Preparation of New Jersey Deed

95 N.J.L.J. 568
June 26, 1975
 

COMMITTEE ON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
 
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
 

OPINION 17

Preparation of New Jersey Deed

Is a member of the bar of a foreign state, not a member of the bar of New Jersey, guilty of the unlawful practice of law in New Jersey if he draws a deed to convey real estate in the State of New Jersey? This question frames the issue for our present consideration.
There is no doubt that the "practice of law embraces the act of conveyancing." Cape May County Bar Association v. Ludlam, 45 N.J. 121, 124, (1965). See Opinion 11, 95 N.J.L.J. 1345 (1972) of this Committee.
"The drawing of legal instruments ... for others ... is clearly within the traditional definition of the practice of law." New Jersey State Bar v. Northern N.J. Mortgage Associates, 32 N.J. 430, 444 (1956). (See Opinion 5, 94 N.J.L.J. 303 (1975) of this Committee).
 
This Committee has also held in its Opinion 1, 91 N.J.L.J. 656 (1968) that a member of the bar of a foreign state, not a member of the bar of New Jersey, may not represent a resident of this state in a transaction involving the purchase of real estate in New Jersey, citing, in addition to the two cases noted above, Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313 (1964).

This Committee has also held in Opinion 7, 94 N.J.L.J. 1077 (1971)
"The fact that an attorney is admitted to practice in another state does not give him any right whatever to practice law in the State unless he becomes a member of the New Jersey Bar or is otherwise authorized to practice by our Supreme Court R. 1:21 ..."
 
Further, the fact that the foreign attorney may never set foot within this jurisdiction is immaterial for the clear intent of his act in the preparation of a deed to convey real estate in New Jersey is to affect real property, the parties and their respective rights and duties as governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey. The touchstone of all decisions governing the unauthorized practice of law is the public interest. Auerbacher v. Wood, 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 486 (E. & A. 1948).
The laws of New Jersey governing real estate often differ materially from the laws of foreign states. For example, the law of New Jersey as to dower and curtesy is quite different from that of many states, and in this important area, it is doubtful whether the foreign attorney has the necessary skill and knowledge to efficiently serve his client. If the foreign attorney believes there is special reason why he should prepare a deed affecting New Jersey real property, the proper procedure for him to follow is to forward the deed as prepared by him to a New Jersey attorney to approve its conformity with New Jersey law. By so doing, the public interest is fully served.
Therefore, we conclude that a member of the bar of a foreign
state, not a member of the bar of New Jersey, is guilty of the unlawful practice of law in New Jersey, if he draws a deed to convey real estate situate in the State of New Jersey.
* * *