Actually, Lisa this is incorrect. Attorney Richard E. Lester has been reprimanded for this very practice.
The Reprimand states:
The closing was conducted by the paralegal without respondent or another attorney present. Respondent maintains he remained accessible to the paralegal by telephone throughout the closing. Respondent now recognizes that either he or another licensed attorney should have been physically present to conduct the actual real estate transactions and closings.
He was reprimanded under the following rule (among others): Rule 5.5(b) (a lawyer shall not assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of an activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law).
They further concluded: We also take this opportunity to state that we view with alarm the growing tendency of attorneys to allow support staff to perform functions which should be performed by attorneys. We caution members of the Bar that this practice dilutes the attorney-client relationship and diminishes the attorney's ability to monitor all aspects of a case for which the attorney is ultimately responsible. We further direct the Bar's attention, once again, to In re Easler, 275 S.C. 400, 272 S.E.2d 32 (1980), in which this Court set forth guidelines with regard to the role of paralegals in assisting attorneys, and to State v. Buyer's Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987), in which this Court held that real estate closings should be conducted only under the supervision of attorneys.
State v. Buyer's Service Co. Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E. 2d 15 (1987), is the same case that provides that we as title abstractors must only work under the supervision of an attorney, as title examination without attorney supervision is the unauthorized practice of law.
The practice you indicated in your post as being perfectly legal in SC is actually a very, very dark shade of gray. I'd be very careful in the future when asked to close a loan where an attorney is not present.
to post a reply:
login - or -
register