy Clause, a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the state’s jurisdiction) . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court made clear in Sperry that "the State maintains control over the practice of law within its borders except to the limited extent necessary for the accomplishment of . . . federal objectives." Id. at 402.
There are no such "federal objectives" in this case. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the federal court in which Shell filed the Federal Action on behalf of A.F., restricts the practice of law to those individuals who are "licensed by the highest court of a state, federal territory, or the District of Columbia where a written examination was required for admission . . . ." D.C.Colo.LCivR 83.3(A); see also D.C.Colo.LCivR 11.1(A) ("Only pro se individual parties and members of this court’s bar may appear or sign pleadings, motions, or other papers.") . Shell does not meet this standard for practice in the Colorado federal district court because she is not licensed as an attorney in any state or territory. In the absence of preemption by the federal courts, this court has the power to sanction Shell for her unauthorized practice of law in the Federal Action.
D.
Shell asserts that the statutory powers of attorney executed by K.M. and A.F. authorized her to act as the mothers’ legal representative in their dependency and neglect proceedings. However, Shell acknowledged in her 2001 Stipulation with the OARC that a statutory power of attorney did not give her the ability to practice law without a license. The doctrine of judicial estoppel binds Shell to her previous acknowledgment that a power of attorney is not a proxy for a law license. See Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943, 947 (Colo. 1997) (explaining judicial estoppel) . Judicial estoppel is "an equitable doctrine by which courts require parties to maintain a consistency of positions," thereby "preventing the parties from deliberately shifting positions to suit the exigencies of the moment." Id.
Under this doctrine, Shell cannot contradict her acknowledgment in her 2001 Stipulation that statutory powers of attorney do not allow her to practice law. See Leonia Bank v. Kouri, 772 N.Y.S.2d 251, 255-56 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (holding that stipulation precluded litigant from asserting contrary position in subsequent case); see also Hall v. GE Plastic Pac. PTE Ltd., 327 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining that litigant could not assert position inconsistent with one taken in previous proceeding, even though the previous proceeding did not amount to an adjudication of the issue); In re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616, 621 (Pa. 2003) (same). Thus judicial estoppel prevents Shell from resurrecting an argument that she previously acknowledged was incorrect. See Scarano v. Cent. R.R. Co., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953) (applying judicial estoppel doctrine) (quoted in Estate of Burford, 935 P.2d at 947).
* * *
To summarize, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law is not vague and does not violate the First Amendment. We also hold that, in this case, our ban extends not only to Shell’s unauthorized practice of law in state courts, but also to her unauthorized practice of law in the Federal Action. Finally, Shell cannot claim to have relied on the statutory powers of attorney executed by K.M. and A.F., because she previously has acknowledged in a written stipulation with the OARC (incorporated by reference in the October 2001 Order) that such statutory powers of attorney do not allow her to act as an attorney at law. We next consider whether Shell should have received a jury trial on the OARC’s petition for contempt.
IV.
Shell contends that she was entitled to a jury trial under the Federal and State Constitutions and section 16-10-101, C.R.S. (2006) . We hold otherwise.
A.
Section 16-10-101 provides, in relevant part:
The right of a person who is accused of an offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, or other than a municipal charter, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance violation . . . to have a trial by jury is inviolate . ...
(emphasis added). Shell argues that the plain language of section 16-10-101 entitles her to a jury trial on the OARC’s contempt petition. This argument, however, ignores the definition of the term "offense" used in the statute.
An "offense," as used in section 16-10-101, has been defined by the General Assembly as "a violation of . . . any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be imposed." § 18-1-104(1), C.R.S. (2006) (emphasis added). By its plain terms, therefore, section 16-10-101 extends a statutory right to a jury trial only to violations of state statutes. Contempt, of course, is not a statutory offense, but instead is "an inherent and indispensable power of the court and exists independently of legislative authorization." People v. Barron, 677 P.2d 1370, 1372 (Colo. 1984) . The General Assembly recognized this distinction when it abolished all common-law crimes in Colorado, but simultaneously noted that such abolition "does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt ... ."
§ 18-1-104(3). Thus the plain language of section 16-10-101 relates only to offenses properly classified as crimes defined by statute, not to contempt charges, and Shell has no right to a jury trial on the OARC’s contempt allegation under the statute.2
B.
Having rejected Shell’s statutory claim, we turn to her argument that the Federal and State Constitutions guarantee her a jury trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury . . . ."); Colo. Const. art. II, § 16 ("In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to . . . a speedy public trial by an impartial jury ....") . The constitutional guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases does not extend to non-serious or "petty" offenses. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 158 (1968); Austin v. City & County of Denver, 170 Colo. 448, 456, 462 P.2d 600, 604 (1969) . In the same vein, the right to a jury trial
equally applies to serious contempt charges, but not to non-serious or "petty" contempt charges. See Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 495 (1974).
To determine whether an offense should be characterized as "serious" or "petty," we first look for "objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense." Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 325 (1996) (quoting Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 148 (1969)). These "objective indications" often are found in the "legislature’s judgment about the offense’s severity," whether in the legislature’s explicit designation of an offense as serious or petty or in "the maximum penalty attached to the offense . . . ."Lewis, 518 U.S. at 326. In Colorado, the General Assembly has designated a category of criminal actions as "petty offenses" that are separate from misdemeanors and felonies and carry a maximum fine of $500. See § 18-1.3-503, C.R.S. (2006). We have held that the legislature’s categorization of "petty offenses" is an objective indication that the legislature generally considers misdemeanors and felonies to be "serious" offenses that must be tried to a jury. See Christie v. People, 837 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Colo. 1992) (holding that a criminal offense carrying a maximum punishment in excess of $500 requires trial to a jury); Austin, 170 Colo. at 456, 462 P.2d at 604 (same).
The "objective indications" that we followed in Christie and Austin and applied to statutory offenses are unavailable to us in this case because the General Assembly has not classified contempt as either "petty" or "serious" in the Colorado statutes, and contempt does not carry a legislatively determined sentence. For this reason, the categories of criminal offenses created by the General Assembly--and their attendant maximum penalties--are not applicable to contempt charges.
In the absence of an "objective indication" from the legislature, the determinant of whether a particular contempt charge is sufficiently serious to require a jury trial is the severity of the fine actually imposed upon the contemnor. See Frank, 395 U.S. at 151. The United States Supreme Court "has not specified what magnitude of contempt fine may constitute a serious criminal sanction" for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, but it has held that contempt fines of $5,000 for individuals, and $10,000 for non-individuals such as corporations, are presumptively "petty" and do not require a jury trial. See Int’l Union, UMW of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 837 n.5 (1994).
Shell argues that the hearing master’s recommendation of a $6,000 fine for contempt exceeds the $5,000 threshold and entitles her to a jury trial. We disagree. The Supreme Court has made clear that $5,000 carries no "talismanic significance,"
and that the critical question remains whether the fine imposed is "of such magnitude" that a jury trial is warranted. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477 (1975) . Shell offers no explanation for why a $6,000 fine, rather than a $5,000 fine, is of "such magnitude" that it should entitle her to a jury trial under this criterion. We agree with the opinions of other courts that have held that fines in excess of $5,000--so long as they are reasonable--do not give rise to a constitutional right to a trial by jury. See United States v. Clavette, 135 F.3d 1308, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that $25,000 fine did not trigger defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial); United States v. Unterburger, 97 F.3d 1413, 1416 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that fine of $10,000 was not sufficiently serious to trigger the defendant’s jury trial right) . While we take no position on whether the courts in Clavette or Unterburger were correct that fines of $25,000 or $10,000, respectively, are petty, we agree with the reasoning of these decisions that $5,000 is not talismanic. Applying this principle, we find that the hearing master’s recommendation of a $6,000 fine for contempt in this case is petty such that it does not trigger Shell’s constitutional right to a jury trial.
V.
Shell contends that she is entitled to a new hearing on the OARC’s contempt petition because she was not provided with a copy of the transcript from the proceedings below. This court denied Shell’s petition for a transcript at state expense.
Upon an adequate showing of economic hardship, "destitute defendants must be afforded as adequate [ an] appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts." Jurgevich v. Dist. Court, 907 P.2d 565, 567 (Colo. 1995) (quoting Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 (1956)) . Consequently, "the state must provide either a free transcript or other means of affording adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants." Id. The failure to provide an indigent defendant with a transcript is reversible error only if it prevents the appellate court from adequately reviewing the issues raised by the defendant on appeal. See People v. Shearer, 181 Colo. 237, 242, 508 P.2d 1249, 1252 (1973).
The OARC argues that there is no error because Shell failed to adequately demonstrate that she was indigent. We need not reach this issue, however, because Shell has not been harmed by the lack of a transcript. Shell videotaped the entire proceedings before the hearing master, and was able to provide this court with citations to the videotapes of the hearing. The court had the opportunity to review the video recordings to the extent necessary to consider the issues raised in Shell’s appeal. Since we were able to adequately consider the issues raised by Shell on appeal, she is not entitled to a new hearing. See id. at 242, 508 P.2d at 1252.
VI.
Finally, Shell argues that the hearing master erroneously recommended that this court award costs and attorneys’ fees to the OARC as part of the contempt citation. We agree with Shell and decline to adopt the hearing master’s recommendation as to costs and attorneys’ fees.
Rule 107 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure recognizes two types of sanctions for contempt of court: "remedial sanctions," which are imposed "to force compliance with a lawful order or to compel performance of an act within the person’s power or present ability to perform," C.R.C.P. 107(a) (5), and "punitive sanctions," which are imposed as "[p]unishment by unconditional fine, fixed sentence of imprisonment, or both, for conduct that is found to be offensive to the authority and dignity of the court," C.R.C.P. 107(a) (4). Rule 107(d) (2) permits the assessment of costs and attorneys’ fees where remedial sanctions are imposed against a contemnor. In contrast, the provisions relating to punitive contempt sanctions do not authorize the assessment of costs and attorneys’ fees. See C.R.C.P. 107(d) (1).
We interpret rules of procedure consistent with principles of statutory construction. See Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072, 1078 n.6 (Colo. 2002). These principles teach that words or provisions should not be added to a rule, see People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71, 73 (Colo. 2006), and that the inclusion of certain terms in a rule implies the exclusion of others, see Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp., 136 P.3d 252, 261 (Colo. 2006) (Eid, J., concurring) . Applying these principles, we hold that costs and fees cannot be assessed when the court imposes punitive sanctions against a contemnor, because C.R.C.P. 107(d) (1) does not expressly authorize their assessment. We find the rule’s silence dispositive in light of the language in C.R.C.P. 107(d) (2) permitting the assessment of costs and fees when a remedial sanction is imposed. See In re Lopez, 109 P.3d 1021 (Colo. App. 2004) (holding that costs and fees cannot be assessed when a court imposes punitive sanctions); Eichorn v. Kelley, 56 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2002) (same).
The sanction for contempt recommended by the hearing master in this case clearly is punitive--not remedial--in nature. Shell is not given the choice of accepting the $6,000 fine or complying with the court’s October 2001 Order, and such a choice is indispensable in order for the sanction to be remedial. See C.R.C.P. 107(a) (5) (explaining that remedial sanctions are imposed to compel compliance); C.R.C.P. 107(d) (2) (stating that remedial sanctions must be accompanied by a written order explaining how the contemnor "may purge the contempt and the sanctions" through compliance) . Since the recommended sanction against Shell is punitive, costs and attorneys’ fees cannot be awarded. See C.R.C.P. 107(d) (1). We agree with Shell and we do not assess costs and attorneys’ fees.
VII.
Suzanne Shell has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in direct violation of both Colorado law and this court’s October 2001 Order enjoining her against engaging in legal practice without a license. We hereby hold her in contempt of this court and fine her $6,000. We do not assess any additional amount for costs and attorneys’ fees.
The court’s Order of October 25, 2001, enjoining Shell against practicing law without a license in Colorado remains in effect.
1. Shell argues in passing that the proceedings below were constitutionally insufficient. We find her claim meritless. Rule 107 entitles the alleged contemnor to notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond at a trial on the merits by cross-examining adverse witnesses and by presenting evidence and witnesses of her own. See C.R.C.P. 107(d) (1). Shell received the full panoply of these protections in the proceedings below, consistent with the demands of due process. See Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 166 n.4 (1965) ("Due process of law ...in the prosecution of contempt, except of that committed in open court, requires that the accused should be advised of the charges and have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation."(citation omitted)).
2. The court of appeals reached the same conclusion in Kourlis v. Port, 18 P.3d 770 (Colo. App. 2000).
2:10 PM
Anonymous said...
* Home
* Public Services
* Unauthorized Practice of Law
Unauthorized Practice of Law
What is the Unauthorized Practice of Law?
In order to practice law in South Carolina, an attorney must be licensed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The authority of the Supreme Court can be found in the South Carolina Code of Laws at Section 40-5-220, available online or at a local library.
Except where a person is representing his or her own cause, practicing law without a license is strictly prohibited by state law. Section 40-5-310 states that practicing law without a license is a felony, with a penalty of up to five years in prison and/or five a thousand dollar fine. As of 2002, Section 40-5-80 was amended to prohibit the representation of another, with or without permission from a court.
The biggest problem in determining whether someone is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law is determining whether his or her conduct is actually the "practice of law." It is up to the South Carolina Supreme Court to decide whether someone is engaged in the practice of law. Code Section 40-5-20 allows the Supreme Court to adopt rules "defining and regulating the practice of law."
What is considered the "practice of law"?
The practice of law is more than just appearing in court on behalf of a client. Though no concise definition of practice of law exists, certain characteristics make it more likely that the Court will view certain conduct as the practice of law. An early South Carolina case, cited by other jurisdictions as well, stated that the practice of law includes "the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law." In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (S.C. 1909). The practice of law "extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge." South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987).
Additionally, whether an individual is paid for his or her services is irrelevant. The reasons for prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law are not to protect licensed attorneys from losing business to unlicensed individuals. Rather, the purpose is to protect the public from consequences resulting "from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law." South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002).
Examples from South Carolina Supreme Court decisions:
Inmates. The Supreme Court ruled that it was the unauthorized practice of law for a state prison inmate to help other inmates prepare applications for post-conviction relief, even though he was not paid and never appeared in court on the other inmates' behalf. South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002).
Real Estate Closings. Preparation of deeds, mortgages and other legal instruments related to transfers of real estate falls within the practice of law. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that "real estate and mortgage loan closings should be conducted only under the supervision of attorneys, who have the ability to furnish their clients legal advice should the need arise . . . ." South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987); Doe v. Condon, 568 S.E.2d 356 (S.C. 2002). While the Bar's Ethics Advisory Committee is limited to issues of professional conduct by South Carolina attorneys and does not issue opinions as to what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, the Committee does acknowledge a significant number of inquiries about UPL by lenders in the real estate field. Click here for more information.
3rd Party Insurance Adjusting. Public insurance adjustment does not necessarily constitute the practice of law, and is regulated by SC Code section 38-48-70.Insurance adjustment is limited to include: (a) estimations of property damage and repair costs, (b) inventory of loss, (c) delivering claim to insurance company, and (d) negotiating with insurance company relating to property-damage valuations.
Insurance adjustment violates restrictions on unauthorized practice of law when conduct includes: (a) advising clients of their rights under an insurance policy, (b) advising on whether to accept settlement offers, (c) becoming involved in coverage dispute between the client and the insurance company, and (d) advertising that adjuster offers services that require legal skill. Linder v. Ins. Claims Consultants, Inc., 560 S.E.2d 612 (S.C. 2002).
Unsupervised paralegal. A disbarred attorney prepared and filed a deed for a small fee. Though he argued that he was merely acting as a paralegal, his conduct constituted the practice of law. Paralegals do not engage in the practice of law as long as their work is �of a preparatory nature, such as legal research, investigation, or the composition of legal documents, which enable a licensed attorney-employer to carry a given matter to a conclusion through his own examination, approval or additional effort." Matter of Easler, 272 S.E.2d 32 (S.C. 1980).
Estate planning seminar. A paralegal wanted to conduct unsupervised "wills and trusts" seminars for the public. Because the paralegal planned to advise potential clients of their need for particular estate planning devices, such advice requires professional judgment by a licensed attorney. Doe v. Condon, 532 S.E.2d 879 (S.C. 2000).
Paralegal advertising. A paralegal advertised, "If your civil rights have been violated, call me." It was illegal for the paralegal (not a licensed attorney) to solicit the cause of another person. At the time of the case, it was legal for a non-lawyer to defend the cause of another after receiving permission by the court. Now, it is illegal for an unlicensed person to represent anyone other than himself or herself. South Carolina v. Robinson, 468 S.E.2d 190 (S.C. 1996).
Pro bono paralegal. A certified paralegal offered voluntary services for persons in need of assistance with housing and landlord-tenant issues. The paralegal prepared and filed a complaint (lawsuit) in federal court relating to unlawful eviction. He also prepared pleadings filed in state circuit court alleging unlawful termination of public assistance benefits. The fact that the paralegal was not paid was irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled that his actions amounted to the practice of law, which includes "the preparation of pleadings and the management of court proceedings." The Hous. Auth. Of the City of Charleston v. Key, 572 S.E.2d 284 (S.C. 2002).
Corporations. Though someone may represent himself or herself pro se, this exception applies only to individuals. A non-lawyer (officer, agent or employee) can only represent a corporation in civil magistrate's court. Because a corporation is an artificial entity created by law, it cannot represent itself. A corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney in circuit and appellate courts. Renaissance Enterprises, Inc. v. Summit Teleservices, Inc., 515 S.E.2d 257 (S.C. 1999).
A non-lawyer insurance representative/employee appeared before a State commissioner. Though an individual can appear on behalf of him or herself, a corporation cannot appear or act in person, and cannot practice law. The Court reasoned that, "[i]f a corporation could appear in court through a layman upon the theory that it was appearing for itself, it could employ any person, not learned in the law, to present it in any or all judicial proceedings." State ex rel. Daniel v. Wells, 5 S.E.2d 181 (S.C. 1939).
Legal document computer programs. A businesswoman used a computer program to generate legal documents for other persons to be filed in family court. The Supreme Court found this activity amounted to the unauthorized practice of law when it involves "the giving of advice, consultation, explanation or recommendations on matters of law," and "instructing other individuals in the manner in which to prepare and execute such documents." South Carolina v. Despain, 460 S.E.2d 576 (S.C. 1995).
Exceptions. In addition to pro se representation and representation of a corporation before a magistrate's court, the Supreme Court has provided for several exceptions allowing a non-lawyer to engage in legal proceedings. State agencies may permit non-lawyers to appear and represent clients before it. Certified public accountants (CPAs) maintain a special status before the court. It is not the unauthorized practice of law for a CPA to represent clients before an agency or Probate Court if it is within his or her professional expertise and qualifications. Lastly, an arresting police officer does not engage in the unauthorized practice of law when he or she prosecutes traffic offenses in magistrate's court or a municipal court. In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed by the South Carolina Bar, 422 S.E.2d 123 (S.C. 1992).
§ 484. None but attorneys to practice in the state. No natural person
shall ask or receive, directly or indirectly, compensation for appearing
for a person other than himself as attorney in any court or before any
magistrate, or for preparing deeds, mortgages, assignments, discharges,
leases or any other instruments affecting real estate, wills, codicils,
or any other instrument affecting the disposition of property after
death, or decedents' estates, or pleadings of any kind in any action
brought before any court of record in this state, or make it a business
to practice for another as an attorney in any court or before any
magistrate unless he has been regularly admitted to practice, as an
attorney or counselor, in the courts of record in the state; but nothing
in this section shall apply (1) to officers of societies for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, duly appointed, when exercising the
special powers conferred upon such corporations under section fourteen
hundred three of the not-for-profit corporation law; or (2) to law
students who have completed at least two semesters of law school or
persons who have graduated from a law school, who have taken the
examination for admittance to practice law in the courts of record in
the state immediately available after graduation from law school, or the
examination immediately available after being notified by the board of
law examiners that they failed to pass said exam, and who have not been
notified by the board of law examiners that they have failed to pass two
such examinations, acting under the supervision of a legal aid
organization, when such students and persons are acting under a program
approved by the appellate division of the supreme court of the
department in which the principal office of such organization is located
and specifying the extent to which such students and persons may engage
in activities prohibited by this statute; or (3) to persons who have
graduated from a law school approved pursuant to the rules of the court
of appeals for the admission of attorneys and counselors-at-law and who
have taken the examination for admission to practice as an attorney and
counselor-at-law immediately available after graduation from law school
or the examination immediately available after being notified by the
board of law examiners that they failed to pass said exam, and who have
not been notified by the board of law examiners that they have failed to
pass two such examinations, when such persons are acting under the
supervision of the state or a subdivision thereof or of any officer or
agency of the state or a subdivision thereof, pursuant to a program
approved by the appellate division of the supreme court of the
department within which such activities are taking place and specifying
the extent to which they may engage in activities otherwise prohibited
by this statute and those powers of the supervising governmental entity
or officer in connection with which they may engage in such activities.
11:27 is right. Look, as a seasoned doc reviewer I am in no better situation than most of you. But anybody who seriously thinks that this line of work is highly specialized big stuff that requires a high level of intellect is either
a) not too bright themselves or
b) living in La-la land
Big firm partners and associates must be getting a really good laugh out of this thread at our expense. Even I am amazed at how dumb many of my colleagues actually are after reading these posts.
In a fierce battle between TTTroll and TTTool, it's the associate and partner who wins
12:35 you are sooooooo convincing calling yourself a "seasoned doc reviewer." What is amazing is how dumb you are to think that anyone is going to buy your transparent pretense.
12:35
Certain aspects of it require specialization. Foreign language and science backgrounds.
12:52 speaking of lame.
It's like the three faces of troll.
At this point, just about every doc reviewer in New York I'd out of work, so legit posters here are griping about outsourcing, not praising or excusing it. Actual doc reviewers post here to find out whether there are any projects, not to insult those who stand up to the LPO spammers.
Hahaha, I never set foot in law school but speak another language fluently so I landed a review gig in London for about a year back in 2005. They paid me $45/hour +OT. Even though that was excellent money for a job right out of college I can still admit that with or without a JD this is no career and any dumbass can do it. After all, I'm not the most brilliant person myself (but at least I know that!). I'm a party animal at heart and took that gig mainly to party, get laid as much as I could and eat shrooms on my weekends in Amsterdam. For work I read a bunch of documents for 10 hours a day and checked little boxes to tag them. Big deal, I have advanced reading skills.
I have no JD but at least I'm a person with decency who has normal social skills. I didn't care to try to suck that corporate cock either, an attitude that most of my colleagues despised. And if I remember correctly, many reviewers at my gig kissed as much ass as possible because they actually thought that they could somehow be promoted to associate this way (none did of course).
It was a pretty eye opening experience for a 22 year old to see what happens when spoiled brats fail in life and devolve into old miserable fucks (not a pretty sight). I used to think that I just had bad luck to be stuck with that many losers. After finding this site I am disappointed to see that my experience was not too far out of the ordinary. The associates I worked with were pretty cool though for the most part. I probably made the right choice by not going to law school. Though I learned no real job skills from my gig the most valuable lesson I took from that experience is to avoid ending up like you guys when I reach your age.
Anybody who pays a 6 figure sum just to end up doing this type of work in the end needs to wake up and change professions.
Outsourcing = Karma
3:29 you're the first person I've accused of being full of s-hit. First of all, I've met lots of young 22-year old fucks/assholes, complainers, etc... Age has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, I agree that you don't necessarily have to be an attorney to review documents as part of the discovery process in litigation, as long as you have good reading skills and a certain level of intelligence.
I disagree that anybody can do a good job. Of course, it all depends on the complexity of the work being reviewed, not only IP or foreign language. I also think you need some degree of experience or understanding of legal issues to spot the issues that are not obvious from your tagging protocols. I have found many so-called "hot" documents on reviews after the documents had been passed over by other reviewers. So, while the automatic clickers, mass-coders, document review cheaters, those graduating at the bottom of their law school class, 22-year old non-attorneys, and outsourcers may assert that this is a job for anybody, they are fools. As more mistakes are made and attorneys and their clients start questioning the quality of production they are getting back, they will be revealed. The only thing that the current document review process has going for itself is that the projects are so large and the amount of paper generated so great that you can hide poor shoddy work. No one is really going to be able to analyze this, much less want to, unless a glaring mistake is made that compromises the case.
If anybody can do it, it's because the work product is awful. If you want a good work product, you will only take the best qualified people (who hopefully are not cheaters) and pay them a good rate.
Hi guys. I'm a recent graduate of Edison Community College. Would you recommend a career in law school? I know its tuff to get into, but the law school website advertises that graduates earn lots of money. Thanks.
I can't believe this board.
The American doc reviewer trolls are really out in full force, trying to have us believe that they are qualified to do their line of "work".
They are like the greedy CEOs and bank presidents who got us into this credit crisis and depression.
The American doc reviewer trolls with their toilet paper JD degrees from third tier trash schools can't deal with the fact that OUTSOURCING IS THE FUTURE and that Indian attorneys are well-trained, diligent, and for the most part, perfectionists, who may not be able to speak English in a way that graces American ears, but can read and comprehend English documents perfectly, plus they have a great understanding of legal concepts, therefore, if the price is right, they are well-qualified to perform this kind of work.
Globalization is overtaking the world fast, and the American doc reviewers will never be able to stop this trend. By the time those lazy b-stards get up off their asses and file a lawsuit or a coherent complaint for UPL, about 6000 more English doc review jobs will have already been shipped over to India.
So, can't they see their cries of unlicensed practice of law are irrelevant? Technically, it may be UPL, but show me *one* whining American doc reviewer who's ever actually done anything about it other than bitching on a temp lawyer board?
hahahaahhahahahhaahahahahahha!
9:41 is retarded.
Doc review outsourcing won't last. There's too many big players getting the shaft. BigLaw firms can't bill as much with Indian attorneys and the big agencies (e.g. Hudson) lose out because they are entrenched in NYC, not India.
The contract attorneys are helpless and have no voice, but the big firms and big agencies ALWAYS WIN. REMEMBER THAT KIDS.
The outsources seem pretty scared for some reason. The amount of phony posts praising outsourcing and trying to deny that doc review is legal work is a telltale sign that they are afraid that they won't be able to hold onto it.
Out of worker doc reviewers (meaning all actual doc reviewers in NYC) would not write posts bolstering the outsourcers' bogus claims.
Out of work doc reviewers (meaning all actual doc reviewers in NYC) would not write posts bolstering the outsourcers' bogus claims.
The LPO liars do all those posts because they know they are vulnerable due to the unlawful practice of law and due diligence issues. That is why they keep posting their garbage posts praising outsourcing and pretending to be doc reviewers agreeing that what they do is just fine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through them.
Right, it just shows what lying, deceitful charlatans these people are. And law firms and corporations want to send their work to these phonies?
You get what you pay for, only an idiot would send their legal work to India, of any kind. It will end up costing a lot more in the end, to ship your work half way around the world to some poorly run, scandalous sweatshop.
some out of work doc reviewers are actually working again...in real jobs.
11:01
I wouldn't say outsourcers are "scared of doc reviewers". Rather, it is obvious that there is a fair amount of people in the industry that would be happy to see American toilet reviewers out of work. Contrary to what many crap "lawyers" claim on here, it is no real career. It is raw labor done behind a computer screen. The work isn't challenging either unless you had severe down syndrome maybe. If you want a real career in the industry I suggest you become a paralegal or work in tech support.
Also keep in mind that even if review attorneys were tortured in the basement Abu Ghraib style while on their job, they still wouldn't be able to file a complaint about it successfully
1:50 I suggest that you are not a doc reviewer. You are yet another bogus creep.
3:29
Since you don't have a JD, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinions on outsorcing.
Oh by the way, I have a JD and passed the bar. I can get a high paying job reviewing docs basically anytime I want (with the exception of the past few months -- but nobody can find a job). I also speak a foreign language and guess what, they pay more than 45 an hour in the US, not London (which sucks and is mad expensive).
You on the other hand only make money when some weird language doc review comes along. I can make it about anytime I want. I can also move into a high paying career when I feel good and ready.
Maybe you can try and find a job in the outsorcing world. Oh yeah, that's coming to a screaching halt.
Sucks to be you. Good to be me.
The funniest part of this thread is when a TTTroll makes a failed attempt to demonstrate his lawyer skills by pasting a bunch of random statutes and cases that nobody reads. It's the only place nowadays where a TTTroll can show off what he learned in law school.
I went to the unemployment office in Brooklyn. They looked at my resume and said they can do nothing for me since I am an attorney. No counseling or resume writing or job bank or computer training. Nothing. I am debt and can barely afford to live. When will it end? I remember when I made $150,000 in 2007. In 2008 it dropped to $100,000. In 2009, I have made less than three grand all year. When will it end?
Only LPO liars use the term "TTTroll" on a blog for doc reviewers. They must really be running scared on the unauthorized practice of law and due diligence issues. Otherwise they wouldn't keep crapping their posts all over the board. They know their days are numbered.
