Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractattorneyworkers' compensation

contractattorneylawyerstatuteregulation

Related Cases

Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 765 N.W.2d 691, 2009 ND 87

Facts

Merwin Carlson was injured while working as an over-the-road trucker and initially received workers' compensation benefits from the Workforce Safety & Insurance Commission (WSI). However, after GMR Transportation, Inc. submitted a request for reconsideration through non-resident attorneys not licensed in North Dakota, WSI reversed its decision and denied Carlson benefits, claiming he was an independent contractor. Carlson contested this decision, arguing that the attorneys' actions were unauthorized and that he was entitled to benefits as an employee.

[¶ 2] On July 8, 2005, Carlson was injured in a traffic accident while hauling freight as an over-the-road trucker under a contractual agreement with GMR.

Issue

Did the actions of non-resident attorneys representing GMR Transportation, Inc. in the request for reconsideration of Carlson's workers' compensation claim constitute the unauthorized practice of law in North Dakota?

[¶ 12] Carlson argues WSI erred in deciding GMR's request for reconsideration, because GMR's request was made by attorneys not authorized to practice law in North Dakota.

Rule

The practice of law in North Dakota includes the preparation of legal documents and the representation of clients in legal matters, which must be performed by licensed attorneys. Non-resident attorneys must seek pro hac vice admission to represent clients in North Dakota.

[¶ 17] Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3, unless otherwise provided by law, this Court has authority 'to promulgate rules and regulations for the admission to practice, conduct, disciplining, and disbarment of attorneys at law.'

Analysis

The court determined that the preparation of the request for reconsideration required legal skill and knowledge, thus constituting the practice of law. Since the non-resident attorneys did not obtain pro hac vice admission, their actions were unauthorized. The court concluded that the request for reconsideration was void, as it was made by attorneys not licensed to practice law in North Dakota.

[¶ 25] Under that statute, a request for reconsideration requires more than providing information on a claim form provided by WSI and, contrary to GMR's assertion, is not a 'purely mechanical service that could have been performed by a non-lawyer.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the WSI, holding that the request for reconsideration was void due to the unauthorized practice of law by non-resident attorneys. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[¶ 26] We conclude Stemen's request for reconsideration on behalf of a corporate entity such as GMR was not conduct that could be performed by a non-lawyer and is not subject to the safe harbor of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(b)(5).

Who won?

Merwin Carlson prevailed in the case because the court found that the actions of GMR's non-resident attorneys constituted the unauthorized practice of law, rendering the request for reconsideration void.

[¶ 9] The Supreme Court, Dale V. Sandstrom, J., held that: … employer's request for reconsideration of notice of decision was void.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Blum v. Blum, 59 Md.App. 584, 477 A.2d 289

Reed v. Iowa Marine and Repair Corp., 16 F.3d 82, 28 Fed.R.Serv.3d 415

Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283

Nemeroff v. Abelson, 620 F.2d 339, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 243, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,317, 6 Media L. Rep. 1075

Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213, 288 P.2d 267