Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Richland County Magistrate's Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 7, 2010No. 26876Published

1DissentJustice Hearn

I respectfully dissent. Employing a practical and realistic approach to the analysis of whether or not questionable conduct qualifies as the unauthorized practice of law, as this Court has always endeavored to do, I would hold the representation of business entities by non-lawyer officers, agents, or employees is authorized in criminal magistrate’s court proceedings.

Today, in a marked departure from prior jurisprudence of this Court as to what constitutes the practice of law, the majority focuses on the status of the individual presenting evidence rather than on the character of the services…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. In Re DuncanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
  3. State v. Buyers Service Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  4. In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law RulesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  5. State Ex Rel. Daniel, At. Gen. v. WellsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API