State v. Buyers Service Co.

55 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. McMaster

    355 S.C. 306 (S.C. 2003)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 585 S.E.2d 773 (2003) (McMaster), we refined the definition of the unauthorized practice of law in the context of residential real estate closings first set forth in State v. Buyers Serv. Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987) (Buyers Service).

    Statev. Buyers Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 430, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987). For this reason, this Court has consistently refrained from adopting a specific rule to define the practice of law. Inre Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules, 309 S.C. at 305, 422 S.E.2d at 124 (stating "it is neither practicable nor wise" to formulate a comprehensive definition of what the practice of law is).

  2. Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Frazer

    394 S.C. 134 (S.C. 2011)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating “the presence of attorneys in real estate loan closings is for the protection of the public and that ‘protection of the public is of paramount concern’ in loan closings” (quoting Buyers Serv. Co., 292 S.C. at 434, 357 S.E.2d at 19)

    All real estate and mortgage loan closings must be supervised by an attorney. Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 585 S.E.2d 773 (2003); State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987). Performing a title search, preparing title and loan documents, and closing a loan without the supervision of an attorney constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Buyers Serv., 292 S.C. at 430–34, 357 S.E.2d at 17–19.

  3. Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

    420 S.C. 452 (S.C. 2017)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Boone, the South Carolina Supreme Court referenced borrower-lender communications when it observed that "the borrower speaks on the telephone with a licensed mortgage banker employed by Quicken Loans [][and] [e]ach borrower is informed that he or she has the right to select legal counsel to represent him or her in the transaction and asked whether he or she has a preference as to a specific attorney."

    Further, this Court has recognized that "[t]he practice of law is not confined to litigation, but extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge and ability." State v. Buyers Serv. Co. , 292 S.C. 426, 430, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987). This includes the preparation of legal documents "when such preparation involves the giving of advice, consultation, explanation, or recommendations on matters of law."

  4. Doe v. Condon

    351 S.C. 158 (S.C. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    The practice of law, however, "is not confined to litigation, but extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge and ability." Statev. Buyers Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 430, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987).

  5. Linder v. Insurance Claims Consultants

    348 S.C. 477 (S.C. 2002)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding “adjusters shall not ... [a]dvise clients of their rights, duties, or privileges under an insurance policy regarding matters requiring legal skill or knowledge, i.e., interpret the policy for clients.”

    Our duty to regulate the legal profession is not for the purpose of creating a monopoly for lawyers, or for their economic protection; instead, it is to protect the public from the potentially severe economic and emotional consequences which may flow from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law. See State v.Buyers Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 431, 357 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1987). Indeed, protection of the public is our "paramount concern" in these matters.

  6. Ex Parte Watson

    356 S.C. 432 (S.C. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Examining titles and preparing title abstracts constitute practicing law and therefore such activities must be conducted or supervised by licensed attorneys

    In the first case, this Court held that the preparation of title abstracts by title companies for buyers constituted the unauthorized practice of law. State v. BuyersServ. Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987). The Court found that "[t]he examination of titles requires expert legal knowledge and skill."

  7. Inglese v. Beal

    403 S.C. 290 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 27 times
    Noting the majority affirmed the trial judge's Form 4 order which simply stated “Defendant Beal's motion for summary judgment is granted”

    This requirement is based on the policy determination that the use of an attorney to close a real estate sale is necessary to protect the participants in the transaction and the public from the numerous things that can go wrong when transferring real estate. See State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 292 S.C. 426, 431, 357 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1987) (per curiam) (requiring real estate closings to be conducted by attorneys “for the protection of the public from the potentially severe economic and emotional consequences which may flow from erroneous advice given by persons untrained in the law”). As the supreme court stated in Buyers Service,

  8. Davis v. SCBT, N.A. (In re Davis)

    C/A No. 11-06003-dd (Bankr. D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2013)

    Under South Carolina law, "[a]ll real estate and mortgage loan closings must be supervised by an attorney." Matrix Fin. Serv. Corp. v. Frazer, 714 S.E.2d 532, 534 (S.C. 2011) (citing Doe v. McMaster, 585 S.E.2d 773, 777 (S.C. 2003); State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15, 19 (S.C. 1987) (per curiam)). "Performing a title search, preparing title and loan documents, and closing a loan without the supervision of an attorney constitutes the unauthorized practice of law."

  9. Crawford v. Cent. Mortg. Co.

    404 S.C. 39 (S.C. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    The practice of law, however, “is not confined to litigation, but extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge and ability.” State v. Buyers Serv. Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 430, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987). The unauthorized practice of law jurisprudence in South Carolina is driven by the public policy of protecting consumers.

  10. In re First Escrow, Inc.

    840 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. 1992)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing "the need to balance the protection of the public against a desire to avoid unnecessary inconvenience and expense" and "the duty to strike a workable balance between the public's protection and the public's convenience"

    1972); Childs v. Smeltzer, 315 Pa. 9, 171 A. 883, 885-6 (1934); Union Planters Title, 326 S.W.2d at 781; Commonwealth v. Jones Robins, 186 Va. 30, 41 S.E.2d 720, 727 (1947); Cultum, 694 P.2d at 634; Dinger, 109 N.W.2d at 690. Some courts have employed different tests, such as: (1) acts customarily carried on by lawyers through the centuries, Arizona Land Title, 366 P.2d at 14; (2) acts affecting substantial legal rights and requiring legal skills, The Florida Bar v. Irizarry, 268 So.2d 377, 378.9 (Fla. 1972); Guardian Abstract, 575 P.2d at 949; Gustafson v. V.C. Taylor Sons, 138 Ohio St. 392, 35 N.E.2d 435, 437 (1941); State v. Buyers Service Co., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1987); (3) acts requiring the exercise of informed discretion in informing another of legal rights and duties, Security Escrows, 377 P.2d at 339; and (4) acts involving the resolution of a difficult question of law, Cardinal v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Burnet, 433 N.W.2d 864, 868 (Minn. 1988).