Long, Lawrence A.

English

University of Denver

Denver Law Review Volume 30 Issue 10 Article 5 June 2021 Report of Committee on Unauthorized Practices - Colorado Bar Association Lawrence A. Long Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Lawrence A. Long, Report of Committee on Unauthorized Practices - Colorado Bar Association, 30 Dicta 388 (1953). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. Oct., 1953REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON UNAUTHORIZEDPRACTICES-COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION*LAWRENCE A. LONG, ChairmzanPeople v. William G. Newer-March 1952People v. Lloyd L. Brown--August 1952People v. D. W. Schmidt dba Nat. Pure TrustServ.-December, 1952People v. N. Mark Hanna-June 1953People v. Lucas Woodall-July 1953The foregoing cases are all actions taken on original proceed-ings in the Colorado Supreme Court. Citations were issued and inthe first four instances the court found the offender guilty andassessed either reprimand or fine, or both. As of the date of thisreport, the Woodall action is undisposed of and one similar suchaction is being studied.Surely the above should tend to discourage the unauthorizedpractice of law in Colorado. All of these cases were brought bythe Attorney General's office, whose cooperation and assistancehas been a source of strength to the Committee. While we havewon these there is no assurance that we can win everyone that webring. These are only a few of the items handled; they representonly actions in our Supreme Court. Other complaints have beensuccessfully handled by the Committee without the necessity ofcourt intervention. This has been accomplished by correspondenceor personal contact or both. In most instances reasoning producescooperation and results. The Committee feels that excellent prog-ress has been accomplished, especially towards enjoining the un-authorized practices of certain Justices of the Peace, realtors, mor-ticians, accountants and others. Recently a better understandingwas reached between the Committee and a number of bond andbrokerage houses resulting in their voluntarily withdrawing ob-jectionable language used in magazine advertisements. They hadadvertised that they would furnish all legal services for municipalbond work, etc. The practice has been eliminated and, we believe,some goodwill established.We are pleased to report that after much delay we have re-ceived a trial date for the five cases brought jointly by the Coloradoand Denver Bar Associations' Committees on unauthorized prac-tice against the abstract and real estate companies.' The week of* Published at the direction of the Board of Governors of the Colorado BarAssociation.I Bar Assn. v. Record Abstr. & Title Co.-Civil No. A69765, Div. 5.Bar Assn. v. The Title Guarantee Co.-Civil No. A69766, Div. 1.Bar Assn. v. Conway-Bogue Rlty. Invest. Co.-Civil No. A76392, Div. 5.Bar Assn. v. Van Schaack & Co.-Civil No. A76393, Div. 3.Bar Assn. v. John F. Bruno-Civil No. A76394, Div. 4.DICTAOct., 1953November 30, December 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been assigned. The caseswill be tried in Denver by Judge J. Arthur Phelps, of the TenthJudicial District. The first two of these five cases were started inApril, 1950. We are anxious to have these cases, or even one ofthem before the Supreme Court before another year has elapsed.There now begins to look as if such might be possible.A word of warning and the attention of all lawyers in Colo-rado should be directed to another and comparatively new en-coachment. Since oil has become of increasing importance locally,instruments known as "Certificates of Title", "Memorandum ofTitle" and the like, have been cropping up. These are actually atype of mail-order, title opinion in modified, printed or mimeo-graphed form. They sell for an average of $10.00, are generallyprovided by abstract or title companies and are intended to give aquick, thumb-nail, condensed form of opinion without the expenseof either an abstract or a lawyer's opinion. A letter stating thatin general these "Certificates" were "opinion" and should not beused by corporations or laymen went out to all seventy-five ab-stract companies in Colorado. Some complied, some ignored, somevolunteered cooperation and some submitted other forms askingfor approval. These inquiries have been referred to our RealEstate Standards Committee. We are further concerned lest theuse of these "Certificates of Title" or "Memorandums of Title"might spread to the general public resulting in cut-rate, inadequateand worthless title opinions. We predict that unless this phase ofthe Committee's work is pursued vigorously during the comingyear the use of the "Certificates" will become wide-spread, result-ing in what should be apparent to every lawyer.Another problem of increasing importance is the program ofpropaganda apparently initiated by some title insurance com-panies and circulated through real estate channels to the effectthat attorney's title opinions are obsolete, of no value, unacceptableto the better leading agencies, banks and insurance companies;that they are an antiquated way of doing business and are greatlyinferior to a title insurance policy. Of course, the innocent victimdoes not realize that when an abstract is demanded of him in thefuture he may have to produce one or lose his sale; nor does herealize that a title insurance company may not insure his titleuntil he perfects it for them himself and all but guarantees thetitle. To classify title insurance as a "racket" would be going toofar, but when title insurance companies openly try to mislead thepublic it is past time for our Association to strike back.Statistically, more complaints were serviced this year thanin the past several years and this is significant. It points to thefact that interest, cooperation and effort have been focused by thelawyer on this problem. It does not necessarily mean that thenumber of offenses are increasing. It is the belief of this Com-mittee that the most effective way to stamp out the unauthorizedpractice of law is to drive home with certainty and action, a con-DICTAOct., 1953tinuous, well-publicized effort. Every publicized result, whetherpartially or wholly successful, is a warning and deterrent to allwho would venture into our profession. As a matter of public in-terest, we must stop the unqualified from misleading, misinformingand duping the public. From what we know of the offenses we seewe have reason to believe that a matter of concern would be theoffenses of which we have no knowledge or do not see.Accordingly, your Committee recommends that our Public Re-lations Committee carry to the public by every media at its com-mand a program designed to:(a) Make the public realize that our activities are in thepublic interest.(b) Make the public continually aware of our interest andactivity.(c) Correct and explain with truth that propaganda concern-ing title insurance versus legal opinions on abstract ex-aminations as hereinbefore mentioned.Perhaps the writer tends to emphasize too greatly the un-authorized practice phase of the Association's activities, but I be-lieve it is indisputable that continued encroachments, new typesof offenses, accelerated business methods, and an increasing aware-ness of the problem present a direct threat to our profession. Thevolume of work of this Committee is too great to expect satisfactoryresults from them without the assistance of an assistant or specialinvestigator. If such an employment cannot be secured on atleast a part-time basis then surely funds should be made availablefor the employment when needed. His services could be used inconjunction with the Grievance Committee, which I am reliablyinformed has possible access to funds accumulated under Rule 229of the Rules for Admission To The Bar. That rule allows expendi-tures from the fund for "disciplinary" matters, and includes, inmy judgment, unauthorized practice of law offenses. Quite oftenthere is a connection between matters of unauthorized practice andgrievance offenses.In conclusion the Committee wishes to extend its sincerethanks to the members of the Bar throughout the State not onlyfor their interest but, in many instances, for their active assistance.JEFFERSON COUNTY LAWYERS COMPLAINThe following appeal has been made by the Jefferson CountyBar Association; "The Jefferson County District Court Libraryneeds Colorado Reports volumes 3, 10, 43, 82, and 104 and alsoColorado Digest volume 13, all of which probably have been swipedor borrowed by Denver lawyers, we out here in Jefferson Countyall being innocent country lambs." Donors or sellers are invitedto contact Judge Osmer E. Smith who was not the author of thislibelous request.DICTA

Report of Committee on Unauthorized Practices - Colorado Bar Association

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4663&context=dlr

Report of Committee on Unauthorized Practices - Colorado Bar Association

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver