S.C. Court of Appeals holds that there is no private right of action for the unauthorized practice of law

In Hambrick v. Ditech, the Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's finding that the Hambricks's claims against Ditech all stemmed from the allegation that Ditech was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and the circuit court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. In affirming the circuit court, the Court of Appeals emphasized that no private right of action exists for the unauthorized practice of law and that only the Supreme Court can make determinations of what is the unauthorized practice of law.