THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
COUNSELING, RESEARCH AND TRAINING SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN H. DALE, JR., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court permanently enjoined respondents from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after they admitted to advertising legal counseling and advice services without being licensed attorneys.
Respondents who are not licensed attorneys and advertised legal counseling and advice services are permanently enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
[1] Persons not licensed to practice law who advertise legal counseling and advice services engage in unauthorized practice of law subject to permanent injunction.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCounseling, Research and Training Services, Inc. and John H. Dale, Jr. advertised in a local newspaper offering legal counseling and legal advice for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on Petition Against Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule to Show Cause issued thereon.
Respondents are charged with, and have admitted, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The activities in question included advertising in a local newspaper the offer to provide both legal counselling and the giving of legal advice for a fee. None of the respondents are members of The Florida Bar and are not, therefore, licensed to engage in the practice of law in this State.
On July 25, 1972, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why respondents should not be held in contempt. Respondents have answered, consenting to the entry of a permanent injunction but praying that this Court not hold them in contempt.
The Florida Bar informs us that respondents have ceased the activities complained of and to date, so far as the Bar knows, have not resumed the unauthorized practice of law.
Accordingly, we withhold adjudication of contempt without prejudice to- further proceedings by the Bar should any further activities constituting the unauthorized *366practice of law by respondents become known and respondents are permanently enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in this State.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.