Saturday, January 30, 2010

Independent Paralegal Goes Another Round in Longtime UPL Dispute

For many years, independent paralegal and former Montana state senator, Jerry O'Neil, has been embroiled in ongoing disputes with the State Bar of Montana and the Montana Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (the "Commission") over his business advertising and allegations that he has engaged in UPL.

According to information available online, O'Neil is a controversial figure in the Montana legal community - and one whom members of various Montana paralegal associations have told the media they do not feel is representative of the paralegal profession.

But the Daily Inter Lake reports that O'Neil has won the latest round, after Helena District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock denied the Attorney General's Office summary judgment motion asking the court to find that O'Neil "violated the state's Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act."

Now these charges against O'Neil will proceed to a jury trial.



O’Neil’s legal tangles over his status as an “independent paralegal” go back several years, resulting in Polson District Judge Kim Christopher affirming an injunction that prohibited him from practicing law or advertising that he is capable of doing so.

That resulted in O’Neil making some changes to his business cards and advertisements and in his business practices.

“O’Neil claims he has complied with the permanent injunction and is not violating MCPA, as he is not providing services that only a lawyer can perform and is now working under the auspices of an attorney,” Sherlock’s ruling states. “O’Neil claims he only prepares forms for individuals seeking dissolutions or step-parent adoptions. Those forms are then reviewed by an attorney before they are filed with the respective court.”

It is also noted that O’Neil pays his supervising attorneys.



My search for a current business website for O'Neil was unsuccessful, but a Google search yielded two business listings: O'Neil Jerry Independent Paralegal located at 985 Walsh Road, Columbia Falls, MT and Jerry O'Neil Law Office, also located at 985 Walsh Road, Columbia Falls, MT.

Legal Assistant Today (now Paralegal Today) published an article in 2005, discussing O'Neil's run-ins with the state bar and the Commission. In 2004 "he was cited for contempt of court...for the unauthorized practice of law. He is the first one to be tried in Montana for UPL."

"I think it would be wonderful if the paralegal community could help people without access to attorneys," O'Neil told Legal Assistant Today.

During O'Neil's senate term, he sponsored a bill to to have Montana's legislature and not its Supreme Court "oversee court practices." A fellow senator at the time wondered "why a person who wants to act as a lawyer can't get a law degree."

Matt Singer, who blogs at Left in the West, quipped (after O'Neil lost a round with the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the district court's ruling he was in civil contempt and permanently enjoined him from practicing law):


The paralawyer lost again. If when he filed his papers for Supreme Court, he had applied for law school instead, this might not be a problem. Of course, he may not have made it through.


The opinion itself contains fact findings that illustrate what not to do if you are a freelance or independent paralegal, and includes examples of what can happen when people who are not experienced lawyers handle their own cases, including incorrectly designating pleadings and missing key deadlines.

O'Neil does have the dubious distinction of having his case included in the citations to "What Is The Unauthorized Practice of Law?" issued by the Commission on Unauthorized Practice of the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.

With the stiff penalties he could face if found guilty of the latest allegations, including a $10,000 fine for each violation and forfeiture of any payment earned by UPL, I hope he's not representing himself again.

But can he find counsel willing to take on his counterclaims? O'Neil told the Daily Inter Lake that he is "countersuing the state for 'interfering in my business,' a pursuit he claims is motivated by resistance to any threat to the state’s lawyer 'monopoly.'"




Sources: Daily Inter Lake, Whitefish Pilot, HALT

0 comments: