Unauthorized Practice of Law

Charter One Mortgage Corp v Condra, 865 NE2d 602 (Ind 2007).

Facts:Kyle Condra obtained a loan from Charter One Mortgage Corp. (Charter One) and executed a mortgage on his property in its favor. Employees of Charter One who were not authorized to practice law prepared the deed and mortgage for Condra. Charter One charged Condra $175 for that preparation.

Subsequently, Condra filed a class action suit against Charter One. He alleged that Indiana law prohibits non-lawyers from charging a fee for the preparation of mortgage documents because this constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court denied Charter One's motion to dismiss Condra's complaint but allowed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.

Holding:Affirmed. The preparation of standard mortgage documents by non-lawyers does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The practice of law is "'the giving of legal advice to a client and the placing of oneself in the very sensitive relationship' involving 'the confidence of the client' and 'the management of his affairs,'" In re Perello, 386 NE2d 174, 179 (Ind. 1979). The court found that the preparer does not need to give legal advice or be privy to a client's confidences to fill out a mortgage form. Rather, the preparer only needs to know what information must be included on the form. Further, the purpose of legislation restricting the practice of law is to prevent the public from relying on legal advice from persons unqualified to give it. The court found that refusing to allow non-lawyers to charge a fee for preparing mortgage documents would not further this purpose.

© ATG atgc0711vol31

Print this page