Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep
| Decision Date | 20 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1952,95-1952 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. ESTEP. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, in a complaint filed March 30, 1995, charged respondent, J.R. (Jim) Estep of Union, Kentucky, with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent filed an answer in which he denied engaging in the practice of law.
Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(C), the parties submitted a stipulation of facts and waiver of notice and hearing to the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law ("board"). According to the stipulated evidence, respondent is not registered as an attorney at law with this court under either Gov.Bar R. VI or XI and was not so registered in 1994.
In February 1994, respondent entered into a contract with Sheryl A. Class, in which respondent was appointed Class's designated representative for her then-pending workers' compensation claim. The contract between respondent and Class was for a contingent fee, with Class agreeing to pay respondent one-third of any workers' compensation benefits obtained. Respondent prepared an "Authorization of Representative of Claimant" form, which was executed by Class and filed with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("bureau"). Respondent thereafter corresponded with the bureau and the Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") and filed a notice of appeal and brief on behalf of Class.
During his representation of Class, respondent never stated that he was an attorney and neither the bureau nor the board ever informed respondent that he was required to be an attorney in order to represent Class on her workers' compensation claim. Respondent reiterated his denial that any of his conduct constituted the practice of law, but had no objection to this court's issuing a permanent order enjoining him from representing any other workers' compensation claimant before the bureau or commission.
On August 31, 1995, the board issued its final report. The board concluded that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The board recommended that the court issue an order finding that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, prohibiting him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future, and providing for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the board and relator.
After the filing of the final report of the board, we issued an order to respondent to show cause why the report should not be confirmed and an appropriate order granted. Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(A). Respondent has not filed objections to the report.
The cause is now before the court for the determination specified in Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(D).
Strauss & Troy and Steven F. Stuhlbarg, Cincinnati, for relator.
J.R. (Jim) Estep, pro se.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavanaugh ex rel. Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Loc. Sch.
...1999) (unpublished) (citing Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308-09 (2d Cir.1991)); Cincinnati Bar Association v. Estep, 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 657 N.E.2d 499, 500 (1995). The Cavanaughs can point to no language in the IDEA that abrogates the common law rule that non-lawyers m......
-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Davie
...N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3, citing Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp, 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771 (1998); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep, 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 657 N.E.2d 499 (1995). Accord Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187, at ¶ 5. In other w......
-
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Compmanagement, Inc.
...limited instances only as long as he or she remains within the confines of rules governing lay conduct. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 657 N.E.2d 499 (layperson who entered into a contingent-fee contract with claimant to pursue workers' compensation claim and p......
-
State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections
...on Cooker's behalf, presenting argument and evidence, and conducting direct examination of witnesses. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 657 N.E.2d 499. The board of elections thus properly dismissed Cooker's protest because it was not properly filed by an attorney......