If a person is tried for fraud for practicing law without a degree, and the verdict is not guilty, would double jeopardy prevent future fraud charges?
<p>[SPOILERS for <em>Suits</em>]</p>
<p>In season five of the TV series <em>Suits</em>, Mike Ross, who has practised law for a few years without a degree and passing the Bar himself, is tried for fraud. The jury's verdict is revealed to be not guilty.</p>
<p>Does this mean that Mike could continue to practise law without a licence and never face fraud charges again, or could a new fact pattern emerge if he continued to practise without a licence post-acquittal, opening himself up to prosecution again?</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>The charge would more likely be &quot;Unlicensed practice of law&quot; (UPL), possibly in addition to a charge of fraud. Each time that Rose engages in UPL would be a separate offense, and could lead to a fresh trial.</p>
<p>This is no more covered by double jeopardy than a serial killer gets a free pass on future killings because s/he was acquitted of one particular murder.</p>
<p>The exact definition of UPL varies by state, but making a living as a lawyer without a license is UPL in every US state, I think.</p>
<p>For a work of fiction in which UPL is central, see <em>The Rooster Bar</em> by John Grisham.</p>

fraud double-jeopardy law-in-fiction