State v. Milliman, Minn.Ct.App., 7/25/2011. In these difficult economic times, you can’t be too generous about who you let into the well of the courtroom. Mr. Milliman, who is not licensed at the bar, got himself appointed an “attorney in fact” to collect on a judgment in favor of James Getzkow and his wife. Mr. Milliman duly served the employer of the judgment debtor with a demand to withhold earnings, which the employer did. In turn, the state charged Mr. Milliman with the petty misdemeanor of unauthorized practice of law.
Mr. Milliman conjured up a decent enough legal argument. He said that the statute that authorized executing on a judgment permitted an “attorney” to do those things, and because Mr. Getzkow had appointed him “attorney in fact” he was not practicing law without a license. The court of appeals is bemused but not convinced. They concluded that the statute on which Mr. Milliman relied meant for “attorney” to mean “attorney at law” and not “attorney in fact.”
The trial court had sentenced Mr. Milliman to pay a $100.00 fine. Let some “attorney at law” collect it.
No comments:
Post a Comment