Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Same

• Citation: 129 Ohio St. 23,193 N.E. 650
• Decision Date: 27 November 1934
• Docket Number: Nos. 23816-23818.,s. 23816-23818.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: LAND TITLE ABSTRACT & TRUST CO. v. DWORKEN et al. GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO. v. SAME. CUYAHOGA ABSTRACT TITLE & TRUST CO. v. SAME.

129 Ohio St. 23
193 N.E. 650

LAND TITLE ABSTRACT & TRUST CO.
v.
DWORKEN et al.
GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO.
v.
SAME.
CUYAHOGA ABSTRACT TITLE & TRUST CO.
v.
SAME.

Nos. 23816-23818.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 27, 1934.

Error to Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.

Actions by Jack B. Dworken and others against the Land Title Abstract & Trust Company, against the Guarantee Title & Trust Company, and against the Cuyahoga Abstract Title & Trust Company. To review adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals, the defendant in each case brings error.-[Editorial Statement.]

Affirmed.

These cases, each involving substantially the same questions of law, were instituted in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county. They were brought by Dworken, a practicing lawyer duly admitted to the bar of the state, for himself and in behalf of all other attorneys at law. Each of the defendants is a guarantee title and trust company, organized and acting under the provisions of section 9850, General Code, and cognate sections; the objects and purposes of the several companies being substantially the same.

In each of these actions an injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from continuing certain uses and practices which, it was claimed, constituted the unauthorized and unlawful practice of law.

The cases were heard by the Court of Appeals on appeal, and in each case, relief was granted by that court, substantially as prayed for in the petition. The entry of that court sets forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is deemed unnecessary to set these out in full. Reference will be made thereto in the course of the opinion.

The Court of Appeals found that the defendants were each engaged in certain practices which were denominated the unauthorized and unlawful practice of law, and entered an order perpetually enjoining each of them from doing any of the following:

(1) Furnishing opinions in statements of title and/or certificates of title, and otherwise, as to the condition of the title to real estate, when defendant does not insure or guarantee such title or the validity and due execution of securities prepared by it.

(2) Drawing, preparing, or advising in relation to the preparation of deeds, mortgages, releases, leases, affidavits, contracts, and other documents pertaining to real estate conveyances or transactions for the benefit of others, where defendant has no direct or primary interest as principal or loan agent.

(3) Counseling or advising patrons or prospective patrons on legal matters or procedure in litigation or proposed litigation involving title to real estate, when defendant is not an insurer of the title or guarantor of the validity and due execution of the securities involved.

(4) Preparing, drafting, or advising in the preparation or drafting of escrow instructions which express or purport to set forth either an agreement between the buyer and the seller or the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto other than the provisions necessary for the protection of defendant as escrow agent. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent defendant from furnishing mere clerical service in recording the actual dictation of the buyer and/or seller.

(5) Furnishing opinions in foreclosure certificates or otherwise, stating whether the necessary or proper parties have been named as defendants.

(6) Soliciting patronage under any representation, either in writing, orally, or otherwise, that defendant will furnish legal services or legal advice to any patron.

(7) Counducting a legal department for the benefit of others.

Thereafter, upon motion, these cases were ordered certified to this court, and were argued and submitted together.

Syllabus by the Court.

[Ohio St. 23]1. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.

[Ohio St. 24]2. Since section 8623-3, General Code, precludes the formation of a corporation for the purpose of carrying on the practice of any profession, a corporation is not authorized to perform acts which constitute the practice of a profession.

3. The practice of law involves a personal relation which cannot be fulfilled by a corporation, and the practice of law is confined to those who have met the prescribed requirements and have been regularly admitted to the bar.

4. The statutes of this state recognizing title guarantee and trust companies were enacted for the purpose of enabling such companies to guarantee titles to real estate, but not for the purpose of performing acts which constitute the practice of law. Section 9850, General Code, authorizing title guarantee and trust companies to prepare and furnish abstracts and certificates of title to real estate, does not...