Unlicensed practice of law

Washington DC.

Situation: A lawyer that is not a member of the DC bar, but is licensed in another state is claiming to represent XYZZY, a company based in DC, in an action against another compay called ACME. So far no papers have been filed with any courthouses and only mediation has been attempted.

The rules for UPL (and exceptions) are listed here

http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule49.pdf

This "attorney" has an office in DC and his letterhead indicates he is a member of another bar association, which seems to imply his business is legal related. This seems to exclude him from being excluded from the ADR proceedings heading (12, iii from above)

If this laywer is found to be engaged in UPL, does ACME have any recourse against this lawyer? Can ACME recover attorney fee's due to his UPL? Is there any interference of business issues involved here?

ACME is not hurt, XYZZY is.

I know XYZZY is certainly hurt, however if one stipulates that UPL has occured, doesnt that attorney potentially hurt ACME by interferring with their business?

If not, is ACME's counsel at fault for not checking bona fides?

See supra.

While ACME may have a cause of action against their own counsel for malpractice, I don't see any damages so wouldn't see the point.

Arent the fees paid to XYZZY damages with regards to malpractice?

I have no idea what you're talking about. What "fees"? Why were they paid?

XYZZY's UL attorney engaged ACME's attorney several times regarding a dispute between ACME and XYZZY

ACME's attorney responded to XYZZY's attorney then charged ACME for time spent on these matters.

Assuming XYZZY's "attorney" is not an officer of of XYZZY, nor is eligible to represent XYZZY, then they literally had NO BUISNESS contacting ACME's attorney.

The "damages" to ACME are the fees they paid to ACME's attorney.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for helping....

I understood your theory from the start. However, the fact the attorney was not licensed in the state is IRRELEVANT. Arguendo, UPL, you received NO damages from that fact. None. Zippo.

You have no cause of action against the other side's attorney, you have no damages against your attorney, you merely paid for your attorney to resolve a dispute.

So ACME's attorney may have commited malpractice, yet there are no damages?

If it is the standards and practice of the industry and a reasonable attorney would have checked if the other side was represented by an accredited attorney and your attorney did not check (Again, assuming this was practicing law without a license which I don't take a position on.) that would be a violation of two prongs of malpractice. That is, there was a duty, which was breached.

Now, was that breach the actual and proximal cause of damages?

I don't think it would be the actual cause, let alone the proximal cause, even if there were damages. But, assuming it was the cause, the failure to check really did not result in any damages unless you could prove the money you paid to your attorney would not have been paid but for the UPL.

In other words, you would have to prove the negotiations would have stopped and XYZZY would not have gotten another attorney or have another appropriate representative to negotiate with to have the potential damages of your attorney fees between the time of the breach of duty and the time you actually found out.

That was very helpful, and you confirmed a few of my suspicions.

On a somewhat related note, could there be any adverse reactions (legally) against ACME if they report the XYZZY lawyer suspected of UPL to the bar?

I know this wouldn't help ACME, outright, but it is our strong suspicion that services are being provided at a low-cost basis and disrupting this service would be beneficial to ACME's strategy.

In fact I'm not sure that XYZZY even knows their consel is not licensed.

Generally, there is a qualified immunity to defamation when a person makes a good-faith report to an official governmental or quasi-governmental agency. The Bar would probably count.

Thanks again! Much appreciated.