How can this person practice law?

How can this person practice law in Florida if they graduated from Taft. From the website-

The Firm is headed by Joseph J. Savino whose professional career spans more than 20 years. Mr. Savino is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association and the California Bar. He holds a BSBA in economics from the University of Florida, an MBA from Nova Southeastern University, and a JD from the William Howard Taft University School of Law.


http://www.usa-immigrationattorney.com/

Am I missing a loophole?

 

The state of California allows persons with unaccredited law degrees to sit for the Bar Exam. Most states will let you sit for their bar exam after x number of years if you've passed the bar in another state. See Bears' Guide Chapter 25 for nontraditional law study options.

 

Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

Interesting. He is apparently not a member of the Florida bar.

He also has no Martindale Hubble listing (means nothing but there it is)

He restricts himself to immigration ONLY and is quite emphatic about it...

I would GUESS that he is flying inside a carefully constructed UPL bubble...technically, if a person is admitted to practice before a particular federal Court or administrative agency and does not practice in any State court or offer advice on state law matters, the state bar has no jurisdiction over him. The argument is that the feds control their own bar and no state authority may impose additional qualifications on a federal practitioner. That's ONE line of case law, anyway.

The OTHER line says offering any sort of legal advice from an office in the state constitutes the practice of law and is subject to the state bar authority...

This isn't something I would do. I don't think it's unethical or dishonest, exactly, though aiding the unauthorized practice of law IS an ethical violation. I am inclined to think that his activities in fact DON'T constitute UPL.

What would worry me is that he definitely hold himself out as being a lawyer. Now what happens when some immigration client says something like, "Should I divorce my wife before I get deported?"

BAM! A state law question, answering which WILL constitute UPL.

Or, really, doesn't holding himself out as a lawyer in Florida without a Florida law license itself constitute UPL? Maybe. Not clear. He is so very careful to restrict his practice.

 

further info

Mr. Savino is an active member of the California bar, having been admitted in 2002.

He is not eligible either to take the Florida bar exam or to be admitted in that state.

 

Re: Re: How can this person practice law?

Oh... I see nosborne48 made a couple of postings on this while I was authoring the below. Well... that notwithstanding... below is still my response to what Ted wrote...

Well... that's a bit of an oversimplification. ABA approval is unquestionably the preferred type of JD in California; and, with few/rare exceptions, is coin of the realm in all other states.

California is nearly unique in its willingness to allow those with non-ABA-approved JDs to sit for the bar exam, but said non-ABA-approved JDs must be from non-ABA-approved law schools that are either accredited by or registered with the California Committee of Bar Examiners. California is unique in that a dozen or so of its "registered" non-ABA JD programs are via distance learning. No other state has that. As long as the CalBar-accredited or registered (but, nevertheless, non-ABA-approved) law school is granted the right to issue degrees by the BPPVE; and as long as said law school has been given the okeedokie by CalBar to issue bar-qualifying JD degrees; and as long as said law school has all it's other various ducks in a row, whatever they may be (i.e., is okay with the secretary of state and the IRS, etc), then it can accept students -- even students with no undergraduate degree whatsoever if it wishes -- into a JD program that will, by its end, qualify the student to sit for the California bar exam.

Those who get their JD from a California-accredited or -registered, non-ABA-approved law school may, once they've passed the bar and met all other qualifications, be sworn-in to practice law with the same rights and responsibilities as those who graduated from an ABA-approved law school. The bar card in the wallets of all California attorneys is the same color and say, save for personal data, exactly the same thing on them. The bar card is the great equalizer.

However, those who first graduate from a CalBar-registered/accredited (but not ABA-approved) law school, and who then take and pass the bar and meet all other qualifications to be sworn-in as attorneys, will, upon such swearing-in and admission to the California bar, be able to practice only in California.

Actually, "most" is too strong a word. Less than half the states, actually... not-insignificantly less than half, in fact.

In order to practice in any other state, one would first have to practice in California for around five years, give or take, before one would be allowed to either sit for the bar exam, or petition for admittance to the bar on motion, in any other state; and even then fewer than two dozen other states will even allow that. More than half the states will not allow anyone to practice law, no matter what, unless their law degree is ABA-approved. Some even specify that, prior to having aquired said ABA-approved JD, the candidate must also have obtained a regionally-accredited bachelors degree.

Among the states that will accept a CalBar-accredited/registered (but non-ABA-approved) JD as requisite to either sit for said state's bar, or petition for admittance on motion, the number of years that one must first practice in California varies from two or three years to as many as seven to ten years. Five years seems to be the average or the "norm," but it varies from state to state. Most states have a contiguousness requirement, too... meaning that said three, five, seven or ten years must be in a row and not spread-out over a larger period.

