PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff attorney general filed an action of original jurisdiction in the court against defendant, a claims adjuster, claiming that the adjuster engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before the South Carolina Industrial Commission pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The adjuster denied that his acts constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
FACTS: Defendant was a paid representative of the Mutual Liability Insurance Company, which was promised in writing insurance under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Numerous occasions he appeared before the individual commissioners, conducted hearings. Upon this petition, a rule to show cause was issued by the Chief Justice of the court directing defendant to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court. He then returns to admit that he is a salaried claim adjuster employed by said insurance company. It is further alleged that his compensation covers his general services as a claim adjuster and his services at such hearings constitute only a minor part of his duties. It further alleged that he receives for such appearances no special or additional compensation. Defendant denies that any acts of his constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant is guilty for the unauthorized practice of law, which requires that you be licensed to practice law.
HOLDING: Yes, the defendant should be liable