Divorce ‘Doc-U-Prep’ Ruled Unauthorized Practice of Law in Connecticut
by
Joseph C. Maya on Jul. 03, 2017
Divorce & Family Law Divorce Other
Summary: A blog post about how a business was ruled unauthorized to do business assisting people with legal documents during divorce.
If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, procedure, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Plaintiff statewide grievance committee sought an injunction to restrain defendant document preparer from the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-88. By transfer from the appellate court, the document preparer appealed from a judgment of the trial court (Connecticut), which granted the requested injunction and ordered the document preparer to refrain from engaging in further acts constituting the practice of law.
Case Overview
In January, 1992, the defendant began doing business in Milford as Doc-U-Prep of New England. The defendant placed the following advertisement in a newspaper, The Milford Citizen: “ANNOUNCING DOC-U-PREP OF NEW ENGLAND, The Non Lawyer Legal Document Center, HELPING PEOPLE WHO CAN’T AFFORD THE HIGH COST OF ROUTINE LEGAL DOCUMENT PREPARATION, We Will Do Your Wills $ 45.00, Corporation $ 250.00, Divorce (uncontested) $ 125.00, Living Trust $ 499.00, Bankruptcy (chapter 7) $ 279.00, Name Change $ 99.00 and many more documents, all at low cost. . . . Affiliated with Clarke & Patton, Inc., Jerry Patton, President. . . .” The defendant placed a similar advertisement in a second newspaper, the Bridgeport Post.
The document preparer challenged the trial court’s judgment directing him not to engage in the practice of law. He contended that his conduct did not constitute the practice of law and that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-88 was void for vagueness. He also contended that § 51-88 was overly broad because it infringed on his first amendment rights. The court disagreed with the document preparer and affirmed the trial court’s decision. It was undisputed that the document preparer was not admitted to the practice of law in Connecticut and advertised that he prepared legal documents.
The preparation of legal documents was commonly understood to be the practice of law. Accordingly, the court held that the document preparer’s conduct violated § 51-88, which prohibited the practice of law by persons not admitted as attorneys. The court concluded that the document preparer’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 51-88 were without merit. The statute was neither void for vagueness nor overly broad. An activity on the outer boundaries of the practice of law might be impermissibly vague, but the preparation of legal documents fell squarely within the boundaries of the practice of law.
Outcome
The CT Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the document preparer to refrain from engaging in further acts constituting the practice of law.
For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com
Source: Statewide Griev. Comm. v. Patton, 683 A.2d 1359 (Conn. 1996)
