They could. Feralegals and Notarios get talked up about once every 7 years and then we do nothing about it.

Stop hiring paralegals. They do not even have to have a high school education. People know this going on. I am sorry when people get ripped off, but this is insane.

I believe the radio DJ Mark Diciero has a show on Sunny 106.5 during the weekends. I would be surprised if he has the time to run a UPL firm.

If the show is only voice-tracked (almost all are) and it's only on the weekends, it would be a very minimal commitment of time (probably less than an hour per week). I have no idea if they are the same person, however.

DiCiero does solid work and writes under supervision of counsel. He's either attending Boyd at night or is about to.

Same guy.

Prior to launching Pro Se PROS, Mark was a top-rated Las Vegas morning radio host. He was named "Best Radio Personality" by the Las Vegas Review-Journal (for thirteen consecutive years), Las Vegas Weekly, CityLife, and the Las Vegas Electronic Media Awards. Nationally, Mark was named "Local Air Personality of the Year" by Billboard and Airplay Monitor magazines in 2000.

Alex Falconi of Our Nevada Judges is also a partner, it appears. Another bright guy who does strong appellate work.

If he is a student at Boyd isn't the solution here for the Bar to deny him admission for practicing law without a license? As I recall, isn't that a question on the bar application?

Just out of curiosity, shouldn't you keep these privileged discussions between a "potential" client and her lawyer as confidential? Doesn't this apply to the core meaning of litigation privilege?

Either way, just because use the term "potential" before the word client, it does not abolish you of your duty to protect the comments and remarks this client entrusted you with during your meeting with her yesterday.

In all fairness, since what you complain about and your comments give the mere appearance it involves an active crime being committed, I could proceed on application for a subpoena duces tecum for production of your ip address from this website to obtain your identity, in order to come after your intake files and notes to determine if this "potential" client is adversary to one of my clients.

This would all be due to the urge you felt to come on here under "anonymous" and complain about some nonsensical argument to justify your rate quoted to her, in turn voluntarily waiving your clients right to litigation privilege, because it made you feel more relevant?

How about you direct this negative energy to focus on a winning strategy for your client, or even look for a solution to this purported problem you allege will affect your performance and ability as a lawyer, instead of violating your own duties as a licensed lawyer of this state, subjecting yourself to a nasty lawsuit.

Let's come up with an alternative for a positive outcome and learn to work with everyone.

Any solid lawyer would never complain about some papers filed as those all can be easily addressed through a motion to strike, if there was in fact filings done that adversely affected her rights that she did not ask for. It may be wise for everyone to realize many clients peruse this blog and use the same complaints you lodge as a basis to work you for reduced rates or free work. They all know the sexy thing doesn't really work anymore. lmao

Careful what you say, as the paralegal would have had to prepare extensive papers for your client to file and then those be denied as having absolutely no merit, which must be fully supported by the trier of facts recital of the record with the duplicative requests that were denied with after a hearing was held, and then the substantive evidence the paralegal had a duty to know such had occurred.

Licensed document prep company. Other than a general business license, licensed to do what? Are they filling in the blanks of preprinted forms? Are they selecting the form and substance for allegations and evidence in pleadings?

In the 1958 decision, Pioneer Title v. State Bar, the State Bar had obtained an injunction against Pioneer Title Company from preparing any documents for parties to a typical real estate sales transaction, and Pioneer appealed. "The need for legal counselling in any transaction is a question which must be decided by the person whose legal rights are involved. If, in his judgment, he does not need advice as to his legal rights or assistance with respect to them, no one can complain of his self-reliance. Such a case must be a true case of self-reliance, however. If reliance be placed upon the judgment of others as to his legal rights, the case is different. If advice or judgment is professionally given by one not a party to the transaction and not an attorney, a problem in unauthorized practice is presented."

Under Pioneer Title, then, the practice of law is implicated whenever a person is faced with a legal issue that cannot be handled by resort to routine forms or customs, and when the person makes the decision not to rely on his or her own judgment but to obtain assistance from someone else, a stranger to the situation. In the interest of public protection, Pioneer Title holds that the person must be a lawyer.

In In Re Lerner, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that "A key distinction drawn by many courts in determining whether a given activity is the practice of law is whether the services include the application of the general body of legal knowledge to a client's specific problem. . . . whether an unlicensed person offers 'advice or judgment about legal matters to another person for use in a specific legal setting.'" The Court in Lerner went on to note that "simply providing forms or offering a service to type client-provided information onto the forms was not the practice of law, but advising the client about how to complete a form, e.g., what information to include and on what portions of the form, was the practice of law."

Yeah having read the website, pretty clear that Pro Se Pros crosses WAAAAAY over that line.

