567 N.E.2d 1355 (Ohio Bd.Unauth.Prac. 1990), UPL-90-3, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Molnar

Docket Nº:UPL-90-3.
Citation:567 N.E.2d 1355, 57 Ohio Misc.2d 39
Party Name:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MOLNAR.
Attorney:J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator. Carl A. Kramer, for respondent.
Case Date:August 09, 1990
Court:Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1355

567 N.E.2d 1355 (Ohio Bd.Unauth.Prac. 1990)

57 Ohio Misc.2d 39

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

v.

MOLNAR.

No. UPL-90-3.

Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

August 9, 1990

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.

Carl A. Kramer, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter came on for formal hearing before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law on June 29, 1990. Members of the board present and participating in this decision were Kenneth F. Seibel, Chairman, Santiago Feliciano, Jr., Jeffrey L. Maloon, D. John Travis, and John W. Waddy, Jr.

Relator's amended complaint filed March 7, 1990 alleged that respondent, Jonathan E. Molnar, is not an attorney at law, that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing liquor permit holders before the Liquor Control Commission, and that he received a fee for that representation.

In his answer, respondent admitted that he is not an attorney at law, denied having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, denied rendering legal services by representing permit holders before the Liquor Control Commission, and admitted rendering services other than legal services for permit holders before the commission.

At the hearing, the board heard the testimony of respondent Molnar, the bailiff of the Liquor Control Commission, two assistant attorneys general who represent the Department of Liquor Control, and a former member of the Liquor Control Commission. At respondent's request, he filed a post-hearing brief and closing argument, and relator filed a memorandum in opposition to respondent's brief.

Section 2(A) of Gov.Bar R. VII states: "The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for others by anyone not registered under Rule VI or Rule XI of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio." Since it is undisputed that respondent is not an attorney and therefore is not registered to practice law in Ohio, the issue before this board is whether respondent's activities constitute "the rendering of legal services" and are, therefore, the unauthorized practice of law.

R.C. Chapter 119 governs certain administrative procedures of state agencies, including the Liquor Control Commission. R.C. 119.13 provides in pertinent part that "only an attorney at law may represent a party or an...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP