Legal Opinion

Doe Law Firm v. Richardson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 23, 2006No. 26214PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We agreed to hear this matter in our original jurisdiction to decide whether the disbursement of loan proceeds in conjunction with a residential refinancing or credit line transaction is the practice of law. 1 We hold that disbursement is an integral step in the closing of a residential refinancing or credit line transaction which must be conducted under the supervision of an attorney. Since our decision today is a new rule, and since it is likely that lenders and attorneys may have established procedures which do not account for this step in the closing process, we delay the effective date…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. Buyers Service Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  2. In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law RulesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  3. Doe v. McMasterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  4. In Re McMillianSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004
  5. In Re PstrakSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. CoffeyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2010
  2. Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2017
  3. Crawford v. Central Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
  4. In Re PincelliSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. In the Matter of Robert BreckenridgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2016

2 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