"I hate fucking indians"
General Custer
5:22 probably it will end when the credit crunch eases up. Hopefully, that will be in time for us to put in enough hours to salvage the year. You've already made almost $3,000 more this year than I have. My last project ended toward the end of last year and I haven't gotten anything since then. I'm living off of UE, credit and savings.
5:22 it will end as soon as you stop being a useless drain to society and agree to match Apu's payrate.
Attention LPO's! Run away from the dangerous threat of powerful doc review temp attorneys before it's too late and you have nowhere to hide! They are so powerful and skilled that they can sue you into oblivion!
6:44 when you post like that, we have to spend days figuring out what you're about. I mean, it's hard. As hard as figuring out that you know as soon as the economy improves here, (if not sooner) biglaw will flee from you. Every time you post that kind of garbage, your fear shows.
It just shows, once again, how ridiculous the LPO charlatans are.
ATTENTION TTT'ers!!! NOW, YOU, TOO CAN EARN A PRESTIGIOUS IVY LEAGUE DEGREE!!!
From: The Huffington Post
Today in a courtroom in South Carolina, Esther Elizabeth Reed's fantasies finally ended. The 30-year-old brunette, who has spent eight of the past ten years on the run, often entering Ivy League schools under adopted fake identities, and evading cops with an extraordinary web of deception, faces up to over four years in prison.
For one man, Jon Campbell, a slight, sandy-haired tenacious investigator in the police department of the tiny town of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, it is the end of what became an obsessive case resembling the plot of Steven Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks as the FBI detective Carl Hanratty always hotly in pursuit of his prey. Campbell was Reed's Hanratty.
In the summer of 2006, Campbell received a phone call from a police officer in New York. Campbell was informed that Brooke Henson, a beautiful young woman who had disappeared in peculiar circumstances from her family home in Travelers Rest in the early hours of July 4, 1999 when she was just twenty -- and had since become the town's only unsolved missing person -- had been found. She was, so Campbell was informed, an honors student at Columbia University, and Ivy League school on New York's Upper West Side.
New York police had gone to seek out the young woman on the Columbia campus after a New Yorker from whom she had been seeking part-time employment doing housework had Googled her and seen she was listed as a missing person on the Internet. Brooke Henson told police who interrogated her that she had no desire to be reunited with her family since she was a victim of domestic abuse. She wanted to be left alone to get on her with studies. She was very convincing. The New York police officer told Campbell that they intended to close Ms. Henson's file.
Campbell replied that they could close the case if they liked but there was no way the woman they had found was the real Brooke Henson. "Take some DNA" he suggested. "The Brooke Henson I knew could never have got into Columbia" he said into the phone. The girl he knew was a high-school dropout, a party girl.
Something in his voice made the New York officer go the extra mile. The next day Campbell's phone rang again. Brooke Henson had failed to show for her DNA test. Campbell wasn't surprised.
When, weeks later, New York cops forced entry into her apartment, they tripped over a pile of calling cards from New York officers. They had been dropped through the mailbox. They found no hair, no trace of anything that would have DNA. But they did find a video card, signed in Boston, Massachusetts, bearing the name "Natalie Bowman."
Once again they called Campbell and relayed their findings. Who was the young woman if it wasn't Brooke Henson? Officially this was his case. Campbell rolled up his sleeves and went to work. A 40-year-old graduate of Bob Jones university, he was more anxious than anyone to solve a mystery that had preyed on his mind and exasperated him for years.
Back in 2001, he had been assigned the case and handed two boxes of "indecipherable" material. He had re-interviewed dozens of local people and taken DNA samples to try to solve what had really happened to Brooke Henson and found himself thwarted at every turn.
"Everyone in this town had a theory about what happened to Brooke," he said. "But none of them was right."
Particularly exasperating for him were the prank calls. There was a medium who claimed to have seen her body beside "yellow rope" and then there was the inmate from a neighboring jurisdiction who got cops to drive him around in the pouring rain and dig.
He was pretty sure Brooke Henson had been murdered and he thought he knew who had done it and even probably where. He had just never found a body -- much to his chagrin.
So, he was intrigued by whoever this impostor was, pretending to be Brooke. Maybe she had information that could help him; maybe she had known the young woman. First he had to find out who she was.
He began a lonely few months of phone calls and paper trails. He called Kim Finnergan, head of security at Columbia. Finnergan was helpful at first but then stopped sending him documents once the school got "lawyered up." Thereafter they cited privacy laws. Campbell had to get a federal subpoena to force them to continue to help him. It was like pulling teeth.
He learned there were two Natalie Bowmans. One was a dead end, in that she is a bona fide medical graduate student at Columbia and a former graduate of Harvard. Another one showed up, before two years at Columbia, in Harvard's records. He saw she had been on the debate team there in 2002. From there she had apparently vanished. Harvard had no record of her graduating. Like Columbia, Harvard was not helpful. But Campbell learned that in both places her file was flagged as a victim of domestic abuse. It is possible both knew "Natalie Bowman" or "Brooke Henson" was not her real name.
Campbell retraced the steps of Harvard debate team in 2002. Harvard had taken on West Point. A few more phone calls led him to Natalie Bowman's former boyfriends -- cadet officers who had been on West Point's debate team and who had since left to take senior military postings, including the supervising of others in Iraq.
He called the parents of one young man, in Detroit. Finally he got the name he was looking for; the young man's parents believed the woman calling herself Natalie Bowman was really one, Esther Reed. They'd seen her driver's license, which been issued in Seattle.
In the fall of 2006, Campbell called cops in King County, Washington. They traded photographs of the woman who had posed in New York as Brooke Henson and others of Esther Elizabeth Reed, a young woman who had last been seen in Seattle, in 1999. She had been convicted of credit card fraud and then broken off contact with her family, who had wondered if she'd been killed.
A corpse had been found in Peasley Canyon, Washington, and until 2004, when DNA showed otherwise, local police believed it was Esther. When that was ruled out, police had speculated she'd been a victim of the "Green River Strangler," discovered to be Gary Ridgeway, a serial killer convicted in 2003 of murdering 48 prostitutes over 25 years in King County.
Both woman bore an uncanny resemblance to one another. Both were slim and pretty with long lush dark hair. But Reed looked slimmer and had a more impish look; a wider smile and a knowing twinkle in her eyes.
Seattle police sent Esther Reed's half sister, Edna Strom an email asking if the attached photograph was her sister. Strom got the email and gasped.
It was.
Thus began further investigation that got Campbell really riled up. Although theoretically the story of Esther Reed was not his case, as he pieced together her narrative in an attempt to learn how her path had crossed Brooke Henson's, the tale grew more and more remarkable.
How had Esther Reed, once an overweight high school dropout gotten herself into Ivy League schools -- as someone else? Why had she taken on someone else's identity, if not to rob them. Had she known her alias? How had she obtained the relevant social security numbers? How had she survived?
When finally it broke in the New York Post in January 2007, it jump-started the TV crews of America's Most Wanted and news networks everywhere. Everyone wanted to know the same questions:
Boyfriends talked of cash being wired from Germany and the Netherlands: were these real?
And what had been the real subtext of her romantic relationships with men in the military? Was she a spy? There were so many peculiarities about the case that did not make sense.
"From a criminal standpoint we rarely find somebody who assumes somebody's identity for any period of time," says Det. John Urquhart of King County, Washington. "Typically they will do it long enough to clean out the bank accounts and then off they go. But she's done this for a long period of time, more than once, to live as those persons."
*****
Esther Elizabeth Reed was born on March 8, 1978, in the tiny town of Townsend, Montana, the youngest of eight children. Her father, Ernest "Ernie" Reed, was a woodworker and farm laborer. He married a woman named Florence when he was 32 and she was 40 and a single mother with seven children and two marriages behind her. Edna, one daughter, says that of her mother's four husbands, Ernie, a god-fearing Baptist, was by far, the most reliable, a truly good man. "My mother was a wonderful, attractive person," Edna says, "but she didn't have the best taste in men."
Though never affluent, Ernie made sure there was food on the table for his family, which mainly consisted of Esther and her brother, EJ, two years her senior, since the other children were mostly grown. She was a "pretty baby" according to another half-sister, Lori Devaney. But as she grew, Esther somehow never fit in, according to both Lori and Edna, partly because she was always a little overweight, and partly because she was so much younger than her half-siblings. She was always, says Lori, "manipulative... the kind of girl who when told not to touch something would put one finger on it to test boundaries."
James Theriault, who taught Esther in high school, wondered for a long time if the girl was being abused, because she was so reclusive. "She had this shell," he says. So he put her on the debate team, and noticed that she was "highly intelligent" and outstandingly good. Her brother EJ would later tell police that it didn't matter which side of an argument she was told to argue -- she was equally good at everything. "She could convince you it was daylight outside in the middle of the night," Sergeant Urquhart recalls EJ Reed telling him. EJ also told Edna that he gave up playing games like chess with his sister pretty early on -- she was way too good for him.
Yet her grades were poor. "She thought she was too bright for high school," says Lori. "[She thought] that the teachers were wasting her time."
Meanwhile life at home was rocky. In 1991, after Ernie's health deteriorated following a bout with meningitis, he and Flo separated. In 1992 Flo had surgery for cancer. In 1995 she moved out of Townsend and took Esther to Lynwood, near Seattle, where Esther enrolled in high school for just one year before dropping out. Weakened by her pain medication, Flo's grasp on Esther slipped. "The rest of you will be fine, but watch out for Esther," she told Edna as she was dying. Edna wasn't sure why their mother was so concerned. But as she was going through her mother's possessions, following her death in August 1998, she found a document that shocked her. It showed that Esther had been on probation for stealing (with a group of friends) in Townsend. Suddenly things started to add up for Edna, who was letting her sister live with her.
Edna and her husband and daughter would habitually throw loose change in an old jug for their annual vacation. It had gotten to the point where it was so full it was almost too heavy to lift. Suddenly the money vanished. So too did her daughter's tooth-fairy money; then Edna's purse went missing. By then Esther had moved out.
In the late spring of 1999 the police notified Edna that someone was cashing her checks... and then in June they arrested Esther as the culprit.
During the summer of 1999, Edna sat in the visitors' gallery at the courthouse in Kent, Seattle, where she watched Esther plead guilty to the credit card theft. Esther was sentenced to 35 days in jail, which had been converted to community service. Grudgingly, through her fury, Edna noticed that her younger sibling had gotten thin and "beautiful" -- the result of diet pills and jogging. Outside after the proceedings the two sisters had it out. Edna asked how, given their Baptist upbringing and everything the family had been through, Esther could have behaved like this? Stealing her own baby niece's tooth fairy money? Esther shrugged: "Because I didn't think you'd really mind and because I could," were more or less her answers, according to Edna.
(Court papers filed by Reed's lawyer alleged her sister had called her "evil" and claimed this subsequently triggered panic and anxiety attacks in the young woman).
But emails from Esther to Edna offer a different insight into her amoral outlook, more or less the Bad Seed syndrome. "Usually there has always been something in my life that I hadn't admitted to that I had done, so guilt was nothing new for me" she wrote. "Ever since I was a young kid, I have had urges of steeling [sic]. Most of the time I can overcome them. But as I got older, the things I took got bigger and the schemes I pulled to get them got worse. When I was fourteen I learned how to lock myself up in a little box and I had no idea how to unlock it..when I steel [sic], I am able to shut off all feeling ...it bothers me, but not like it should.
She goes on: "Sitting in a jail cell will tell you there is a little bit more wrong than just saying "no" will fix... something inside of me is different. I don't want to be the girl who let life pass her by because she was too afraid to live it."
She signed herself "Liz," not Esther, a sign of a new start.
*****
Later that summer Esther emailed her sister Edna that she'd quit working in nursing homes and was thinking of a career in the military and that she had taken up chess and was playing in tournaments. Her last email to Edna was in October, 1999.
By then Edna and Lori were also receiving irate emails from one of Esther's ex-boyfriends, Johnny Fisher, who was owed thousands of dollars in rent. Fisher had a sister, Natalie, then living in Germany. Esther enrolled as Natalie Fisher in a summer debate tournament in Arizona, where her abilities caught the eye of John Bruschke, the debate coach at Cal State Fullerton.
Bruschke suggested "Natalie" enroll at Cal State as an adjunct student -- because that way she could sign up for classes more cheaply. She would not end up with a degree, but she could sign on to the debate team. She said she would finance this with her winnings from chess tournaments.
Bruschke was puzzled when Esther enrolled at Cal State, not as Natalie Fisher, which is how she had known her, but as Natalie Bowman. However he didn't pry. The debate team at Cal State Fullerton was no stranger to members with mixed-up backgrounds says Brushke. "We are kind of a place where people with unpleasant lives, but talent, find their way," he says.
But even by Cal State standards Natalie Fisher/Bowman developed a reputation as a "crazy" girl among her peers. She was highly interested in the opposite sex, recalls both Bruschke and her philosophy teacher, Mitch Avila. But her relationships were extremely short-lived even by student standards, noted Brushke.
She was considered odd. "She didn't trust anybody" says one of her debate team colleagues. One time "Natalie" complained to Brushke that the debate team had gotten bawdy and out-of-hand en route to a tournament -- but when he looked into the matter he discovered that she had been the ringleader of the bawdiness. So why would she have complained?
Avila says she was clearly way beyond the rest of the philosophy students in his class. "It wasn't remotely clear what she was doing there... she already knew all this stuff" he says. He was so suspicious he even checked her work for plagiarism but came up empty. In 2003, at her request, he wrote her a letter of recommendation under the name Brooke Henson, because, she told him, she was being stalked and needed to change identities while she applied to a new college.
She wrote to him about the matter:
I was in your philosophy, I think 100, class last fall. I was the debating chess player. Anyways, last winter I decided to transfer from Fullerton to Loyola University in Chicago. In between I went back to playing chess to get the money to pay for a school like that and I acquired a bit of a stalker. Things got fairly complicated and I wasn't able to attend Loyola for safety reasons, so I am now in the process of applying again, but to Northwestern and a couple of other better schools. Apparently my scores allow me into better schools than I thought. I will explain it better in person, but its a tricky situation and I know you once said you write letters of recommendation for students and I am in need of a good one.
Avila says he agreed to her request "because when you have a student facing you who says she is being stalked it's very difficult to fight that... you tend to believe her."
Neither Mitch Avila nor John Brushke were surprised when they read recently that their former student had gotten into Columbia and Harvard. "She was absolutely bright enough" says Brushke, adding that she didn't strike him as a petty criminal: "Here's the thing about a debate team... you are driving and hanging around with someone for 12 hours then you are living with them and are spending 16 hour days where you are in hotel rooms having meals with them, ...if her intentions had been to steal, she had ample opportunity."
In 2003, according to Detective Jon Campbell, Esther, as Natalie Bowman, somehow joined the Harvard debate team. Records show that the real Natalie Bowman had debated for Harvard in 1999 and then went on to Columbia Medical school. This Natalie was in Peru when Esther impersonated her in Cambridge, Massachusetts, according to Campbell.
Why would Esther bother to get into Ivy League Schools under an assumed identity, when she could have used her considerable talents for more lucrative -- or insidious -- purposes is a question perplexing police. "If you are looking for motivation for Natalie, her character is very much like Kate in Lost," says Brushke. James Theriault was left wondering why she felt she needed to be anyone else since, in his opinion, "she was quite bright enough to get into Harvard on her own... I can speculate that maybe she wanted to be somebody else." Jon Campbell believes she is some sort of honey trap.
*****
Her phone text messages show that Esther/Natalie/Brooke dated many men while she was traveling the country debating, playing chess and attending college. Many of them were in service. Her text messages imply she was most serious about someone named "Tim," a Naval Warfare Officer stationed on a ship out of Everett, Washington. "Tim" gave her a ring, she wrote in an instant message to one ex-boyfriend. Yet she was flirting with her correspondent, even as she told him that the ring meant a great deal to her -- her first "diamond."
Among the cadets at West Point, she had flings with Daniel Ebarb, Kyle Brengel, in 2006 stationed in Alaska, and Ian Fleishmann, then supervising officers in Iraq.
Fleishmann's father, Fred, from Michigan, was suspicious of his son's new girlfriend -- then calling herself Natalie Fisher -- right from the start. While she was clearly smart and attractive she was very reticent when it came to information about herself.
"The guys were not involved with her seriously -- they were in this for wild sex," explains Det. Campbell. "They've all been interviewed -- and none of them passed on any classified information. If they had, that would be considered a very serious -- as in treasonable -- offense by the army; it's clear that did not happen."
In 2002, while dating Ian Fleishmann and visiting him at his parent's home in Michigan, Fleishmann's mother, Shirley, a professor at Annapolis, backed their car out of the garage and accidentally hit Natalie's red Honda Accord. Strangely, the young woman refused to give her insurance details or ever cash a check that Fleishmann wrote for two and a half thousand dollars. Fred Fleishmann couldn't understand why the young woman wouldn't let him take the car to get it fixed. He also wanted to give her a map of the area and went out to his driveway to put one in her glove compartment while she and his son were at the beach. To his astonishment, he found several driver's licenses, including Esther Reed's.
He started to pay more attention to the young woman, particularly when she suggested that she and his son share a cell phone so they could speak regularly (West Point hours don't allow much free time) and the bills came to his home. He noticed that she was calling all the time -- and from all over America."She claimed she was playing chess tournaments, but I wondered," says Fleishmann, who looked up the tournaments and saw no sign of her.
Meanwhile, his son was growing weary of the girl's barrage of phone calls and they lost touch. Detective Campbell says Ian Fleishmann has subsequently told him that "Natalie" became a pest.
Last fall, out of the blue, Fred Fleishmann received a call from Jon Campbell inquiring about the young woman his son used to date. According to Campbell, Fleishmann said wryly "I'd been wondering when my phone was going to ring about her."
*****
"The Box" is the name of an essay that investigators took from the hard drive of a computer belonging to one former West Point cadet Esther dated named Kyle Brengel, once stationed in Alaska. Though it isn't the essay that Esther Reed used to impersonate Brooke Henson to get into Columbia in 2004 -- for that, according to Det. Campbell, she cleverly took biographical details off the Brooke Henson website -- the two-page text was clearly a practice effort.
Some of it reads as follows:
When I tell people my life story, I have never received a response not laced with either shock or disapproval. My parents were extremely strict Southern Baptists. Unless someone followed their strict code of conduct, I wasn't allowed contact with them. This isolation was achieved by raising me in a small town in South Carolina with a population of one thousand people... I was educated in a private setting situated in our twenty -five member church. To complete my protection, during my school day, five foot dividers were placed on each side of the five student's desks line against the wall....
Even though I was never forced to understand the concept of the box, I have learned some of the answers to my questions. A box is slowly constructed around every child by every person they've ever crossed paths with. A teacher telling a child he can't learn that until the fourth grade places a brick in a child's wall... an older brother's friend pushing him away from the table saying he can't play chess because he's too young and would never understand it adds mortar to the bricks already in place...
My isolation gifted me with the ability to only comprehend the limitations I discovered through failure of one of my ideas or experiments. No one's disapproval or doubt ever hindered me from attempting anything my little imagination could concoct. If I thought I could do something, I would attempt it until I was successful... my personal philosophy quickly turned into: "whatever you say, but as soon as you leave, I'll find a way to do it.
*****
In 2004, Esther somehow got access to Brooke Henson's social security number. Jon Campbell says she did so through police computers in Vermont. "She must have been with someone who had access to them," he says. Records showed him that the number was run twice; "It's what we call a "ping," says Campbell. "You run it once and you wait. Do you get a reaction?" If you do then you know it's a hot number and you'll get a phone call... If nothing happens, you run it again, and you're good to go." Because Brooke Henson was not listed on a national "wanted" list, no one had bothered to flag her file, which meant no red flags went off when someone ran her social security number.
In the fall of 2004, armed with letters from Professor Mitch Avila and Ian Fleishmann's mother, a professor at Annapolis, a yarn about domestic abuse, and calling herself "Brook" without an "e," Esther got in to Columbia -- before she had obtained a copy of the real Brooke Henson's birth certificate from South Carolina's Department of Health and Education -- which took two attempts, according to Campbell.
Her essay to the school "talked about her mother dying," says Campbell. "It has bits of truth from her real life woven into a story tailored to fit what she thought Brooke's life might have been like. Brooke's life was no where near the life Esther described though."
She attended Columbia from 2004 to 2006. Her grade point average was 3.2216. She took courses in intro-developmental psychology, organizational psychology, social cognition, emotion and gender in Muslim studies, sociology of the US economy, introduction to psychology, introduction to political thought, origins of humanity, criminology, algebra, human rights and social justice, university writing, and astrology.
"Weird" said Campbell looking at her choice of courses and the fact that she withdrew from many of them in mid semester. "Completely weird."
He was not alone in finding her behavior incomprehensible. In the summer of 2005, through the online dating service Match.com, she met a New York-based firefighter, a handsome dark-haired young man, who had lunch with me, but asked to keep his identity anonymous.
"Brook" and he first got together at a downtown bar. She'd been wearing a blue turtleneck and blue jeans, and she made no bones about what she wanted from him: sex. "She was not the kind of girl you would take home to meet your mother," he says bluntly.
Yet, although he never intended having a serious relationship -- she traveled far too much to play in her alleged chess tournaments, on top of which she said she had a boyfriend "somewhere in the South" (the fireman got the impression he "didn't treat her well") -- he was put out when she frequently avoided seeing him, citing a social phobic disorder. "She would repeatedly tell me she couldn't see me until the end of the semester, yet she would call all the time," he says.
They quarreled.
As proof of her illness, in 2006, she sent him a letter written by a psychologist at St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, stating that she had been treated for "social phobia," and that this would be interfering with her studies at Columbia. "Brook" wrote to the firefighter that obviously the doctor "exaggerates my stuff a bit to make sure Columbia gets off my back.... my gp and the number of Ws should let you know this is probably a pretty big priority in my life right now."
