Unauthorized Practice of Law

Defendant appealed from a decision by the trial judge sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-17-4 “vehicle entering stop or yield intersection.”  At the close of Defendant’s testimony the trial judge “asked the Officer if he had any questions for the Appellant.”  The Officer proceeded to present a series of questions to the Appellant regarding the incident.  Although Defendant did not raise this issue on appeal, the Panel noted in a footnote its “great concern for the manner in which the testimony in this case was received.”  The Panel pointed out, without reaching the issue, that the officer’s questioning of the witness “comes dangerously close” to violating the provisions of R.I.G.L. § 11-27-2, which defines the practice of law.  The Panel stated that “such action should be cautiously avoided by persons who have not been admitted to the Bar.”

Town of Bristol v. Rebecca Ramos, C.A. No. M12-0019 (August 8, 2013).pdf

Unauthorized Practice of Law

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.

State of Rhode Island v. Judith Crowell, C.A. No. T10-0040 (July 14, 2010).pdf