Altizer v. Highsmith
Filed 7/16/20 - Certified for Publication (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ministerial act of completing and filing a standard Judicial Council form to renew a judgment, even on behalf of multiple co-judgment creditors, does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law because it does not involve legal advice, resolution of difficult legal questions, or appearance before a court on the merits.
Facts:
- On May 30, 1995, 17 plaintiffs, including John Bisordi, filed a complaint against Robert and Richard Highsmith based on several promissory notes that the Highsmiths had failed to pay.
- On November 29, 1995, a single judgment was entered in favor of the 17 plaintiffs for various amounts, totaling $195,678.88, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties.
- On October 27, 2005, attorney David Wexler filed a standard Judicial Council form to renew the judgment on behalf of all 17 judgment creditors.
- Attorney David Wexler died in 2008.
- On October 9, 2015, one of the plaintiffs, John Bisordi, filed a second "Application for and Renewal of Judgment" using the same standard Judicial Council form, listing himself as a judgment creditor and referring to attachments that included all 17 original plaintiffs.
- On October 16, 2015, John Bisordi filed an "Amended Application for and Renewal of Judgment," which was substantively identical to the prior filing but included an updated address for the Highsmiths.
- Between 2016 and 2018, 15 of the 17 original judgment creditors assigned their interests in the judgment to appellant WVJP 2017-1, LP (WVJP).
Procedural Posture:
- On May 30, 1995, 17 plaintiffs filed a complaint against Robert and Richard Highsmith in San Mateo County Superior Court (trial court) over unpaid promissory notes.
- On November 29, 1995, the San Mateo County Superior Court entered a single judgment in favor of the plaintiffs pursuant to a stipulation.
- On October 27, 2005, attorney David Wexler filed an application to renew the judgment with the court clerk.
- On October 9, 2015, plaintiff John Bisordi filed an application to renew the judgment.
- On October 16, 2015, John Bisordi filed an amended application to renew the judgment.
- In December 2018, Robert and Richard Highsmith filed a motion in the San Mateo County Superior Court to quash a writ of execution and stay enforcement of the renewed judgment.
- The San Mateo County Superior Court granted the Highsmiths' motion, quashing the writ and staying enforcement, because the Highsmiths had not been served with notice of the 2015 renewal.
- In March 2019, Robert and Richard Highsmith were served by mail with notice of the 2015 renewal.
- In April 2019, Robert and Richard Highsmith filed a motion in the San Mateo County Superior Court to vacate the 2015 renewal, arguing that Bisordi's renewal on behalf of others constituted the unauthorized practice of law and that his personal renewal failed to comply with statutory requirements.
- On May 29, 2019, the San Mateo County Superior Court held a hearing, rejecting arguments that Bisordi acted on behalf of a joint venture or that the renewed judgment amount could be modified.
- On June 10, 2019, the San Mateo County Superior Court entered a written order granting the Highsmiths' motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, concluding that John Bisordi's filing on behalf of other creditors constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
- Plaintiff WVJP 2017-1, LP appealed the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-attorney judgment creditor engage in the unauthorized practice of law by completing and filing a standard Judicial Council form to renew a multi-party judgment on behalf of himself and other co-judgment creditors, where the act of renewal is ministerial?
Opinions:
Majority - Richman, J.
No, a non-attorney judgment creditor does not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by completing and filing a standard Judicial Council form to renew a multi-party judgment on behalf of himself and other co-judgment creditors, where the act of renewal is ministerial. The court reasoned that Bisordi's actions were merely "clerical" or those of a "scrivener." The definition of "practice of law" typically involves resolving "difficult or doubtful legal questions" demanding a trained legal mind, or performing services in court beyond ministerial acts. Bisordi did not present himself as an attorney, offer legal advice, or resolve complex legal issues for the other creditors. He simply completed a two-page standard Judicial Council form using factual information from the original judgment and the previous renewal. The renewal of a judgment in California is an "automatic, ministerial act accomplished by the clerk of the court," not a judicial act requiring discretionary intervention on the merits. Citing Tom Thumb Glove Co. v. Han, the court noted that summary procedures, like judgment renewal, are designed for efficiency and do not necessarily require attorney representation for ministerial filings. The court emphasized that the purpose of prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law is to protect the public by ensuring competence, and Bisordi's actions, which prevented the judgment from expiring, were beneficial without any identified errors in the form. The calculation of interest and the selection of the correct form (there being only one standard form for renewal) were considered straightforward and not complex legal analysis.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of what constitutes the "unauthorized practice of law" in California, particularly concerning standardized, ministerial court procedures. It reinforces that purely clerical acts, even when performed by a non-attorney on behalf of multiple parties, do not fall under the prohibition if they do not involve legal advice, complex legal judgment, or actual representation on the merits before a court. The decision provides crucial guidance for judgment creditors, especially in scenarios involving shared judgments or when original legal counsel is unavailable, by lowering the procedural barrier to maintaining judgment enforceability. This ruling may also influence the scope of permissible self-help or non-attorney assistance in other administrative legal processes where a court clerk's role is strictly ministerial, potentially expanding access to justice for routine legal tasks.
