The S.C. State Conference of the NAACP, the S.C. Advocate Program (“Housing Program”) and three prospective nonlawyer volunteers for the Housing Program petitioned our Supreme Court seeking authorization to allow nonlawyer volunteers to provide free, limited assistance to tenants facing eviction in magistrate courts.*
The petition sought a declaratory judgment in the Court’s original jurisdiction that their proposed activities will not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Dirt lawyers will recognize the Court’s struggle with the UPL issue because it took 18 pages to reach an affirmative answer. More than three pages were devoted to the history of the UPL issue in South Carolina. Many of us can recite that history from memory.
The petitioners argued that the unmet legal needs of tenants facing eviction is an emergency situation justifying immediate action and that 99% of defendants in eviction cases are not represented by lawyers in the proceedings.
Tenants involved in the program will be advised that the volunteers are nonlawyers. The volunteers are required to limit the information they provide to tenants, and they may only:
- Confirm that the tenant has a pending eviction;
- Advise the tenant that they should request a hearing and, based on the text of the eviction notice and checking relevant court records, explain how and when to do so; and
- Provide the tenant with narrow additional advice about the hearing by flagging common defenses, primarily pertaining to notice, that the tenant might be able to raise.
The volunteers will be instructed to avoid conflicts of interest, abide by confidentiality rules, and refrain from revealing any information about the tenant’s situation except to Housing Program staff. The volunteers must refer tenants to legal service providers when issues are beyond the scope of the program, such as when the tenant has a counterclaim, if the tenant does not have a written lease, if the tenant receives a housing voucher or lives in public housing, or when the tenant seeks information in excess of that permitted under the program.
The petition recited that lawyers have reviewed the program and will work closely with the volunteers, evaluating and assisting them.
The petitioners agreed to share data and information about the successes and failures of the program with the Court to allow the Court to weigh the efficacy of the program to determine whether sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the public.
The Court found that the program appears to provide for sufficient training, safeguards, and lawyer supervision so that the volunteers working within the strict limits set forth in the program’s training manual will not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
The Court approved the program on a provisional, pilot basis for a term of three years, unless extended or terminated by the Court. Petitioners are required to submit annual reports including the date and metrics discussed in the order as well as a written summary of the activities of the program.
*Appellate Case No. 2023-0016089 (February 8, 2024)