Wisconsin is unique in that it only requires that the out-of-state attorney wishing to practice in that state must be an active and practicing member of his/her own state's bar. It matters not to Wisconsin how long said out-of-state-attorney-who-wishes-to-practice-in-Wisconsin has practiced in his own state, nor whether the law school from which s/he graduated is/was/or-will-ever-be ABA-approved.

There are a tiny handful of other states that have non-ABA-approved, but nevertheless state approved, law schools (none by distance learning, though) that will allow graduates from said non-ABA-approved-but-nevertheless-state-approved law schools to sit for said states' bar exams. I know that Massachusetts is one; but without going and looking them up, I can't remember the others. Tennessee might be another, but, again, I'd have to go look it up. And in the case of the non-ABA-approved Massachusetts bar-qualifying JDs, I believe a couple of neighboring states will also allow graduates therefrom to sit for their bar exams, too.

Florida, which is the state in which the person being asked about in the thread-starting post practices, is loathe to allow just anyone into its law practice fraternity. Many lawyers from other states would love to retire to Florida, get accepted into the bar there with the same ease as would be possible in other states, and then hang-out a shingle and work part-time/semi-retired in the Sunshine State. But if Florida believes that if it allowed that, then it would be unfair to full-time, hard-working, native Floridian lawyers. So Florida doesn't make it all that easy for out-of-state lawyers to take-up residence there, get admitted to the bar, and begin practicing.

The thread-starting post inquired about how a lawyer, having obtained his JD from Taft via distance learning, could possibly be admitted to the bar in Florida. Well, for starters, a California D/L J.D. holder may not sit for the Florida bar exam. Period. However, s/he may be admitted to practice law in Florida, on motion, without exam, provided s/he has been actively engaged in the practice of law in, and has membership in the bar of, any other U.S. jurisdiction for at least ten (10) years. As part of the motion, a representative compilation of the work product (confined to the most recent ten years of practice) in the field of law showing the scope and character of the applicant's previous experience and practice at the bar must be presented for evaluation by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

I know of perhaps one other state that comes even close to doing it that way. Florida makes it intentionally prohibitive.

Precisely how Mr. Savino did it is unknown, of course. But it's clear that he did. Another thing to remember is that things change. Who knows what the rules were when he applied for, and received, membership in the Florida bar.

Hope that helps.

 

Re: Re: Re: How can this person practice law?

Mr. Savino is not a member of the Florida Bar Association:

http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/MESearch?openform&P=&MN=&LN=savino&FN=&CT=&DB=names.nsf

- Tom

 

Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

Yes, until you mentioned it, I didn't think of that. But that just about has to be it. In fact, I recall reading something about that very thing in the Northwest California University School of Law catalog. I recall it stating that even those who get their DL JD, but who do not sit for the bar -- including those who get the non-bar-qualifying version of the JD -- may practice either on motion, or upon successful completion of a proficiency examination, before such federal entities as the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Patent Court, the Workers Compensation Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the American Arbitration Association, the National Labor Relations Board, the Social Security administration boards, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration boards, the Federal Maritime Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Perhaps that is how Mr. Savino is doing it. But I'm with you, Nos, regarding how dangerous it might be outside of California unless he has been admitted to the bar of whatever state he's in. Unless I had a letter on file from the state's bar giving me permission to do what I was doing in the way that I was doing it, I'd tread lightly. But that's just me.

A UPL conviction, everyone should realize, is an automatic and irreversable disqualifier for the practice of law in all 50 states. Get convicted of UPL and you never get to be a lawyer anywhere... no even after a certain period of time, and not even on appeal. A UPL conviction ends the process forever.

Yes, I realized that after reading nosborne48's post. He's almost certainly doing it the way nosborne48 explained, confining himself to federal immigration issues. But I'd still be worried about the very ways the nosborne48 pointed-out could be construed as UPL. It's potentially very serious. Even though he's a member of the California bar, he can still be nailed for UPL outside of California... and Florida tends to have no sense of humor about such things. This, it seems to me, is playing with fire... but perhaps Mr. Savino has made some kind of arrangements with the State of Florida that we don't know about. I dunno. It's interesting.

 

Sting like a butterfly, zoom like a bee, to misquote my landsman, Muhammad Ali

I saw the best minds of my generation
writing poetry in desperate need of an editor, man.

OK. Back to topic.

 

Re: Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

Yes, you're right. Northwest discusses this very thing, right here:

http://www.nwculaw.edu/programs_barmembership.shtml

See the section titled "Non-Bar Students".

Very interesting topic indeed.


