On 26 Dec 2004 11:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote:

So, you're bluffing him?

Who, me? Heaven forfend... ggg

I have studied the rules covering UPL (unauthorised practice of law) quite
extensively, the reason being that I'm a patent agent and it's a constant
concern for me. My licence authorises me to perform services that generally
are the practice of law, and that's no problem as such, as it's a federal
licence (federal trumps state!). Potential problems arise over certain
services that may or may not be covered by the licence, and/or may or may
not be the practice of law.

The UPL rules vary enormously from state to state. In some states, such as
here in MD, the rules are quite specific, and in some others there are
vague statutes but case law provides a definition of the practice of law.
Generally, however, it seems that providing a legal opinion is the practice
of law, except in Utah!

When what you are doing is authorized by license, whether Federal
or State, as long as you are within the activities authorized by
that license, you are covered.

This issue of Federal/State can get to be "interesting". For
instance, if an attorney is not admitted to the Bar in State A but
is admitted in any or all other states, the U S Court of Appeals for
the circuit that includes State A, the Supreme Court of the US, and
specialized Federal agencies, that attorney cannot represent clients
in State A matters or in the state courts of State A, requires
filing for special admission (equivalent to "reciprocity") on a
case-by-case basis in the Federal courts in State A, and cannot open a
law office or use a letterhead holding him/her out as an attorney in
State A, although s/he can represent any clients before the
specialized Federal agencies as long as the proper disclaimer is
made.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane