610 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio Bd.Unauth.Prac. 1993), UPL-92-5, Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Smith
|Citation:||610 N.E.2d 671, 62 Ohio Misc.2d 776|
|Opinion Judge:||JOHN W. WADDY, Jr., Chairman.|
|Party Name:||CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH.|
|Attorney:||George W. MacDonald, Gerald E. Fuerst and William E. Reichard, Cleveland, for relator., Everett Chandler, Cleveland, for respondent., JOHN W. WADDY, Jr., Chairman. [62 Ohio Misc.2d 777] George W. MacDonald, Gerald E. Fuerst and William E. Reichard, Cleveland, for relator. Everett Chandler, Cleve...|
|Case Date:||March 02, 1993|
|Court:||Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law|
This matter came before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law on December 17, 1992. Members of the board participating in this decision were Kenneth F. Seibel, Chairman, John J. Carney, Jeffrey L. Maloon, D. John Travis, and John W. Waddy, Jr.
Relator's complaint was filed on November 16, 1992. Attached to the complaint as Exhibit D was a joint Stipulation of Facts and Waiver of Notice of Hearing executed by counsel for the parties. Therefore, the parties and their counsel did not appear at the hearing and the board had before it the complaint and stipulation, respondent not having filed an answer.
Relevant portions of the stipulations are as follows:
"2. The respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice as an attorney-at-law.
"3. The respondent has entered pleas in criminal cases in the courts of Cuyahoga County and offered legal advice and consultation in matters pertaining to criminal law for Joseph Micale and others."
The stipulations and the attachments thereto indicate that, on at least one occasion, respondent appeared in a criminal proceeding in the Cleveland Municipal Court representing himself as the attorney for the defendant Joseph Micale.
It has been well settled in Ohio that one aspect of the practice of law is the conduct of cases in court and the appearance before tribunals for another in a representative capacity. See Special Master Commrs. v. McCahan (1960), 83 Ohio Law Abs. 1, 14 O.O.2d 221, 167 N.E.2d 541; Land Title & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650.
After review of the complaint, stipulation, and the relevant law, it is the conclusion of the board, and the board so finds, to the extent required by Gov.Bar R. VII, that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law [62 Ohio Misc.2d 778] by offering legal...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP