UPL

How do mail away closings work in light of In re Lester*?

Standard

A reader posed this question to me

A recent blog about a South Carolina Supreme Court amendment to a comment following our UPL rule contained the following paragraph:

“Remember that our Supreme Court adamantly told us in In re Lester* that a lawyer must be physically present for a closing. Prior to Lester, a closing attorney might be on vacation and available by telephone to answer closing questions. Lester called a halt to that practice.”

A reader responded, “Claire, can you clarify the effects of In Re Lester on ‘mail away’ closings?” This is such a great question, and I responded that I would answer with a new blog. This is that blog!

In the South Carolina Bar’s publication, Handbook for South Carolina Dirt Lawyers, I included the following discussion of mail-away closings.

“Attorneys in resort areas have done “mail away” closings routinely for years. Titles are examined, closing packages are prepared and mailed to a remote location for signatures. Recent South Carolina Supreme Court disciplinary cases requiring attorneys to be present at closings have caused some attorneys to question whether mail away closings can be done ethically by South Carolina attorneys.

The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue specifically, so no one knows the answer to this question. However, in a seminar in 2005, a lawyer from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was asked whether an attorney can ethically handle a closing by mail.

He responded that it was his opinion that the attorney should:

           •     Schedule a closing date, time and place;

           •     Advise the clients that they should attend the closing;

           •     Advise the clients that the attorney will be able to provide better representation if the clients attend the closing; and

           •     Require the clients to sign a document indicating they received the foregoing advice but chose not to attend the closing.

Another speaker at the seminar suggested that he would only handle mail away closings if the clients agreed to meet with a lawyer in the clients’ location to execute the documents.

On September 16, 2005, we received a more formal opinion in the form of Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-16. This opinion states that an attorney may ethically conduct a real estate closing by mail as long as it is done in a way that:  (1) ensures that the attorney is providing competent representation to the client; (2) all aspects of the closing remain under the supervision of an attorney;  and (3) the attorney complies with the duty to communicate with the client, so as to maintain the attorney-client relationship and be in a position to explain and answer any questions about the documents sent to the client for signature. To meet this test, according to the opinion, clients must have reasonable means to be in contact with the attorney, by telephone, facsimile, or electronic transmission.

The Opinion states that there is no legal requirement that a client attend the closing, but it must be the client’s decision not to attend the closing. The Opinion acknowledges today’s climate by this statement: “Given today’s technological advances in communications and funds transfer, to require a client living in one part of the country to attend a closing against the client’s own wishes is both unnecessary and punitive.” The Opinion makes the point that the duties of the attorney do not change when the closing is accomplished by mail in this statement: “The prudent attorney will conduct closings by mail in such a fashion that the client is fully informed and properly advised, that the client has a reasonable means to consult with the attorney, and that all personnel assisting the attorney are properly supervised.”

South Carolina closing attorneys are relieved to have this authority and appreciative of the efforts of the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee.”

Of course, technology has drastically changed since these words were written, but the legal issues have not. A dirt lawyer can certainly handle mail away closings ethically. But dirt lawyers must still practice law in connection with those closings.

Please feel free to make comments and ask questions about these blogs!

*353 S.C. 246, 578 S.E. 2d 7 (2003).

SC Supreme Court amends comment to UPL rule

Standard

The intent is to allow lawyers from other jurisdictions to work remotely here

I begin this blog by admitting that I wouldn’t have thought this Supreme Court Order was a big deal if the brilliant Teri Callen (Chicago Title lawyer and USC Law School Adjunct Professor) had not pointed out its significance.

On March 15, The South Carolina Supreme Court amended Comment 4 to Rule 5.5, South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, by adding the following sentence at the end of the comment:

“A lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction does not establish an office or other systematic presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law by engaging in remote work in this jurisdiction, provided the lawyer’s legal services are limited to services the lawyer is authorized to perform by a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted, and the lawyer does not state, imply, or hold out to the public that the lawyer is a South Carolina lawyer or is admitted to practice law in South Carolina.”

This type of remote work in South Carolina by out-of-state lawyers was formerly only allowed in the event of a state of emergency, as in a global pandemic. Now, a lawyer admitted in New York can live, permanently or temporarily, in Hilton Head and practice law from her computer and telephone. The South Carolina Bar had requested an amendment to this comment, and the Court adopted a modified version of the Bar’s proposal.

Teri has previously taught us that a South Carolina lawyer working remotely in another state might be participating in the unauthorized practice of law. A Charleston lawyer who decides to live, permanently or temporarily, in the mountains, should check the court rules of that state to determine whether remote work is considered UPL in that state. 

Remember that our Supreme Court adamantly told us in In re Lester* that a lawyer must be physically present for a closing. Prior to Lester,  a closing attorney might be on vacation and available by telephone to answer closing questions. Lester called a halt to that practice.

The Court didn’t weigh in on whether a South Carolina lawyer is allowed under our rules to work remotely in another state where he is not licensed without running afoul of our rules. Our Court probably wouldn’t touch that issue because of the implications and unintended consequences that might occur. For example, if it is permissible for a South Carolina lawyer to work remotely in another state, is it also permissible to perform a South Carolina closing there?

There are land mines everywhere, lawyers. I feel as if I end 9 out of 10 blogs with the thought that everyone needs to be careful out there. This blog falls in the “be careful” category.

* 353 S.C. 246, 578 S.E. 2d 7 (2003).

South Carolina lawyers: We have a new UPL case

Standard

scales of justice small

This blog is about dirt, and the facts of the new unauthorized practice of law case do not involve real estate, but who among us doesn’t like to keep up with what our Supreme Court is thinking about UPL, the topic we believe can make us or break us at any moment?

The case, Westbrook v. The Murkin Group, LLC*, was decided March 18 and involved a Florida company that provides debt collection services in exchange for contingency fees. The Murkin Group advertises itself as having “in-house collection specialists”. Under the terms of its agreement with clients, once an account is turned over to Murkin, the client agrees to cease all communication with the debtor and to allow Murkin to be the sole point of contact. The agreement further authorizes Murkin to forward accounts to an attorney designated by Murkin when legal action is required.

In 2017, Wando River Grill became dissatisfied with its linen supplier, Cintas, and suspended its services. Cintas claimed the suspension constituted a breach of contract and invoked a liquidated damages provision in the contract, seeking more than $8,000 in damages. Cintas hired Murkin to collect the debt.  A South Carolina licensed attorney represented the restaurant in the dispute.

Murkin sent a demand letter, and the parties began to communicate about the dispute via email. Murkin claimed Cintas would waive its damages claim if the restaurant paid a “one-time processing fee for reinstatement”. Murkin prepared and sent the reinstatement agreement to the restaurant with signature lines for the restaurant and “The Murkin Group, on behalf of Cintas Corporation – Charleston, SC.”

The restaurant sent the proposed reinstatement agreement to the Petitioner, its lawyer, Edward Westbrook. Westbrook contacted Murkin and asked to discuss the matter directly with Murkin’s South Carolina counsel. The response was, “Whether or not this gets forwarded to local counsel is a decision which out office will make, with our client, when we feel it appropriate.”

(I can only imagine how that comment was received!)

The dispute continued, and Westbrook emailed Murkin asking for the South Carolina Bar numbers of several Murkin employees. Westbrook then filed a declaratory judgment action pursuant to our Supreme Court’s request that individuals who become aware of UPL bring a declaratory judgment action in the Court’s original jurisdiction.

The Court referred the matter to a special referee who filed a report recommending that the Court find Murkin’s actions constituted UPL.

The Supreme Court held that Murkin engaged in UPL when it interpreted Cintas’ client agreement and gave legal opinions as to what damages were recoverable. It also engaged in UPL when it sought to negotiate the contract dispute and advised Cintas on settlement.

While Murkin characterized its actions as “debt collection”, the Court stated that the true nature of the underlying matter is a contract dispute. The Court enjoined Murkin from engaging in any further such conduct.

 

*South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27952 (March 18, 2020).

The Quicken decision is out

Standard

It’s not what dirt lawyers wanted or expected

The South Carolina Supreme Court never ceases to amaze when it decides real estate cases. Dirt lawyers seldom know what to expect. We read the precedents. We attend the hearings. We listen to the Justices’ questions. We believe we get a glimpse of what they may be thinking. But we miss the mark. Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court decided the much anticipated Quicken case*, and if I had predicted the top five possible outcomes, I would not have come close to the actual decision.

I fully expected a 3-2 decision in either direction. But it is a 5-0 strongly written decision. It is a decision that was written to dispose of the controversy. It is a decision that was written to deny the possibility of reconsideration.

real estate button keyboard

This is an unauthorized practice of law case brought in the Court’s original jurisdiction. The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein as Special Referee to take evidence and issue a report. Judge Goodstein held a two-week trial and issued a report finding, essentially, that no South Carolina licensed lawyer quarterbacked (my word) the mostly Internet-based residential refinance closings. In the facts recited in Judge Goodstein’s report, lawyers were peripherally involved in all of the steps required by State v. Buyers Service Co.** and its progeny, but no lawyer was actually involved in a way that the interest of the borrower was protected.

(Summarizing the prior decisions, the steps requiring lawyers are: (1) document preparation; (2) title search; (3) closing; (4) recording; and (5) disbursement.)

The Supreme Court somehow reviewed the same record and found that lawyers were involved and used their professional judgment in each step. The facts recited in the Court’s decision were not recognizable from the facts recited by Judge Goodstein’s report. The Court completely rejected the report and apparently decided that a finding of UPL under the circumstances would “mark an unwise and unnecessary intrusion into the marketplace”. “Simply put,” the Court stated, “we believe requiring more attorney involvement in cases such as this would belie the Court’s oft-stated assertion that UPL rules exist to protect the public, not lawyers.”

Most South Carolina dirt lawyers were hoping the Court would find a South Carolina licensed lawyer must be at the center of each closing, overseeing each step, and insuring that the consumer client’s interests were protected in each step. That is definitely not what we got.

There is, however, some good news in this decision. The Court made the clearest implication to date (without an explicit holding) that Buyers Service and its progeny may not apply in the commercial arena. The Court repeatedly stated that the context of this case is the residential refinance arena. I have discussed this case with several commercial lawyers to ascertain whether they are now comfortable to forego certifications that other South Carolina licensed lawyers are involved in the closing steps that are not under their control. They seem to feel slightly more comfortable, but not comfortable enough to let go of that step. Perhaps the passage of time will help.

Other good news is that, despite the facts recited by Judge Goodstein to the contrary, the Court clearly stated that lawyers were involved and used their professional judgment in each required step. The out-of-state entities who do business here should make sure their processes include this professional judgment in each step of the closing.

After reading this case a dozen times, I’ve decided that no law has changed. Nothing will change in our local processes. Nothing will likely change dramatically in the processes of the out-of-state entities who do business here. If I had not read Judge Goodstein’s report and if I had not attended the Supreme Court’s hearing, I would probably not be shocked with this result.

I would love hear what you think.

*Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27727, July 19, 2017

** State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987)

Hot off the presses UPL case!

Standard

(But it only affects real estate peripherally)

The South Carolina Supreme Court handed down a UPL decision in a declaratory judgment action in its original jurisdiction on February 22.*

The Court accepted the action to determine whether Community Management Group, LLC and its employees engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while managing homeowners’ associations. The Court found that the respondents did, in fact, engage in UPL. At the outset of the case, the Court had issued a temporary injunction halting the offending activities.

Community Management Group, without the involvement of an attorney, prepared and recorded notices of liens and related documents; brought actions in magistrates’ courts to collect debts; and filed the resulting judgments in circuit courts. The entity also advertised that it would perform these services “in house”.

breaking-news

In a 1992 administrative order entitled In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed by South Carolina Bar**,  the Court had modified prior case law to allow a business to be represented by a non-lawyer officer, agent or employee. The Court had also promulgated South Carolina Magistrate Court Rule 21, which provides, “A business…may be represented in a civil magistrates’ court by a non-lawyer officer, agent or employee…”

The central question in the action at hand was whether the word “agent” in these authorities includes third party entities and individuals like Community Management Group and its employees. The Court held it does not and was never intended to.

The Court had earlier held that filing claims in probate courts does not amount to UPL, but stated in the present case that it is the character of the services rendered that determines whether the services constitute the practice of law. Filing claims in Probate Court, according to the Court, does not require the professional judgment, specialized knowledge or ability of an attorney. The Court found that the services required to represent a business in magistrates’ courts are not comparable to filing claims in probate courts.

Community Management Group conceded that it prepared a lien document for the purpose of putting a cloud on title so property could not be sold unless the homeowner paid overdue assessments. This stated purpose demonstrated to the Court that the lien documents were “instruments”, that is, written legal documents that define rights, duties, entitlements or liabilities.

Citing a 1987 case near and dear to the hearts of all South Carolina dirt lawyers, State v. Buyers Service***, the Court reminded us that preparing and recording legal documents is the practice of law.

This current case is a Per Curiam decision, but acting Justice Pleicones did not participate. We are holding our collective breath to learn the results of a Quicken Loan case pending in the original jurisdiction of the Court, and the present case may give us at least a small hint.

stay tunedWe have already received an underwriting question about this case in our office. We were asked whether our attorney agents can ignore the liens filed in contravention of this case. The answer is that we can discuss the specifics on a case-by-case basis, but it appears that although the liens may be invalidated by a court, dirt lawyers and title companies should not generally take this risk without the involvement of a court. If you run into this issue in connection with your closings, call your title insurance underwriter to discuss your options!

*Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC v. Peck, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27707 (February 22, 2017)

**309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 123 (1992)

***292 S.C. 286, 468 S.E.2d 290 (1987)

Could Efforts to Modernize Mortgage Practice Lead to Changes in SC Law?

Standard

Reuters reports on a “patchwork of state laws” that hinder efforts.

In an article dated September 9, Reuters reports that the practice of notarizing documents, which dates back “at least to Ancient Rome” is becoming “passé” in the era of FaceTime, Skype and live-streamed social media. South Carolina real estate lawyers might want to take deep breaths and read the article, which is linked here. 

South Carolina practitioners are banking on State v. Buyers Service, our seminal case from 1987 holding that closings are the practice of law, to keep us in the closing business. Buyers Service is still good law in South Carolina and has been cited favorably many times and as late as this year.

change-ahead-sign

There have been some hints, however, in our long line of “UPL” cases that some of our current Supreme Court Justices may not be as committed to our strong rule as some of the prior Justices have been. (I hope that comment was vague enough to keep me out of trouble if I encounter any of the current or former Justices at a cocktail party. Please notice citations are purposefully missing.)

The South Carolina Supreme Court has repeated in almost every case on point that the purpose of requiring lawyers to be involved in closings is to protect consumers. The Reuters article suggests that the effort to modernize mortgages would also protect consumers. One borrower in the story, a civilian paramedic at a military base in Kuwait, was forced to fly 6,500 miles to buy a house in Virginia. Webcam notaries would cut expenses for lenders, notaries and borrowers, the article suggests.

Are the two efforts to protect consumers diametrically opposed? No doubt, South Carolina lawyers could be on one end of the webcams. I encourage all of us to read the news and to pay attention to how closings happen in other parts of the country and to continually think of ways to modernize our practices.  Keeping up with technology can only contribute toward keeping a real estate practitioner in the closing game.

Georgia On My Mind

Standard

GA Supreme Court takes a page from our playbook and prohibits “witness only” closings

On September 22, 2014, The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion approving the State Bar’s Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1, which states that a Georgia licensed lawyer may not ethically conduct a “witness only” closing.

georgia with flagThe Court indicated a “witness only” closing occurs when an individual presides over the execution of closing documents but purports to do so merely as a witness and notary and not as someone who is practicing law. In order to protect the public from those not properly trained or qualified to render these services, lawyers are required to “be in control of the closing process from beginning to end,” according to the opinion.

The opinion also requires the closing attorney to review the closing documents, resolve errors in the paperwork, and detect and resolve ambiguities in title and title defects, indicating, “A lawyer conducting a real estate closing may use documents prepared by others after ensuring their accuracy, making necessary revisions, and adopting the work.”

The closing lawyer must “review and adopt” the work used in a closing, even if he or she didn’t prepare that work.  Georgia law allows title insurance companies and others to examine title records, prepare abstracts and issue related insurance.  And other persons may provide attorneys with paralegal and clerical services, so long as “at all times the attorney receiving the information or services shall maintain full professional and direct responsibility to his clients for the information and services received.”

The obligation to review, revise, approve and adopt documents used in closings applies to “the entire series of events that comprise a closing.”

I’m a South Carolina dirt lawyer, so I don’t have the background to comment at length on this opinion, but from my bank of the Savannah River, it seems this opinion places closing lawyers in a precarious position, not unlike the position of our Bidding on a homepractitioners. We don’t necessarily have to perform all aspects of closings, but we do have to supervise and take professional responsibility for the entire closing.  We have learned how difficult it is to supervise third parties and take responsibility for their work.  The Georgia Bar asked for this opinion.  I hope they like it!

Surely Dave Whitener is smiling down from heaven at this effort to rein in the unauthorized practice of law!