On April 25, the Supreme Judicial Court announced its decision
in REBA v. NREIS concerning the unauthorized practice of
law. The decision is beneficial to both the legal profession and
the consumer, and it supports the various tenets of the 2010
Massachusetts Bar Association amicus brief filed in this
case.
"The SJC affirms the MBA's longstanding position that it is
essential that attorneys be actively involved in real estate
closing transactions," said Martin W. Healy, MBA chief legal
counsel. "The interests of private clients and the public alike are
safeguarded when an attorney participates in real estate
conveyancing," added Healy.
The decision asked for further finding regarding the actual
employ and use of attorneys hired by NREIS.
The MBA filed an amicus brief on Oct. 8, 2010, for the Real Estate
Bar Association for Massachusetts seeking "to vindicate the
longstanding public policy governing conveyancing as the practice
of law and requested that the court declare that NREIS is engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of G.L. c. 221,
§46."
In July of 2010, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
an April 2009 ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. The
1st Circuit held that the unauthorized practice question should be
certified by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The 1st
Circuit also found that the fee award violated the First Amendment
and reversed the fees.
Tauro sided with NREIS, limiting the role of lawyers in
residential real estate closings. He also sided with NREIS in their
counterclaim that REBA's interpretation of the unauthorized
practice of law issue violates the U.S. Constitution's Dormant
Commerce Clause, and awarded fees and costs to NREIS totaling more
than $900,000.