Comment Submitted via Email
I circulated the proposal of 9/18/02 to my colleagues on the Court. Although we applaud the attempt to define the practice, we agree it is too broad. North Dakota has a definition from a early 20th century decision that is also very broad. I expect if that definition was attempted to be enforced under an unauthorized practice of law action it would create a firestorm among real estate agents, etc. The proposal may be an attempt to recover lost ground, but it seems a little late.
Section (c), particularly subsections (1) and (2) appeared to me the most problematic. The liability provisions in subsection (e) also raised questions.
Chief Justice of North Dakota