GoDocs has identified certain states that actively enforce their unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”) laws more than others as it relates to the preparation of loan documentation. Those states are: Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. For this reason, GoDocs, by default, opts customers in to a UPL review by a LegalNet law firm for orders where the real property collateral securing the loan is located in any one of those states. That said, based on the customer’s risk tolerance, the customer may opt out of this default setting for each of those states. Relatedly, customers may affirmatively choose to have a LegalNet law firm conduct a UPL review for any other state that it so chooses.
For these states where the customer opts into the GoDocs LegalNet local counsel review, DRAFT documents are sent to the respective GoDocs LegalNet firm before they are delivered to the customer or marked as complete and ready for use. These DRAFT files are automatically sent with the submission of Standard support orders and you will be alerted via a separate email once the local counsel has completed their review and uploaded finalized documents.
As a courtesy, the GoDocs invoice for such orders will include as cost items, certain legal fees payable in connection with the matter. These legal fees are not GoDocs fees and GoDocs does not receive any portion of those fees, nor do(es) the law firm(s) receive any portion of the GoDocs fees. Upon receipt of payment of such invoice GoDocs will pay the applicable law firm(s). Customers shall be responsible for any additional fees payable to the applicable law firm(s).
Below please find the applicable governing law in each of Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas, which construe the preparation of loan documentation or certain material documents in connection therewith, such as security instruments, as constituting the practice of law. To not involve an attorney could be tantamount to the unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”) in those states. Please note, a state’s case law may set forth the UPL law in that state as opposed to being codified in a statute.
Kentucky
Case Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 113 S.W.3d 105, 121 & 127-128 (Ky. 2003); Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank of Louisville v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 540 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Ky. 1976)
Ohio
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 193 N.E. 650, 652 (Ohio 1934)Also note two relatively recent advisory opinions: Supreme Court of Ohio, Advisory Opinion UPL 2008-03, 1 (2008); Supreme Court of Ohio, Advisory Opinion UPL 2008-02, 2 (2008)
South Carolina
Doe v. McMaster, 585 S.E. 2d 773, 777 (S.C. 2002); State v. Buyers Service Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426 (1987); In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 2010, 211 (S.C. 1909); Wachovia Bank v. Coffey, 698 S.E.2d 244, 247-48 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010)
Texas
Texas Gov’t Code §§ 83.001, 83.006
North Carolina
IN.C.G.S.A. § 84-2.1.