The Bar concluded that Miravalle was engaging in UPL for two major reasons. First, Miravalle was providing services which would cause the public to believe Candace Miravalle was an attorney. Secondly, Miravalle had used a business name that would infer the office was authorized to practice law. I do not believe non-lawyers should be allowed to perform the details mentioned in the case. While legal assistants know how to prepare many legal documents, they do not know all the details of the law as it is not their job to know. Legal assistants are just as their name says - assistants, and therefore they should only be assisting the attorneys. In order to avoid the charge of UPL, Miravalle should have worked with an attorney - even if it was just one - who could have approved the documents being prepared. All legal assistants are only authorized to work under a supervising attorney according to Rule 5.3 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

What questions would you ask about this post?