584 N.E.2d 1391 (Ohio Bd.Unauth.Prac. 1992), UPL-91-2, Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

Docket Nº:UPL-91-2.
Citation:584 N.E.2d 1391, 61 Ohio Misc.2d 792
Opinion Judge:KENNETH F. SEIBEL, Chairman.
Party Name:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BROWN.
Attorney:J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel., Sally Ann Steuk, for relator., KENNETH F. SEIBEL, Chairman. [61 Ohio Misc.2d 793] J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel. Sally Ann Steuk, for relator.
Case Date:January 07, 1992
Court:Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1391

584 N.E.2d 1391 (Ohio Bd.Unauth.Prac. 1992)

61 Ohio Misc.2d 792

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

v.

BROWN.

No. UPL-91-2.

Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

January 7, 1992

[61 Ohio Misc.2d 793] J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel.

Sally Ann Steuk, for relator.

KENNETH F. SEIBEL, Chairman.

This matter came before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law ("Board") for hearing on August 25, 1991. Members of the Board present and participating in this decision were Kenneth F. Seibel, Chairman, Santiago Feliciano, Jr., Paul M. Greenberger, Jeffrey L. Maloon, D. John Travis and John W. Waddy, Jr.

Relator was represented by J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel. Respondent, Bruce A. Brown, was not represented by counsel.

On August 14, 1991, an agreed stipulation, waiver of notice and hearing, and relator's exhibits were filed. Therefore, neither the parties nor their counsel appeared at the hearing, and the Board considered only the pleadings and documents filed.

Respondent is apparently admitted to the practice of law in the state of New York

Page 1392

and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Evidence in the record indicates that respondent had contact with the Admissions Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio concerning admission in Ohio without examination but, as of April 19, 1991, had not completed the application process.

Each of the stipulations was supported by exhibits filed by relator. Respondent admitted that he is not registered to practice law in Ohio. The other pertinent stipulations, which correspond to paragraph two of relator's complaint, are as follows: [61 Ohio Misc.2d 794]

"Respondent did render legal services in the State of Ohio during year 1991, to-wit:

"(a) Made application for and interviewed for the position of Assistant Director of Law, with the Department of Law, City of Cleveland, Ohio.

"(b) Prepared and circulated a professional resume reflecting bar membership in the Ohio State Bar.

"(c) Acted as an arbitrator for Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas' Arbitration Commission on three (3) cases, receiving renumeration for each."

Gov.Bar R. VII (2)(A) states that "[t]he 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 Brown is not an attorney registered in Ohio, the issue before this Board is whether respondent's activities constitute "the rendering of legal services for others" and are therefore the unauthorized practice of law.

In all cases coming before this Board on stipulations by the parties, the Board is required to make its own determination of whether the facts support a finding that the unauthorized practice of law has been committed.

The activities described in the complaint, and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP