1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH PURPOSE: This case shows how an independent paralegal may be restricted when he steps over into the unauthorized practice of law.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH CAUSE OF ACTION: Injunctive relief sought, based on allegations that defendants were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH FACTS: Smith is the president of People’s Paralegal Service, Inc and both are defendants. From 1987 until 1995, defendants operated a business providing “legal technician” services for a fee. The services included providing consumers with various legal forms and advising them with respect to their individual legal concerns. They did not represent their clients in court nor sign any documents as attorneys. Moreover, People’s Paralegal posted signs at its place of business advising consumers that its employees were not attorneys, and its intake sheets, which were signed by the consumers, included a disclaimer.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH ISSUE: Whether the defendants should be enjoined from certain practices constituting the unauthorized practice of law.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH HOLDING: Yes, the court enjoined many of the defendant Smith’s activities specifically, leaving the defendant little room to provide legal services without the supervision of an attorney.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH REASONING: While the court refused to provide “an omnibus” definition of the practice of law, it adopted the following broad rule: [T]he “practice of law” means the exercise of professional judgment in applying legal principles to address another person’s individualized needs through analysis, advice, or other assistance. The one recognized exception was the “mere general dissemination of legal information by nonlawyers,” e.g., do-it-yourself divorce kits.