ABA Journal carries the story. Apparently, SCU has a clinic that went after a debt collection law firm and now that firm is striking back at the school. (Disclaimer: I often teach at SCU, but not this semester.) Key allegation:
"[The school's clinic] is not a law firm, but instead is the alter ego of SCU and is engaging in the illegal practice of law using the bar license of Maurer [the supervising lawyer/prof] and collecting attorney fees and adding them to its' [sic] general fund, and or specific fund to support its' [sic] educational activities."
I don't think that the law firm believes that this claim will succeed - hence the 3 page complaint. I am curious, however, whether there are states that have specifically exempted clinics from UPL laws.
Posted by: Milan Markovic | August 24, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Does this not read like a traditional SLAPP lawsuit?
Posted by: Thalia | August 24, 2012 at 03:48 PM
I assume that most clinics operate under some kind of limited practice rule that allows students certified under such a rule to practice under the supervision of the clinical professor. Surely that is what we are dealing with here. Perhaps someone from California can advise. My guess is that this is a BS suit.
Posted by: Rick Underwood | August 24, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Rick-- you are right. This is from the Cornell Ethics Project, CA --
"Non-lawyers, such as law clerks, paralegals, and law students, may draft legal pleadings and do work preparatory to providing legal services, as long as a lawyer supervises and approves the work. For use of paralegals, see Jacoby v. State Bar (1977) 19 Cal.3d 359, 363, 138 Cal.Rptr. 77, 526 P.2d 1326 and People v. Perez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 133, 143, 155 Cal.Rptr. 176, 594 P.2d 1 (leading to enactment of Rules Governing the Practical Training of Law Students, and regulating the use of certified law students, approved by the Supreme Court of California on October 21, 1983)."
I was on that Comm. and the co-author of the above.
Posted by: Diane Karpman | August 27, 2012 at 07:28 PM