## Facts

- Herbert Sussman obtained a $1,472 small-claims judgment against a third-party debtor and attempted to enforce it.
- Sussman learned the debtor and the debtor’s spouse had joint bank accounts, and the Sheriff required a turnover order to reach those funds.
- Sussman hired Marcia Grado, who held herself out as an “independent paralegal” operating through Accutech Consulting Group, Inc., and paid her $45 to prepare the needed papers.
- Grado was not supervised by an attorney and accepted the assignment despite stating she did not know what a turnover order was.
- Grado prepared papers that were rejected as deficient, and the Sheriff closed the enforcement file as to the bank accounts.
- Grado asserted she mailed a $45 refund check and offered to correct the papers; Sussman denied receiving the refund.
- Sussman sued Grado in small claims seeking the $1,472 judgment amount as consequential damages and return of the $45 fee.

## Issues

1. Whether Sussman proved that, but for Grado’s acts or omissions in preparing enforcement papers, he would have collected the $1,472 judgment.
2. Whether Grado’s unsupervised preparation of a turnover order and related enforcement papers constituted the unauthorized practice of law under New York law.
3. Whether Grado’s conduct constituted a deceptive act or practice under New York General Business Law § 349, supporting statutory (including treble) damages.

## Decision

- The court denied Sussman’s claim to recover the $1,472 judgment amount because he failed to prove “but for” causation that Grado’s deficient papers caused a loss of collectability.
- The court found Grado engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by going beyond clerical form-filling and exercising independent legal judgment in preparing turnover-order enforcement papers without attorney supervision.
- The court held Grado’s conduct was a deceptive act or practice under GBL § 349 and awarded treble damages based on the $45 fee, totaling $135.
- The court referred the matter to the New York Attorney General for possible action concerning Grado’s practices.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking consequential damages for defective legal (or quasi-legal) services must prove “but for” causation that competent services would have produced the claimed financial recovery; speculation about collectability is insufficient.
- In New York, nonlawyers may not perform services requiring independent professional legal judgment; paralegal work must be performed under attorney supervision, and crossing that boundary can constitute unauthorized practice of law.
- Selling unsupervised, attorney-like services to consumers while lacking authority or competence can be a deceptive act or practice under GBL § 349, permitting treble damages for the consumer’s actual loss and supporting regulatory referral.

## Conclusion

The court refused to award the uncollected judgment amount absent proof that proper enforcement papers would have yielded collection, but it treated an independent paralegal’s unsupervised preparation of turnover-order papers as unauthorized and consumer-deceptive conduct, awarding treble damages on the fee and referring the matter to the Attorney General.


Sussman v. Grado, 746 N.Y.S.2d 548 (Nassau Cnty. Dist. Ct. 2002)