## Facts

- Frederick C. Creasy, Jr. was disbarred by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1996 for multiple professional misconduct violations and was prohibited from practicing law.
- After disbarment, Creasy worked with his wife, a licensed public insurance adjuster who owned “The Legal Shoppe.”
- Creasy and his wife assisted Sterling K. Smith in pursuing underinsured-motorist benefits from USAA, a dispute required by the policy to be resolved through private arbitration.
- In connection with the arbitration, a sworn statement was taken from Smith’s treating physician, Dr. Dennis Crandall.
- Creasy appeared at the proceeding and, over objections by USAA’s counsel, extensively examined the physician about causation and the nature of Smith’s injuries.
- USAA’s counsel reported the conduct to the State Bar, which petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for an order to show cause why Creasy should not be held in contempt for violating the disbarment order.
- Creasy argued (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over him as a nonlawyer, (2) his conduct was not the practice of law because it occurred in private arbitration, and (3) any regulation belonged exclusively to the Department of Insurance due to his association with a public adjuster.

## Issues

1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court has authority to regulate and sanction a disbarred former attorney for practicing law after disbarment.
2. Whether representing a claimant and conducting a probing sworn examination of a treating physician in a private arbitration constitutes the practice of law.
3. Whether the Department of Insurance’s regulation of public adjusters limits or displaces the court’s authority to define and regulate the practice of law and enforce a disbarment order through contempt.

## Decision

- The court held it retained inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and to enforce its disbarment order against Creasy through contempt proceedings.
- The court concluded that Creasy’s representative appearance and extensive examination of a key witness in the underinsured-motorist dispute constituted the practice of law.
- The court rejected the argument that conduct in a private arbitration loses its character as legal practice.
- The court rejected the argument that insurance-adjuster regulation displaced the court’s authority, holding overlapping regulation did not restrict the judiciary’s power over unauthorized legal practice.
- The court found Creasy violated the disbarment order by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and was subject to contempt.

## Legal Principles

- A state supreme court has inherent judicial authority to define, regulate, and restrict the practice of law to protect the public and the integrity of the legal system.
- Disbarment does not remove the court’s power to enforce the disbarment order; a disbarred lawyer remains prohibited from practicing law and may be sanctioned for violations.
- The practice of law is not limited to courtroom appearances; representing another in a dispute over legal rights and conducting sworn witness examinations can constitute legal practice.
- Legal work performed in private arbitration can be the practice of law; the forum does not control the character of the services.
- Regulation of adjacent professions (such as public insurance adjusters) does not divest the court of authority to determine when conduct constitutes the practice of law or to enforce prohibitions on unauthorized practice.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a disbarred lawyer who represented a claimant and examined a treating physician in a sworn statement connected to private arbitration engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, violated the disbarment order, and could be held in contempt notwithstanding insurance-adjuster regulation.


In re Creasy, 12 P.3d 214 (Ariz. 2000)