People v. Landlords Professional Services
215 Cal. App. 3d 1599, 264 Cal. Rptr. 548, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1211 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Non-attorney eviction services engage in the unauthorized practice of law when they provide personalized legal advice, explain the effect of legal rules, or select and complete legal forms tailored to an individual client's specific circumstances, rather than merely performing clerical tasks or providing general self-help information.
Facts:
- In 1982, Landlords Professional Services (LPS) advertised eviction services in the Orange County Apartment News, stating 'Evictions as low as $65' and suggesting an attorney was 'extra if needed' for contested cases.
- In 1982, Roberta Spiegel, seeking to evict her tenants, contacted LPS and spoke with employee Bill Watts, whose business card listed his title as 'Counselor.'
- Bill Watts advised Roberta Spiegel that her previously mailed three-day notice was insufficient, answered her questions about eviction procedures, and completed and filed the necessary unlawful detainer documents for her.
- The booklet provided by LPS to clients contained specific legal advice, such as instructions to 'change the locks' after eviction and warnings that 'acceptance of any money after service may void notice.'
- On December 7, 1982, Ralph Lopes, an investigator with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, called LPS posing as a property owner seeking eviction services.
- LPS employee Jacqueline Sutake explained the unlawful detainer procedure to Lopes, advised him he could not turn off utilities at his rental property, and offered to type his testimony if an answer was filed by the tenant.
- Sutake testified that she would explain unlawful detainer procedures to clients, share her personal experiences as a landlord, and suggest contacting an attorney for cases more complex than routine uncontested actions.
- Sutake also stated that her activities were usually supervised by an attorney, and an attorney would determine if a complex case required legal services, often reviewing her work before filing.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1983, the Orange County District Attorney filed a civil complaint against LPS and five other eviction services in a state trial court, alleging the unauthorized practice of law and seeking monetary penalties and injunctive relief.
- The trial court found that LPS engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, ordering them to pay $8,000 in civil penalties for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and $9,000 for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17500, and also issued a permanent injunction.
- LPS appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal (the court whose opinion is being briefed).
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 eviction service, which advertises legal assistance, gives personalized advice, and helps clients complete legal forms for specific eviction cases, engage in the unauthorized practice of law under California Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126?
Opinions:
Majority - Benke, J.
Yes, the eviction service provided by Landlords Professional Services (LPS) involved the unauthorized practice of law. The court held that the 'practice of law' encompasses legal advice, counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments securing legal rights, particularly when 'difficult or doubtful legal questions are involved which, to safeguard the public, reasonably demand the application of a trained legal mind.' While merely providing forms or performing clerical services like filling in blanks at a client's specific direction does not constitute the practice of law, LPS went beyond this limited role. The court found that LPS created an 'aura of expertise' through its advertisement, Bill Watts's 'Counselor' title, and the general invitation to 'Call & talk to us.' This 'aura' encouraged clients to rely on LPS for specific legal guidance. The evidence showed LPS provided personalized advice, such as Bill Watts telling Roberta Spiegel her notice was insufficient and Jacqueline Sutake advising Investigator Lopes about the legality of turning off utilities. The LPS booklet also offered specific legal advice. These actions, involving personal interviews and advice addressed to clients' specific problems, constituted particularizing general legal knowledge to individual cases, which is distinct from purely clerical assistance and falls squarely within the definition of the unauthorized practice of law, consistent with how other states address 'do-it-yourself' legal services.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between permissible non-attorney legal assistance and the unauthorized practice of law in California. It establishes that services, even if not explicitly calling themselves attorneys, cross the line when they create an 'aura of expertise' and provide personalized legal advice, interpretation of law, or selection and completion of forms tailored to an individual's specific legal problem. The ruling reinforces the public protection rationale behind licensing requirements, highlighting the risks of untrained individuals offering legal solutions. Future cases will likely scrutinize the degree of individualized consultation, the nature of advice given, and how services hold themselves out to the public to determine if they constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
