Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Yurich, UPL-93-3
Citation | 642 N.E.2d 79,66 Ohio Misc.2d 22 |
Decision Date | 19 September 1994 |
Docket Number | No. UPL-93-3,UPL-93-3 |
Parties | CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. YURICH et al. Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law |
Court | Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law |
Mary L. Cibella, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and David A. Kutik, Cleveland, for relator.
Robert R. Yurich, Cleveland, for respondents.
JOHN W. WADDY, Jr., Chairman.
This matter came on for an evidentiary hearing before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law ("board") on October 4, 1993 in Columbus, Ohio, on the formal complaint filed April 29, 1993. Members of the board present and participating in this decision were John W. Waddy, Jr., Chairman, Paul M. Greenberger, Jack R. Baker, Craig D. Barclay, and Paul D. Frankel.
Relator Cleveland Bar Association was represented by Mary L. Cibella, Cleveland, Ohio, and David A. Kutik of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio. Respondent Robert R. Yurich represented himself and the other respondents, to wit: Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates, and Guardian Group.
In its complaint, relator alleges that respondents Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates (also known as "Yurich Associates" and "Yurich & Associates") and Guardian Group are not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in the state of Ohio and that respondent Robert R. Yurich is an attorney at law licensed and authorized to practice law in the state of Ohio. These allegations were admitted by respondents in their answer, which was filed herein on May 24, 1993. Relator also alleges that respondents Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates, and Guardian Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by, among other things, rendering legal advice to Ohio residents concerning the need and advisability of various types of trusts; preparing trust documents for Ohio residents; and charging and collecting fees from Ohio residents in exchange for legal services rendered to or on behalf of those individuals. The complaint also alleged that respondent Robert R. Yurich "instigated, assisted, aided and encouraged" the other respondents to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. In essence, relator avers that respondent Robert R. Yurich aided and abetted the other respondents in the unauthorized practice of law.
In their answer, the respondents deny that respondents Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates, and Guardian Group had ever engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondents also deny that Robert R. Yurich had ever aided or abetted the other respondents to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
On May 26, 1993, the parties filed herein a document entitled "Stipulation of Facts and Waiver of Notice and Hearing." By this document, the parties stipulated certain facts and waived their respective rights to an evidentiary hearing before the board. The parties stipulated 1 that:
The board adopts the stipulation of facts to the extent stated hereinafter.
In their stipulation, the parties waived their respective rights to an evidentiary hearing before this board. However, upon consideration of the stipulations of the parties, the board concluded that said stipulations failed to fully detail the conduct of the respondents. Accordingly, the board ordered the parties to appear and present evidence herein. The board conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 4, 1993, whereat respondents Robert R. Yurich and Dennis Yurich were the only witnesses who appeared and testified.
This matter is submitted for decision upon the complaint, answer, stipulations of fact, and the testimony and exhibits presented during the October 4, 1993 evidentiary hearing. The board also has the briefs that have been submitted on behalf of the parties.
Gov. Bar R. VII(2)(A) states: "The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for others by anyone not registered under Rule VI or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule XI of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio." Respondents Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates, and Guardian Group have stipulated, and the record demonstrates, that they are not and never have been attorneys registered or certified to practice law in Ohio. Therefore, the central issue is whether any conduct of respondents Dennis Yurich, Yurich and Associates, and Guardian Group constitutes "the rendering of legal services for others" and, therefore, the unauthorized practice of law. For the reasons set forth below, we answer this question in the affirmative.
Robert R. Yurich has been licensed and authorized to practice law in the state of Ohio since 1964. However, between 1964 and 1990, Robert earned most of his income from various business ventures rather than as an attorney. In 1990, Robert was introduced to the subject of "living trusts" and concluded that the marketing and preparation of living trusts would be a lucrative business opportunity. Robert shared the idea with his younger brother, Dennis Yurich, not an attorney, who claims some computer expertise. To realize this new business opportunity, Robert formed Yurich and Associates, an Ohio for-profit corporation, for Dennis. Dennis was the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Yurich and Associates. Dennis hired, supervised, and paid all employees of Yurich and Associates. Robert was never a director, officer, or employer of Yurich and Associates. Even so, to avoid any confusion as to whether Robert had any ownership interest in Yurich and Associates, the name was later changed to Guardian Group. Hereinafter, Yurich and Associates and Guardian Group are sometimes referred to collectively as the "Yurich Corporations."
The Yurich Corporations provided financial planning services and various office administrative services,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mid-America Living Trust Associates, Inc., In re
...estates and should be established" constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (citation omitted)); Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Yurich, 66 Ohio Misc.2d 22, 642 N.E.2d 79, 83 (Bd.Unauth.Prac.1994) ("After the interview, the representative (rather than an attorney) determined if the person shoul......
-
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. The Senior Serv. Group, Inc.
...and sale of living trusts. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin (1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 15, 642 N.E.2d 75, and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Yurich (1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 22, 642 N.E.2d 79. The board therefore authorizes relator to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose......