Employee’s Unauthorized Practice Draws Reprimand

In an interesting bar discipline case, the Nevada Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand on an attorney for assisting in the violation of unauthorized practice rules as a result of conduct by his employee who was admitted to practice only in Arizona but located in the attorney’s Nevada office:

Our prior precedentand authority from other jurisdictions support the conclusion that whatconstitutes the practice of law must be determined on a case-by-case basis,bearing in mind the overarching principle that the practice of law is involvedwhen the activity requires the exercise of judgment in applying general legalknowledge to a client’s specific problem.  When the person engaged in theactivity is a lawyer licensed in another state, we must also consider whether thatactivity may be permissible under Nevada’s limited exceptions formultijurisdictional practice, when the activity is limited and incidental tothe lawyer’s representation of clients in his home state.

            Here, considerationof the key principle—exercise of legal judgment on a client’s behalf, togetherwith ample authority from other jurisdictions faced with similar facts, demonstratesthat Lerner’s employee without doubt engaged in the practice of law.  Also, theemployee worked in Lerner’s Las Vegas office for Nevada clients, so he was notengaged in limited, incidental, multijurisdictional practice related to his representationof clients in Arizona, where he is licensed.  Consequently, the employee’spractice of law was unauthorized.  The employee’s activities were further performedas part of his regular duties, in conformity with the policies and practices ofLerner’s firm, and thus, Lerner assisted in the unauthorized practice of law.  Wetherefore conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the violation ofRPC 5.5.  We further agree with the hearing panel’s recommendation of a publicreprimand as the appropriate discipline.

The employee met with potential clients, determined whether or not the firm would take the case , negotiated claims and was the client’s sole contact at the firm. The court notes that the attorney sanctioned here had been the subject of three prior non-public reprimands for the identical conduct.  (Mike Frisch)