## Facts

- After a fire damaged their home, L.W. and Muriel Linder became dissatisfied with their insurer’s claim handling and retained Insurance Claims Consultants, Inc. (ICC), a public adjusting firm whose employees were not attorneys.
- The Linders signed a written contract agreeing to pay ICC 10% of the total amount recovered on the first-party insurance claim.
- The Linders had previously retained an attorney regarding the claim but later released that attorney and directed the insurer to communicate with ICC.
- ICC performed claim-related work including documenting losses, preparing inventories of damaged property, estimating repair costs, and communicating with the insurer.
- A major dispute involved coverage for the Linders’ gun collection; ICC reviewed the insurance policy, advised the Linders that the gun collection should be covered, and discussed that coverage position with the insurer’s representatives.
- The insurer increased the settlement by about $12,000, including payment for the gun collection’s full value; an attorney later completed the settlement when payment was delayed.
- After the claim resolved, the Linders refused to pay ICC; ICC sued for breach of contract in circuit court.
- The Linders initiated an original-jurisdiction declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that ICC committed unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and that the fee contract was void; the contract action was stayed pending the ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether first-party public insurance adjusting, as an occupation, constitutes unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina.
2. Whether ICC’s specific services for the Linders constituted unauthorized practice of law.
3. If UPL occurred, whether the fee contract is void as against public policy and whether South Carolina recognizes a private cause of action for UPL.

## Decision

- The court held that first-party public insurance adjusting is not, by itself, the practice of law.
- The court held that ICC engaged in UPL in this matter by going beyond factual claim preparation and into policy interpretation and coverage advice.
- The court held the contract was not void in its entirety merely because some services were unauthorized legal services.
- The court held there is no private right of action for UPL under South Carolina law.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to determine compensation, if any, for ICC’s lawful services, excluding compensation for unauthorized activities.

## Legal Principles

- Whether conduct constitutes the practice of law turns on the nature of the acts performed, not the actor’s title or business description.
- Nonlawyers may assist insureds with factual and valuation tasks in first-party claims (e.g., measuring damages, gathering facts, estimating repair costs, compiling inventories, and presenting the claim) without necessarily engaging in UPL.
- Interpreting an insurance policy to advise an insured about coverage and participating in coverage disputes on the insured’s behalf requires legal judgment and constitutes UPL when performed by nonlawyers.
- When a services contract includes both lawful and unlawful components, the presence of unauthorized legal services does not automatically void the entire contract; compensation may be limited to lawful services.
- Enforcement of UPL is a regulatory matter; South Carolina law does not provide a stand-alone private damages action for UPL.

## Conclusion

The court drew a line between permissible public-adjuster work focused on factual documentation and valuation, and impermissible conduct involving legal interpretation of policy coverage; it denied wholesale contract invalidation and rejected a private UPL cause of action, remanding to allow recovery only for lawful services.


Linder v. Ins. Claims Consultants, Inc., 348 S.C. 477, 560 S.E.2d 612 (S.C. 2002)