Practicing Law by downloading contract?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

I assisted my cousin with a Land Contract 1.5 yrs ago. I found a legal site that had a Land Contract, filled in the blanks and printed it for him (he does not have a computer/printer). There were some changes they wanted made to the contract, so I added their verbage and, again, printed copies for them to sign/notarize/file with the recorder of deeds. (the seller never moved out of the property)

He and seller defaulted on the contract. He took the seller to small claims court to get money for performing maintenance around the property, mowing, etc.

The Judge ruled in the seller's favor, but stated that he would forward a recommendation to the prosecutor that I be arrested for PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE! Was I practicing law? I got the contract from a legal website; made changes that the Seller and my cousin ASKED me to make; I never charged for my services nor did I ever give any advice!

Am I liable for this? What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Yes, you were almost assuredly practicing law without a license. Even choosing the correct "contract" could be considered a problem. But, filling in the blanks and/or changing lines would certainly fall under it too. Then again, almost everyone practices law without a license. See an attorney (with a license) if you're worried. (Which, you should be anytime a judge makes threats.)

I agree this falls squarely under UPL, but one quick question - was this small claims judge an actual "judge" or merely some sort of arbitrator? (I'd worry about recommendations stemming from the former, but not so much the latter.)

OP, what was the purchase price of the property as noted in the land contract?

Whether you were engaged in the illegal practice of law as defined in Missouri depends on how the word prospective is treated as it appears in the state’s rather unique definition of the offense.

The Missouri Revised Statutes pertinent here define the practice of law as including:

“. . . . the drawing of papers, pleadings or documents or the performance of any act in such capacity in connection with proceedings pending or PROSPECTIVE before any court of record, commissioner, referee or any body, board, committee or commission constituted by law or having authority to settle controversies.”

A violation of that statute constitutes a misdemeanor a crime. And I think it would be too much of a stretch to say that in assisting in the preparation of the Land Contract you could have reasonably foreseen that it would subsequently become the subject of a legal controversy before a court of record, commissioner, referee or any body, board, committee or commission charged with resolving such a controversy.

To be enforceable any criminal statute from felonies to misdemeanors must be clear, unequivocal and certain to give notice of what constitutes a violation. There is not a hint of a degree certainty in the word “prospective”.

However if this had occurred in another state such as Arizona for example you would definitely have violated the law by preparing that contract. Arizona’s comparable statute reads in part:

“The practice of law means providing legal advice or services to or for another by:

(A) Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity; . . . “ (Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31)

No reasonable person would come to the conclusion that you practiced law w/o a license.

musicman654321 said:

No reasonable person would come to the conclusion that you practiced law w/o a license.

Click to expand...

But suppose the OP were to do the same in California where the practice of law includes "‘the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court.”

Or in Florida: “The preparation of legal instruments including any instrument by which legal rights are either obtained or secured or released although such matters may not then or ever be the subject of a proceeding in court.”

Or in the District of Columbia "The preparation of any legal instrument to affect interests in real or personal property."

Could the same reasonable person then correctly conclude that the OP was not thus answerable?

latigo said:

But suppose the OP were to do the same in California where the practice of law includes "‘the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court.”

Or in Florida: “The preparation of legal instruments including any instrument by which legal rights are either obtained or secured or released although such matters may not then or ever be the subject of a proceeding in court.”

Or in the District of Columbia "The preparation of any legal instrument to affect interests in real or personal property."

Could the same reasonable person then correctly conclude that the OP was not thus answerable?

Click to expand...

So every spouse who completes a tax return is practicing law w/o a license?
Really, its a family member, the cousin is not complaining..a judge is (who happens to make his living as a lawyer). The judge was probably just trying to give some Judge Judy advice.

tranquility said:

Yes, you were almost assuredly practicing law without a license. Even choosing the correct "contract" could be considered a problem. )

Click to expand...

You Are Guilty said:

I agree this falls squarely under UPL,)

Click to expand...

Is this so much different that a Realtor doing the same thing? I know when I sold RE in Michigan, there was a huge discussion about this. It had been determined that me grabbing the fill in the blanks contract form from the shelf and filling it in was not practicing law. We also had a variety of contracts/forms used in the biz that we had to choose from.

The claim was that since it was a fill in the blanks form is what kept us out of the UPL situation, or so we were told. The forms were supplied by the Michigan Association of Realtors. It would seem something as common as what we were doing would have been questioned if it were illegal.

Say it isn't so guys.

musicman654321 said:

So every spouse who completes a tax return is practicing law w/o a license?

Click to expand...

Every state I am aware of specifically exempts tax return preparation from the definition of practicing law. Which makes sense given that the fundamental principles of business returns is based on accounting not law.

My point was that most everyone practices law without a license in our daily lives. Like many laws, it is written in a way which encompass many things which is clearly not what is designed to do. Yet, we are stuck with the words.

In reality, it seems representing someone in court is the only thing which is really practicing law. Everything else is all in how you argue it.

Generally only a state bar association can make such a determination. IE someone would have had to send in a complaint to the bar. Unless you claimed to be a lawyer or represented him in the court I would find it highly unlikley that you would be considered to be "practicing law".
Heck paralegals do this sort of thing all the time as an example doing legal research etc. After all I assume your signature wasn't on anything was it?

menchari said:

Generally only a state bar association can make such a determination. IE someone would have had to send in a complaint to the bar. Unless you claimed to be a lawyer or represented him in the court I would find it highly unlikley that you would be considered to be "practicing law".
Heck paralegals do this sort of thing all the time as an example doing legal research etc. After all I assume your signature wasn't on anything was it?

Click to expand...

Actually, the DA's office is who would make the determination.

tranquility said:

In reality, it seems representing someone in court is the only thing which is really practicing law. Everything else is all in how you argue it.

Click to expand...

One might think, but I have in my possession a court transcript from a hearing where not only was a non-lawyer permitted to examine and cross-examine other witnesses, but the court admits, on the record, that they were aware of that fact but were "going to let him proceed anyway".

So even practicing in court might not be enough to get anyone's attention.

Of that I have no doubt. It's just that the only line which courts do seem to consistently draw on UPL is representation in court. But, apparently, that too....depends on how you argue it.

justalayman said:

Is this so much different that a Realtor doing the same thing? I know when I sold RE in Michigan, there was a huge discussion about this. It had been determined that me grabbing the fill in the blanks contract form from the shelf and filling it in was not practicing law. We also had a variety of contracts/forms used in the biz that we had to choose from.

The claim was that since it was a fill in the blanks form is what kept us out of the UPL situation, or so we were told. The forms were supplied by the Michigan Association of Realtors. It would seem something as common as what we were doing would have been questioned if it were illegal.

Say it isn't so guys.

Click to expand...

I looked up UPL once in my states Jurisprudence (West's digests), and it had case law, at least for Ohio, that said Real Estate agents acting on behalf of thier client and drawing up simple contracts were not guilty of UPL, of course emphasis added, but the gist of the authorization was there.

There was also a list of DO's and DONT's, as to what may be considered UPL, what the poster descibes my be borderline, not necessarily talking about his state though, but in general! Of course the case law controls.