Regulation of attorneys is state law. In Illinois, as a non-attorney engaged in unauthorized practice of law, you could be liable for damages. Maybe you think your friend won't sue you. Maybe in your state (is it CA?) he can't. Though there is some older contrary caselaw. Well, it's a risk you take. Aside from the legalities, there is also prudence. The law is complicated and there is often real money at stake. Would you let yourself be treated for a potentially serious illness by someone without medical tradining and qualifications? --jks
``The court held that `plaintiffs are not prevented from proceeding against defendant upon a negligence theory for his alleged improper activity.' ''
---------
If I read this correctly, enforcement by the court or pursuit by district attorney is passive, i.e some one involved has to bring the matter to the court and claim harm. And further it is a civil case for damages, not a criminal matter?
The cases you cited were all over issues of property. Is there anything similar in issues involved with civil liberties?
What I am really interested in are questions and possible case law involved in protesting, arrests, state or corporate legal proceedings against individuals engage in what amounts to civil disobedience.
For example, back when, there was a whole community of people involved in resisting the draft, filing CO claims with selective service, and various other groups who were engaged in protestor support both prior to and immediately after mass arrests.
I am going to phrase this badly, since I am in hurry and have to go to work. What I am looking for is a form of conflict between the power of the state to regulate law, and the power of individual citizens to pursue their rights under law.
The reason I am interested is that I don't believe for a minute that the state (as embodied by officials) believes citizens have any rights at all---total subjection--and merely pays lip service to this idea. It would nice to see this displayed in the form of a naked power play. I think this gets down to the core questions of an `open' society and its relationship to its citizens.
Chuck Grimes
PS. Thanks for answering the original question.