DAVID A. BOVINO, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA MACMILLAN, AND ANDREW MACMILLAN, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Colorado attorney (Bovino) who held a power of attorney for an incapacitated person (Andrew MacMillan) attempted to file pleadings in a guardianship proceeding. The trial court struck his filings as unauthorized practice of law, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Bovino's pro se pleadings on behalf of his own interests as attorney-in-fact did not constitute unauthorized practice of law.
Bovino's pro se pleadings did not constitute unauthorized practice of law because they did not purport to be filed on behalf of Andrew and were not filed as representing him in the proceeding. The pleadings were struck solely on this ground, which was improper grounds for striking them.
[1] A power of attorney does not authorize an attorney-in-fact to practice law in Florida if the attorney-in-fact is not a member of The Florida Bar.
[2] An attorney-in-fact appearing pro se in a guardianship proceeding, who files pleadings solely on their own behalf and not on behalf of the principal, does not engage in t…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly, Bovino's pleadings did not purport to be filed on behalf of Andrew and explicitly were not filed as representing him in this proceeding. Therefore, they did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.”
The court's core holding distinguishing between pro se filings asserting one's own interests and unauthorized practice of law, which requires representing a client.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBovino was a Colorado attorney who represented Andrew MacMillan in 2010/11 and held a broad power of attorney over Andrew's financial and personal aff…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interested Person cases and more on FLexlaw
Bovino is a Colorado attorney who represented Andrew MacMillan in 2010/11. At the time of the proceeding at issue, Bovino was the holder of a very broad power of attorney relating to financial, trust, and other matters involving Andrew, including management of his business and personal affairs. Subsequently, Andrew’s mother filed for an emergency temporary *938guardianship of him and, thereafter, Andrew filed a Petition for Voluntary Guardianship.
Bovino filed an objection to the voluntary guardianship petition with supporting affidavits, seeking a Less Restrictive Alternative. In his pleadings, Bovino stated that he was representing himself, pro se, as Attorney in Fact. Bovino attended the hearing by telephone, at which time the court struck Bovino’s filings stating that his pleadings “constitute the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Florida.”
The court then entered a written order, which states:
A review of the Court file indicates that David A. Bovino is appearing pro se as “Attorney-In-Fact” alleging “an established relationship as trusted counsel and advisor to Andrew MacMillan.” David A. Bovino has not filed a Notice of Appearance as attorney of record. As counsel is not a member of The Florida Bar, these pleading [sic] constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and are a nullity.
The trial court never reached the issue of whether Bovino was an “interested person” under Florida Probate Rule 5.685(b), section 731.201(23), Florida Statutes (2011), or otherwise, and we do not consider, address, or comment on that issue here. Rather, the court struck Bovino’s pleadings solely because they constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
Clearly, Bovino’s pleadings did not purport to be filed on behalf of Andrew and explicitly were not filed as representing him in this proceeding. Therefore, they did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
The order striking Bovino’s petition is reversed without prejudice to the trial court’s striking the pleadings on any other basis, if applicable, and we remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
WARNER, STEVENSON, JJ., and STONE, BARRY J., Senior Judge, concur.