Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You

The Alliance of Legal Document Assistant Professionals (ALDAP) recently received a membership inquiry from a (then) anonymous LDA who, in turn, took ALDAP's remarks out of context and specifically for his own use in defending his business practices in an action brought by the California State Bar. Our Board took immediate action in the form of correspondence as set forth below, to dispute Mr. Hernandez' contention that ALDAP supports his position. We publish our correspondence as written to Mr. Hernandez, as we wish to warn fellow legal document preparers that writings and any other type of personal interaction may be used out of context exposing each of us to potential harm or ostensible disrepute. Use caution in your dealings with others.
======

April 28, 2009

Re: Los Angeles Superior Court Case # BS120117 (IN RE PAUL L. HERNANDEZ)

Dear Mr. Hernandez:

The Alliance of Legal Document Assistant Professionals, Inc. (ALDAP) has not proffered any support for your position regarding the above-captioned case. As such, I was quite surprised to see ALDAP’s comments to you regarding the requirements of Business & Professions Code section 6400, et seq. taken out of context in your Ex Parte Application for Injunctive Relief pertaining to the current action against you under Business & Professions Code section 6126.3.

As you well know, your inquiry to this association consisted of a question regarding ALDAP membership benefits and “what should go on the contract per state bar [sic] requirements.” This question led to a discussion of, and attempt to clarify, Business & Professions Code section 6400, et seq., the source of the required LDA contract language pursuant to section 6410 (Department of Consumer Affairs), and the way misdemeanor violations of this chapter are prosecuted (see enclosed). At no time did you identify yourself as the subject of a State Bar proceeding, nor did you address in any way the subject of the unauthorized practice of law (Bus. & Prof. Code s 6125, et seq.) or your own business practices that were under investigation.

ALDAP does not condone any practitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements pertaining to legal document assistants (§ 6400 et seq.), paralegals (§ 6450 et seq.), or the unauthorized practice of law (§ 6125 et seq.). Your attempt to utilize ALDAP’s email responses to a membership inquiry and questions about who has the authority to criminally prosecute those who violate section 6400, in an effort to defend yourself in a proceeding brought under an entirely different chapter of the Business & Professions Code, is unacceptable.

By your own admission in the attachment you sent to ALDAP (entitled “state bar april 17 ex parte FINAL.doc”), you communicated to a “consumer” your interpretation and advice that a standing restraining order was a remedy to her particular situation as printed on the second page of the family law summons. ALDAP neither accepts nor rejects your contentions or defenses. It does appear however, that you may not have implemented business policies and procedures that would ensure complete compliance with all applicable sections of the Business & Professions Code, and which would protect both the public and your own business interests.

Please refrain from any future attempts to imply that this association supports your business practices or wishes to engage in any attempt to influence the outcome of your court proceedings.

Very truly yours,

Kathleen Mountjoy, LDA
President
Enc.

cc:
Brook A. Schafer Office of Chief Trial Counsel State Bar of California
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Hon. James C. Chalfant
Department 85
Los Angeles Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

======
From: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:39 PM
To: info@ALDAP.org
Subject: (no subject)

do you give out certificates of membership in good standing, what other services?? do help prepare a contract agreement and what should go on the contract per state bar requirements?? P. Hernandez, LDA, MSW

======
From: ALDAP Treasurer [treasurer@aldap.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:29 AM
To: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Cc: 'President@ALDAP.org'

Subject: RE: ALDAP Membership

Yes, members receive membership certificates. Member benefits include The Scrivener quarterly newsletter, access to “The Pleading Vault” and the ALDAP online discussion group. During the month of April, we are making the spring issue of the newsletter available to the public (click here for the link to download: http://www.aldap.com/members.htm). The State Bar only regulates licensed attorneys, not LDAs. The required language for the LDA contract was written by the Department of Consumer Affairs, and is set forth in 16 CCR § 3950. We have uploaded the contract language, in its entirety on Scribe, ALDAP’s blog. You can view that entry at http://legaldocumentassistant.blogspot.com/2007/12/legal-document-assistant-contract.html. At this time, ALDAP membership is not required to subscribe to Scribe and receive notification of new posts automatically. If you have further questions, please let me know. Thank you for your interest in ALDAP.


======

From: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:12 AM
To: treasurer@aldap.org
Subject: Re: ALDAP Membership

State Bar does regulate LDAs as it pertains to advertisements, contracts, unlawful practice of law, they can close you up, and do much damage.

======
From: ALDAP Treasurer [treasurer@aldap.org]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:32 AM
To: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Subject: RE: ALDAP Membership

No, not exactly. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6400, et seq. sets forth the requirements for LDAs, and has nothing to do with the State Bar Act, which commences with § 6000. Violations of 6400 et seq. misdemeanors which must be prosecuted by the District Attorney. LDAs are definitely NOT regulated by the State Bar, a California agency that only has the power to regulate licensed attorneys. A limited exception applies in that the Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel can seek a court order that permits the Bar to seize the files of a law practice that is being operated by a non-attorney, whether or not that person is a disbarred attorney, a rogue “paralegal,” a mortgage broker, an accountant, or even an LDA – pretty much anyone who crosses the line and is engaged in the “practice of law” without being a member in good standing of the California State Bar. This strictly relates to UPL, and they must get a court order before seizing files. The Bar’s action only pertains to the seizure of client files re UPL, not the prosecution of an LDA for violations of 6400 et seq., or anything pertaining to his advertising or compliance (or lack thereof) with 6400 et seq. (That is not to say that the Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel wouldn’t/couldn’t turn over their findings to the District Attorney for investigation/prosecution.)

======
From: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:24 PM
To: treasurer@aldap.org
Subject: Re: ALDAP Membership

CAN A STATE BAR TAKE AWAY LDA LICENSE OR KEEP HIM FROM PRACTICING LDA BUSINESS OTHER THAN TAKING CLIENT FILES;



======
From: ALDAP Treasurer [treasurer@aldap.org]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:43 PM
To: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Subject: RE: ALDAP Membership

Not that I am aware of. Not directly, anyway. There is no LDA “license” and the registrations are handled county-by-county. However, the Bus & Prof Code specifies that the County Clerk must revoke (or refuse to register) an LDA for a variety of reasons, including a UPL conviction, fraud, conviction for violation of 6400 et seq. (see B&P 6406 and 6413). If a Bar Association action (e.g. seizure of files) prompts a District Attorney investigation and subsequent prosecution, then that could very well have a negative impact on an LDA’s registration, as per the code sections cited above. But the California State Bar does not, itself, have any authority over the registration or bond requirements of LDAs. They only have jurisdiction over the attorney’s license to practice law. Are you the LDA who had a visit from the State Bar last week?


======
From: EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:32 AM
To: treasurer@aldap.org
Subject: Re: ALDAP Membership

Yes I am. It was a personal vendetta. They said that one of their investigators came to office and posed as client and that I gave him little advice. I have done some 20,000 cases and I have never had a complaint. This was a lie as that investagor had been calling me last year posing as a client and I knew that he was trying to entrap me. All of my flyers have NOT an attorney, cannot give legal advice. I was not even here the day he says he came and I could not even recognize as he says he came just three weeks ago. The State Bar went way over board in seizing my personal bills, the log showing that the investigator had never been there, 10 reams of typing paper, new filing files, my medicines, broke one of my computers, took my calendar book, my telepone log that would prove their investigator was calling me last year trying to entrap me. and personal law files on my desk. They confiscated 40,000 of my flyers that all conformed to their requirements and state my license number, not an attorney, lda licensed and bonded. One flyer had "the experts" and they say that constituted practice of law in defrauding public that I am an expert in giving legal advice. The deputy chief trial counsel made racial slurs and kept referring to a letter I sent them last year and shot them down for stating that I had no license when in fact I had a license. He kept yelling at me, watch and see what we can do this time I went to ex parte hearing to get many of the things back that were not client files. The judge made them return many items. Further, they printed in state bar release that they had shut me down. The Deputy Trial counsel denied doing this yet my attorney showed him the release because the Deputy had told me that I could keep operating just do not go overboard. The Deputy stated in court and to my attorney that they had not shut me down, and that the release was probably a misunderstanding. I have an OSC on May 7, 2009 to object to their Application under UPL. Basically, they have one witness and one flyer against me. I have had many clients calling me to go to court with me and defend me against the allegations. I have a win ratio of 98% in pro per. Many attorneys are jealous of me. I have 37 years in the field. Do you have any case law re the State Bar and LDA that were false accused?? Please advise me. see the following:

(Editor's Note: "the following" consisted of an attached Word document with a portion of the Ex Parte Application referenced above)