The firefighter last saw her in the summer of 2006. In January when the news stories broke, he found himself reading about her in the New York Post. He saw her photograph and was shocked. It had not occurred to him to check up on her.
*****
For the real Brooke Henson's family, 2007 was a year of intense highs and lows. First, in the summer there was the news that Brooke was alive -- which, in itself, was remarkable.
If you drive on a bright, cold winter's day along US 276, a wide empty road that climbs north from Travelers Rest, you see the looming contours of the Blue Ridge Mountains. There is woodland on both sides of the road, and the signs point out the way to "bible camp" and the local carpenter. It all seems quaint and friendly.
But it was on this road, sometime after 2 am, on the weekend of July 4, 1999, that Brooke Henson, one of the town's prettier girls, vanished. She was last seen walking toward the Willis store, the only store in the center of the sprawling town, to buy a packet of cigarettes.
It was a Saturday night, and the 5'4" brunette had earlier gotten into an argument with her boyfriend, Shaun Shirley, 30, a good-looking local contractor. He had had regular run-ins with the cops, according to his long rap sheet, which listed among other felonies, sexual assault of minors and lynching.
That evening, Brooke's parents -- Martin, a former brick mason and Cathy, who worked at the local Eckerd's pharmacy -- had returned from an Allman Brothers concert in Charlotte to find Brooke in tears on the porch. She was dressed in shorts, a tank-top, and flip flops, a silver watch on one wrist, a silver bracelet on the other. She told her father she was going to break up with Shirley and leave town. Her father wasn't sad. He, like many in the local community, was afraid of Shirley, who had acquired a reputation as someone not to mess with.
"I'll be back in five years," Brooke told her father, according to Christie Metcalf, Brooke's aunt.
Metcalf came to talk to me in the Travelers Rest police station, a small nondescript building in the middle of town, where the less dangerous prisoners hang out around tables with the police officers. "We just knew something wasn't right the next day," Metcalf, a blonde in her fifties, says. "But we couldn't get the police to take it seriously." After all, Brooke had run away from home before. "It was three weeks before the police treated it as a missing person's case and began a search mission and, by then, we'd had rain, so what were the dogs going to find?"
The present generation of police admits their predecessors mishandled the case. "The lieutenant... should have turned the case over to the sheriff's office and never even taken a report. If he had done that, then homicide detectives would have been doing the interviews of the suspects and witnesses rather than patrol officers with zero experience in solving murder cases," says Campbell.
The Hensons' marriage fell apart in the wake of their daughter's disappearance. Martin, ill with multiple sclerosis, became a recluse. For five years, he believed his daughter would return. Cathy quit her job and suffered from debilitating anxiety. When Campbell arranged for her to take a DNA blood test he had to carry her to the car.
In 2002, Christie Metcalf befriended a woman named Tammy Welch, who recommended they put up the website for Brooke. Tammy sought help from a medium, who had a vision of Brooke at the bottom of a well, with a yellow rope nearby. Now, every year on July 4th, the family holds a vigil at the police station, reminding officers of their failure. (Brooke is the only missing person in the area who has never been found)
Detective Campbell was more than a little frustrated.
Campbell is convinced Brooke was murdered -- not near Travelers Rest, but up near River Falls, a beautiful spot where young people liked to party. The person Campbell really wanted to question was Shaun Shirley, who was hauled into police custody the weekend of Brooke's disappearance for "abusing two minors." Shirley swiftly "got lawyered up" and had nothing to say, according to Campbell. He is now lives up near the mountains.
Campbell planned to re-interview another former boyfriend of Brooke's, whom she had dated before Shirley. "There was a story she was planning to run away with him and that's why she was killed," Campbell says. But he died of an overdose before Campbell got to him. "It was ruled a suicide," says Campbell. "Some people think he was killed."
Thus, last summer when Campbell got the call from New York, he was never likely to believe it. He might not have believed in retrospect how hard a slog it would be to piece together what happened to Esther.
Now he believes it unlikely the two women ever met. "I think Esther was just looking for a new ID and came across Brooke's story online."
Ironically, Brooke's biography only got pasted on the Internet in 2004, thanks to the zeal of Tammy Welch, and Esther's own story got put there too, on police computers, thanks to her sister Lori's bad dreams...
Tragically, Brooke Henson's family was euphoric when they first heard she had been found. "We believed it because her father had said she would be back [after five years], because she had said that was what she was going to do," says her aunt, Christy Metcalf. The family then learned there was an impostor out there pretending to be her.
"It was the most devastating feeling," says Metcalf's friend, Tammy Welch.
A new detective took over the Brooke Henson investigation, following the promotion of Det. Jon Campbell from the local station to the state's Law Enforcement Division. Campbell said he would help out where he could.
The limelight gave the local police an incentive to retrace old steps, re-interview everyone -- and to rebuild fences with the community. "We are hoping with this attention we can find out what happened to Brooke," says Christy Metcalf, adding that the family would like to talk to Esther Reed to discover what she knows, if anything, about Brooke Henson. At the time of this writing, no meeting ever took place.
Esther Reed's family was relieved to learn that she was alive -- their last communication with her had been a typed letter from Oklahoma City in 2002, which they had feared was sent from someone else -- but they were concerned.
The federal Secret Service sent its data on Reed to the South Carolina District Attorney who could then issue a federal arrest warrant.
In February 2007, there was a report that Reed had been seen in a restaurant in San Francisco. Edna Strom did not believe it. "Whatever she has gotten herself into, I just want her to turn herself in," she says over breakfast in a hotel in Portland, Oregon. "She's at the point when she knows she will have to pay for whatever she's done, but she can still get her life back... start over."
Over on the other coast, Jon Campbell was more cynical. "This girl knows what to do, how to do it, and she will already be several steps ahead of the authorities," he says.
The slow pace of the investigation had driven him a little crazy. This is a man, after all, who took his wife to the spy museum in Washington D.C. on their honeymoon. He admitted that, despite the better pay, he was sad to have been promoted off the case. But he was confident that authorities would eventually find Reed. "Yeah" he says coolly. "I think so. Eventually."
He was right. Last January, Reed, was picked up outside Chicago. This time she surrendered willingly. Did she have regrets? Would she do it again? "I wouldn't say I was tired of running from the law," she told officers.
But as of now, the law is done with her.
10:59
TTT's aren't smart enough to get into ivy league schools either way. Not law school anyway. Many tried and they just didn't make the cut. Instead of competing with elite class lawyers who made associate they now have to compete with third world sweatshop workers for their jobs. Who knew the blog name was gonna turn out to be a bad omen?
10:59 once again you demonstrate the stupidity and fear of LPO frauds like yourself. Morons like you who spend their time on a blog for temps insulting temps are never going to keep biglaw business. Even you know that. The more time LPO idiots spend posting their garbage here, the more I am convinced that they are very afraid of losing biglaw.
11:34 you're not a doc reviewer so you are only here because you are a sub-moronic fraud.
10:59 - you mean the foreign trained, unlicensed, non-native English speaking, non-JD Indian "attorneys"?
One small first step:
http://www.americanworker.org/
Nice post. Great insights. Going to college is a dream that many parents have for their children. This dream however is an expensive one.
Borrowing money for college is a big responsibility but college remains a smart investment for obtaining a satisfying career that earns a competitive salary.
Loan Modifications
Now we have idiot spammers putting their phony comments up on old posts. No sale.
Post a Comment