On February 4, the State Bar of Georgia Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law held a public meeting to consider whether the right to prepare articles of incorporation should be limited to lawyers alone. HALT submitted written comments to the standing committee, pointing out that preparing articles of incorporation is not the practice of law while underscoring the necessity of protecting legal consumer access to nonlawyer service providers- such as accountants or legal document preparers.

The Georgia Bar's consideration of this issue follows a series of similar cases across the nation. Recent decisions to strike down these unauthorized practice opinions in several states represent a growing trend toward protecting consumers against a legal monopoly over services that do not demand a lawyer. Unfortunately, Georgia's stance on the practice of law has run contrary to the consumer-friendly positions of states like California, Arizona and Utah. In 2003, Georgia declared nonlawyers-including employees of title companies, mortgage firms and banks-who prepare or facilitate real estate closings to be engaging in the unlicensed practice of law.

"Georgia has always led the South in welcoming a modern, flexible economy. However, these anticompetitive measures show that the lawyer monopoly is battling the new economy rather than embracing it," says HALT Senior Counsel Thomas Gordon.

HALT advocates a continuum of legal services to match the continuum of legal consumer needs. This not only connects consumers with the most qualified service provider, but it also promotes an atmosphere of competition and consumer choice. Urging the standing committee to consider these aspects of the public interest at stake, Gordon stated, "To use the regulatory power of the Georgia Bar to prohibit competition is a disservice to consumers."

HALT has worked to abolish a number of other unauthorized practice restrictions that unnecessarily thwart competition in order to protect lawyers. HALT holds up the simple definition that the unauthorized practice of law means saying you are a lawyer when you are not.

HALT has begun work on the 2005 Lawyer Discipline Report Card, which we expect to release this fall. HALT is busy sending questionnaires to disciplinary officials across the country, researching the rules of procedure in all 51 jurisdictions, analyzing new statistics from the American Bar Association and evaluating the Web sites of state discipline bodies. A unique feature of this year's Report Card will be our Progress Report, highlighting improvements and declines since HALT's 2002 evaluation. In addition, we will feature a "Heroes and Villains" list of the best and worst agencies, a "Gag Rule" chart focusing on overbroad confidentiality requirements in certain states and a Budget Analysis, HALT's first-ever evaluation of the dollars agencies spend on policing lawyers. We'll keep you updated as results unfold! Stay tuned...

Alabama: Lawyer Accountability

HALT persuaded Alabama State Senator Quinton Ross to introduce legislation in the 2005 session that will require lawyers to carry a minimum level of malpractice insurance. HALT is now working with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass Alabama Senate Bill 210. If Alabama decides to adopt the legislation, the state will join Oregon-the only jurisdiction in the nation that requires attorneys to obtain insurance coverage.

Arizona: Lawyer Accountability

At a February 18, 2005 meeting, the Arizona Bar Board of Governors will consider a proposal to post disciplinary history for the state's attorneys on the bar's Web site. Currently, the bar only publishes disciplinary actions in the state's bar journal, Arizona Attorney. Legal consumers can also obtain the information by calling the bar. During the spring of 2005, the Arizona Bar will consider whether it should provide full disciplinary histories-including informal reprimands and probation-on the Web, instead of publishing only sanctions of censure, suspension or disbarment. HALT will urge the Arizona Bar to publish full and easily accessible disciplinary histories, in order to arm legal consumers with vital information about the state's lawyers. To read about HALT's Lawyer Accountability Project, please click here.

California: Judicial Integrity

HALT is urging the California Commission on Judicial Performance to strengthen rules in place for delinquent judges. In particular, HALT is calling for suspension without pay for serious offenders-a form of discipline that California has never instituted in sanctioning aberrant judges.

Delaware: Lawyer Accountability

The Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel launched an online database of lawyer disciplinary matters in January 2005. Legal consumers can enter a particular attorney's name in a search engine to access the lawyer's disciplinary history, if any. Although attorney names are not listed among the private disciplinary matters included in the database, the new service represents a step in the right direction toward arming Delaware's legal consumers with vital information about the state's lawyers. HALT is working with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to make its database more "consumer- friendly." To visit the database, click here.

Hawaii: Freedom of Legal Information

Throughout 2005, one of Hawaii's family courts will hold monthly sessions of "Divorce Law in Hawaii," a free session for the public offering an overview on the process and tips on finding self-help resources. In early 2005, HALT sent the court a letter praising the program, which recognizes the importance of educating nonlawyers so they can take control of their legal affairs. To read more about HALT's Freedom of Legal Information Project, click here.

Iowa: Lawyer Accountability

Beginning February 1, 2005, the Iowa Supreme Court will expand its online listing of attorney discipline matters to include public reprimand orders and disbarment on consent orders. The listing previously included only attorney discipline imposed by formal opinion of the Court. HALT has urged state lawyer discipline bodies to publish full and easily accessible disciplinary histories, in order to arm legal consumers with vital information about the state's lawyers. To read more about HALT's Lawyer Accountability Project, click here.