@ AnonymousJune 19, 2019 at 2:44 PM: That is exactly why qualified paralegals should never register as a document preparer, as they do not just type papers. It could potentially be used to restrict those who are finishing up their education from ever gaining admission into the bar association, since anything done while a document preparer has your required stamp, and is outside of self-help forms constitutes an act of UPL.

If he is supervised by Counsel, that was the smartest thing he could have done to protect himself from a denial for admission. However, should his stamp be on prior work done under a document preparer those will haunt him. It maybe wise to take down the Pro Se Pro's as they will use it against him since he doesn't state supervised by a lawyer. Good luck with that one.

Btw, aren't non-profits exempt from registration as a document preparer? Hmmmmm, interesting to wonder if anyone ever really finds out if these "potential" clients ever paid any money?

2:49, it would be quite a leap to assume that you are either a notario or "paralegal."

3:03 – Are you a paralegal? The op did not say anything that would waive the litigation privilege. The op also didn't say anything that would waive the attorney-client privilege, which is what I assume you meant because the litigation privilege relates to defamation claims.

Also, lol at thinking you could subpoena the op's IP address to see if someone who came into his or her office after being screwed by a paralegal practicing law was adverse to one of your clients.

The final paragraph of your post is a nonsensical stringing together of legal sounding words that does not make any sense to me, but if you care to elaborate I am sure we would all find it fascinating.

@ AnonymousJune 19, 2019 at 4:13 PM – Attorney-client privilege protects information from discovery if the “5 C’s” are met:
(1) the information was delivered Confidentially;
(2) the information was delivered as a Communication;
(3) the information was delivered by or to Counsel (an attorney);
(4) the information was delivered by or to a Client; and
(5) the information was delivered for the purpose of giving or receiving Counsel (legal assistance). Restatement (Third). The confidentiality requirement requires that the privileged communication NOT be divulged to a third party (someone not counsel or client). Acceleration Bay at *7. Voluntary disclosure of information to a third party typically waives privilege. Thus, when privileged communications are disclosed to third parties; or non-parties to a litigation, confidentiality is usually breached and privilege is waived. Because privilege is waived when confidentiality is breached these communications could now be discoverable. Now, let's consider the federal application of absolute immunity. Provided below, is an excerpt from a federal decision that will point you in a direction to further your research. I absolutely respect the fact of your belief in your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree as to your interpretation of litigation privilege. There are limits to the protections of the privilege. Although frequently described as having a broad or liberal applicability, there are bounds within which the doctrine operates, with its applicability being a question of law for the courts. "In a recent Federal WireTap Act Title III Claim, a mom sued her former spouse for intentionally intercepting protected communications from her home, transcribing them to written form, in which he intentionally disseminated those protected communications in a state court domestic action, and through online platforms to third parties. Mom also listed dad's attorney, who in the Course of litigation, used the same transcripts in the domestic matter as a basis to modify custody. After extensive motion practice, hearings, and testimony, the federal court judge recently held, that: "The litigation privilege does not, in the context of Wiretap Act claims, serve as a complete bar to liability. In Babb v. Eagleton, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Okla. 2007), the court held that a “litigation privilege” does not create absolute immunity from Title III liability. Id. at 1207. While the attorney in his professional capacity received 1st amendment immunity, he in his personal capacity litigation privilege was lost, after the court based its holding on three separate but connected reasons: cases applying the litigation privilege applied it to state law claims, not federal claims; Tenth Circuit precedent “seems to forbid applying ‘state law or policy’ as a defense to Title III liability;” and other “courts have allowed Title III claims to proceed against attorneys even when the attorney used the intercepted communication during the course of judicial proceedings.” Id. As such, the federal court agreed with the holding and reasoning of Babb, and did not apply a litigation privilege to absolutely immunize defendant from Title III liability. See id." Also, the Inez Court (N.J. 2014), held that "although plaintiffs were non-clients, the court found they were owed a duty of care. Furthermore, Rule 1.15(a) of the RPC applies not only to clients, but to third parties, as well. This breach of an accepted standard of legal practice may have been an obstacle to the litigation privilege’s applicability. With a duty of care comes responsibilities, and breaching one of the RPC rules by failing to safeguard property may have precluded application of the litigation privilege."
Without getting into a debate with you, or throwing insults, understand that the comments made were done to raise awareness, which if not checked could bite you in the ass as to your duty, breach of confidentiality, thus resulting in loss of litigation privilege.

AnonymousJune 20, 2019 at 11:43 AM :
1. Date of Meeting
2. Female Client
3. Potential Litigation Strategy as to Defenses

1:25 must work for bar counsel. They don't understand RPC if it smacked them in the face.

Revealing facts about the representation or the potential representation of a client violates attorney client privilege.

You are wrong, 2:41. Glad you are not my paralegal

I am not 2:58, but privilege extends to lawyers employees, such as paralegals.