The Florida Bar has petitioned this Court to enjoin Rosemary W.

Furman, d/b/a Northside Secretarial Service, from unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida. . . . We find the activities of the respondent to constitute the practice of law and permanently enjoin her from the further unauthorized practice of law.

The Florida Bar alleged . . . that Furman, a non-lawyer, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by giving legal advice and by rendering legal services in connection with marriage dissolutions and adoptions in the years 1976 and 1977. The bar specifically alleges that Furman performed legal services for at least seven customers by soliciting information from them and preparing pleadings in violation of Florida law. The bar further contends that through advertising in the Jacksonville Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, Furman held herself out to the public as having legal expertise in Florida family law and sold ‘‘do-it-yourself divorce kits.’’ The bar does not contend that Furman held herself out to be a lawyer, that her customers suffered any harm as a result of the services rendered, or that she has failed to perform the services for which she was paid.

In describing her activities, Furman states that she does not give legal advice, that she does prepare pleadings that meet the desires of her clients, that she charges no more than $50 for her services, and that her assistance to customers is in aid of their obtaining self-representative relief from the courts. In general, the respondent alleges as a defense that the ruling of this court in Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1978), violates the first amendment to the United States Constitution by restricting her right to disseminate and the right of her customers to receive information which would allow indigent litigants access to the state’s domestic relations courts. She alleges that our holding in Brumbaugh is so narrow that it deprives citizens who are indigent of equal protection of the laws as provided by the Florida and United States constitutions. . . .

. . . The Respondent admits that the customer returns with the intake sheet not completed, because the people are unfamiliar with the legal terms and some are illiterate and, of course, she then proceeds to ask questions to complete the intake sheet for preparing the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Then after she types the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, she advises the customer to take the papers for filing to the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court, and Respondent follows the progress of the case every step of the way until it is at issue. She then notifies the customer to come in for a briefing session preferably the day before the date set for trial. In the course of briefing Respondent furnishes the customer with a diagram of the Court chambers and where to find the Judge to which that particular case has been assigned. . . . She also explains the full procedure that will take place before the Judge, including the questions the customer should ask. . . . The facts in the record of this case establish very clearly that the Respondent performs every essential step in the legal proceedings to obtain a dissolution of marriage, except taking the papers and filing them in the Clerk’s office and going with the customer to the final hearing and interrogating the witness.

Respondent admitted that she could not follow the guidelines as set forth in the Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, for the reason that the customers who come to obtain her services are not capable for various and sundry reasons, mainly not being familiar with legal terminology or illiterate, and were unable to write out the necessary information. Therefore, she was compelled to ask questions and hold conferences with her customers. . . .

We do not write on a clean slate in this case. Last year we took the opportunity to clearly define to non-lawyers the proper realm in which they could operate without......

Questions about the Case 1 Did Furman ever hold herself out as an attorney? Did any of her customers believe she was an attorney? Did her customers complain about her services? Who brought this action against her, and what relief was sought?
2 Make a list of the services Furman performed for her customers. Do these functions fall under the definitions of the practice of law cited in this chapter?
3 Do you think that nonlawyers should be prohibited from performing these tasks? Why, or why not?
4 What does the effective delivery of legal services to the indigent have to do with this case? What did the referee recommend to the court about this? How did the court respond?