Overview

This case addresses the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction, the charging of illegal and unconscionable fees, trust account violations, and dishonesty during regulatory investigations. The Review Department ultimately imposed a two-year stayed suspension with six months of actual suspension and restitution.

Factual Background

Stephine M. Wells was admitted to practice in California in 1984. In 1996, she relocated to South Carolina, where she resided for several years but never became licensed to practice law in that state.

While living in South Carolina, Wells represented at least two employment discrimination clients—Lance Amyotte and Hana Odeh—handling settlement negotiations, drafting demand letters, advising on state and federal claims, and negotiating settlement agreements. She used South Carolina office letterhead, maintained a local office, listed herself in the local phone directory as an attorney, and identified herself as “Esquire” on correspondence.

Although she occasionally referenced being licensed in California and “of counsel” to local attorneys, she did not clearly disclose that she was not licensed in South Carolina. She was not admitted pro hac vice and was ineligible for such admission because she was a South Carolina resident.

In both matters, Wells negotiated settlements that resolved federal and state law claims. In the Amyotte matter, she collected substantial advance fees and later retained settlement proceeds without proper accounting. In the Odeh matter, she collected 43% of the client’s gross recovery, without evidence that the client agreed to such a fee structure.

Wells also failed to maintain proper client trust accounts and distributed settlement funds from personal or non-trust accounts. When contacted by investigators in both California and South Carolina, she made statements minimizing her level of involvement and failed to fully disclose her activities.

Charges and Findings

The Review Department upheld findings that Wells violated:

• Rule 1-300(B) – Unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction
• Rule 4-200(A) – Charging illegal and unconscionable fees
• Rule 3-700(D)(2) – Failure to refund unearned fees
• Rule 4-100(A) – Failure to maintain client funds in trust
• Business & Professions Code § 6106 – Moral turpitude (in connection with misleading statements during investigation)

The court rejected Wells’ argument that her practice was limited to federal Title VII matters and therefore preempted by federal law. The Review Department concluded that her activities extended to state law claims and constituted the practice of law within South Carolina’s broad definition.

The court further held that fees collected for services constituting unauthorized practice are illegal as a matter of law. In the Amyotte matter, the amount collected was nearly three times what the client agreed to pay. In the Odeh matter, the unilateral collection of 43% of the recovery was deemed unconscionable.

Aggravation and Mitigation

Aggravating factors included:

• Prior record of discipline (private reproval)
• Multiple acts of wrongdoing
• Significant harm to clients and the public
• Indifference toward restitution at the time of hearing

Mitigating factors included:

• Emotional distress
• Good character evidence
• Partial cooperation and stipulations

Sanctions

The Review Department concluded that this level of discipline was necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the profession.

Key Takeaways

• Residing in another state while actively representing clients there can constitute unauthorized practice.
• Federal claims do not automatically shield attorneys from state UPL enforcement when state law claims are involved.
• Fees earned through unauthorized practice are illegal and may also be unconscionable.
• Failure to maintain trust accounts significantly aggravates discipline.
• Misleading statements during investigations can independently support moral turpitude findings.