UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-04
Banker asks attorney to provide only a legal description with no title opinion. Attorney receives no fee or minimal fee for copy services only. Attorney has closed a previous transaction for the borrower and has a legal description in his file. Banker closes a "Blind Mortgage" or "Tax-Smart Mortgage," which means he records the mortgage against the borrower's home with no title work in order to the make the interest on the loan tax deductible.
Questions and Opinions:
Question 1.
Is this the unauthorized practice of law by the Bank?
Opinion 1.
This Committee declines to answer this question as it is a question of law and should be addressed to the South Carolina Supreme Court in accordance with that Court's 1992 opinion, In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Question 2.
Is the attorney committing an unethical practice by providing copies of public documents already existing in his files?
Opinion 2.
It is the Committee's opinion that merely providing a copy of a public record to a requesting party, absent anything further, is not unethical. However, to the extent where this question inherently makes inquiry into the unauthorized practice of law, this Committee is unable to render an opinion, as such inquiry is a question of law and should be addressed to the South Carolina Supreme Court in accordance with that Court's 1992 opinion, In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law.