Posted by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 5:55pm
Msg #224518

There is a lot of discussion regarding UPL on this site but

there seems to be a lot of conflicting information. I am currently embroiled in a bitter cause of action against a landlord-tenant dispute resolution non-profit. This non-profit misinterpreted the law and explained to a tenant that under California's recent statutes that 60 days notice must be given to a sitting tenant. The fair housing group told the tenant that those 60 days must be given: as in free of charge. Additionally since all my leases are fixed term leases by law there is no notice needed at the end of the term since notice of the end of the term is given when the contract is signed and there is no provision for an automatic extension. The fair housing group said that my contract was void and unenforceable. I am suing them in propria persona for UPL since they were not members of the Bar nor were they under the direct supervision of an member of the Bar. One of the best discussion I have found on UPL is:

http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/UPLpublic.pdf

It is the "UPL Manual for Prosecutors" for the Office of the District Attorney, County of Los Angeles. Considering the subject it is actually quite easy reading and explains the subject clearly and concisely. The manual also contains the applicable State Law regarding UPL. I
found it very helpful.

I decided to make an example of this situation primarily because my tenants, while being a royal PITA are however at a major disadvantage because of their limited English. The final result of the advice given by the fair housing group was that I had to file an Unlawful Detainer Action against the tenants with the resultant hit on their credit, they are going to be liable for the court costs and for damages and still have to pay for the time they are in the apartment when all of this could have been avoided if the organization only did the job they promised to do, give valid advice. While these tenants were a problem for other reasons, I just needed them out of the apartment so I could rehab the apartment and the roof of the building.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 6:04pm
Msg #224523

Good for you, Charles_CA!

There are many times when I heartily disagree with your opinions, but this time you've got my complete agreement!

I'm all for _every_ person, no matter what ecomonic class, race, religion, or sexual orientation, _knowing their rights under the law_ (you can hear the "but" coming), but I have no respect for do-good organizations that use _their interpretation_ of the law to help some people get away with ripping off landlords, etc., just because the (supposedly) downtrodden person is poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

Any advice on finding the UPL guidelines in our own states? CA tends to be very different from CT....

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 6:35pm
Msg #224530

Re: Good for you, Charles_CA! thanks Ernest, but....

Actually this organization is ripping of everyone becasue of their misinterpretation of the law. They are forcin me to evict a tenant because they told the tenant that the tenant could stay. The tenant is also being hurt because an eviction is goingn to go on their credit record as well as having to go through the eviction, not fair to the tenant, not fair to the landlord and the group is called Fair Housing of Xxxxxxxxxx County.

I had a very wise old political activist tell me a long time ago when I was embroiled in another action that we were on opposite sides of: she said "lets work together on the things we agree on" I have never forgotten that. You may not agree with me and I may not agree with you on everything but those things we agree on we can work pn together for the betterment of all. No one says that we have to agree on everything and this is a very poor forum to make up one's mind about the worth of the other. As long as people can stay on topic, not make vicious personal attacks and keep talkling I'm willing to discuss anything. The biggest problem I see is that certain subjects and words carry personal baggage and some people just can't let go!

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:17pm
Msg #224534

thank you for the california info

I ran across this Delaware piece on UPL while trying to find an old case supporting a notary performing closings in PA. Anyway, Delaware is an attorney state but while reading it you see references to PA which is not. I thought it was worthwhile.

http://courts.delaware.gov/odc/UPLdecisions/UPL95-15.pdf

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:35pm
Msg #224538

the whole thing's a good read but here is the crucial part

....their rules concerning the ability of non-attorneys to conduct real estate settlements, the ODC
pointed out that, unlike many neighboring states (such as Pennsylvania, parts of New Jersey, and
Maryland), Delaware has a long-standing tradition of requiring attorney participation in those
settlements. While certainly true, the panel again does not believe that this fact has any real
significance to its decision. To put the issue another way, if the conduct of real estate settlements
is not the practice of law, then this panel could not properly rely on tradition to justify restricting the
process in the future. On the other hand, if it is the practice of law, whether it was conducted by
attorneys in the past is irrelevant." page 16

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:43pm
Msg #224539

Re: the whole thing's a good read but here is the crucial pa

"The panel recognizes that all three of Delaware’s closest
neighbors, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, permit non-attorneys to conduct real estate
settlements, either by custom (Maryland) or court decision (Pennsylvania and New Jersey). La
Brum v. Commonwealth Title Co. of Philadelphia, Pa. Supr., 56 A.2d 246 (1948); In re Opinion No.
26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, N.J. Supr., 654 A.2d 1344 (1995)(the
“New Jersey Opinion”)."

Just throwing this stuff out there......The LaBrum case establishes the right of a PA licensed title insurer/agent to prepare documents in conjunction with the issuance of a title policy and have it NOT be considered UPL. this is the part that bugs me about title insurers/agents closing transactions that do NOT have title insurance such as HELOCs. Even our licensing law specifies that our licensed duties must be done in conjunction with the issuance of a title policy which then in my mind makes a licensed title agent who closes HELOCS a UPL bad boy/girl.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:47pm
Msg #224540

just one more blurb

"Pennsylvania has merely held that the preparation of deeds, mortgages, agreements, etc., as well as
the conducting of real estate settlements by non-lawyer title companies incidental only to issuing
their insurance, constitutes the practicing of “conveyance” instead of the practice of law,"

page 21

Notice the phrase "incidental only to issuing their insurance".

Reply by Gary_CA on 12/6/07 6:32am
Msg #224589

Another thought on tenants and free legal...

I took a property management class from a big property manager in SF where the tenant protections are extreme. Upon giving tenants notice in SF, no matter how in the wrong they may be, it's pretty common for them to go get some sort of legal aid lawyer ... for "free", well free to them... here's the rub...

Most leases, including those done for us by the CA Assoc. of Realtors' software, have that common clause in them "whoever loses pays the winners legal expenses." The free legal aid would take these guys on for free and if they found the loophole and won the case they'd bill the snot out of the landlord.

So, in this situation, in this city, the manager and his lawyer changed the lease, took out the clause and put in "we both agree to pay our own legal expenses regardless of the outcome of any action." (Now I don't want to practice law here, but I believe that clause is legally superfluous, that is what would happen if there's no clause at all, but it was there for a reason, read on...)

When the legal aid organizations, who have no money motive whatsoever and think ever and only of protecting the rights of the downtrodden would come across that clause in the initial interview, they'd turn down the case...

Hmmm....