The Illinois Supreme Court considered disciplinary charges against attorney Jiro Yamaguchi for aiding a nonlawyer, Albert Ebert, in the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in dishonest conduct. Ebert, a real estate broker, filed real estate tax valuation complaints before the Cook County Board of Appeals. These complaints were required to be signed by an attorney or by the owner themself. Yamaguchi signed numerous completed and blank valuation complaint forms and gave them to Ebert. In many instances, Ebert or his secretary signed Yamaguchi’s name and filed the complaints, and Ebert appeared at hearings without attorney supervision.

The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission charged Yamaguchi with violations including dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, aiding the unauthorized practice of law, and failure to disclose fraud to a tribunal. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed that multiple ethical violations occurred and imposed a six-month suspension.

The Court noted that Ebert, the broker, had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. It distinguished the holding in Chicago Bar Association v. Quinlan & Tyson, Inc., which allows a real estate broker to fill in factual data on certain form contracts, with the completion of a valuation complaint in this matter. It found that when Ebert was preparing the valuation complaint, it did not involve mere factual data but he was setting forth the result of his legal analysis of the facts which he deemed justified a tax reevaluation. It also noted that just because this conduct was widely adopted by real estate brokers and perhaps permitted by the tax board, does not make it justified.

Takeaways:

An attorney violates ethical rules by signing pleadings without reviewing them or supervising the matter, particularly when this enables a nonlawyer to perform legal analysis and appear before a tribunal. The court emphasized that the nature of the work—not the setting—determines whether it constitutes the practice of law.

The Court here noted that the broker’s actions – completing the complaint and the appearance before the administrative tribunal – constituted the unauthorized practice of law. It found that the broker’s activities required legal judgment and analysis.