April 15, 2008
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s proposed rule defining the “practice of law” has received varied responses ranging from reasoned concerns, general support, and emotional “anti-lawyer” reactions. In that latter category, some have accused lawyers of being “greedy” and of devising a “ploy to run (accountants, insurance companies, real estate agents, paralegals and others) out of business.” Those accusations simply are not true.
HSBA’s consumer protection committee has worked on the “unauthorized practice of law” issue for over 10 years based on the fundamental concern that individuals and organizations can be, have been, and are hurt by untrained, unlicensed and unregulated individuals who handle their legal matters. The HSBA proposed a “practice of law” rule to the Hawaii Supreme Court last July, which led to the Court’s proposed rule, which was a revised version of HSBA’s proposal.
25 states and the District of Columbia adopted similar rules over the years. Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Connecticut proposed rules last year.
The FTC has weighed in on this issue with certain proposed rules by other states, including Hawaii’s proposed rule, and while certainly expressing concerns about them, it has not sought to eliminate any “practice of law” rule. In fact, it has urged modification of proposed rules, such as Hawaii’s proposed rule, and as indicated, many other states (and the District of Columbia) have similar rules that have not been challenged by the FTC.
Similarly, organizations locally have expressed their concerns, but also have recognized HSBA’s basic concern to protect consumers of legal services. Several have asked about exceptions or exemptions and modification of such a rule.
HSBA is working on modification of the proposed rule to submit to the Court and will work with local groups and the Court. The HSBA will continue to keep you informed of all significant developments.
--Jeffrey H.K. Sia, HSBA President