Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Molnar
| Citation | 57 Ohio Misc.2d 39,567 N.E.2d 1355 |
| Decision Date | 09 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. UPL-90-3,UPL-90-3 |
| Parties | OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MOLNAR. Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law |
| Court | Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law |
This matter came on for formal hearing before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law on June 29, 1990. Members of the board present and participating in this decision were Kenneth F. Seibel, Chairman, Santiago Feliciano, Jr., Jeffrey L. Maloon, D. John Travis, and John W. Waddy, Jr.
Relator's amended complaint filed March 7, 1990 alleged that respondent, Jonathan E. Molnar, is not an attorney at law, that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing liquor permit holders before the Liquor Control Commission, and that he received a fee for that representation.
In his answer, respondent admitted that he is not an attorney at law, denied having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, denied rendering legal services by representing permit holders before the Liquor Control Commission, and admitted rendering services other than legal services for permit holders before the commission.
At the hearing, the board heard the testimony of respondent Molnar, the bailiff of the Liquor Control Commission, two assistant attorneys general who represent the Department of Liquor Control, and a former member of the Liquor Control Commission. At respondent's request, he filed a post-hearing brief and closing argument, and relator filed a memorandum in opposition to respondent's brief.
Section 2(A) of Gov.Bar R. VII states: "The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for others by anyone not registered under Rule VI or Rule XI of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio." Since it is undisputed that respondent is not an attorney and therefore is not registered to practice law in Ohio, the issue before this board is whether respondent's activities constitute "the rendering of legal services" and are, therefore, the unauthorized practice of law.
R.C. Chapter 119 governs certain administrative procedures of state agencies, including the Liquor Control Commission. R.C. 119.13 provides in pertinent part that "only an attorney at law may represent a party or an affected person at a hearing at which a record is taken which may be the basis of an appeal to court." Further, Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-65(J), procedure for hearings before the Liquor Control Commission, states: "At all hearings before the commission, a record of the testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Debrah E. Lindner v. Ohio Liquor Control Commission
...his services as a representative of liquor permit holders and had engaged in activity that was generally considered the practice of law. Id. Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. V. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 156 ("Worthington"), various non-attorneys had prepar......
-
K & Y. Corp. v. Ohio State Liquor Control Commission
...... counsel, nor a corporate representative appeared. The only. person to appear ... constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Molnar (1990), 57 Ohio. Misc.2d 39. . . ......
-
Molnar v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
...to represent permit holders, the Disciplinary Counsel had not yet initiated action against appellant. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Molnar (1990), 57 Ohio Misc.2d 39, 567 N.E.2d 1355. Therefore, the referee admitted there was no finding that appellant had engaged in the unauthorized practice ......