## Facts

- Dr. Francisco J. Matus was not a member of The Florida Bar and operated an immigration-services business in Miami as Latinoamericana De Inmigracion, Inc.
- On or about May 18, 1987, Florida Bar staff investigator Enrique T. Torres visited Matus’s office in the Israel Discount Bank Building in Miami.
- The office displayed diplomas, degrees, and other credentials from Nicaragua, along with a State of Florida Notary Public appointment.
- Torres obtained a Spanish-language business card that represented Matus as a “general immigration service” offering immigration-related services such as tourist visa extensions, student visas, political asylum, and residency, and listing Matus as the company’s president.
- The Bar alleged Matus also advertised immigration-related services in a Spanish-language publication, La Estrella de Nicaragua.
- Torres posed as a person seeking immigration help, including permanent residence status for his girlfriend, who had entered the United States illegally from Peru in 1980.
- Matus told Torres the girlfriend would need documentation and affidavits showing her residence in the United States from the date of arrival, and stated that once Torres provided the documents, Matus would complete the documentation required by the new federal “amnesty” program for a fee of $250.
- The allegations also included that Matus told Torres he could, for a fee of $3,000 to $5,000, arrange a marriage between Torres and a U.S. citizen and then file the documentation needed to obtain permanent residence status for Torres.
- The Florida Bar petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to enjoin Matus from the unauthorized practice of law, alleging he was not authorized by federal law or the Immigration and Naturalization Service to perform the immigration services he offered.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonlawyer engages in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida by holding himself out as legally qualified to provide immigration services and by offering, for a fee, to prepare and file immigration-related documentation affecting a person’s immigration status.
2. Whether the Supreme Court of Florida may grant injunctive relief based on the petition’s uncontested allegations when the respondent fails to answer an order to show cause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida exercised jurisdiction under Article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
- Because Matus failed to answer the order to show cause, the Court treated the petition’s allegations as true under Rule 10-5.1(b)(4) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and decided the matter on the merits on that record.
- Accepting the uncontested allegations as true, the Court held that Matus held himself out as legally qualified to perform immigration services and that this conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law in Florida.
- The Court permanently enjoined and restrained Matus from engaging in the acts complained of and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in Florida.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Court of Florida has constitutional authority to restrain the unauthorized practice of law and to issue injunctions to protect the public.
- When a respondent in an unauthorized-practice proceeding does not answer an order to show cause, the Court may treat the petition’s allegations as true and decide the case on that basis under the applicable bar rule.
- Holding oneself out as legally qualified to perform legal services, when not licensed to practice law, is itself unauthorized practice of law.
- The preparation of forms intended to effect a change in immigration status requires legal training and familiarity with immigration law; errors can cause serious harm, including deportation, and therefore such services by a nonlawyer constitute the practice of law.
- Operating an “immigration service,” displaying credentials, or holding a notary public appointment does not authorize a nonlawyer to give immigration-related legal advice or prepare immigration documentation for others for compensation.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Florida accepted the Bar’s uncontested allegations as true and concluded that Matus, a nonlawyer, engaged in unauthorized practice by presenting himself as legally qualified to provide immigration services and by offering to prepare and file immigration-related documentation (including amnesty paperwork and documentation tied to arranged marriages) for a fee; the Court therefore permanently enjoined him from the complained-of conduct and from otherwise practicing law in Florida.


Florida Bar v. Matus, 528 So.2d 895 (1988)