Montana: Lawyer Accountability

Through input from our members, HALT has learned that the Montana State Bar Association is "gagging" consumers from speaking publicly about their complaints against lawyers. A consumer will face punishment if she decides to disclose to anyone, including family members and friends, that she has filed a complaint. HALT is working with Montana members to persuade the State Bar to put an end to this unconstitutional practice.

New Hampshire: Freedom of Legal Information

Senator Joseph Foster recently introduced Senate Bill 63. If passed, this bill would establish a fund to pay the costs of a mediation program in the district courts. This fund would be supported by a $5 surcharge on each small claims court claim filed. Participation in mediation would not be mandated, and the funds would never be available for another use. HALT supports expanding the role of mediation and arbitration in litigation, as long as it is not binding on the defendant. Click here for more information on the bill.

New Mexico: Freedom of Legal Information

Senator H. Diane Snyder recently introduced Senate Bill 544, which would prohibit certain actions as the unauthorized practice if law. While this bill does make exceptions for paralegals and other non-lawyer service providers, it is vague and overbroad enough that HALT opposes its passage. With a bill like this on the books, nearly any form of advice would qualify as the "practice of law." Stay tuned for more HALT action on this item. Click here to read the bill.

New York: Judicial Integrity

In February 2005, the New York State Bar Association adopted a proposal that will make it easier for litigants to learn of their judges' possible economic conflicts. This proposal will require judges to disclose when they have judged their interests to be minimal, establish a standard for what sort of holding is minimal, and create a council that would advise judges in these matters. HALT has worked to make the financial information of judges more available to litigants all across the country. Read about more of HALT's work here.

Virginia: Lawyer Accountability

In February 2005, HALT wrote to the Virginia State Bar, urging the bar to strengthen rules that require attorneys to disclose whether they carry malpractice insurance. HALT is asking that lawyers report their insurance status every 30 days to ensure that Virginian legal consumers have up-to-date information when determining whether to retain a particular attorney.

Wisconsin: Lawyer Accountability

In January 2005, the Wisconsin Board of Governors voted on new Ethics 2000 rules that were proposed by the bar. Unfortunately for Wisconsin consumers, the board rejected a bar recommendation that would have required written fee agreements. As HALT members know, written fee agreements are an important tool in managing a lawyer's fees. We are disappointed that the board rejected this common- sense consumer protection. Click here to see HALT's Legal Consumer Bill of Rights, which includes written fee agreements.

Wisconsin: Freedom of Legal Information

Wisconsinites going through a divorce will have a new resource starting in spring 2005. The court system is putting the finishing touches on a project to create a set of standardized pro se divorce forms that can be used throughout the state. These forms will be available in courthouses and on the state's Web site.

Because workers offer their services in exchange for compensation, contract law governs their relationship with their employers. Unless you negotiate an employment agreement or contract that states otherwise, an employer can change your responsibilities, change your rate of pay, fire you, fail to promote you or refuse to hire you for almost any reason. The laws described below define the only limits on your employer's right to employ you "at will."

Consequently, to protect your rights you should have an employment contract. It's best to have a written contract that you and your employer tailor to your position. It should cover wages, hours, benefits, job responsibilities, promotion possibilities and include a clause that you can only be fired "for just cause."

Not all employers will agree to such a contract, and given the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, it will be difficult for you to insist on one. However, several types of employment contracts are enforceable. A union agreement is a contract, and about half the states recognize "implied contracts"-including verbal agreements, company personnel policies, job descriptions and the general practices of the company. Before starting your job, you should clearly establish with your employer the type and terms of your contract if you cannot get one that is written specifically for you.

Your employer may also have an employment manual or handbook. Most of these expressly state that your employment will be "at will," but some may not and may create certain rights and guarantees regarding your employment.

Laws that limit "employment at will" outlaw certain kinds of discrimination in the workplace and set minimum standards for wages, job safety, retirement, disability benefits and unemployment compensation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that protects you from discrimination by an employer with more than 15 employees based on race, religion, sex (which includes sexual harassment), color, pregnancy or national origin. Except in Affirmative Action programs designed to redress previous patterns of racial discrimination, your employer is forbidden to treat you differently from other employees for any of these reasons when hiring, firing, promoting or setting conditions of employment. State and local Fair Employment Practice (FEP) laws are similar to Title VII and sometimes protect employees from discrimination on additional grounds, such as sexual orientation, political affiliation, criminal record and marital status.

Additionally, workers age 40 and above are protected from discrimination by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This Act applies to all private employers that have at least 20 employees and to federal and local governments. Not only does this protect people from being discriminated against in hiring but also from being unfairly targeted for layoffs. Also, the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against federal government employees with disabilities, while the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against disabled employees in the private sector and in state and local government. The Equal Pay Act, which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibits employers from paying male and female employees different amounts for equivalent work. The Equal Pay Act not only compels employers to give equal wages, but also fringe benefits, vacation time, bonuses and other employment benefits for comparable work.