"The lawyer monopoly has clearly gone too far when it tells mortgage bankers that filling in the blanks of a mortgage loan form is the practice of law," said HALT Senior Counsel Tom Gordon. "Any reasonable person would call this the practice of mortgage banking and tell lawyers to mind their own business instead of trying to take over the business of others."

HALT encouraged the court to consider the danger of reversing the Appeals Court's ruling, thus broadening the definition of the practice of law and widening the lawyer monopoly over legal services. According to the American Bar Association, 38 million people are shut out of the legal system every year because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer. By curbing consumer access to qualified, low cost nonlawyers, this situation only stands to deteriorate.

As HALT argues in its brief, restrictions on unauthorized practice of law protect lawyers from economic competition at the expense of consumers. By upholding the Appeals Court decision, the court can reject protectionist arguments and embrace consumer choice. Furthermore, while it is indeed the court's duty to regulate lawyers, the court would be overstepping its bounds-and stepping into the legislature's territory-by attempting to regulate nonlawyers.

If it follows HALT's recommendations, Illinois' Supreme Court would follow similar decisions made by courts in New Jersey and Kentucky and the legislature in Virginia. HALT has worked to abolish other unwarranted unauthorized practice of law statutes across the nation. HALT has also urged state courts and bar associations to adopt its own narrow model definition of the practice of law, which says that unauthorized practice of law means saying you are a lawyer when you are not.