Unlicensed Practice of Law Prohibited to Protect the Public from Being Advised and Represented In Legal Matters by Unqualified Persons
In Florida Bar v. Schramek, 616 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1993) the Court found no merit to the nonlawyer's allegation that the regulation of nonlawyers unconstitutionally deprived him of his right to engage in business.
In so holding, this Court stated that "prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law is 'not done to aid or protect the members of the legal profession either in creating or maintaining a monopoly or closed shop.
It is done to protect the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons.'" Id. (quoting State ex rel. Fla. Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 595 (Fla. 19962));
See also Florida Bar v. Furman, 376 So. 2d 378, 381 (Fla. 1979) (adopting referee's report in UPL case where referee stated "the fact she is an expert stenographer does not give her any legal right to engage in divorce and adoption practice anymore than a nurse has the right to set up an office for performing tonsillectomy or appendectomy operations or a dental assistant to do extractions or fill teeth").