Thanks,
Tom

 

Re: Sting like a butterfly, zoom like a bee, to misquote my landsman, Muhammad Ali

Be still,
my beating Ginsburg . . .

Uh . . . . .



marilynd

 

Perhaps he watched all the episodes of "Law and Order?"



marilynd

 

Re: Re: How can this person practice law?

So, then... his having gotten a JD; his having passed the California bar exam (known to be among the toughest on earth); his having been admitted to the California bar; and his probably having passed an INS practice proficiency exam or having been admitted on motion didn't contribute to his knowledge and expertise? While we may be, here, questioning precisely how he's doing what he's doing; and while we may be, here, questioning the wisdom of his even doing it given Florida's lack of any sense of humor over even the appearance of UPL, there's no question, all that notwithstanding, that we can easily see a completely legitimate way by which he may be doing it. And none of that has anything to do with whether he's actually good at it... which I suspect he is. I mean, no one said he was not authorized to do what he's doing... or at least I never did. Obviously, he is. It's just curious how he accomplished it.

[pause]

"Be still, my beating Ginsburg." Ha! Cute.

 

Re: Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

Federal agencies are exempt from state licensing laws, and can set up their own standards for practitioners. Some federal agencies have legal proficiency exams that are explicitly open to both lawyers and non-lawyers. For example, you don't need a law degree to become licensed as a "Patent Agent" with the US Patent Office, or to become licensed as an "Enrolled Agent" with the IRS. There are tens of thousands of such non-lawyers out there, providing legal services pertaining to their respective federal agencies, and it is not UPL as long as they stay within their prescribed areas of jurisidiction.

So it should not be surprising that certain federal agencies will accept an unaccredited or non-bar JD. After all, some federal agencies will license legal practitioners with no JD whatsoever.

 

Well, the risk is actually greater than the man himself may realize. If Florida nails him for UPL, CALIFORNIA may choose to discipline him as a member of the California Bar.

Florida seems to take the office-offering-legal-advice approach to defining UPL.

Man, if I were going to pull this stunt, Florida is NOT the state I'd do it in.

In fact, since he seems to claim a 50 state practice (and why not?), the SAFEST thing he could do would be to practice from an office in CALIFORNIA, by remote control as it were.

Like...well...like a diploma mill would do!

 

Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

If this were not the case, then it would be impossible for a USPO-licensed Patent Agent or an IRS-licensed Enrolled Agent to practice anywhere in the US. After all, such individuals have no law degrees and not members of any state bar associations.

Yet it is clear that EAs and Patent Agents do manage to find work. The reality is that they are permitted to practice law as long as they restrict themselves to federal agency issues. The same is presumably true for Mr. Savino; as long as he restricts his practice to federal-level immigration issues, and avoids issues of Florida law, he should be perfectly OK.

 

Bingo, CalDog, but EAs and Patent Attorneys usually advertise themselves exactly that way. They don't describe themselves as attorneys doing patent or tax work but as "Patent Attorney" or "Enrolled Agent".

 

And that's presumably why Mr. Savino advertises himself exclusively as an immigration attorney (even his web address, http://www.usa-immigrationattorney.com, makes it clear). If you go there, and click on "About Us", you get the following definitive (and redundant) statement:

If this is in fact the case, and he shuns issues of state law, then he should be able to legally practice anywhere in the US, with or without passing any state bar exam. That's my understanding anyway.

 

Yeeessss...that's certainly the theory.

Also, of course, it's quite possible to be an "immigration consultant" under federal law without being a lawyer at all, or so I understand.

Well, CalDog, you are probably right; I daresay that if Florida could have shut him down, they would have done so by now.

But you can BET that the local Bar watches him like starving hawks!

 

Yeah... and as I think about it, it really is stupid of him to not just do it out of California, as you suggested might be a smarter thing for him to have done.

But I'll bet he did alot of research into this before he proceeded. I mean, he obviously loves Florida. He's probably from there originally and never really ever lived lived in California. He probably saw a California DL law school as a way for him to get his law degree by the cheapest means possible so he could then take advantage of the federal government rules that would allow him to practice in that one area without getting into trouble. Actually, if we dug into and and learned what research he did and/or what letters of authorization or clarification of the law he may have gotten from the Florida bar, we might find that it's a fairly sound strategy that could probably be used in any state.

That said, I'd never mess with it myself. If I were going to do what he's doing, I'd have my office in California, just to play it safe. But that's just me.

 

Two points:

He claims twenty years of professional experience, so likely he was working as an "immigration consultant" before he ever went to Taft. He probably had already built up his practice in Florida.

It's not too likely that Florida would give him ANY letters or such. Public lawyers don't like to give advisory opinions.