O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-19-56 (2019)

Penalty for prohibited conduct

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person, corporation, or voluntary association violating Code Section 15-19-51, 15-19-53, 15-19-54, or 15-19-55 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Every officer, trustee, director, agent, or employee of a corporation or voluntary association who directly or indirectly engages in any of the acts prohibited in Code Section 15-19-51, 15-19-53, 15-19-54, or 15-19-55 or assists a corporation or voluntary association in performing the prohibited acts shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The fact that the person is a duly and regularly admitted attorney at law shall not be held to permit or allow the corporation or voluntary association to do the acts prohibited in such Code sections, nor shall the fact be a defense upon the trial of any person mentioned therein for a violation of those Code sections. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any court having jurisdiction from punishing the corporation or its officers for contempt.

History

(Ga. L. 1931, p. 191, § 1; Code 1933, § 9-9903; Ga. L. 1975, p. 755, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Legislative intent. - This section, which no longer controls the practice of law in Georgia, continues to be a valid and subsisting statute imposing criminal sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law described therein, and was enacted by the General Assembly to protect the public interest in aid of the judiciary's constitutional function. Huber v. State, 234 Ga. 357, 216 S.E.2d 73 (1975).

Imposition of penalty amounts to prohibition of contract made in violation of section. - General rule of law is that when the license required by the statute is for the protection of the public and to prevent improper persons from acting in a particular capacity, and is not for revenue purposes only, the imposition of the penalty amounts to a positive prohibition of a contract made in violation of the statute. Lowe v. Presley, 86 Ga. App. 328, 71 S.E.2d 730 (1952).

No private right of action. - Alleged contemnor, who claimed that an attorney signed a declaration related to a motion to hold the contemnor in contempt concerning events occurring two to four days before the attorney was licensed to practice law, could not assert a private right of action for the unauthorized practice of law against the attorney because Georgia law did not recognize such a right of action as the remedies for the unauthorized practice of law included criminal sanctions and allowing the state bar and certain bar organizations to pursue injunctive relief. Oswell v. Nixon, 275 Ga. App. 205, 620 S.E.2d 419 (2005).

Evidence sufficient to support conviction for unauthorized practice of law. - See Gaines v. State, 177 Ga. App. 795, 341 S.E.2d 252 (1986).

Company representation before board valid. - Agreement in which a company committed itself to represent a taxpayer's interests before the board of equalization was not void as constituting the unauthorized practice of law. Grand Partners Joint Venture I v. Realtax Resource, Inc., 225 Ga. App. 409, 483 S.E.2d 922 (1997).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, §§ 135, 136.

C.J.S. - 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 41.

ALR. - Right of one not admitted to practice, or unlicensed, to recover compensation for legal services, 4 A.L.R. 1087; 118 A.L.R. 646.

Practicing or pretending to practice law without authority as contempt, 36 A.L.R. 533; 100 A.L.R. 236.

Liability of attorney for services rendered to him by one not admitted to bar as affected by the fact that they amounted to practice of law by the latter, 90 A.L.R. 288.

What amounts to practice of law, 151 A.L.R. 781.

Right of corporation to perform or to hold itself out as ready to perform functions in the nature of legal services, 157 A.L.R. 282.

Operations of collection agency as unauthorized practice of law, 27 A.L.R.3d 1152.

Right of party litigant to defend or counterclaim on ground that opposing party or his attorney is engaged in unauthorized practice of law, 7 A.L.R.4th 1146.

Unauthorized practice of law as contempt, 40 A.L.R.6th 463.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2003–2005 · leading case: In re Attorneys at Law & Debt Relief Agencies, 332 B.R. 66 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2005).
In re Attorneys at Law & Debt Relief Agencies, 332 B.R. 66 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2005). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 15-19-56. However, the likelihood of effective enforcement of those remedies by the organized bar varies from state to state, is restricted by limited availability of resources, and often cannot occur in a time-sensitive period so as to protect the consumer.”
Oswell v. Nixon, 620 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “9 See OCGA §§ 15-19-56; 15-19-58. 10 See Dixon v.”
Rice v. Lightmas, 577 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “OCGA §§ 15-19-56; 15-19-57; 15-19-58. See Huber v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.