Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices). The Court held that even though the officer was not a lawyer or assisted by a lawyer, he did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law because he only testified to his own observations. According to R.I.G.L. 1956 § 11-27-2, “an individual must do or commit some action that determine[s] a question of law or fact or to exercise any judicial power; prepare pleadings or other legal papers incident to any action; give advice or counsel pertain to a law question; represent another person to commence, settle, compromise, adjust or dispose of a case; prepare or draft any instrument which requires legal knowledge and capacity.” Since the officer’s behavior did not fall into any of the aforementioned categories, he did not engage in unauthorized practice of law.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.