Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford
| Decision Date | 27 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2558,98-2558 |
| Citation | 85 Ohio St.3d 111,707 N.E.2d 462 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. TELFORD. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
James Kersting retained respondent in connection with a collection matter filed in Hamilton County Municipal Court by Quality Supply Co. In November 1996, respondent wrote a letter to the plaintiff's counsel, stating that Kersting did not believe he owed the alleged debt and that respondent "would like to review the facts and decide the merit of this claim" himself. In December 1996, respondent advised Kersting that if he did not have a certified check in the amount of $3,426.43 made out to the plaintiff by a certain time, "we run the risk of triple damages in the amount of $17,706.37." The plaintiff, however, requested only a sum of $5,900.79 in its complaint, which already included treble damages.
Stanley W. Lindley engaged respondent regarding a complaint for money judgment and foreclosure filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court by Federal National Mortgage Association. After respondent requested an "extension" from plaintiff's attorney, the court magistrate issued a decision recommending a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Joseph D. Foley retained respondent for a collection matter filed in Hamilton County Municipal Court by John F. Schoeny Co. In January 1997, respondent informed plaintiff's counsel that Foley was having "extreme financial difficulty" and that respondent was attempting to prevent Foley "from exercising his other legal remedies under the law if possible."
Respondent was retained by Brownstone Management Consultants, Inc. concerning a collection matter filed by Graphic Action, Inc. in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. In October 1996, before an answer was due, respondent faxed a "proposal for the settlement of the Graphic Action, Inc. lawsuit" to the plaintiff's attorney. Respondent later settled the case on behalf of the defendant for an amount lower than the recommended default judgment.
The board concluded that respondent's actions, including giving legal advice and counsel to defendants in collection and foreclosure proceedings, constituted the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The board recommended that respondent be prohibited from engaging in such practices in the future.
Strauss & Troy and Steven F. Stuhlbarg, Cincinnati; Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., and Charles F. Croog, Cincinnati, for relator.
James F. McDaniel, Cincinnati, for respondent.
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Under Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A), the "unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * *." The practice of law is not restricted to appearances in court; it also encompasses giving legal advice and counsel. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch 1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244, 246-247; Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 315, 193 N.E. 650, 652.
Respondent gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters
...of law is not restricted to appearances in court; it also encompasses giving legal advice and counsel." Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford , 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 112, 707 N.E.2d 462 (1999), citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch , 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244 (1998).{¶ 21} One key element......
-
In re Chavez
...`paralegal' services is irrelevant if the non-lawyer in fact engages in unauthorized practice of law."); Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Telford, 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 707 N.E.2d 462, 464 (1999) (similar). {26} Moreover, this Court has declined to adopt a definition of the practice of law that is limi......
-
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Watkins Global Network, L.L.C.
...Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), paragraph one of the syllabus; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford , 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 112, 707 N.E.2d 462 (1999). In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner , 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 15, however, we ......
-
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure
...proceedings. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 707 N.E.2d 462. Accord In re Ferguson (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2005), 326 B.R. 419, 423 ("The unauthorized practice of law occurs when a non-at......